Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my good friend.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Clerk, I move that the House do now adjourn until noon tomorrow.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, as a member of the Chickasaw Nation and co- chair of the Congressional Native American Caucus, I have always voiced my support for the federal government to honor its treaty obligations. For far too long in our Nation's history, the federal government accumulated a sorry record of making promises to tribes and then breaking those promises as soon as it was expedient to do so. Only in recent years has that record started to improve. Last month the Rules Committee held a hearing on one of these treaty rights: a delegate to the House of Representatives as enumerated in the Cherokee Nation's 1835 Treaty of New Echota. This hearing marked an important step in examining this specific treaty and understanding the legal and procedural factors surrounding this issue. I'm very proud that we held this hearing and want to thank Chairman McGovern for his leadership and the committee's willingness to highlight tribal sovereignty. The conversations that we had in the Rules Committee that day are a starting point for other committees of jurisdiction to study this matter further and address some of the lingering questions surrounding this. As this work continues, all such claims by tribes that possess them should be considered and examined as well.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7967, the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act, for immediate consideration. The bill will ensure that the perpetrators of violent crimes are held accountable for their actions and that victims of violent crimes receive the justice that they deserve. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to quickly respond to my friend. Crime is also a problem all across the country, and we will work with you on the 9/11 survivors bill, which I point out, again, was originally my colleague from New York's bill as opposed to a Democratic proposal. But I will give you credit for picking up a good idea that my friend originated. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my friend, to respond.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, America's largest cities are in the midst of a wave of violent crime, making some of them nearly unlivable. This spike in violent crime has many causes, but one factor is undeniably making the problem worse: That is the fuzzy-headed ideology followed by woke prosecutors who are refusing to do their jobs and prosecute violent offenders. As part of the Commitment to America, Republicans have made it clear that we will fund the police; that we will take clear steps to stop the scourge of fentanyl coming over the southern border into our Nation; and that we will crack down on prosecutors and district attorneys who refuse to prosecute violent criminals. H.R. 7967 fulfills that commitment. It would require the same prosecutors to report annually on the cases they receive and their decisions to prosecute or not prosecute. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' This reporting would allow the citizens of our great cities to see, once and for all, just what this wave of progressive woke prosecutors is actually up to, and just how many violent crime cases they are refusing to prosecute out of ideology. To further explain the amendment, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my good friend, the author of the bill.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it has become all too common in recent years to learn about the perpetrators of violent crime who should have been locked up for earlier incidents. All too often, we hear that a woke prosecutor decided not to pursue charges against a criminal for an earlier violent act, only for that same criminal to then offend again and again. As part of our Commitment to America, House Republicans will take action to end this practice. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany) to speak more about this issue and the solution contained in H.R. 7967.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, my very good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by associating myself with the chairman's very appropriate remarks about the unfolding disaster in Florida and the southeast. It is something that moves all Americans. Florida, and frankly all of the region, is in our prayers and in our thoughts as they deal with an unprecedented natural disaster. Madam Speaker, today's rule covers two items. The first I will discuss is H.R. 8987, the Fairness for 9/11 Families Act. This bill would shift just under $3 billion from the CARES Act small business loan fund to the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund to compensate victims of the 9/11 terror attacks. Last night at the Rules Committee we heard testimony on this bill, which unfortunately, is the only hearing this bill will receive this Congress. My Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee testified at length about the efforts they have gone to in order to work with the majority on this matter. But instead of working together in a bipartisan manner, the majority instead chose to move ahead on this bill with no hearing or markup held in the committee of jurisdiction. This represents a complete failure of regular order. Madam Speaker, it results in a lack of process that is unfair to everyone. It is especially unfair to the victims of 9/11 who deserve both a bipartisan process and a bipartisan bill that everyone can support. It did not have to be this way, and it is unfortunate that the majority decided to treat this issue with less than the gravity it deserved. Despite these procedural failures, however, I intend to support this legislation, but we could have and should have done much better. Our second bill is the Senate amendment to H.R. 6833, a continuing resolution funding the government through December 16 of 2022. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that Congress has waited until the last minute to take up the serious work of funding the government and keeping it open. It is equally unfortunate that our only option for doing so is the flawed, inadequate bill that does not meet the needs of the American people. Despite this bill's flaws, there is much to like in it and much that I do support. I voted in favor of the omnibus spending bill back in March, and this bill would maintain those spending levels through the middle of December. I support additional funding for Ukraine as they seek to defend themselves against Vladimir Putin's unjust and illegal invasion, and I support additional funds for disaster relief. But just as important as what is included in this bill is what is not included in this bill and should have been. It is undeniable that we are facing a humanitarian crisis on our southern border, caused in large part by the Biden administration's unwillingness to confront what is staring them in the face. The administration asked for $1.8 billion to assist migrants, which they have received in this legislation, but they did not ask for a single penny to secure the border. The Biden administration has sought to add workers elsewhere in the government, like 87,000 new employees at the IRS, but they did not ask for money to add any new Border Patrol agents to help address this Biden-made crisis on the southern border. This could and should have been addressed in this bill, but it is not. Similarly, the bill does nothing to address the high price of energy or provide new sources of energy. We should be doing everything we can to provide secure, reliable, and inexpensive energy to the American people. Instead, the President is spending his time chastising energy companies. We should have addressed this issue in this bill, too, but we did not. Nor does this bill address other crises affecting the American people, including inflation and the economic recession, both caused by the reckless and profligate spending policies of the Biden administration and this majority. I could go on and on, but the point remains: so much should have been in this bill but is not. I hope that if my friends in the majority take anything from today's discussion, it is this: it is high time for them to get serious about appropriations and about holding bipartisan discussions with Republicans on full-year spending bills. Consider where we are: the House Appropriations Committee, I am proud to say, passed all 12 bills out of committee this summer, yet, as of today, only six have passed the floor. It is the majority's responsibility to bring those bills to the floor. In the Senate, which Democrats also control, the record is even worse. Not a single bill has been passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. In addition, no serious negotiations have taken place between Republicans and Democrats and between the House and the Senate. These negotiations have been postponed all summer and into the fall while the House takes up one political messaging bill after another. Madam Speaker, we need to focus on the serious business of funding government. In order to accomplish that goal and achieve a bipartisan agreement, four conditions will have to be met. First, defense spending will have to go up to meet the level authorized in the fiscal year 2023 NDAA. The level included in the House defense appropriations bill is wholly inadequate to meet America's defense needs and must go up to reach a final deal. Second, non-defense discretionary spending will have to come down. The House non-defense appropriations bills were all marked up at a bloated level of spending which cannot be justified. These numbers must be reduced for an agreement to be had. Third, longstanding bipartisan pro-life policies that have historically been carried in appropriations bills must be restored. The majority stripped these out in the Appropriations Committee this year, but they must go back in. I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough, Madam Speaker. No Republicans--and I mean no Republicans--will vote for these bills unless these bipartisan pro-life riders are restored. Fourth, the 12 House Appropriations Committee bills include countless poison pills that have to come out. These are liberal policy riders on all matters of topics, ranging from climate change to abortion to labor law. They have to come out to reach a bipartisan deal. The appropriations bills cannot pass this House and pass the Senate unless there is a bipartisan deal. Madam Speaker, we can reach a bipartisan, bicameral, full-year spending deal if my friends in the majority get serious about negotiating. At the end of the day, Republicans must be included in these negotiations. If the majority continues to dither, we are headed for a year-long continuing resolution. That is a bad outcome for the institution, a bad outcome for the government, and a bad outcome for the American people. When the majority begins to seriously negotiate on a bipartisan appropriations package, I will certainly be there to help. But neither I, nor many of my colleagues, will participate in kicking the can down the road so my Democratic friends can ignore their responsibility to govern until after the upcoming election. I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend and my fellow member of both the Appropriations Committee and the Rules Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my good friend.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. Madam Speaker, it is deeply unfortunate that we have once again waited until the last minute to fund the government. With no time left for negotiations, the majority is putting forward a bill to fund the government that was not subject to bipartisan negotiations in the House. It is no surprise, then, that this bill fails to accomplish so many things that are necessary to address the crises currently confronting the Nation. I am an appropriator, and I would advise my friend that the Appropriations Committee--and I give great credit to my friend, the chairwoman of that committee, Ms. DeLauro from Connecticut, and the ranking member, Ms. Granger from Texas--actually got all 12 bills done by the end of July and out of committee. Six of those have come across the floor. That is a good thing. Six others have not. That includes, by the way, the bills to defend the United States of America, the largest spending bill. It includes the bill to defend our southern border. The reality is, they haven't come to the floor because my friends don't have the votes to pass them. Many of their own Members want to reduce the size of defense as opposed to increase it in a dangerous world. Many of their friends simply don't want to do anything to secure the southern border. Now, the reality is, in the end, I think we will get both those things done, and there will have to be a bipartisan negotiation to do it. There has been absolutely no negotiation since July in the House. I also point to the United States Senate, which is not the responsibility of my friends, but their party controls it. That body has not moved a single bill out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Not one. Now we are asked, because we are in an emergency, to kick the can down the road. My friends have had months to deal with this issue and to engage in serious bipartisanship. They have chosen not to do that. They would rather do messaging bill after messaging bill after messaging bill. That is what we have been dealing with. Frankly, the Rules Committee, unusually, has become a committee of original jurisdiction in bill after bill after bill because those bills have not gone through the committee. They are raced through the Rules Committee to come to the floor to make a political point on the eve of an election. That is a bad way to govern. Now, I am hopeful once we get to the other side of the election, my friends will sit down, and we will arrive at a bipartisan agreement on funding the government, which is the primary responsibility of Congress, in my view. But so far those negotiations have not taken place. We don't have agreed-upon top lines. My friends can't pass important bills, so they are left to linger. And then they come to us at the very last minute and say, gosh, you have to help us here in this emergency. We are going to pass the bills. The government is not going to shut down. Nobody here has the illusion that it will. But we should not be in this situation. Both sides have done this, I will grant my friend that. But this is a particularly egregious process of no negotiations on things like defense and securing the southern border. We live in a dangerous world. We don't need a CR in defense; we need a bill. Actually, the Democratic-controlled House Armed Services Committee produced a bill. It is just $30 billion more than the President asked for because that is what that committee felt we needed. It passed on a bipartisan basis. Why can't we move the appropriations level up to do what a Democratic-controlled House Armed Services Committee asked us to do? Our friends have not wanted to deal with that issue. We know we have a crisis on the southern border. You can turn on the television and see it every night. You can look at the fentanyl pouring into the country. You can see the tragedy of human trafficking. Is there anything in this bill that asked us to do anything different, anything new? Has any legislation come to the floor to do that? No. We are just asked, please allow us to continue the current state of affairs to exist on the southern border. That is a travesty. When you say, well, we are bringing irrelevant issues, the reality is you won't bring the relevant issues to the floor. You won't bring the relevant appropriations bills to the floor. But make no mistake, Republicans have put forward a Commitment to America to address the concerns of our citizens: We will fund the police and uphold law and order. We will add needed security infrastructure at the southern border. We will achieve longer and healthier lives for our citizens. We will ensure that America has an all-of-the-above energy policy that provides consistent, low-cost energy to keep our economy strong. That is something my friends don't want to deal with. We will end the majority and the Biden administration's reckless spending policies that have led to record inflation and stifling economic recession. This administration inherited a V-shaped recovery, and a 1.4 percent inflation rate. Now we are in a recession with a 40-year-high, 8.3 percent inflation rate. That is a record of disaster. We ought to be talking about those issues, not maintaining the status quo. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding. (Mr. COLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, it is worth asking why we are here at all right now, quite frankly. We face no emergency. The government is not about to shut down. Nothing in this bill is actually going to take effect in the immediate future. We are simply here because my friends on the other side want to create the illusion that they are doing something positive before the midterm election. I think they also fear that the American people will actually have a chance to look at this monstrosity over a month and their own Members would then have to go home and give a full accounting of what they have done here. Sadly, we are going to rush this through without appropriate consideration. It is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, 180 of our own Members-plus are not even here. They are not here because they have submitted a declaration because we are in a health emergency. What health emergency? We have vaccines, we have therapeutics, the airports are full of people. People are traveling pretty easily, but 180 Members won't be here--both parties. Again, that is a sad commentary on the manner in which we are operating this House. This bill comes before us in a process that I can only describe as lousy. No committee of jurisdiction in either the Senate or the House has dealt with this bill as written. No House Member has had any meaningful input in this legislation. The reality is this bill was negotiated in back rooms by two Senators and rammed through the Senate on a partisan vote. My friends have picked it up without changing it, without considering it, and they are going to ram it through here today. That is a process that they ought to be embarrassed by. There are two reasons to oppose the legislation itself, Mr. Speaker. The first is simply because of what is in it. The Democrats are repeating the mistake they made last year. They are going to try and spend their way out of inflation--a novel approach. We see how well that worked when they rammed through the American Rescue Plan under reconciliation. It is going to work exactly the same way again. On top of that, we are going to try and tax our way out of recession. That is a novel, new economic idea: Raise taxes while you are in a recession, something other administrations of both parties have always rejected as a bad idea. But my friends, feverishly intent upon action, are going to do it here. We are going to do one thing, and I guess that could start immediately. We are going to hire, as my friend from Texas suggested, 87,000 new IRS employees. Only my friends on the other side think that is a good idea. Nobody thinks 87,000 new IRS agents are going to do anything to help us with inflation, or help us with the problems that we have in energy, or help us in any meaningful way improve the economy or the lives of the average American. What is not in this bill is another reason to vote against it. It does nothing to deal with inflation. Indeed, during the Rules Committee, we submitted a letter from 280 economists that said this is going to make it worse, not better. They can rely on Mr. Summers. I will rely on the 280 economists from both parties and every point of view who said this is not going to work when it comes to inflation. There is nothing in this bill that is going to increase energy production in the United States, nothing at all. Finally, there is nothing meaningful, as my friend from Texas pointed out, that will actually reduce the deficit. That deficit doesn't begin to come down until 7 years from now under this legislation. That assumes everything stays the same for 7 years. That is not going to happen. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, we ought to reject this rule. We ought to submit this bill to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction in this House, allow them to do their work, and continue to negotiate with the Senate. There is no emergency. There is no hurry here. We don't need to ram this through. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge the rejection of the rule and the rejection of the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule to provide for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 5376, the grossly mis-named Inflation Reduction Act. Instead of actually doing something to address the current economic crisis, the bill is instead yet another partisan tax- and-spend bill. My friends on the other side of the aisle will tout the deficit reduction as good for reducing inflation--and that's true. But the bill we are considering isn't a serious attempt at deficit reduction. Eighty percent of the deficit reduction they claim in this bill doesn't even show up for seven years. And the deficit reduction they claim is laughable when you consider the one point nine trillion spending bill they put on American's credit card just last year. Americans need relief now. I shouldn't be surprised but I am disappointed at the Majority's egregious surrender of the House's institutional prerogatives. When you have a process that is this bad, you should expect bad results. And the process on this bill was about as bad as it gets. The bill before us was written behind closed doors with just two senators negotiating its provisions. No Member of the House had any input into the package, nor did any but a few senators. Nor have we been given an opportunity to amend this package when the Majority completely rewrote the original bill at the Rules Committee, when we first considered this on the floor in November of last year, or today since every Republican amendment to this package was blocked in the rule. Instead, the House is preparing to pass exactly what the Senate produced behind closed doors. At least the Senate had the luxury of a CBO score during its consideration. The House isn't even afforded that. This is an embarrassment. The Majority pushed through a reckless one point nine trillion dollar reconciliation bill last year, stubbornly insisting it would not lead to inflation, even though economists were warning us the exact opposite. Today, hardworking American taxpayers are suffering for their hubris. Instead of learning their lesson, the Majority is once again pushing another foolhardy tax-and-spend package through on partisan lines. They were wrong last year and they are wrong again this year. Unfortunately, it will be the average American who again pays the price in the form of more inflation, fewer jobs, slower growth, and a lower standard of living for every family in America. It is easy to see why when you think about the policies that are actually included in this bill. A tax hike on corporations that will inevitably pass their increased costs onto consumers. A six hundred percent increase in the budget of the IRS so they can hire an army of eighty-seven thousand new agents. Massive spending on Green New Deal priorities, including giving subsidies on luxury electric vehicles to high-earning individuals. Policies like these are bad enough in good times, but raising taxes when we are in a recession to give subsidies to the rich to buy luxury electric vehicles just doesn't make any sense. But we should also talk about what is not in this bill. Despite the title, there's nothing in this bill that will reduce inflation. There's nothing in this bill that will address our current energy crisis, and in fact, the policies in here will make it worse. While my friends in the Majority are willing to pour tens of billions of dollars into Solyndra-style green energy programs, there is nothing in this bill that will lower the price of gasoline, nothing that will make it cheaper to heat and cool homes, and nothing that will ensure energy independence for America. The Majority could have chosen to prioritize these things but didn't. Instead, the Majority is showing what their priorities truly are. An army of new IRS agents to harass taxpayers at all income levels. A massive and unaffordable tax increase that will make the recession worse. Massive new spending programs on the Green New Deal. Subsidies for high-income folks to buy luxury electric vehicles. It all adds up to a bad deal for taxpayers, a bad deal for the economy, and a bad deal for the nation. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this bill will make inflation worse, not better, and will make the recession longer and deeper. We should not make the exact same error the Majority made last year in passing yet another tax and spend boondoggle. We cannot tax and spend our way out of a recession, and we cannot tax and spend our way into lower inflation. The nation has already suffered enough after last year's reconciliation bill. Doing so all over again will only make this suffering worse.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today's rule covers several major items. The first that I will discuss, H.R. 7900, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2023, is of the greatest importance to the Nation and to the world. For 61 years in a row the NDAA has become law. As I reminded my colleagues in the Rules Committee yesterday, this record of achievement has only been possible because of the immense cooperation from both sides of the aisle and is a testament to what we can accomplish when we focus on our shared goals as a Nation. Working together, Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services Committee produced a bipartisan product. I applaud Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, and all the members of the Armed Services Committee for their efforts. Madam Speaker, it is no secret that the world has become a more dangerous place in recent years. Last year saw the Taliban--a corrupt and militant organization known for supporting and providing sanctuary to terrorists--complete its takeover of Afghanistan. Earlier this year, the world was shocked by Vladimir Putin's brazen, unprovoked, and indeed outright criminal invasion of Ukraine, Russia's democratic neighbor to the west. Communist China continues its history of aggression in Asia and the Pacific Rim, including increasingly aggressive acts toward Taiwan. North Korea has continued an aggressive posturing toward the United States and our democratic allies in Asia. Iran continues its long march toward becoming a nuclear state. It is more important than ever that Congress speaks with one voice when it comes to setting our national defense policy and funding priorities each year so that we can ensure we counter aggressive actors and offer our allies the support they need to protect themselves. One of the most important things accomplished in this year's NDAA is actually what it did not do. For the second year in a row, the Armed Services Committee rejected President Biden's proposed defense budget number and authorized a better, higher number to ensure that our national defense is properly funded. Indeed, President Biden's first two budget proposals looked set to continue the chronic underfunding of the Obama-Biden years, during which time our military readiness declined and our rivals on the international stage were empowered. The increased funding in this bill will go a long way toward ensuring that America's military is ready to confront any challenge. It will ensure that our armed services personnel receive a 4.6 percent pay raise, the largest in history, with additional pay bonuses to personnel who make the least to offset the inflation caused by this administration's policies. On the whole, I am proud to support this legislation and I encourage the entire House to support this measure and send it on to the Senate. Madam Speaker, our second item in the House is S. 3373, the Honoring our PACT Act. While this bill has gone through a frustratingly long process to get to this point, I believe we have failed to provide our Nation's toxic-exposed veterans with the care that they need for far too long. I will be the first to admit that this bill is not perfect. I share the concerns of many about the use of mandatory spending in this bill. Given the importance of this issue to veterans nationwide, and to those in my district, I cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Imperfect though it is, this bill does take important strides forward, and I plan to support it on final passage. Unfortunately, two other bills contained in this rule are partisan and stand no chance of becoming law. The Democratic majority is attempting to insert a right to an abortion into Federal law, preempting every State law that seeks to protect life. They want to require all States to permit abortion on demand at any time up to the point of birth. They want to outlaw commonsense restrictions, like preventing late-term abortions, preventing sex-selective abortions, and preventing abortions targeting fetuses with Down syndrome. They want to prevent States from adopting commonsense protections for the unborn, such as banning mail-order and telemedicine abortion services. They want to limit the rights of parents by creating a cause of action for outsiders to interfere with the parent-child relationship. That would be an unconscionable state of affairs, Madam Speaker. I remind my colleagues of the words of the Declaration of Independence: that the right to life is one of those inalienable rights endowed upon us all, including unborn children, by our Creator. I will always stand strongly in favor of defending life, and I proudly stand in opposition to these bills today. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my very good friend and a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for the time, and frankly, for the thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. It is not a surprise that a rule that covers five very different pieces of legislation would provoke that kind of discussion. I want to begin in the areas we agree. There are actually three areas in this bill that I will be voting for. Most importantly, quite frankly, is the National Defense Authorization Act. There is going to be some opposition to that. It was a give-and-take bill, but I remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that it actually came out of committee on a 57 to 1 vote; 57 to 1. That says a lot of wonderful things about the leadership of Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers on that committee and its ability, after considering over 600 or 700 amendments itself, to find common ground and move forward. For my colleagues that vote no, that is fine. Again, there is always something in a bill this size you can find to disagree with, but I will remind my friends on my side of the aisle that every single Republican on the committee voted for the bill. So I think it is going to pass and pass quite easily. I also want to associate myself with my friend's support of the toxic burn pit bill. It is a bill that I have some serious problems with, such as the manner in which it was funded and some of the procedures by which it moved, but it is a much better bill than we have seen before. It is a step in the right direction. There is no question my friend is correct when he talks about our obligation as a Congress to look after the men and women who have put their lives on the line for us and suffered egregious harm. I hope we can do better in the future. I hope we can even revisit some of the financing measures here, but it is important that it get done and that it passes, and I look forward to working with my friend to do that. I agree with him on the AMBER Alert bill as well, and I will be supporting it. There are some concerns on my side of the aisle about that, and I understand those concerns. Again, I think this is a commonsense measure. The area that I will not be able to join my friend on does deal with the fundamental protection of human life and the effort of this body to pass legislation that it knows will go nowhere in the Senate simply to make a point. We ought to be working to find common ground, not to dig down the divisions that we have even more deeply. So I will oppose the rule partly because I oppose some of the measures in the rule; also, because I certainly would like the previous question to be considered. I thought both of my friends from North and South Dakota made some excellent points on the need to codify the number nine or at least have a discussion about that in this body, and obviously, if we defeat the previous question, we intend to do that. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. Res. 11 for immediate consideration. This resolution proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine Justices. Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court has been set at nine Justices for 153 years. Fundamentally changing the composition of the Court to satisfy the demands of one political party would permanently erode the independence of the judicial branch and forever alter the separation of powers, which is the very foundation our Constitution and our Nation were built upon. The independence of the judicial branch is too sacred to subject it to the political issue of the day. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is not a popularity contest, and the Court's decisions should not be based on polls. The Supreme Court's duty is to the Constitution and ensuring that adherence to the laws of the land. To further explain the amendment, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), who is my very good friend and the author of the resolution.