Tom Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Pocan and his concerns for rural America. I represent a very rural district as well, and broadband and others are very challenging, even in our region. But one has to ask: If we have had this Universal Service Fund for so many years with such an exorbitant amount of money being collected from our constituents, then why do we still have this problem? And that is why I would suggest we oppose this amendment and allow the FCC to study what is going on here and are these funds being used appropriately or not. In fact, it is my understanding that the FCC has identified that there are no budgeting constraints; there is no top- line budget whatsoever. And when they are doing considerations and studies or analyzing the use of funds, there are really no measurements, no benchmarks. I think this is a really good opportunity for us to allow them to at least move forward into this process, and just thinking of the Chairman of the Commission, Ajit Pai is from Kansas himself, and I think he understands the needs and the concerns of rural America as well. But, ultimately, it is not fair to the American consumers, our constituents, who are the ratepayers, who are paying into this fund on every bill that they receive and yet are not being delivered the service that I think we all expect in this day and age of new technology. Mr. Chair, with that, I am in opposition to the amendment and ask that we vote this amendment down and allow the Commission to move forward to study this and to provide more and better access to rural broadband across America. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment here.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I know we are reaching the conclusion here of general debate of the bill. We have heard certainly some positives about the bill and we have heard some negatives about the bill. I think there is a great opportunity to work together and build upon the foundation in which there is agreement. But until then, there are certainly items that there is strong disagreement on. In summary, working with Mr. Quigley has been fantastic. He has done a great job of getting us to this point. I know, under his leadership, we will continue working together until we can have a product that Republicans and Democrats alike can support, can get through the Senate, and, yes, needs the signature of the President of the United States, Donald Trump. But as the bill stands today, I guess if I had to sum it up, if you want to spend a lot more, if you want to weaken our national security, if you want to wash your hands of oversight and accountability of Washington, D.C.--the District of Columbia, here where we reside and so many of our constituents come to visit--or maybe, more importantly, if you really want to limit the access of low-income children from enjoying and benefiting from one of the best educations they could receive, then this is the bill for you, but it is not the bill for us. We believe that we can reduce spending. We believe that national security should be a priority. We believe that D.C. does deserve some oversight. And we certainly believe that low-income children deserve the best opportunity that they can have to have the best education possible that provides them the best future that their dreams are imagining right now, but this bill just doesn't provide that. Mr. Chairman, it is for those reasons that I can't support this. Lastly, I would say, knowing that this bill would never become law, I think that should cause us all to just pause for a second and go: Do you know what? Maybe we should take it back and go back to the drawing board to see if we can't find some more areas of agreement and build a better product in which Republicans and Democrats alike could support, the Senate could pass with 60 votes, and the President of the United States could sign. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just highlight one little point there. I really enjoy working with Mrs. Torres. She is a great addition to the committee this year and spends a lot of time in the Rules Committee, so she hears a lot of the different issues that we all discuss. But the forfeiture fund--I think this is a really important point to highlight--wouldn't necessarily go to local law enforcement. These are funds that are collected from criminals that the administration was going to use to stop criminals. What better way to secure our Nation than using the funds that have been forfeited by criminals to stop future criminals. This bill eliminates that ability of the administration to do that. I feel like that was $290-plus million that could go to better invest in securing our southern border and, unfortunately, this bill has removed that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

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

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Serrano's years of work on the subcommittee as well as his leadership on the Commerce, Justice, and Science Committee. It has been a joy to work with him and learn from him over the years. We are going to miss his presence after this term, as I know he has announced he is not running for reelection. I now yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the Republican leader of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairwoman, Mrs. Lowey. She has done a great job this year with the committee, and she is absolutely right in congratulating Mr. Quigley on his good work this year. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), our Republican leader of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to express some concerns and opposition to the current bill before us, the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill. First, before I get into some of the highlights of our opposition, I have been through this process before last year as chairman of this subcommittee, so I truly understand and am aware of the hard work that Mr. Quigley and his team have put into this bill, and I commend them for navigating a process that is not easy and making it to this point that we are here today. Now, while I don't support every piece of this bill, I certainly value the approach that Chairman Quigley took and the strong working relationship that he and I have both had over the years and continue to have. The bill we are addressing includes, I will say, a few key priorities that have been really important to my Republican colleagues and myself, and we appreciate that and look forward to supporting those in the future. And it does strike a bit of a bipartisan tone in a way that I know that we all appreciate, and our constituents value the most, and, quite frankly, we could use a little bit more of that around here. And I know you would agree with that, Mr. Chairman. Now, while this is a really good starting point, and that is how I will characterize where we are today, we are at a starting point, a small foundation that we can build from, the bill, as drafted, is just not something that I can support at this time, nor my Republican colleagues, but I would like to highlight some of the areas that I think we need to work on. First and foremost, if we were to have a budget agreement--and that is a big if, because there is a lot of discussion about budget agreements, but there has certainly not been any movement, and that is one of the bigger problems the new majority has, is navigating the budget process, seeing how a budget hasn't even been passed out of committee. This bill will continue the spending that our Nation has seen at a skyrocketing fashion, one that we just don't need to accept. The total level of discretionary spending under this bill increases by 8 percent over last year. That is a significant number. Last year, when I was chair, we were proposing cutting this bill by 5 percent, and this year we are 13 points different, going up 8 percent, which is nearly a $2 billion increase. Secondly, this bill blocks the administration from doing what they are so focused on right now, and that is securing this Nation and our country, particularly at the southern border. I am sure we will hear later this week if the new majority gets the votes to bring a bill to the floor about a border supplemental, but you have to ask yourself, why do we even need that supplemental? We had an opportunity earlier this year with the conference committee report to provide the funds the administration requested, and yet the new majority rejected that then, and now comes forward with a supplemental, but while at the same time, ironically, obstructing the spending of the administration currently from spending funds to secure the border through this bill. So the irony of the failure of the conference committee report, the inability to get a supplemental to the floor for a vote this week, but yet refusing to allow the administration to secure the border through this bill in addition, so it is ironic, and that is something that we certainly would like to see restored. But also, this would remove any oversight and accountability that this body has over the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is not like a city in any of our States. It is a district. It is a different entity under a different charter, of which the greatest Nation on the planet's capital exists, and I believe we should continue that oversight, but yet this gives the District of Columbia a blank checkbook here. Then next I would say, you know, we have talked about bipartisanship. This bill does omit some longstanding bipartisan provisions that we have always agreed on, and I am not sure why we would object to them today, or why the new majority would object to them today, but one, in particular, is to allow taxpayer funding for the ending of the lives of the innocent unborn. Mr. Chairman, I don't know why we would go there today when year after year after year, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, have always come together and said those lives are precious and we should protect them from the use of taxpayer funds being used to eliminate their life. And then I am concerned that the bill as it is currently written would force schools to withdraw from the Opportunity Scholarship Program. One of the great successes this body has enjoyed over the years is celebrating in the success of children of the District of Columbia benefiting from a scholarship program, to see their lives improved and enriched and move on into a better future. In fact, the scholarship program has a great record of success, with 98 percent of 12th grade students participating graduating, a 98 percent graduation rate. Eighty-six percent of them are accepted to a 2- or 4-year college after graduation. We should not be making it harder for these schools to operate. We shouldn't be making it harder for kids to be able to enjoy this opportunity. In fact, quite frankly, it is just an assault on the low- income children right here in the District of Columbia. It is also disappointing that this bill drops a long-standing prohibition against requiring contractors to disclose campaign contributions as a part of the Federal procurement process. This process should be about getting the best service by the best company for the best price for the American people, the best to assist our constituents. Instead, now, if the provision as it is stated in this bill continues, we might be creating a new higher bidder scenario in which it is the highest bidder of political contributions going to a company might get the bid instead of something different, such as the best price from the best company for the best service. Now, we all know that these are poison pills that Members of both sides shouldn't be forced to swallow here today. As long as this bill is fashioned in this manner, Mr. Chairman, we know that it is not going to be signed into law. Just yesterday President Trump said that if this bill were on his desk in this current form, he would veto this legislation. So I know we are going to have a robust debate today, and maybe we can improve upon this foundation, but with the Federal debt exceeding $22 trillion, we just can't afford to spend more. We don't need to spend more on general governmental activities. Just because we can spend it doesn't mean we should, nor should we spend it at any time in the future when we have the opportunity to cut, and instead, today here we are spending more. So it is up to us. Let's set the example, Mr. Chairman. Let's leave this country's pocketbook in better shape for our kids and our grandkids. Mr. Chair, as I close, I do want to finish on a positive note, because we do have a great working relationship. I want to thank Chairman Quigley. I want to thank his team. They have addressed some of the priorities that are important to us, and they have crafted a small foundation which I know we can all work from in the days ahead. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the town of Cohutta, Georgia and commemorate the 50th anniversary of its incorporation. Though incorporated relatively recently, Cohutta has a history that stretches back to when Northwest Georgia was first settled. Its name, Cohutta, comes from the Cherokee word for foggy weather, and it served as the capital of the Cherokee nation from 1832 to 1838. Boasting Red Clay State Historic Park, Cohutta has truly embraced the rich history of the Cherokee nation that first settled there, allowing visitors to appreciate 630 acres of natural beauty and historical significance. Like many towns in Georgia, Cohutta came to be through the growth of the railroad, and Norfolk Southern continues to link it with the rest of the state. Today, it boasts a population of over 600, and the University of Georgia's Cohutta Fisheries Center continues to provide research and education opportunities for folks from across Georgia and our nation. As all of Georgia celebrates with Cohutta this Saturday for a day of parades, BBQ, and family fun, I offer the students of Cohutta Elementary a hearty `Go Dogs' and congratulate the town on the 50th anniversary of its incorporation.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Albert Hodge, Jr., and as anyone who knows Al will attest, my remarks would not be complete without a recognition of Al's talented wife, Cheryl. Over the past 21 years, Al has served as president and CEO of the Rome, Floyd County, Chamber of Commerce. Thanks to his hard work, employers--including Suzuki, Pirelli, Neaton, and Lowe's--have brought more than $1.2 billion of direct investment to our region and thousands of jobs. But Al's success would not be possible without Cheryl. Cheryl is not just a supportive wife, mother, and grandmother. She is a Rome institution in her own right. A talented artist active with the Rome Area Council for the Arts, Cheryl is best known for her beautiful water colors, one of which is hanging in my office right here in Washington, D.C. I pray for the best for Al and Cheryl, wherever life takes them. They came to Rome over 20 years ago, and it is certainly a better place today because of them. Al and Cheryl, thank you and God bless.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Georgia and his remarks a minute ago. In fact, they sounded very familiar. I think I heard them maybe 20 days ago, because this is really nothing more than just theater today. If we are in a theater, this is nothing more than a rerun. We have been through this exercise. So, for those in the gallery and watching, you have probably seen this before because it was on January 3 that we took up a bill much like this. We were told then, Mr. Speaker, that: If you pass this, the government will reopen. This is the answer. But here we are again, 20 days later, and nothing has changed. In fact, the arguments are the same. This is not a good-faith effort at all. I think just less than an hour ago, we voted on an appropriations measure by the new majority that said, if we pass this, the government will reopen, and employees will be paid, and everything will be back to normal, and harmony will be around all of us. But that was less than an hour ago. Nothing has changed. In fact, we are here right again. So, going back to January 3, with a bill much like this, six appropriations bills bundled together that had passed the Senate at some point in the past were voted on by this House. They went to the Senate. No action was taken. The next day, January 4, we voted on a continuing resolution to fund the remainder of the government, because that, again, was going to be the solution. That was the silver bullet. It was going to open the government, put everybody back to work, and have all the employees paid. But, in fact, nothing happened, nothing changed. We go into the next week. Because that didn't work, let's break them all up and let's do them all separately. I am not sure why. Maybe we will get a different outcome. But nothing changed. In fact, they left the House. They go to the Senate. The government is yet still closed. Then, last week, let's do something very different. Let's don't take up any of those again. Let's just pass a continuing resolution because, surely, we missed the mark those other times. This will reopen the government. This was the solution, we were told, last week. In fact, Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed 33 three days in. Here we are again. But we have started over. We are going to do it again, but we are going to change the terminology. These are the agreed-upon conference reports from last year. I heard the majority say it was the Republicans who had unified control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency that agreed to these things last year, so let's bring those up today. But that is just a term. That is not truth. It is not fact. For those watching and those in the gallery, they probably know and remember the cartoon ``Schoolhouse Rock.'' I believe it was very clear in a simple cartoon: You go from the House. You go to the Senate. There is an amendment process. You have the opportunity to change, to amend, to perfect. Then, when each body has passed something, you go to a committee. Those individuals from the House and the Senate, they get together. They reach an agreement, and it is called a conference committee report, which we are led to believe this might be. With that come signatures on this report. Then it is presented to each body for final passage and then to the administration for signature. If this is, in fact, a conference committee report, how could it be? How could it be, Mr. Speaker? Because it would have had to have passed the House at some point this Congress, within the last 20 days, and then have passed the Senate different, and then differences reconciled, also with signatures. Mr. Speaker, I would ask, is my signature on any of this? To answer it for the Chair, it is no. I was chairman last year of the Financial Services Committee. We did have good-faith negotiations. Mr. Quigley is fantastic to work with. We were reaching consensus and had great compromise. So, today, to hear the other side say that this is what I agreed to is truly inaccurate, because you will not find my signature. You will not find any agreement from me on what is presented in the Financial Services portion. So this is not a good-faith effort. This is a repeat and a futile exercise that we have seen over the last 20 days. In fact, I doubt anybody is even watching, because you know where their attention is today? I hope it is in the Senate, where they are taking up the President's proposal--a true, good-faith effort to reopen the government, to secure our country, to secure the border, and to make sure that 800,000 Federal employees are being rightfully compensated. That is where the attention should be. I wish the House would take up similar, but in the spirit of compromise. We don't see it here. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will draw your attention back about 11 months ago. I believe it was the now-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who holds the record for the longest single speech standing on the floor of the House, 8 hours and 7 minutes. It was over a very important issue. It was over DACA. The government went into a shutdown moment last year. There was this big debate about it. It was then-Minority-Leader Nancy Pelosi who took 8 hours and 7 minutes to speak about this issue. Yet when the President, this weekend, makes a proposal about it, before he can even reach the lectern, Mr. Speaker, she is opposed to it. She is opposed to it.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this motion seeks to address one of the many important shortfalls in the Senate bill, and I know there are many, and we can only address one or two, or an exception here in this moment of a motion to recommit. I wish the Rules Committee would have allowed for--we have had this debate already today--allowed for Members of both parties to offer their ideas to insert better concepts and to make perfection out of something that is certainly not a perfect product coming from the Senate. I think the American people, through their elected Representatives of this body, deserve that opportunity as well to amend and improve this legislation, but the new Democratic majority has certainly shut down this legislative process. I just read quotes from the current chairman of the Rules Committee and his disgust with that very same concept or process from months ago, and, yet, it is being imposed upon us today. This is our only opportunity to improve the bill, and as meager as this might be, this is important. This motion is really simple. It just adds $2 million to the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, which would match the House past levels that we passed last year of $161 million. This important office is fighting on the front lines to enforce economic sanctions against rogue nations like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Mr. Speaker, you and I agree on how important that is, and they must have the resources necessary. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act which created this office, passed this House in 2017 by a vote of 419 yeses to just 3 noes. So it was very bipartisan. That is about as good as it gets around here. And it passed the Senate 98-2--another great mark as well--and President Trump signed it into law. It is an amazing needle to thread all through there that we had great bipartisan support here in the House, the Senate, and the President signing this into law. This is overwhelmingly bipartisan, Mr. Speaker, and it brings the full force of our Nation's sanctions against countries that seek to do us harm. This is something we should support. It is so important that OMB Director Mick Mulvaney sent us a budget amendment requesting more funds to stand up this office. And that is not a request we often get from Mr. Mulvaney to increase spending anywhere. But, yet, he did that. And you know the former Director himself, as he served here, he doesn't like to spend a penny more than needed, so this is certainly a very important priority. The Treasury has also made a strong case that to comply with the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, the Department needs these funds. So as we debate about the importance of the moment and where we are in time, I could see nothing more important for us to focus on than to put an additional $2 million into this program and offset it, as has been described in the amendment from the GSA's rental payments. I hope every Member can support this commonsense improvement. We are just improving on the Senate bill. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I am opposed to it in its current form.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are reaching a conclusion on this, because we just went through this last week, might I remind you. Same stuff, same legislation, voted on, passed out of the House and guess what? The government is still not open and operating. So are we really trying to get to a workable solution here by the new majority or just drive another wedge in our country? This passage today, if it were to occur, will not change anything. It will only drive us a little further apart and will not reopen the government. Let's not kid anyone. Let's make sure those sound bites don't get out there and that the headlines aren't that, because that is truly not what is going to happen at all. What is happening today is an example of abdicating our responsibilities as duly elected Members of the House of Representatives in the name of expediency and political tactics. That is what is happening here today. It is really what that vote is today. A ``yes'' vote is an affirmation that I am for the expediency of doing away with responsibilities because it is easy and it is politically advantageous. A ``no'' vote is saying I am going to stand up for the voices of this House. I am going to stand up for the constituencies that we represent. I am going to stand up for the priorities of this House and wait and fight for a better process. This process is amazing. Actually, it is reckless, to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker. I mean, are we going to be a bicameral system anymore? Is this an example of what we should see and is this a forecast of the days ahead that there will be no debate in a committee? A bill is introduced--and you watched the cartoons growing up and it seemed like it was a simple process: a person has a nice idea; they write it down on a piece of paper and they turn it in; and people look at it and perfect it a little bit; and all of a sudden, you build support for something across the aisle and across the different coalitions; and then you get to share it and advocate for it; and then it goes to the other body. Then they get a choice. Do they want to make changes to it, and such, and input it through a committee. That is not how it is happening today. This is the new majority, a very closed, very dark process in which not even Democrat Members--if I were one of the 60 new Members elected on the other side, I would be throwing my hands up in the air right now saying, wait a minute. I did all that work for this, for you to tell me what I must vote on? And I have a binary choice, yes or no? That is the only choice I get? Mr. Speaker, I feel for the new incoming Members. This is not what it was supposed to be like for them. I don't think it is what you recruited them for, as well. It is a sacrifice, really. It is sacrificing all of our priorities that we have as a House, all for a process because there are folks who just don't like this President. Mr. Speaker, I have been in that position before too. In fact, I remember Barack Obama when he was President. I disagreed with him as a President. I didn't want him to fail though because it meant our country was failing. I disagreed with him on policy, and I would share that, and advocate, but I would try to influence as well. I don't see any ability here or ideas of influencing outcomes, but I will close with this, Mr. Speaker, because I want to share with you some words that have been heard around this town and on the Hill in recent days and months. These are quotes. ``Members today seem to have a better chance today of getting struck by lightning than getting their amendments made in order. They come here with real ideas and germane amendments, only to be told `no,' again, and again, and again.'' Next quote: ``We shouldn't be stifling debate.'' Next quote: ``I do think we will find a lot of agreement on some pretty commonsense ideas, but we need a more accommodating process, though. We need to follow regular order and the House needs to actually debate again.'' That was in September. Also in September: ``I feel like we are living in an authoritarian regime,'' heard on the Hill here. ``It is like this majority is allergic to an open process.'' And then, lastly: ``With each new closed rule they bring to the floor, shutting out amendments from both Democrats and Republicans, the cynical hypocrisy grows louder and louder. Instead of the people's House, this has, sadly, become only the people who agree,'' at that time, ``with Paul Ryan's House.'' Might I share the author of these quotes? It would be the chairman of the Rules Committee today, Chairman McGovern. Those are his words, and he is absolutely right, but he was forecasting today in this moment. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad time in the House of Representatives. Very sad. I agree with Mr. McGovern. He is absolutely right, and it is at this moment today in which it has been proven to be true. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if you think about the overarching discussion and issue and where the division is, it is really about the fundamental question of border security. Some don't like the term, ``the wall.'' I would hope, maybe, that we are all for securing our country. Maybe it is just terminology that separates us oftentimes, but through this time of thinking about the words we are choosing, lives are being altered; they are being impacted. Individuals are losing their lives because of illegal activity that occurs through our porous border, and it is just, in many cases, because of insufficient funds while we have this debate about words and terminology: What is a fence? or a wall? or a barrier? or technology? It doesn't really matter what terms we use when lives are being altered daily while we squabble, just squabble, over a few terms. It is amazing how the other side says that they can't support this, they just can't support funding for the wall. What they are saying, really, is that they can't support this President because they don't like him. But, in fact, on two different occasions, within the last 18 or 19 months, the new majority party did vote for wall funding. They voted for border security. It was $1.6 billion on two separate occasions. Both times have been signed into law by this same President. I wonder: Why is it too much to ask to just put in a different number, a little bit more? Is our country not worth just a little bit more? Is a life not worth just a little bit more when national experts say it is necessary? Or are political differences going to stand in the way of that? I hope today we can break through that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, largely, in this debate, you are hearing two different elements. You are hearing a little bit of a policy argument on the Democratic side, the other side of the aisle, and from our side you are hearing a process argument. I think this is really important. We, in essence, are in the third day of the 116th Congress and shutting the process down, 435 Members' voices being silenced. Extrapolate that across 800,000 constituents we each represent. Those are the voices that are being silenced here today in the name of expediency, in the name of political stunts, in the name of finger- pointing, but without really any resolve or desire to bring a fruitful, positive conclusion to what is a very difficult and painful time that we are in right now. I agree with that. I think about over the holidays, and it is interesting how the other side is pointing fingers at the President here and there, but the President was here. He was in Washington, D.C. He was waiting for the other side to come and have a discussion and talk about these tough issues together, to work through them. Where were they? If I recall, maybe the incoming Speaker-elect might have been in Hawaii. Other Members were on vacations with their families. While families of these agencies were struggling and wondering about their next day, their Christmas, and their next paycheck, the leadership of the Democratic Party was on vacation while the President was here saying: I am here. The door is open. Let's talk. I think he still extends that invitation, and I hope they take us up on that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a few points. Mr. Speaker, this bill has already been voted on. As I recall, last week, the majority party put this on the floor, passed it out of the House, and, guess what, the government is not open. This is not the solution. So I don't get why we are here today doing this in such a closed, lockdown process. What is a solution, potentially, could be if the chairwoman's bipartisan efforts from last year were given the opportunity to be voted on today with a simple amendment. So what we are talking about, maybe, is that 15 or 20 more minutes of our precious time today is too much to ask to perfect Senate imperfections. That is really what today's debate should be about. It is not about this legislation. We have already voted on it--we voted on it last week--and I think the minority voted ``no,'' the majority voted ``yes,'' and, guess what, the government is still not open. Why? There is only one reason and one reason only: Democrats are unwilling to negotiate with a President they just don't like. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out really quickly that I hear the argument on the other side that passage of this bill will reopen the government right now, today, and get it all working again. Let me remind everyone, that will not happen. This is not the bill that fully funds what is outstanding at this point. This is one little component. But I love the passion of my friend from Georgia. He and I worked well together on the committee, and h has taught me much. One thing he taught me was to fight for what is important, fight for those priorities that are important, and one of his number one priorities is omitted in this very bill that he is advocating for passage of. Fight for your priorities, House Members. Republicans and Democrats alike, fight for what you believe in and don't let go, because the Senate passed something and it is easier. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, a great champion for free markets and capitalism, and my good friend.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the State of Texas (Ms. Granger), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, my good friend and wonderful Representative.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this bill today because this is just another one of the Democrat Party's political stunts. The 116th Congress continues now under this cloud of a partial government shutdown, and it is for one reason and one reason only, and that is that the Democrats continue to put their political agenda ahead of the security of our country. So here we find ourselves, the very first act of the new majority is to bring a Senate bill forward without any hearings, without any debate, and certainly without any amendments. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Democrats that bring the bills to the floor this week are really bypassing the entire process, bypassing every Member's responsibility here in Congress, and that is to put their mark on each and every bill. It also may be to distract from some of the President's ideas as well. In fact, the President's funding request is completely normal, and it is necessary. It is not extreme. It is not divisive. It is not political in any way whatsoever. What is extreme, what is divisive, what is political, and what is unnecessary is the Democrats' refusal to actually negotiate with the President, their refusal to hear the facts and understand the facts as presented by the experts. They are more committed to satisfying their political base than securing the border and opening the government, which we could do very quickly if they just chose to meet with the President and negotiate on good terms and in good faith. If that is not bad enough, there are serious problems with this bill. The underlying measure itself is certainly not perfect. After all, it is a Senate bill, might I remind you, Mr. Speaker. It is identical to the bill that they passed last year, and it does not include any of the House priorities. Democrats are not allowing any amendments here today, so there is no way even to improve this bill, to perfect this bill, and we know we are the body of perfecting the Senate's legislation. Our constituents have elected us each here to represent them in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, not to abdicate our responsibilities and simply accept something from the Senate. In fact, today is beginning a process that I see as very dangerous and, in fact, is just asking this body, under this new majority, to have every Member of the House of Representatives vote on nearly $300- plus billion of spending without one committee hearing, without one bit of debate, without one amendment, and without any bit of perfection, and, yet, stand before our constituents and say we have given this full and thorough thought. Now, there are many House priorities that both Democrats and Republicans support that would certainly improve this legislation. For example, the bill that we passed out of the House last year had many great bipartisan elements to it. We passed it back in July, and it contained nearly $276 million for the Calexico, California, land port of entry, fully funding what was necessary there at that land port of entry. Yet, the Senate bill is $100 million short. Additionally, the bill that passed the House last year included 20 pieces of legislation that were bipartisan financial reforms that were approved by this Chamber during the last Congress with a vote of 270 votes or more. Mr. Speaker, you don't find that very often and you certainly haven't over the last couple of years, yet it was included in what we passed last year. Might I add, it is completely omitted by the Senate. So Democrats and Republicans, including Chairwoman Waters herself, sponsored many of these provisions--I know she is here with us today, and I hope she speaks to the fact of their absence in this bill today-- that were building upon the JOBS Act from 2012. These provisions facilitated capital formation, enhanced our capital markets, and provided targeted relief to various institutions. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, it provided consumer protection, which I think and I would hope is a bipartisan quest for us. The Senate bill also shorts the Small Business Administration's Entrepreneurial Development programs, something that has been bipartisan in this House. They short it by more than $10 million compared to what we passed last year. It shorts the SBA's Women's Business Centers by $1 million and their veterans outreach by $400,000. Mr. Speaker, those are things we included last year that the Senate has found are not a priority. The question I would have before this House today is: Do we no longer hold those as priorities? If we pass what is proposed today, we are, in fact, saying it is no longer a priority that we focus on veterans' or on women's businesses. If that is not bad enough, the Senate bill is more than $31 million short on SBA's disaster loans program. Many areas of this country, including my State, including many of the States represented in this room as we speak, are still reeling from last year's disasters. So do Democrats really want to cut this lifeline short? Mr. Speaker, I would hope not. By abandoning the bipartisan House bill, Democrats are underfunding programs for women, veterans, and disaster victims. Additionally, this Senate bill contains nothing--and I say, Mr. Speaker, nothing--for community development financial institutions to assist those with disabilities. Are we standing here today, Mr. Speaker, and saying that those with disabilities are no longer a priority of this House? A ``yes'' vote today would confirm that. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am certainly not supporting this bill. But I know that I have worked with my friend, Mr. Quigley, who is now the chairperson, and we are going to have a great working relationship. But this Senate bill is deficient of even his priorities. I know it is very difficult for him today to introduce a bill that he didn't craft, that he didn't originate other than by name only. I know it is probably even more difficult that he is introducing a bill that was originally introduced by Republicans in the Senate. It doesn't include even his priorities that I worked on long and hard with him, including the Elections Assistance Commission, which was a strong priority of his. They cut it by more than $1 million over what we had included last year. The Consumer Protection Safety Commission is also $1 million below what our House bill was, and it does not fund the grants for pool safety, which I think we all know is a longtime House priority for many Members of this body. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act created an entirely new structure for the Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. They need another $6 million, just $6 million to meet the requirements of this new authorization, which will help protect all of our Nation's interests. I guess I should say it one more time. The Senate has let us down, and they don't even include that in this bill as well. So I lay a lot of blame on the Senate bill itself and the components of the Senate bill, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that it is being introduced in this House today by the new majority. Mr. Speaker, I heard the presentations that were given on opening day last week as we were all sworn in, and I was hopeful that there would be a very open, deliberative debate process that we would engage in, in this House. I know there will be those that will claim there is urgency and there is haste, and we must move fast. But we should never move fast and hastily and disregard the constituencies that we each represent or their voices, or putting our fingerprints on legislation in the name of efficiency or in the name of where we are today and the political differences. We must embrace this political debate. We must allow every Member's voice to be heard. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my friends on the other side of the aisle: Let's give this a chance. Let's open up this process. Let's come to the table. We can do this. In fact, Mr. Quigley and I have shown that that can be done even as we worked through last year. We can fund border security. We can secure our Nation. We can reopen the government. We can incorporate the priorities of Republicans and Democrats in the House today, because, after all, we are closest to the people. Don't their voices deserve to be heard? The American people are counting on us, Mr. Speaker, so they have elected us to do this. I hope we can do it. I rise in opposition and will be opposing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. George Francis Ruppenicker, Jr. of Dallas, Georgia, on his 90th birthday. Mr. Ruppenicker was born August 29, 1928, in Brooklyn, New York. He graduated from Mepham High School in Bellmore, New York in 1946. In July of 1946, Mr. Ruppenicker enlisted in the United States Navy and was stationed at the Naval Air Technical Training Center Radar School in Corpus Christi, Texas. He was honorably discharged in 1948. After serving for two years, in 1948, Mr. Ruppenicker enrolled at Georgia Tech, majoring in textile engineering. While being enrolled at Georgia Tech, Mr. Ruppenicker enlisted into the United States Naval Reserve. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, he was reactivated, and was honorably discharged in 1952, with the rank of Aviation Electronics Tech--Third Class. After fulfilling his obligations during the Korean War, he reenrolled at Georgia Tech to finish his degree. While studying at Georgia Tech, he was employed by Lockheed Aircraft Company at Dobbins Air Force Base in Marietta. After graduation, Mr. Ruppenicker married Miriam Evelyn Tatman on July 25, 1953. Together, they had four children. After graduating from Georgia Tech in 1954, Mr. Ruppenicker went to work at the United States Department of Agriculture, Southern Regional Research Laboratory in New Orleans, Louisiana as a research engineer for cotton textiles. After a nearly 40-year career with USDA, he retired on December 31, 1993. After 47 years of marriage, Miriam passed away in 2000. Mr. Ruppenicker remarried in 2003 to Patricia Ardrey Robinson. Recently, Mr. Ruppenicker was recognized his 50 years of service as a member of the Square and Compass Freemason Lodge. Honor and integrity being the core of the Masonic belief system, Mr. Ruppenicker epitomizes these attributes. A Boy Scout leader, Sunday school teacher at Dallas First United Methodist Church, hospital volunteer at WellStar Paulding and avid gardener, Mr. Ruppenicker is content on spending his days with family and friends and always eager to lend a helping hand. I want to close by saying Happy 90th Birthday, George.