Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and the most distinguished defender of life in the Congress.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), my good friend.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), a passionate advocate on this issue, who will speak more about the previous question.

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, a distinguished member of both the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I would advise the gentleman that I am prepared to close whenever he is. Madam Speaker, can I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I will be brief. But I want to begin by thanking Chairwoman DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger for their help throughout the process. However, despite many areas of agreement in the bill before us today, particularly relating to Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, I will oppose the bill. Madam Speaker, at the end of May, President Biden sent us a $6 trillion budget request for fiscal year 2022. The bill presented today, in many ways, mirrors that budget request. Proposing the highest spending level since World War II, the price tag alone is utterly unrealistic. As we continue the see inflation on the rise, such a proposal is bad for the recovering economy as well. Instead of focusing on the urgent priorities for all Americans, like reopening our economy and schools, President Biden's budget request and this bill, elevate controversial left-wing policies over-pressing needs, like strengthening our national defense and addressing the crisis at our southern border. In fact, this budget calls for billions of dollars to fund progressive priorities and policies like the Green New Deal, while recommending an effective cut in the funding for our military. With China and Russia growing their militaries by the day, this is a very misguided approach. Finally, most egregious in the President's budget and the current deal, which is reflected here, is the removal of the Hyde amendment, which protects life and prevents Federal taxpayer-funded abortions. Since it was first enacted in 1976, it is estimated this provision has saved more than 2 million lives while protecting the conscience rights of the great majority of Americans who are opposed to publicly-funded abortions. Also, it removes the Weldon amendment, which provides important conscience protection for our healthcare providers who object to participating in abortion proceedings. This amendment and the Weldon amendment have both been supported for generations by Republicans and Democrats alike. Madam Speaker, you know that the Democrats in Congress do not have the majorities capable of passing this bill without Republican vote. In the days and weeks ahead, it is my hope that Members on both sides of the aisle and both Chambers can negotiate spending that is reasonable and will not lead us to financial disaster. But the first step toward negotiation will be the full reinstatement of the Hyde and Weldon amendments along with similar pro-life protections contained across the 12 spending bills that we consider as a committee. These protections need to be reinstated for this package to move to the President's desk. Quite frankly, everyone in the Chamber knows this bill will never pass the United States Senate without their inclusion, and the majority of American people support that view. In closing, Madam Speaker, while the bill does fund many good things, and while I certainly appreciate the openness of the process in which the gentlewoman from Connecticut and the gentlewoman from Texas have participated in developing the bill, I do oppose it as drafted. The price tag is too high. The bill contains too many poison pill policy riders, and it funds too many unauthorized programs, and bows to a leftist agenda that does not reflect the views and values of the American people. Madam Speaker, I remain hopeful that we can do better, and I urge rejection of the bill.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I think it says everything about Jerry Lewis if you look at who has come to speak on his behalf. We have had the Speaker and the majority leader of the House from the other party. You have a man he squared off against twice for the chairmanship of the full committee. You have colleagues on both sides. It tells you he was a very unusual man with very broad appeal. I first met Jerry Lewis as a staffer. I was the new executive director of the NRCC, and I got a call out of the blue from one of the most important Republicans in Congress who said, ``Hey, have you got time to come over and meet?'' I thought, ``Boy, I am either in trouble or something is serious and big.'' It turns out that his deputy chief of staff, Letitia White, was married to the brother of a good friend of mine. They happened to meet at the wedding, and he said, ``Hey, there is this kid from Oklahoma coming up. You need to get to know him.'' Jerry Lewis was the kind of guy who reached out to you no matter what. We became firm friends from there, long before I was in this institution. I used to bring people by, particularly clients who were running for Congress, to meet him because he always helped them and always gave them good advice. Then, by happenstance, I had the opportunity to come to the Congress of the United States. The first person who helped me was Jerry Lewis, and the first person who gave me good advice said, ``Tom, become an appropriator if you possibly can.'' It was Jerry Lewis. Then, he helped me get to that spot. He was the ranking member, our Republican leader on the committee, and guided the decisions I made in terms of what positions I would choose, where I would go, and what subcommittees I would serve on. I always got great advice, always got tremendous help. There was always wisdom in any observation that he had. Like my friends, I am going to miss him very, very much. I extend my sympathies to Arlene and the family, but this institution lost a great champion. We lost a great American. God bless him wherever he is now. Actually, I know where he is now. God bless him.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding, and I want to be the first to admit I was alive when both of these authorizations were passed. The Congress' current effort to review the existing authorities for military force for which the original purposes have been achieved or are no longer appropriate is an important exercise of this body's authority under the Constitution and pursuant to the War Powers Act. I am pleased to note that Chairman McGovern and I, along with my friends, Chairman Meeks and Ranking Member McCaul, helped initiate an evaluation of the War Powers Act, its strength and limitations and its need for modernization in a hearing on this topic in March. It is fitting, and frankly overdue, that the House is considering these issues and is now poised to repeal a second and third outdated AUMF this year with strong bipartisan support. The joint resolution to promote peace and stability in the Middle East was enacted in 1957, 2 years after the signing of the Warsaw Pact, in response to the concerns about the potential spread of communist influence in the Middle East and, therefore, threats to U.S. economic and political interests in the region is long overdue. Needless to say, much has changed in the 64 intervening years. The Berlin Wall has fallen, and six of the seven former Eastern Bloc countries are now allied with the United States through NATO. The Soviet Union, of course, is no more. Communism obviously remains in the world, but it is no longer the driving force for most threats to the United States, particularly in the Middle East. Similarly, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 is not related to the current situation in Iraq, and therefore, defunct. United Nations Resolution 678 authorized member states to use force to restore peace and order in response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. President Bush stated on multiple occasions at the time, including in his signing statement of this AUMF, that he believed he had sufficient constitutional authority to use force in this case. However, he did not test the question, and requested and welcomed the AUMF. With or without the United Nations approval, in spite of the action's intent to enforce international law and, regardless of my support for the action taken by President Bush at that time, it was the initiation of a war, and in my opinion, the President was obligated to seek Congressional approval. However, since the issue has been long-since settled, it is time to revoke the outdated authority. Let us reinforce with this action today, Mr. Speaker, that should the President find reason to initiate military action subject to the War Powers Act in Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East, he or she must come to Congress with information, justification, and request for approval. Also going forward, I strongly suggest this and future Congresses consistently establish a sunset of future authorizations either by a firm expiration date in the authorization or triggered by satisfaction of clear and specific objectives. Once again, I support the passage of H.R. 3283 and H.R. 3261.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous question, and I fully support the immediate consideration of H.R. 18, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2021. The bill would codify protections for the unborn and would make them permanent. These protections are commonly carried as part of the Hyde amendment, which has been carried in the appropriations bills produced by the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of Appropriations, where I am the ranking member, for the past 45 years. There is no cause greater for any Member of Congress than defending life, especially amongst the most vulnerable. When I was privileged to be chair of the subcommittee, every one of the annual appropriations bills passed out of the subcommittee carried this important protection. Yet the majority has once again begun the misguided assault on life; first, with President Biden's revocation of the Mexico City policy, followed by legislative efforts to dismantle the Hyde amendment, both of which protect life and prevent taxpayer-funded abortions. Since the Hyde amendment was first enacted in 1976, it is estimated that this provision has saved more than two million lives. It has been supported by lawmakers of both parties on both sides of the aisle, and signed into law by Presidents of both parties every single year since then. Indeed, every Democratic Member, other than freshmen, has voted for legislation containing the Hyde Amendment. When he was serving in the United States Senate, President Biden, at that time, expressed his support for the inclusion of this provision, a stance he has since abandoned. Eliminating this provision in the annual appropriations bills would be a terrible mistake and at odds with the beliefs of a strong majority of the American people. A recent Marist Poll found that 58 percent of Americans oppose the taxpayer funding for abortion, while only 38 percent support it. Hyde protects the conscience rights of the great majority of Americans who are opposed to publicly funded abortions for religious, moral, or fiscal reasons. It allows States to choose to fund elective abortions or not with State taxpayer dollars, and the people of 34 States have voluntarily chosen not to do so. As we look ahead to the annual appropriations process, I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that 200 Republicans, including every single Republican member of the Appropriations Committee, signed a letter to congressional leadership stating that they would oppose any spending bill that did not include Hyde protections. I see no better way for us to continue to celebrate life and ensure protections for the unborn than by making the Hyde amendment permanent, which we can do if we pass H.R. 18 into law.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule. The majority is proposing two significant pieces of legislation today. Unfortunately, concerns remain with both of them. H.R. 3237, the supplemental appropriations package intended to provide funds for the security of the Capitol complex is, unfortunately and unnecessarily, a partisan bill. It was the subject of bipartisan negotiations, and there is no reason we could not have gotten to a bipartisan result had the majority wanted to do so. Instead, we are left with a partisan package that does not meet the needs of the institution and, frankly, has no chance of becoming law in its current form. I would urge my friends particularly to look at the section relating to the rapid response force. That is something where I think, honestly, with a little bit more reflection, we could find some common ground. I think it is a mistake to put a force like that under the control of either the District of Columbia or the executive branch. I think we need direct control of that ourselves. I know some of my colleagues on the other side feel strongly that way, too. It simply makes sense that if we are having a crisis here, we ought to make the decision if we need an extra force. I think if we keep working at it, we are going to find some common ground there, and I hope that we do. H.R. 3233 establishes a commission to investigate the January 6 attack on the Capitol complex. Here, too, I want to acknowledge that real progress was made in the course of negotiations, and I want to commend particularly Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Katko for having brought us closer to agreement. However, on our side, many of us continue to have reservations about this bill and the parameters of the commission itself. After all, the events of January 6 did not occur in a vacuum. If we truly hope to find answers for the American people, then we must take into account everything, all the other political violence that has taken place in recent years. I would just ask my friends to go back--and I know they have--and look at the 9/11 Commission, which did exactly that. It didn't just look at 9/11. It looked at the attack on the USS Cole. It went back to the attack on the African Embassies that we experienced. There is room here, I think, for context and additional discussion. We also have concerns structurally with some of the staffing provisions and other items that I have mentioned that we hopefully would look at. We would like to continue to work on that. I think we could have made good progress had any of the amendments that were offered in the Rules Committee been made in order. My friends chose not to do that. That is their privilege to do so, but I think it probably obstructed what could have been a larger bipartisan vote for this particular piece of legislation. But, again, we will see going forward. What we do here isn't the final arbiter. This is one stage in the process. The United States Senate is the next stop. Hopefully, there will be some changes made there. Then, it will have to come back here. We should look at both of these matters as stops in a journey, or parts of a journey, not as the final decision on any of them. 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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel), my good friend, the author of the resolution, to further explain the amendment.