Tom Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Title 8 of the U.S. Code has a lot of terminology in there.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. There is not one single term that is used in that Code. In fact, there are multiple terms. I would ask, and maybe encourage, the gentlewoman to read that.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. In addition to other terms. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that the committee understands that the report language just directs the Library of Congress to be consistent with the laws of this land when they have subject headings. That is not too much to ask. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my good friend.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I recognize this has been an exciting and tantalizing debate this evening. Whenever the gentlewoman from Florida is ready to close, I will be ready as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to follow up on that just for a moment. I am glad to hear there is legislation to address their concerns. I think that is the appropriate way. What better way to make that legislation more applicable than to identify here in this report language that whatever is referenced in title 8 could be used. I think that is the right way to go forward. But to suggest that asking the Library of Congress to use terms that are consistent with the laws of this land that this body has voted on, that the Senate has voted on, and that the President of the United States has signed into law is, in some way, pejorative; words that have been used by the Supreme Court just in recent weeks are pejorative, inflammatory, and dehumanizing, I would suggest to the minority that even some of the most liberal justices have used the term ``illegal alien'' or ``illegal immigrant'' just in the last couple of weeks and they are not racist, they are not using negative terms, they are not dehumanizing any individual, they are using U.S. law terminology. I can understand the disagreement with the terms, I can respect that, but that is the law. I have yet to see or hear what their proper terminology would be for somebody who does not abide by the laws of the land and what that would be. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I heard the ranking member correctly, she said that somebody who is undocumented in this country, who is not from this country, is not here illegally. I thought I heard that, and I hope I heard that incorrectly. I will point out that the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 237(a)(1)(b) reads, in fact--and this is law that was voted on by this body and that was signed into law by the President of the United States, who was elected by the people--that aliens who are present in the U.S. in violation of immigration code are breaking the law and are deportable. That is U.S. law. That is not the majority's opinion; that is not a party's opinion; that is not an individual's opinion. That is the law of this land. Now, you can disagree with those laws, and you can disagree with the terminology, but that is the law. That is the law, in fact, to the point that, in Arizona v. United States, in 2012, Justice Sotomayor asked: So how--where do they get the records that show that this person is an illegal alien that is not authorized to be here? Was she being racist? pejorative? demeaning? dehumanizing? I don't think so. I don't agree with all of her decisions, but I don't believe that that was her intent when she broached that question there. I will point out this provision--maybe I should read it again. I will read it again for the ranking member. To the extent practicable, the committee instructs the Library to maintain certain subject headings that reflect terminology used in title VIII of the United States Code. That is all it says. It is right here. There is nothing so demeaning about that. This provision, in fact, was created in consultation, Mr. Chair, with the Library of Congress. Imagine that. In working with the Library of Congress, we were able to come up with that language. Existing subject headings, including the term ``illegal alien,'' have been used for years and have been enshrined in law for 100 years. This is nothing new. Supreme Court Justices, as I have pointed out, have used it time and time and time again. Now, if the Library of Congress adopted the practice of responding to every instance in which there is a perceived offensive phrase, it would impact their ability to prioritize the quality of service they provide to patrons every day. We are, actually, helping the Library here. We are not telling them what words to use. We are just saying, hey, be consistent with U.S. law. That keeps it pretty simple, I believe. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is remarkable that we are actually spending so much time on this; but we must point out to the constituency who is watching that we have had 7\1/2\ years of an executive who wants to ignore our laws. We have had 7\1/2\ years of overreach by the executive branch, of its totally ignoring the laws that have been passed by this body, and just poking us in the eye, saying, I don't care about the legislative branch. I don't care about that legislative body. I don't care about the laws of the land. In fact, I will ignore them, and I will instruct my agencies to do something different. Yet, I hear it again from the minority that they want to ignore the words, the terms, the identifications, the definitions of the very laws of this land. What message does that send to the youth of our country? What message does that send to law-abiding citizens in our country, that there is a party in Washington, D.C., that, for whatever reason, wants to pick and choose which laws they want to uphold and defend, or which laws or words or terms or definitions in the laws that they will acknowledge or not acknowledge? We are a Nation of laws. Whether we agree with the laws or we don't, whether we agree with the terminology or we don't, we have all been elected by 700,000-plus constituency districts in which we can change those laws if we choose. This is the opportunity to do it for the minority party if they like. In fact, throughout our laws, these terms are used. Whether they are agreeable terms or not by the minority, those are the words that are in our laws. I think we can all agree that the term ``illegal alien'' does not mean the human being is illegal. This is not an effort to demean anyone. We don't even identify what terms the Library must use. We just say, Hey, please be consistent with U.S. Code. That is it. The simple fact is that immigrants, if they have entered this country illegally, are, in fact, illegal immigrants. According to U.S. Code, U.S. laws, they have committed a crime. It is not the job of this committee's to create an alternate reality whatsoever. The laws are the laws. Thankfully, the Supreme Court sees it the same way. We have Justice Sotomayor as using the term ``illegal alien'' a half a dozen times and the published opinion written by Justice Kennedy, and he joined the Court's more liberal block as well, using it a number of times. It is very consistent. I recall it was, maybe, a year or two that the ranking member, on a different occasion, disagreed with me on another term. It was ``ObamaCare.'' We were having a debate about policies, Mr. Chair, and I used the term ``ObamaCare.'' She found it offensive, pejorative maybe, very negative, demeaning, used in a negative light. I believe she tried to strike my words during that time. So, if anybody is trying to be word police in this body, maybe it is the ranking member, who has a history of it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am sorry this is taking so long tonight to reach the admission by the ranking member that this term does not exist in this bill. I mean, she just said it: Why didn't they just be more explicit? Why didn't he just use the term? In fact, they are hiding behind U.S. Code. That is what I just heard from the ranking member. As Americans, we don't hide behind the U.S. Code. The U.S. Code is our defense; it is our shield. The laws of this land are what protect us from one from another; so to suggest that one is hiding behind it when, in fact, we are defended by it is really amazing to hear tonight. I am pleased to hear, though, that the ranking member has acknowledged that nowhere in this legislation do we direct the Library of Congress to use any term other than what is found in and is consistent with the U.S. Code. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. We have heard a lot tonight about why the minority is opposed to this bill. They are opposed to this bill because of what is not in it. Do you notice that? It is because of what is not in it. They have yet to talk about the great things, the good things, and what this bill really is about. In fact, they are going to oppose this bill, as they did last year, just because of things that don't exist, that are absent. I will point out, and I want to remind the chairman and the committee, that this is really a good piece of legislation. It is very family friendly, which is one of our major focuses. We have thousands and thousands of visitors each year that come and visit this place, this Capitol Building, this historic beacon of hope for our country and for the world. Visitors come and visit our offices and tour the facilities, and we want it to be family friendly, safe and secure, and a welcoming environment. That is what this bill achieves. It does that by providing something that is unique, something that I was very passionate about in my days in the State of Georgia, and that is doing zero-based budgeting, something very unique. It is not done in all the other appropriations bills, but it is done in this one, where every agency starts from zero and justifies each expense forward. That is what our constituents expect. It even does it by eliminating the Open World Center, zeroing out, winding down, and eliminating a program that was well-intended back in the 1980s when it was first founded. But it is time to wind it down, move on, and use those dollars for something else, changing priorities. That is what this committee was focused on. It continues the Member pay freeze. As I stated earlier, when our constituents aren't getting a raise in this economy, the Obama economy, then I don't believe we should be getting a raise either. It eliminates that. It freezes that. We do this by also cutting the House budget by 13.2 percent since Republicans took the majority. That is something we don't share enough of. The House has taken the necessary steps to lead by example in cutting our budgets by 13.2 percent since taking the majority in 2010. I can't say the same about the Senate. I can't say the same about the executive branch, nor the judicial. But we can say that about our side, because we are leading by example. Then it has a strong focus on constituent services. We were able to provide additional resources for all Members, Republican and Democrat alike, from all corners of this country and from all the territories to make sure that they have the resources necessary to meet the needs of their constituents, because that is really one of our number one priorities back in our districts and from our offices here is to provide the services to our constituency. We have heard a lot tonight about the Library of Congress. Look, the Library of Congress has a great history, a great heritage, and provides a tremendous service. It has a history of providing law services to this body and to the Senate over the years as well as constituencies that come and do research. It does a great job. All we have done in this bill is say, as you do your subject headings, just make sure it is consistent with U.S. Code, be consistent with the laws of this land. That way, those who are searching topics are searching topics that are consistent with what is being debated in the Supreme Court, what is being debated in other courts throughout the country because they are using the laws of this land as they try various cases. So why not just use terminology that is consistent with the Code that this body and that the Senate and that a President has signed into law at some point. Mr. Chair, I want to commend to this body and to the committee the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. It is a good bill to be supported and to be proud of and to know that you are going to be able to take care of your constituents better. And we have got a great family-friendly, safe, and secure environment for them to come and visit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I know Mr. Ellison is well-intended in his amendment. In fact, his amendment was offered during the House debate on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill just recently, and it was rejected by an overwhelming majority on a bipartisan basis. In fact, the vote was 174-245. I know his intentions are well-meaning, and he speaks well of the topic, but this amendment is no more appropriate in this context than it was previously. It ignores the fact that Congress operates an entirely different procurement system than other Federal agencies. The House has an established procurement process that is in place to ensure that all procurements are executed in a fair and a competitive manner. The function of this amendment would only add additional time to an already sound procurement process. I oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a great example to show the openness of this process. In fact, this amendment was offered recently with the Energy and Water Appropriations bill and is applicable to be offered even here today. While I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, I think it is just a good example of bipartisanship and this open process, of an orderly structured process to get our job done here. However, this amendment doesn't achieve what we would hope it would, and that is why I have to rise in opposition. I mean, it is clear that vendors that do business with the House are already reviewed against the GSA's excluding parties list, which includes businesses that are then precluded from doing business with the Federal Government for and, among other things, violating employees' legal employment rights. As written, this amendment fails to do really much of anything. It has no legislative effect. It fails to define what the office should examine, where in the House of Representatives organizational structure the office would reside, and what recourse, if any, a Member would have if he or she disagreed with a finding of the office. Again, with that, I have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the gentleman's time tonight and taking time on this late evening to express his passion and zeal for workers all across this country. However, with that, because of his amendment and, as I mentioned, the impact that it, in effect, really wouldn't have, I would have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I don't claim the time in opposition to speak against it. In fact, I am supportive of the gentleman's amendment, and I appreciate him bringing this forward. As a cyclist myself, I can tell you, I understand the importance of making sure, on a campus such as this or in a town such as this or an area such as this, that there is plenty of availability, and the bike share facilities and locations are certainly around here, but we understand that there are some absences or vacancies in spaces near to this campus. Saying all that, I do respect the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police and some of their concerns that they have expressed, and I would hope that, as the Architect moves forward with a study such as this, that they would take those considerations into effect as well as they put their study together. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his thoughtful amendment. We are prepared to accept it, support it.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Could the Chair inform the committee of what the intentions are tonight, about how many amendments we would move forward and how many for tomorrow?

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an additional parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Gordon Central High School Blue Wave Marching Band on being selected to perform in the 2016 National Memorial Day Parade. The Blue Wave Marching Band was established in 1985 and has a long tradition of superior performances which have taken them all across our great country. This year the Blue Wave Band will be marching in honor of Lance Corporal Cody Kristopher Warren, a saxophone player and drum major for the Blue Wave Band who joined the Marines upon graduation. In 2006, Cody made the ultimate sacrifice for his country while serving in Iraq. I am proud and excited that the Blue Wave Marching Band is performing in his honor in this year's National Memorial Day Parade. I wish them the best of luck as they bring a piece of Georgia to our nation's capital.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I, along with Representative Wasserman Schultz, rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Carlos Elias on his retirement after 36 years of service to the federal government, 17 years of which were with the Architect of the Capitol. Carlos started his federal career in 1980 with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after graduating from the University of Puerto Rico. Carlos joined the Architect of the Capitol in 1999 as the Deputy Superintendent of the U.S. Capitol Building, and in 2001 was appointed to the position of Superintendent of the U.S. Capitol Building and the Capitol Visitor Center. As Superintendent, Mr. Elias oversees 1.5 million gross square feet and manages 250 employees. In addition to maintenance functions, he is responsible for repairs, modernization, improvements, conservation, preservation, and new construction activities. He also served as lead coordinator for the last four Presidential Inaugurations and he is responsible for the construction of the Inaugural platform, installation of the sound system, security fencing, and all other supporting infrastructure. Mr. Elias is overseeing the $60 million U.S. Dome Restoration Project, the first since 1959. Due to age and weather, the Dome had more than 1,000 cracks and deficiencies. The project was awarded in November 2013 and, with Mr. Elias' management, we expect it to be completed before the Presidential Inauguration--on time and under budget. Our subcommittee has come to depend on Carlos and his team for their exceptional customer service and reliability. In addition, Carlos has provided us with invaluable guidance and analysis throughout the years. Carlos' retirement constitutes a profound loss for the institution. He will not be easily replaced and will be sorely missed. We wish him and his wife, Ana, all the best in this next phase of their lives.

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. 65, I would have voted ``yes,'' on rollcall No. 66, I would have voted ``yes,'' and on rollcall No. 67, I would have voted ``yes.'' Personal Explanation