Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by telling my good friend that I have many of the same concerns he does about the coronavirus crisis and the need to act on another bill. That is not what is before us today, but I look forward to when that time comes and we have a negotiated product to working with my friend and seeing if we can find the necessary support to make sure that is enacted into law. Indeed, the Senate is involved in doing that right now. What is before us today is the work of the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives, not coronavirus legislation per se, although there are certainly elements in this bill that deal with that. Let me again reiterate what I said just a few minutes ago: There are a lot of good things in these appropriations bills. Appropriators work hard and quite a few often work together. We have an excellent chairman and an excellent ranking member, and so we cooperate. So there are many good things in these bills. But what makes them fundamentally unacceptable is, first, a decision to insert almost a quarter of a trillion dollars of emergency spending that violates the budget agreement that my friends signed only last year. Mr. Speaker, if you need an emergency measure--that happens--then you sit down and negotiate with the other side about what the amount is and what the nature of the response is. There was no effort to negotiate with Republicans on this emergency spending--not in the House, not with the Republican-dominated United States Senate, and not with the Republican President. So these are just numbers willy-nilly sort of thrown in there, and they are not going anywhere. In that sense, we have wasted a lot of time. Second, my friends agreed, also, last year to no riders, no policy provisions in the bills. We will just have straight government funding bills. Last year, they did that. They kept that agreement last year. They kept to the top line numbers, and they kept to their agreements in terms of policy. We passed all 12 bills in a bipartisan manner. The President signed them, and we have enjoyed the benefit of that this year. We have had no government shutdown and we have had no crises. The work was done in a timely fashion. Why my friends abandoned a formula and an agreement that worked last year to do this is beyond me. Frankly, it smacks a little bit of election-year politics; but, regardless, the purpose is to fund the government and to keep the government working for all of our citizens, providing basic services. These bills won't do that because they violated an agreement last year and they contain things that my friends recognized a year ago that, if we do that, then we are not going to get to any agreement on spending. The same thing is true today. The political constellation hasn't changed. It won't change for the balance of this fiscal year, and it won't change for the balance of the calendar year. If we were serious about legislating, we would write real bills that adhere to the agreements that both sides make, not add additional hundreds of billions of dollars of spending and add additional policy provisions that we know the other side will not accept. Unfortunately, that is what is being done here. So I regret that. I hope my friends at some point will decide to come back and bargain. I suspect they will. They usually do. But we are wasting precious time now. We could have completed all these bills. Frankly, I will chastise the Senate here, too, because they are not moving very fast on the basic necessity of these bills. They have a tougher process. They can't just get a majority and ram things through the way my friends have the ability to do when they are in the majority and we have the ability to do when we are in the majority. It is a little bit different in the Senate of the United States. I recognize that. But we should make a contribution. We should have stuck to our agreement. We need emergency spending, which I think we do. That should come outside the confines of this legislation in standalone, emergency legislation agreed to by both sides negotiating in good faith. We have done that four times this year already. We are pretty good at it. If we would do it again for a fifth--and they are trying to do it now in the Senate--then I think we could deal with those other items that are in these bills that, quite frankly, belong in a standalone supplemental dealing with coronavirus. So, with that, I want to thank my friend for the time, and I want to thank him for the debate. As always, I look forward to working with him; but, for the moment, I urge the rejection of the rule and urge the rejection of the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend, for yielding. I thank him for his very eloquent remarks about our departed colleague, John Lewis, as well. It was very appropriately done. Mr. Speaker, this rule brings just a very mixed bag before the Congress of the United States. It covers four different bills. Two of those bills, quite frankly, shouldn't be on this floor at all. The Democrats actually broke their own rules in bringing those bills, the two bills dealing with childcare. It is not that the subject isn't important. It is extraordinarily important. That is why it should have gone through the committee process and been marked up. Probably since this deals with COVID-19, it is more appropriately dealt with in what I hope will be another supplemental, but these bills simply aren't ready for the floor. The other bill, which my friend referred to at length, the lands bill out of the Senate, is a good bill. Now, I would have preferred, as my friend would, that we would have put some other amendments there, some that our good friend, the ranking member, Mr. Bishop of Utah, brought forward. I think we could have made it more prudent and had a better chance of having a sustaining bill. But getting that authorization done is a rare opportunity this late in the cycle in a divisive year, and I don't want to miss that opportunity. We can come back later and try and make it better, but I certainly intend to support that legislation. It is an important step forward in our environment. I am going to reserve most of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, for the NDAA. And I, too, like everybody up here, want to thank our colleagues, the chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Smith and Mr. Thornberry, for working together so well and bringing us a really well-crafted product. That bill came out of committee 56-0. There weren't a lot of amendments. There were 600-odd amendments in the committee, another 700, I guess, that we are going to deal with here on the floor. So this has been working, but the point is they found a way to come together. Now, we as a House are going to have an opportunity to make their work even better or, frankly, make it worse. I hope we choose the latter. I am going to disagree very respectfully with my good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee. We don't overfund defense. As a matter of fact, if you look at it historically, in 1960, the height of the Cold War, we spent 9 percent of our gross national product on defense and 50 percent of the Federal budget. That fell to a third of the Federal budget and 6 percent under Ronald Reagan in a great defense buildup. It fell to 3\1/2\ percent under President Clinton. It is down to between 3\1/2\ and less than 4 percent today. So we don't overspend. And we have dangerous adversaries overseas that are modernizing rapidly--certainly, the Chinese are; certainly, the Russians are--and making enormous investments. So I think it would be a huge mistake to adopt the amendment that my friend intends to support; although, again, that is what we have these debates for. It is important to remember that, in the world we live, when it comes to military power, first place is the only safe place. This bill will keep the United States where it belongs: preeminently in first place. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, again, my friend and thank everybody here for their remarks about Representative Lewis, a giant amongst all of us. He will be sorely missed. His voice would have been a wonderful voice today.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to give my respects to Brad Patterson, who recently passed away after many decades of dedicated service to our country. Graduating with a master's degree in 1943 from the University of Chicago, Brad served in the State Department and then as Deputy Counselor to the Cabinet under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Brad was also the first Executive Director of the Peace Corps under President John F. Kennedy. After a stint with the Treasury Department, the National War College and the National Advisory Council on the Selective Service, Brad returned to the White House, this time serving as Executive Assistant to Leonard Garment under President Richard M. Nixon. Most Americans would be proud to have had such a distinguished career and bountiful life. As an enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, I hold Brad in especially high regard for his role in advising President Nixon and helping to shape the federal policy of Indian self-determination. On July 8, 2020, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of President Nixon's Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs and not coincidentally, the most important and successful federal policy regarding Native people the United States has ever had. It is also the 50th anniversary of the restoration of its sacred Blue Lake to the Taos Pueblo, which was the symbolic centerpiece of the Nixon message. As Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs, Brad and his colleagues--Leonard Garment, Bobbie Kilberg, Lee Huebner, and others--worked with Nixon's chief domestic policy adviser, John Ehrlichman, to develop and propose to the President what was then a radical new shift in federal Indian policy. America was in flux in the late 1960s with an unpopular ground war in southeast Asia, a growing civil rights movement, and a nascent ecological awareness beginning. In 1970, this new policy that Brad played a key role in shaping looked back at the devastation earlier policies had caused to tribal communities and sought a new paradigm based on strong tribal governments and vibrant tribal economies. Brad also worked to restore fishing rights to the Yakima Nation, helped pass the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and was instrumental in resolving the American Indian Movement's occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' office in Washington, D.C. For five decades, Nixon's policy has continued to help Indian tribes make enormous strides in terms of governance and economic growth. As we approach the 50th anniversary of that policy, let us look at Brad Patterson's life and work to inspire us as we make our way through these dark and troubled times.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the tribal provisions included in H.R. 6800, the HEROS Act. I profusely disagree with this partisan legislation that was crafted by the majority behind closed doors, and with no input from the minority, however this legislation provides critical relief to Indian Country that must be noted. In the previous, bipartisan, and negotiated relief package, the CARES Act, Congress provided tribal governments with record breaking appropriations. The HEROS Act continues to build on what already has been funded with even more critical dollars and flexibility. Specifically, this bill appropriates $20 billion to the tribal government stabilization fund--money dedicated to tribal governments to offset the dramatic losses they are facing at this time. This funding would be used to help them continue to do the right thing and keep their employees on the job--paid, and supported--as our nation responds to, and recovers from the pandemic. I would like to commend the Trump Administration for its active engagement in finding equitable solutions that meet the needs of all tribes. To date, the Administration has focused on ensuring that tribes have maximum flexibility to determine how they can best use the funds to respond to the needs of their citizens in this crisis. I applaud those efforts and urge the Administration to continue to provide tribal governments with the flexibility they need. While I oppose this bill, I look forward to working with my colleagues on crafting a reasonable and appropriate response to the COVID-19 pandemic and I am encouraged that tribal governments and communities will not be an afterthought, but deliberately included in the final legislation.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my great friend and distinguished Member.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. John W. Rose).

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), my good friend and the distinguished ranking member and former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my very good friend.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), my very good friend, and the distinguished Republican ranking member of the Budget Committee, and a fellow member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Hagedorn), my good friend and a distinguished Member of this body.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just remind my friends we actually do hear. That is why we worked with you to pass four straight bills. I would be willing to work with you again. You chose not to do that. You chose to bring to the floor a bill you know will not be taken up by the Senate, will not be signed by the President. So let's abandon that course and go back to where we were at. We worked together. We got a lot done in a short period of time. I think that is what the American people want us to do. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader of the House and my good friend.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I have additional speakers on the way. They have not yet arrived, so I am going to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), my very good friend, a member of the Agriculture and Education and Labor Committees.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice), a member of the Natural Resources and Oversight and Reform Committees.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would advise my very good friend from the great State of Virginia that we didn't wait. We worked with you and passed four bills. You are wasting time. You are wasting time. You have brought a bill here you know will not pass the Senate, that the President will not sign. You decided not to work with us. So please don't accuse us of delay. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher), a member of the Education and Labor and Natural Resources Committees.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.