Sam Graves
RTo be claimed
Member, Congressional Rural Caucus, present
Former Member, Strategic Forces Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats & Capabilities, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Member, Congressional Rural Caucus, present
Former Member, Strategic Forces Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Member, Armed Services Committee
Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Member, Subcommittee on Aviation
Member, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Member, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management
Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
Member, Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations
Member, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
Member, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces
Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Astrological Sign:
Scorpio
— Father's Occupation:
Hobbies or Special Talents:
Flying
1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-life
1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- No
2. Do you support expanding federal funding to support entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
- Unknown Position
1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Unknown Position
Do you support the protection of government officials, including law enforcement officers, from personal liability in civil lawsuits concerning alleged misconduct?
- Unknown Position
Do you support increasing defense spending?
- Yes
1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- No
2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes
3. Do you support providing financial relief to businesses AND/OR corporations negatively impacted by the state of national emergency for COVID-19?
- Yes
1. Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- No
1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- No
1. Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- No
1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- Yes
2. Do you support requiring businesses to provide paid medical leave during public health crises, such as COVID-19?
- Yes
1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- Yes
2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- Yes
1. Should the United States use military force to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a weapon of mass destruction (for example: nuclear, biological, chemical)?
- Yes
2. Do you support reducing military intervention in Middle East conflicts?
- Unknown Position
Do you generally support removing barriers to international trade (for example: tariffs, quotas, etc.)?
- Yes
1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-life
1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- No
2. In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending?
- No
1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Unknown Position
1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- No
2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes
1. Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- No
1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, thermal)?
- Yes
2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- No
1. Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- No
1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- Yes
1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- Yes
2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- Yes
Do you support the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes?
- No
1. Should the United States use military force in order to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a nuclear weapon?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support increased American intervention in Middle Eastern conflicts beyond air support?
- Yes
Latest Action: House - 06/21/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Tracker:Latest Action: House - 06/06/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Tracker:Latest Action: House - 05/09/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Tracker:By Rep. Sam Graves When I became the Republican leader of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee at the beginning of the 116th Congress, one of my top priorities was working to pass a long-term surface transportation reauthorization bill -- commonly known as the "highway bill." This is one of the most important responsibilities of our committee. Successful reauthorizations are bipartisan and typically last five or six years, providing the certainty states need to plan and undertake large, multi-year projects. Unfortunately, Congress failed to pass a new reauthorization, settling instead for a shorter extension of the law that expired in September (the FAST Act). As a result, Congress missed a golden opportunity to authorize hundreds of billions of dollars in needed road, bridge, transit and other surface transportation infrastructure improvements. A major reason nothing happened was because the highway bill got caught up in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) broader political agenda. Instead of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee working together across the aisle, just like we did when I helped write the FAST Act of 2015, the current House majority chose to push through a partisan bill. The Speaker's "My Way or the Highway" bill became a $1.5 trillion dollar wish list for the progressive wing of her party. The bulk of this bill provided no responsible means to pay for its huge cost increases. It also wove in a bevy of new mandates stemming from the Green New Deal. In fact, $2 of every $5 in the bill related to reauthorizing surface transportation programs were tied to meeting costly Green New Deal requirements. Not surprisingly, this bill had no chance of becoming law once it passed the House, leaving state and local governments, transportation workers and businesses hanging out to dry. In the 117th Congress, this bill remains a top priority, and Republicans are ready to get a long-term reauthorization bill done. This effort will be a focus of ours immediately out of the gate in 2021, and our priorities in this bill will be no secret. When the majority took the partisan path earlier this year, I introduced a bill called the STARTER Act (H.R. 7248), which embodies Republicans' principles for surface transportation. This legislation was developed after gathering input from stakeholders, as well as ideas from committee Republicans. We all support investing in our infrastructure, but we can't pretend we've got a blank check to do it. Money doesn't solve all problems, and if we don't learn from the mistakes of the Obama-era stimulus spending then we are bound to repeat them. That's why the STARTER Act recognizes that Congress must act responsibly with the taxpayers' money. Specifically, the bill prioritizes state flexibility, maximizes funding by streamlining project delivery, focuses on core functions of federal surface transportation programs, incorporates innovative developments in technology to improve our infrastructure, provides for the infrastructure needs of America's rural communities, and addresses the long-term sustainability of the Highway Trust Fund. Ultimately, the transportation community knows -- and the past has proven time and again -- that bipartisanship is the recipe for success when it comes to surface transportation reauthorization bills and other legislation to improve America's infrastructure. Even in this election cycle, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee forged bipartisan agreements on other major issues under our jurisdiction, such as an aviation safety bill and water resources infrastructure legislation. It should be no different when it comes to the highway bill. Committee Republicans are already at work improving and expanding upon the STARTER Act's provisions, and the bill was made part of Minority Leader McCarthy's (R-Calif.) "Commitment to America": the Republican legislative agenda for next Congress. We look forward to bringing our ideas to the table in what we hope will be bipartisan negotiations in 2021. If Congress can work together to do that, then we can succeed in 2021 where we failed in 2020. Graves represents Missouri's 6th District and is ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
By Rep. Sam Graves Before the COVID-19 pandemic, our economy was purring like a finely-tuned engine. Unemployment, at 3.5 percent, had hit a five-decade low. Unfortunately, the global health crisis caused that engine to seize up in the blink of an eye, and now we must get our economy back on track while saving and creating American jobs. Our economy needs a jumpstart to get that engine churning again. Fixing our nation's infrastructure can be the spark we need. This Wednesday, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will vote on a surface transportation bill. However, even though improving our roads and bridges is a bipartisan issue that Democrats and Republicans can usually work on together, Democrats have put forward their own costly, heavy-handed, partisan "My Way or the Highway" bill. That's why my Republican colleagues and I plan to introduce the STARTER Act: the Surface Transportation Advanced through Reform, Technology, & Efficient Review Act later this week.This commonsense legislation reflects the principles we were ready and willing to bring to the table. Our bill reauthorizes surface transportation program funding for the next five years, before those programs expire in September. That commitment of long-term infrastructure investment will allow states to create and implement construction plans and move forward with important road, bridge, transit, and other projects. If Congress lets these programs shut down, necessary improvements and the jobs they support risk getting idled nationwide. Our bill not only makes an investment in the country, it's much smarter about how we invest our scarce resources, based on several key principles. The STARTER Act ensures flexibility for our states and communities, which understand their individual needs more than the federal government, and puts more responsibility into states' hands to direct resources to their biggest needs. Especially now, with every state so uniquely impacted by the coronavirus, flexibility is paramount. Another priority is reducing project delays and costs caused by inefficient environmental reviews. Our bill modernizes these necessary but outdated regulations. Time is money, so cutting red tape that holds up or kills projects has an impact akin to increasing funding and lets workers get back on the job improving our infrastructure. The STARTER Act prioritizes funding the core functions of our surface transportation system -- fixing and improving highways and bridges and facilitating commerce -- instead of chipping away at those critical functions with numerous new programs and mandates for special interests. And while the traditional core programs remain as important as ever, innovation has enormous potential to increase transportation and construction efficiency, enhance safety, improve the environment, and create jobs. The STARTER Act prioritizes incorporating innovative technologies to improve infrastructure, from large cities to rural communities. In fact, 71 percent of public road lane-mileage is in rural America, and crashes and fatalities on rural non-Interstate roads occur at more than double the rate as all other roads. However, rural communities often don't have the same resources, expertise, or technology as urban areas. Subsequently, infrastructure needs in smaller communities, like mine in Missouri's 6th district and many others, can get left behind. The STARTER Act ensures greater equity for all communities and supports greater mobility options for rural citizens to get to their jobs, doctor appointments, and other destinations. Ultimately, the only way Congress can help jumpstart the economy through infrastructure is if Democrats and Republicans pop the hood, roll up their sleeves, and get to work together. We should be able to do this because transportation is normally a bipartisan issue. Republicans are ready to discuss our priorities that will be laid out in the STARTER Act. To get our economic engine revving again, we need partnership, not partisanship.
Life in the age of COVID-19 is something Americans have had to quickly learn how to navigate. Schools and many businesses remain shut down, much of our commerce is now taking place online, and doctors, nurses, first responders, and transportation workers have rightly assumed heroic status for their service on the front lines of this battle. We are also learning what tools are essential to the continued well-being of our communities and the survival of our economy. One of the most vital tools is access to broadband internet service. Broadband access was a concerning issue in many rural North Missouri communities and elsewhere throughout the country before the pandemic, but now the problem is even more pressing. With Americans everywhere being asked to stay at home in recent weeks, reliable high-speed internet has become the primary connection to the outside world for many. It provides a means to more safely get food and supplies, connect our children to their teachers and peers, and communicate with doctors and medical services from the safe confines of our own homes. Most importantly, it allows us to stay in touch with family and friends, even when we can't do so in person. These connections are especially critical for our most vulnerable citizens. Unfortunately, there are still many in our country who do not have broadband access. According to the Federal Communications Commission, this includes 35 percent of people who live in rural areas and nearly 40 percent of those living on Tribal lands. In all, 30 million U.S. residents live on the wrong side of this digital divide. These millions of Americans need a bridge to the modern world, especially now that we know that world can entail extended periods of physical isolation. As Congress continues to respond to this pandemic, bridging this digital divide should be a key focal point. I serve as the Republican leader of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which oversees the development programs that build these types of economic bridges -- in addition to programs that build actual bridges out of steel and concrete. One such program, under the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA), provides grants and assistance to grow and retain jobs in economically distressed communities. In recent years, our committee investigated development issues facing these communities and learned of barriers to broadband deployment that impede individuals' access to telehealth services and pose hurdles for communities in attracting doctors and potential employers. These same impediments facing economically distressed regions are especially prominent during the current pandemic, which is why Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.) and I introduced the Eliminating Barriers to Rural Internet Development Grant Eligibility (E-BRIDGE) Act. The E-BRIDGE Act (H.R. 6491) removes hurdles for completing projects under existing EDA programs. For example, giving local communities more opportunities to partner with the private sector in carrying out broadband projects is a challenge the EDA faces, often making last-mile efforts difficult to complete. Our bill ensures that communities can leverage private sector expertise without disqualifying them from EDA assistance. Furthermore, for many small and rural communities with extremely limited budgets, meeting local funding match requirements can be difficult. Our bill gives local authorities the flexibility to use properly-valued in-kind donations, such as real property, to meet their match requirements. By spurring broadband projects that bring jobs to distressed communities, the E-BRIDGE Act achieves multiple goals: it supports solutions for the challenges of and economic recovery from the current health emergency while also seeding job growth and preparing communities for future emergencies. As we collectively work to contend with this unprecedented and isolating pandemic, removing unnecessary barriers to completing broadband projects for small and rural communities is an effective way for Congress to promote their development and help more Americans access critical health care services and education resources, conduct business, put food on their tables, and stay connected to their loved ones. Sam Graves represents Missouri's 6th District and is ranking member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.