Tom Cole

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I would like to say I believe the debate has been an excellent discussion underlining many of the substantive concerns of both sides of a complex issue. But let us make one thing clear, this bill is about America's security and the way that Congress will deal with a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. To ignore this basic fact is to ignore the warnings of history and the tragedy of September 11. Mr. Speaker, today others have placed this debate in the context of election laws and constitutional issues. I appreciate their concerns, but this is not what this legislation is about. It is about establishing an orderly procedure to ensure the continuity of the House in the aftermath of a catastrophic event. The potential for this was underlined by what occurred on September 11. We cannot ignore those facts or ignore the realities and dangers of a changed international and geopolitical environment. To do so would be irresponsible. Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his kind words and I look forward to working with him as we move ahead and I learn from him as I already have in the context of the deliberations of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on March 1, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule for H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2005. I believe this is a fair rule that allows for a full discussion of the relevant points pertaining to the legislation before us. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 841 is an important step forward in addressing what are critical shortcomings in America's plan for the continuity of this House in the event of an unexpected disaster or attack. While I was not a Member of Congress on September 11, 2001, I was in an office directly across LaFayette Park from the White House. Like all Americans, I remember that day in detail. One of the most significant memories I have is the bipartisan response to the tragedy where Members stood on the steps of the Capitol and let it be known to the world that our government would continue to operate. Mr. Speaker, the response of Congress to 9/11 should never be forgotten. It was a sign to the world that America was strong, that it would persevere and that we would go forward as a Nation. The underlying legislation today does the exact same thing. It takes an important step to ensure the preservation of our Republic and the continuity of our government under the most trying of circumstances. Mr. Speaker, very simply, this legislation ensures a continuity of operations for the House of Representatives. In the event that more than 100 Members of Congress are killed, the Speaker may announce that ``exceptional circumstances'' exist and thereby trigger expedited special elections that must occur within 7 full weeks, thus ensuring the continuity of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, this legislation should not be very divisive based on the fact that a similar measure passed the House by a substantial bipartisan margin of 365 to 97 in the last session of Congress. This legislation ensures the continuity of the people's House. It ensures that the House will still be an elected body chosen by the American public just as the Founders intended. With that said, let us talk about what the bill is not. It is not an election law bill. It is a continuity bill. Mr. Speaker, you may well hear many Members describe various provisions today in the context of Federal election law. These measures may have genuine merit. However, they are not relevant to this legislation. Personally, I firmly believe that most Members would agree with me when I suggest that election law should remain essentially a local issue. This is where it resides historically, and this is where it should continue to reside. Mr. Speaker, we have a clear decision before us today. We can either be responsible in preparing for what we all hope never occurs, or we can engage in pointless bickering over election laws that are historically controlled by the localities. Just a few years ago almost all Members would have viewed a tragedy like September 11 as an unthinkable event, and that is precisely the point. We cannot predict tomorrow. What we do know, however, is that we are engaged in a real, genuine, and taxing global war on terror. This is a generational war and one that will not disappear over night. Mr. Speaker, simply put, this legislation is about the security and continuity of America's governing institutions. It is an issue of critical importance in establishing an orderly response should the unthinkable occur again. The legislative history of this bill is clear. This bill originated in direct response to the events of September 11. It is a continuity- in-government bill, not an election reform measure. To confuse the former with the latter by encumbering this bill with extraneous issues would be to lose sight of the fundamental purpose of the legislation. Our job here is to ensure the continuity of the House of Representatives, not reform a state-based electoral process with Federal legislation. During my time as Secretary of State in Oklahoma, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building occurred. At that time such an event was considered unthinkable in the United States. That incident and the larger tragedy of 9/11 are a sober warning that we should prepare for the unexpected before it occurs. H.R. 841 is an important part of that preparation, and it also is a tangible sign to terrorists that they will never intimidate this country, change the nature of this House as the elected representatives of the American people, or keep our government from facing any challenges it may face in the future. Mr. Speaker, let us wait no longer. Let us move forward. And to that end, I would urge all Members to support this rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 125 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: (1) Rollcall No. 35: ``Yes'' (Final Passage of H.R. 310).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 301, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. I believe this is a fair rule and one that accords both sides of the aisle a good opportunity to explore the issues surrounding this legislation. Just last year, the House took a strong step forward on this issue when it passed H.R. 3717 by a vote of 391 to 22. Unfortunately, the other body was unable to schedule this legislation for consideration before the close of the 108th Congress. Mr. Speaker, we have a real opportunity today. As a father and a husband, over the years I have had genuine concerns about the suitability of some of the programming that is now aired on television. As my colleagues know, the law holds that indecent material is not appropriate for television. Unfortunately, over the last several years, some in the media have concluded that they are willing to pay fines for the privilege of airing the very material that they know millions of Americans will find offensive. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we as the people's elected Representatives address the issues surrounding the airing of indecent material. This legislation is a good first step. It will restore some teeth to the law and begin to better protect America's children immediately. I know that my colleagues agree with me, Mr. Speaker, when I say that no family should be exposed to some of the content that is now regularly aired on television. This legislation does not address just the infamous incident such as the supposed wardrobe malfunction at last year's Super Bowl. While it does not discriminate, it will help to restore a measure of decency to the airwaves. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule. It is a fair rule, one that will allow us to fully explore the issues surrounding the Broadcast Decency Act of 2005.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time and, frankly, for making that important point, that this matter is proceeding to this floor under a bipartisan unanimous vote by the Committee on Rules; and the suggestion that the process was unfair or defective is not borne out by both the nature of the debate in the Committee on Rules and by the unanimous vote that sent this rule to the floor. Let me move now, Mr. Speaker, to my prepared remarks. I rise today in support of the rule for S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. I believe it to be a fair rule and one that allows us to fully explore the issues surrounding this legislation. Furthermore, it makes in order a substantive amendment in the nature of a substitute that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has worked hard to produce. I believe that this will allow a spirited debate and one that will fully explore the many complex issues surrounding class-action reform while still enabling the House to act in an expeditious fashion. Mr. Speaker, while I fully agree that class-action lawsuits are a legitimate tool in civil procedure, these lawsuits are a tool that has been frequently abused over the past years. There exist a certain small subset of attorneys who do not represent the best traditions of their colleagues in the legal profession and primarily are concerned with lining their pockets by abusing the class-action process. Often, this is done through the popular so-called coupon settlement process, where the class of plaintiffs only receive coupons to use from the very same companies they are suing, while the attorneys walk away from the table with millions in cash. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a necessary step to better ensure and protect our citizens' rights. The ongoing flood of meritless labor and employment litigation has often destroyed reputable companies and has resulted in thousands of layoffs and business restructurings that hurt innocent workers and shareholders alike. This legislation would incentivize only those who have legitimate class-action claims to move forward in the legal process and, at the same time, it would disincentivize lawyers from filing meritless claims by increasing sanctions against those who do so. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a necessary first step and the rule that accompanies it is one that I believe all Members should support. Those who support another approach have the full opportunity to explore it in the minority's amendment in the nature of a substitute. Therefore, I urge all Members to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume. I would like to quickly address a couple of the concerns that my colleague raised. While I certainly respect his concerns, I would like to point out that the measure in question had been on our Web site for 4 days and was not suddenly introduced yesterday. It had easy access. Frankly, on the nature of the rule itself, it is the opinion of the majority of the committee this is simply an up or down matter. It is not something we need to amend or deal with. Let me make one other point, if I may, Mr. Speaker, in reference to the access of the military to college campuses. The military is a rather unique institution, but nothing prohibits college campuses from denying them access. All the Solomon amendment does is says, if they do, they lose some Federal funds as a consequence. I would think that if they felt strongly, that this was a position of conviction, they would not want funds from the Department of Defense and other institutions. They would simply have nothing to do with them. Further, I would simply like to make one additional point. The appropriate place to protest the policy, frankly, is in the political arena. This is not a policy in the Department of Defense per se. This is a policy devised by President Clinton, has been ratified repeatedly by Congress as a political avenue to address it. We should not put that burden on recruiters in the military and subject them to difficult circumstances when they are carrying out important work for our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin). (Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and in closing, I would like to say I think we have had a good and substantive debate today, but let us be clear: the concurrent resolution is really about ensuring those who defend our freedom and liberty the ability to have the same access to colleges and universities that is available for everyone else. Mr. Speaker, often today others have placed this debate in the context of the ``Don't ask, don't tell'' policy. I suggest that those who would like to change that policy, that they look inward, at the political process itself. This was President Clinton's policy, and one enshrined in law that can only be changed by Congress. If the other side of the aisle would like to make this change, they should propose it and debate it at this level. To put it in the context of the Solomon Amendment, I believe, is disingenuous and dangerous to our recruiting efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying concurrent resolution.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 59 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule for House Concurrent Resolution 36, expressing congressional support for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution is an important first step in addressing a misguided ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals regarding access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education. During this time of conflict and the global war on terror, it is more important than ever to maintain the ability to recruit quality men and women for service in our military. The primary way that recruiters are able to do this is to work through those institutions which work closely with our young men and women, schools and universities. Military recruiters need the same access to college campuses provided to other potential employers, and students deserve the right to discuss the option of a career in the United States military with the representatives of the Armed Forces. Mr. Speaker, some ask, why the need for this concurrent resolution? Well, the answer is succinct. This concurrent resolution grows out of an egregious decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturning the power of Congress to control the purse. This decision simply states that Congress and the Government may not as a matter of law deny funds to universities on the basis of their denial of access to recruiters and ROTC units. This decision, couched in the language of civil rights, fails to recognize the underlying inequity behind these university policies. This decision asserts the Congress has compelled speech by these universities to the effect that they ``agree'' with the military's ``Don't ask, don't tell'' policy with respect to homosexuals in the service. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further than the truth. The Solomon Amendment compelled no such thing. It simply proposed standards for the receipt of Federal funds. Setting such standards is a normal and legitimate function of the legislative branch. It is what defines the power of the purse. This is an issue that the House and Senate have revisited and affirmed in bipartisan votes in 1995, 1996, 1999, and 2002 after the enactment of the original Solomon Amendment. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to note that the Reserve Officers Training Corps, or popularly known as the ROTC, has been embattled on some university and college campuses since the 1960s. This stems from what only can be described as a consistently anti-military philosophy advocated by some, and I want to say only some, college and university professors and administrators. The new purported reasons for not allowing ROTC on campus often serves the convenient cover for these anti-military sentiments. Some educators now believe that they should be allowed to discriminate against students who wish to enter the military in order to please another group of students who object to the policies and procedures of the armed services, all the while soliciting and accepting Federal funds for their institutions. This is rank hypocrisy. Why would an institution seek and use Federal funds, often from the Department of Defense, while denying representatives of the U.S. Armed Forces access to their campuses? Mr. Speaker, the decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is a classic case of judicial overreach and one that must be addressed. As a former university educator and the son of a career Air Force noncommissioned officer, I find this decision disturbing and insulting to those men and women who defend our freedom and to those who wish to join their ranks. The very least we can do is put the courts on notice as to exactly where the Congress stands on this issue. For that reason, this concurrent resolution is necessary and timely. Hopefully, it will underscore the importance that the Congress places on military recruiters having access to the educational institutions that receive Federal funds. During this time of war, we should insist that institutions who pride themselves on freedom of expression allow the defenders of that freedom, the United States military, to freely recruit the soldiers who protect our democracy. To that end, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished Majority Leader and the original sponsor of this important resolution.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), the author of this resolution.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, my good friend, for his support of this resolution and, frankly, for the terrific work he does for veterans of all stripes, all colors, all varieties, all nationalities. Nobody is a better friend to the American soldier and the American veteran than my good friend from Missouri. I had the good fortune, Mr. Speaker, recently to visit Iraq and Afghanistan. And while there, I talked to a number of my fellow Oklahomans who are also Native Americans and continue that proud tradition of serving their country and honoring their tribes. Many of them remarked quite movingly the fact that they were part of a centuries-old tradition that they took with enormous seriousness. And, Mr. Speaker, they continue that proud tradition of service today as generation after generation enlists. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 306, a resolution that honors the service of Native Americans in the Armed Forces of the United States. As a proud member of the Chickasaw Nation, it is a great honor for me to speak in tribute of the thousands of Native Americans who have worn the uniform of the United States or served in the ranks of our military throughout our history. As the heirs of their own proud warrior traditions that precede the founding of the United States, Native Americans have made notable contributions to the Armed Forces of our country from its very inception. Even in the 19th century, an era of conflict between Indian nations and the United States, Native Americans could be found serving in and with our military. Native Americans fought with Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans. A Native American was a member of General Grant's staff at Appomattox. And Indian scouts played a critical role throughout the wars on the American Plains. In the 20th century, Choctaw Indians from Oklahoma were used as Code Talkers in the trenches of Europe during the First World War. In World War II, the Comanche Code Talkers from the district I represent in Oklahoma sent the first messages on D-Day. And of course the Navajo Code Talkers who fought and died on the other side of the world helped turn the tide of war in the Pacific. Two of the five Native American Congressional Medal of Honor recipients are from my home State of Oklahoma. Jack C. Montgomery, a Cherokee; and Ernest Childers, a Creek, served our country with great distinction. More recently, my fellow Chickasaw, Commander John Herrington, became the first Native American astronaut. Even now he is training in Russia for his next mission. But, Mr. Speaker, not all Native American soldiers are scouts, Code Talkers, Medal of Honor recipients, or astronauts. Most serve in the ranks and at the same jobs as their fellow Americans. I think of my uncle who joined the Navy, fought in the Philippines, and endured 3\1/ 2\ years in Japanese prison camps during World War II. Or my brother, John Cole Jr., who followed my father, a career Air Force noncommissioned officer, and enlisted in the United States Air Force during the Vietnam era. They are typical of the thousands of American Indians who have served our country in times of peril. That tradition of service continues today. Native Americans volunteer for military service at a higher rate than any other racial or ethnic group in America. This concurrent resolution which honors their gallant service comes as we celebrate the opening of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian. That institution honors the rich history and enormous contributions made by the First Americans to all Americans. I congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), the proud son of a career officer and a former member of the Defense Department who represents thousands of Native Americans, for his fine work on this concurrent resolution. And I encourage all my colleagues to join him in honoring the outstanding Native American warriors who have served our country in peace and war. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 306) honoring the service of Native American Indians in the United States Armed Forces, as amended.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4066, the Chickasaw National Recreation Area Land Exchange Act of 2004. This legislation finalizes a land exchange agreement that will allow the Chickasaw Nation to develop a cultural center which celebrates their long history and many contributions to our society. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will benefit the city of Sulphur, Murray County, the Chickasaw Nation and all of South Central Oklahoma. The cultural center will bring additional tourism to the area, create new jobs and expand educational opportunities for citizens all over the surrounding area. It is a model of cooperation between the Federal Government, local government and tribal government. I want to extend my gratitude to the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo), the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Rahall), the gentleman from California (Chairman Radanovich), the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ranking Member Christensen), as well as to the staff of the Committee on Resources, for helping the people of the fourth district of Oklahoma and the members of the Chickasaw Nation across our country achieve the goal of creating this cultural center and for guiding this bill through the legislative process. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the passage of this bill, H.R. 4066.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the tremendous job our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines have been doing in prosecuting our global war on terror. Just recently, I returned from a trip where I visited both the Afghan and Iraq theater of operations. Last year, I made a similar trip to Iraq, and now I can say with some certainty that we have made demonstrable progress. Americans should not think we are without friends in this region. President Musharraf of Pakistan has been a brave and determined ally in the fight against terrorism. Strong leaders such as President Karzai and Prime Minister Allawi are beginning to emerge in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have put their lives on the line and trusted the word of the United States. We must not let them down, for our security is linked with their success in rebuilding their countries and defeating terrorists. Mr. Speaker, with respect to Iraq, U.S. forces are achieving daily successes in confronting terrorists while Iraqi troops and police are starting to undertake the tough everyday work of rebuilding and defending a civil society. In a recent Armed Forces hearing, Army Colonel Michael Linnington, former brigade commander with the 101st Airborne Division, testified that it was not uncommon for his troops to be building schools by day and patrolling for insurgents at night. Or for that matter, it was not uncommon for U.S. troops to be fighting insurgents in one part of a town while helping with elections in another part. The troops believe in their mission and are committed to seeing it through. Mr. Speaker, our troops have met with daily success in Iraq. However, some observers have not accurately portrayed the results of their efforts. Moreover, it is important to note that we are not the only country suffering casualties in the fight for a free Iraq. In addition to our Coalition allies, hundreds of Iraqi policemen and national guard members have been killed as they fight to ensure the future of their own country. With respect to Afghanistan, it is quite clear that the Afghani government is progressing in securing modern rights for its people every day. Mr. Speaker, over 10 million people have registered to vote in the upcoming October presidential election in Afghanistan, and 5 million Afghanis are now enrolled in school. There are many civilian-military projects under way, and infrastructure reconstruction is beginning to reappear. The Coalition forces have changed the lives of the Afghanis and are providing them with opportunities that they never dreamed they could have. Mr. Speaker, in Afghanistan, we met with interim President Hamid Karzai. He was effusive in his thanks to America and the work of U.S. troops. In particular, he praised the work of Oklahoma's 45th Infantry Brigade that has worked so hard to train the Afghan Army. This is just one example of the countless accomplishments of our citizen soldiers from across our Nation. The Afghani Army is now fighting hard and performing well in the hunt for al Qaeda and the Taliban. Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to know when our global war on terrorism will end. This is not a war we sought. We engaged in hostilities only after being attacked. This is a war which has far- reaching implications and will determine the kind of world we leave for our children and grandchildren. America has a clear choice. We can go the way of some who suggest that we withdraw into isolationism, or we can secure the peace for our progeny by expanding the frontiers of liberty and democracy into the Middle East. While the debate surrounding our actions is legitimate, I truly believe that the answer is clear if one takes the time to look at the implications of not vigorously prosecuting this war. To be secure at home, we must act forcefully abroad. In the war on terror, ``fortune favors the bold.'' Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that our servicemen and citizen soldiers are doing fine work in representing the very best America has to offer.