Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 583 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 583.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House Resolution 583, providing for further consideration of H.R. 2670, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, or NDAA, under a structured rule. It makes in order 80 amendments for consideration on the floor, and it provides for one motion to recommit. I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House passed a rule setting the parameters for general debate on H.R. 2670 and making in order 289 amendments. At the time, we made clear that the work of the Rules Committee was not yet finished. There was additional work that was left to be done, additional considerations to be had, and additional member priorities to take into consideration. After a robust discussion, we reported out the rule that is before us today. Taking up this rule will allow us to advance our work forward and will move H.R. 2670 toward a vote on final passage. Mr. Speaker, I know some in this House will express frustration with the process. Yes, perhaps it would have been more convenient for us to have done our work more quickly. As this House is well aware, the NDAA is one of the most critical pieces of legislation the House considers each year. It sets overall policy for the Department of Defense and the armed services and allows Congress to set our defense priorities for the year. Perhaps most importantly, it authorizes spending levels on national defense for the fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, on a bill that is this critical to the Nation, it is much more important for us to get things right rather than to do things quickly. When dealing with national defense, we have a sacred obligation to give the American people our best efforts. Although this may have taken a bit longer than anyone, including myself, would have liked, I am proud to say that the rule fulfills that obligation. I like to think of this, Mr. Speaker, as a process where the House has been working its will. Frankly, we will have a pretty spirited debate here, I suspect, but it is worth noting that the underlying bill that came out of the House Armed Services Committee is pretty much intact. In other words, it has been changed very little in the amendment process yesterday, and I would argue it will be changed relatively little by the amendment process today. The majority of the items that we deal with today are going to shift. These aren't going to be straight partisan debates in many cases. My friend, Mr. McGovern, and I will probably be on the same side when it comes to helping Ukraine in what we think is a very important struggle. We will probably be on different sides when we come to cluster munitions and whether they should or should not be used. Uncharacteristically, I will be on the President's side, and my friend will have a different opinion on that. I say that just to say that that's how this place is supposed to work. You move back and forth, you pick the right decisions, and at the end of the day, there will be a final product and we will have a straight up or down. Before anybody gets too elated or too disappointed, I will remind everyone that it is not as if this is the last day. This is a vehicle, if it passes, that we will take into conference, and that will be a conference between a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and it will involve a Democratic President. Mr. Speaker, I say all that to say that I suspect the process will continue to change the product as we move along. Again, I wouldn't be too giddy if I won today, and I wouldn't be too disappointed, no matter what your particular issue is, if I lost. I do think it is critically important that the vehicle move and that we push forward and sit down and work with our colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda in the Senate, and work with the President of the United States at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. We need to make sure that we do--for the 63rd consecutive year--what we have done for 62 years, and that is provide for the common defense of the country. Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth remembering that this is going to be a bipartisan product at the end of the day. There is no way a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic President are going to do anything on any issue that is not essentially bipartisan. That is the way the process works. No matter what is happening at a given moment, I think we are preordained to come to an agreement that broadly reflects compromise. Mr. Speaker, we have had two very late nights at the Rules Committee, and I thank particularly my friend, the ranking member, and each and every member of that committee for putting in the hours that it took. I thank our staffs on both sides of the aisle who worked really, really hard. Mr. Speaker, I thank the staff of the House, particularly our overworked stenographers that were staying there late at night to make sure that we got our job done. Again, I credit my friend, the ranking member, for this. We have had the good fortune to serve together on this committee for a long time. We had a contentious debate last night, but it was always a civil debate and it was always a professional debate. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the tenor he set for our committee when he was chairman. I am proud of the manner in which he approaches his work each and every day. I am very proud to have the opportunity to work with him in the House. Again, we will have our differences today--fair enough. I thank my friend for the kind of committee member that he is and, frankly, his commitment to the institution. I say that about each and every member on the Rules Committee on both sides of the aisle, and about their staff and about the staff of the full House that facilitates our ability to work together and produce a product. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution. Today's rule makes in order 80 amendments reflecting Member priorities on both sides of the aisle. Although I would have liked to have worked more quickly, on a matter that is so critical as the annual NDAA we owe the American people no less than whatever time is necessary to complete this important task. I remind the House that the NDAA has been passed into law every year for 62 consecutive years. I am confident that with today's rule, we are well on the way to making it 63. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to point out and emphasize several important facts that sometimes get lost in the spirited debate. The first one is that about 95 percent of this bill is exactly what passed out of the House Armed Services Committee 58-1, as my friends have pointed out, and I agree. Most of this bill is extraordinarily bipartisan. Most of the amendments that have come to this floor, 300 yesterday, or 290, roughly, were bipartisan and were accepted no matter who authored them, Democrat or Republican, by either side. As I said yesterday, this was going to be more contentious today, and that is fine. But to suggest that anything you disagree with that passes is extreme, I think, frankly, you are leaping to a conclusion. Some of these amendments that my friend points to the most probably won't pass, probably won't make it. Again, there is nothing inappropriate about that. I mean, I have come down here--and I know my friend has--plenty of times and fought for things that we believed in that may have been right or wrong, but we lost or won. What comes out of here will be what a majority of the House decides is appropriate. Now, as I have said multiple times in the course of the debate, this is a process, not an event. The reality is, we are going to sit down at some point, almost certainly, with the Senate and the President. The Senate is Democratic, and the President is a Democrat. We are going to have a discussion and a debate, and I suspect the product that comes out of that will be different than the one that emerges here. That is okay. It will be different than what the Senate writes, and it will be different than what the President's budget was and what he proposed. Nobody is going to get everything they want. At the end of the day, everybody is going to have to give and take, and the reality is if we get to a bill, which I think we will because we have for 62 consecutive years, it is going to be a bipartisan compromise. We can have all the theatrics and all the flailing of arms. That is part of the process, too. At the end of the day, almost all of this bill is bipartisan, and almost all of this bill is supported by the majority of both sides of the aisle. There are individual flash points where we disagree. I know about getting rolled in debates. I remember my Democratic friends spending $1.9 trillion without a single Republican vote and unleashing the worst inflation we have seen in 40 years. I remember them bringing a bill to this floor called the Inflation Reduction Act that had zero to do with inflation and was everything about green climate. Fair enough. If you want to do that, that is okay. You didn't get a single Republican vote, but you won, and you got it through the Senate and got the President of the United States to sign it. There are plenty of times that one side has steamrolled the other. There are other times when we negotiate together. Welcome to the House of Representatives and to American politics. What we are going to deal with today, there will be a lot of sound. There will be a lot of noise. Most of the bill is bipartisan. It is an extraordinarily good bill. As a matter of fact, lost in the course of this debate is one of the areas where my friends and I do disagree, and I disagree with the bill, and that is that we are coming in at the President's number. This outrageous, terrible bill is going to be at the number the President proposed. I think that number is too low--I really do--but I am going to vote for it because it is still better than last year and better than a CR, and it moves the country in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, again, I have enjoyed the debate. I always do. I will close by thanking my friend. I mean this with all sincerity. I will end where I began. We have been through a couple of challenging days in the Rules Committee, very long nights. I very much appreciate the professionalism of my friend and his colleagues and my colleagues on my side of the aisle. I very much appreciate the staff that worked very hard on both sides of the aisle and also the wonderful House support staff that we had facilitating our meetings. I thank them all, and I particularly thank my friend.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House Resolution 582, providing for consideration of H.R. 2670, the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA as we commonly know it, for fiscal year 2024, under a structured rule. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. It provides the Committee on Armed Services with en bloc authority so that the House can expeditiously consider hundreds of Member priorities. I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, the NDAA is one of the most critical pieces of legislation the House considers each year. Congress has a constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense, and this is an obligation I know the House takes very seriously. Each year, the NDAA enables Congress to set appropriate defense policies, to provide guidance and direction to the armed forces, and above all, to set authorization levels for defense funding. Collectively, these efforts provide our warfighters with the training, equipment, and strategy necessary to meet any challenge around the globe. Congress has enacted the NDAA every year for the last 62 years. While we have a long road ahead of us, I am confident that we will do so again this year, and I am gratified that the House is moving forward with consideration of this measure on the floor. Last month, the House Armed Services Committee reported out H.R. 2670 with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 58-1. From a review of the bill, it is easy to see why. H.R. 2670 authorizes $886 billion for defense programs, an increase of $28 billion. This funding level will ensure our men and women in uniform are equipped for all threats and are prepared and ready to defend freedom all around the globe. In proposing this funding level, the Armed Services Committee stayed within the parameters of the funding levels set in the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Additionally, they identified nearly $40 billion that was repurposed to respond to our current national security needs. This ensures that the tax dollars of hardworking Americans are being used in the most efficient and appropriate way possible. H.R. 2670 includes a 5.2 percent pay increase for our servicemembers, the largest pay increase in over 20 years. It includes critical policies that will counter aggression from the Chinese Communist Party, advance investments in tools to counter emerging threats, and bolster the reliability of our supply chains. What is more, it includes critical oversight measures designed to ensure that defense dollars are wisely spent. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't stop there. H.R. 2670 also ensures that the Biden administration cannot continue to put policies ahead of national security. It rejects the Biden administration's efforts to indoctrinate our troops with progressive ideology like critical race theory training, and instead, ensures that the Pentagon's focus is where it should be, on military readiness and preparedness so that our warfighters can defeat aggression and defend freedom anywhere in the world. In drafting H.R. 2670, the Armed Services Committee followed a robust bipartisan process. They considered 760 amendments during the markup and adopted 731 of them. In preparing today's rule, the Rules Committee sought to continue this robust, collaborative process. We reviewed over 1,500 amendments, a record number. In keeping with our longstanding tradition at the Rules Committee, we welcomed any Member who wished to come testify about their amendments. Dozens of Members from both parties took part and educated the committee on their proposals for this bill, and, indeed, we would have welcomed dozens more. In all, today's rule makes in order 290 amendments, reflecting substantive ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle and ensuring that Members will have an opportunity to present their priorities to the House. I look forward to debating these ideas on the floor and to full and fair consideration of these proposals before the entire House. Mr. Speaker, all in all, H.R. 2670 is a strong bill, and the rule we are considering today is an appropriate one for consideration of such an important measure. I urge the Members to support both the rule and H.R. 2670, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 582 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would thank my friend, as always, for a thoughtful and robust debate. We covered a lot of ground. A lot of it didn't have a lot to do with defense. We talked about Social Security for a while, and I am delighted to see my friends are worried about the state of the Republican majority. I think it will do fine. While the process as always in Congress can look from the outside as chaotic or sometimes contradictory, the rally is we tend to work towards things, and we have gotten this bill done for 62 years in a row for a reason. It didn't matter who was the majority and who was the minority or what the administration was. I suspect the same thing is going to happen again this time. Along the course of that, we will have a robust debate. Today, we will mostly be talking about things we agree on, as we know, and that is a good thing. There will be things that we disagree on, and that is fine, too. I will remind my friends on my side of the aisle that winning here isn't necessarily winning. It just gets you to the next stage of the contest. The Senate will be moving on its version of the NDAA. We will sit down in conference, and then we will see what the real final product is. Some of the things that we are watching today, to me, again, are just the normal process and policy working out. Mr. Speaker, I would also in closing, urge my colleagues to support this resolution. H.R. 2670, the NDAA for fiscal year 2024 is a strong, strong bill. It fulfills Congress' constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense while also ensuring that we are carefully and wisely spending the American people's hard-earned tax dollars. It will set appropriate policies for the Armed Services to ensure our warfighters have the equipment, the training, and the resources they need to confront aggression anywhere around the world at any time. It requires the Pentagon to maintain a laser focus on readiness, and it ensures appropriate oversight of our investments both at home and abroad. Mr. Speaker, this is unfortunately a dangerous time in the world. American adversaries are on the march, threatening global stability and territorial integrity of our friends and our allies. These threats range from Russia's invasion of Ukraine to communist China's continued pressure on Taiwan and our Pacific allies to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and to North Korea's continued testing of intercontinental missiles. The United States does not seek armed conflict, but we will be prepared to meet it should it seek us out. I would remind this House of the words of Ronald Reagan. `` . . . peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations.'' In taking up H.R. 2670, we are continuing that tradition. We are continuing to build our Armed Forces to meet and confront any foe at any time anywhere in the world, and it is my hope that in doing so, we will be building a military that is strong enough to deter aggression. We will, as people have committed throughout our history, achieve peace through strength. Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my very good friend and the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, 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. General Leave

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 582.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will state for the record that I certainly have no objection to defending Social Security and Medicare. As a matter of fact, for, I think, six Congresses in a row, I have introduced legislation, which was originally drawn up with my good friend John Delaney, a former Democratic Member, on doing just that, on trying to save Social Security. What we proposed is what we did back in 1983 that actually worked, that extended the life of Social Security for almost half a century, which would be to actually do a commission and make a set of reasonable reforms. I would put revenue on the table. Personally, I think that has to be part of it. It certainly was then. Again, my friends haven't been very serious about reforming Social Security, in my view. To be fair, I don't think anybody has been. We have been trying to get people to look at this problem for a long time. I invite my friend from New York or any of my Democratic colleagues to look at what we have proposed--again, originally with a Democratic cosponsor. It is the only way we are going to get there. It is going to have to be a bipartisan sort of deal. That is what Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neill, and Howard Baker did back in that timeframe. We should do the same thing. To say we are not interested in Medicare and Social Security is simply wrong. Again, I am the last guy probably to say that to because I have consistently put out a proposal to try and move forward in that regard. I will say this. In 1983, when they saved it, we were within 2 months of it going broke--not going broke but having to make the cuts that you make to adjust your outflow to the revenue coming in. We have 10 years. We ought to take care of that. Unfortunately, nobody or not enough people seem to be interested. That includes the President of the United States, who, back in 1983, actually voted for that commission to be created and then voted to accept its recommendations. The current White House says it doesn't want to do any commissions and politicizes the issue. I see this on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, where people tell us they want to protect Social Security. If you want to protect it, Mr. Speaker, then you have to legislate on it because it is steadily becoming less solvent over the years. Also, to my friend from New York's remark about the focus on military spending, I just would point out to the House that the total budget in the NDAA that is proposed this year is actually the one the President recommended. Personally, I think it is too low. I would have gone higher. I will be the first to tell you that, Mr. Speaker. The number that the committee chose is the President's number. So, for those of my friends who are critical of how much is being spent, I would suggest you direct your concerns to the White House because the Appropriations Committee took the President's recommended number. Again, if my colleagues think we are misfocused, my friend's first argument is with the President of the United States and not with your colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the resolution, as amended.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his thoughtful remarks and helpful suggestions, and I will point out a couple of things quickly in response. The House Armed Services Committee has actually done a good job on doing what my friend wants to do. They have repurposed over $40 billion in the bill and redirected it more efficiently. This has been a bipartisan, collaborative process between Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith, who, frankly, have worked quite well together whether one was in the majority or the minority. I think, as an alum of this distinguished committee that I once served on, it is actually doing a pretty good job of trying to find the savings that I know my friend sincerely wants to find and redirect. I wouldn't say I disagree, but I would put some things in perspective when we talk about spending. I have been around this stuff for a long time. My dad was a career military guy at the height of the Cold War. At the height of the Cold War, the United States spent 50 percent of its entire budget on defense and spent almost 9 percent of its gross national product because it thought that was what the threat was. Then, as the Cold War waned, we came down a little bit. We had the great Reagan defense buildup. At that point, defense was about one- third of the total Federal budget, not half. It had already come down, and it was about 6 percent of the gross national product. Currently, it is less than 4 percent, around 3.5, 3.7 percent. I would say that is probably too low. It is only 15 percent of the entire budget. What has driven spending around here--and we all know it--is really not the discretionary budget. It is the entitlement budget. It is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is about 60 percent of all Federal spending. Throw in interest on the debt and the Federal retirement system, and we are around 70, 71, 72 percent. So, I am all for saving money, and there is certainly money to be saved in defense. If Congress wants to get serious about this, then let's talk about where the money is and sit down in a bipartisan way, maybe in the framework that our former colleague Mr. Delaney and I offered, and get serious about it. This is not where we spend most of the country's money, and frankly, this is an area where we are underspending. Again, for my friends who are concerned--and efficiency suggestions are always welcomed--the number we have is the President's number. If we are overspending here, then it is probably good for my friends to have a conversation with the President of the United States because, honestly, our colleagues in the majority would prefer, for the most part, to be at a higher number. I know that is true for Chairman Rogers, and I suspect it is true for the majority of the committee's Republican members. Again, concerns about spending are always appropriate. There is waste in every part of government, including defense, but I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, broadly speaking, the country certainly is not overspending on defense in this legislation. 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 thank my good friend. As always, he is a thoughtful and reflective speaker, even when we disagree on certain things. Mr. Speaker, the process in front of us is undoubtedly going to go longer than we originally anticipated. I don't think that is a bad thing. I actually think that is a good thing. I suspect we will, in the end, have more votes on a whole variety of issues than we might have originally had. Again, I don't think that is a bad thing. That is broadly allowing the House, within the fine parameters, to work its will as we work toward a solution. I think we will ultimately get there. Mr. Speaker, I would also remind my friend that however a bill changes here, it is going to change again. The NDAA by its very nature is, at the end of the day on final passage, a bipartisan bill. I would just suggest to people to not get too upset or get too worried. You are going to see the House very vigorously debating a whole variety of issues. That is good for the institution. I think at the end of the day, the House will work its will and we will pass an NDAA bill out of here. At some point we will sit down and conference it with the Senate, and it will come back, and we will have another pretty vigorous debate. What we are seeing is a pretty robust democracy working its will and a pretty robust House of Representatives working its will. Mr. Speaker, today will be a bipartisan discussion. Most of the amendments, indeed, have been agreed to by both sides, but they need to be fully aired and debated. We think that is a good thing. I suspect it will be somewhat of a more contentious debate later on in the process, but the process will work out. At the end of the day, I am confident we will pass an NDAA bill. At the end of the day, I am confident that once the bill is worked through the Senate and signed by the President, it will, as most NDAA bills are, be a bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the recorded vote on H.R. 1548. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 290.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee report (H. Rept. 118-108) to accompany House Resolution 495 should have included in its waivers of all points of order against consideration of H.R. 277 and H.R. 288 a disclosure of the following violation: Clause 2(h) of rule XI, requiring a majority of the committee to be present to report a measure or recommendation. Further, the Rules Committee report (H. Rept. 118-102) to accompany House Resolution 463 should have included in its waivers of all points of order against consideration of H.R. 277 and H.R. 288 a disclosure of the following violation: Clause 2(h) of rule XI, requiring a majority of the committee to be present to report a measure or recommendation.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I think if you happen to be listening to the debate, you might get confused. It is as if we are going to impose our will on somebody. The reality is the Democrats control the United States Senate. The Democratic President of the United States has a veto that he can sustain in either Chamber. What we are saying is let's sit down and talk things through, and here is our opening position. That is all that is going on here. We are not in a position here to do what my friends did last time, and that is both what they regret losing and fear might someday come to pass. The last time my friends didn't have to negotiate 2 years ago, what did they do? An explosion of spending that generated the worst inflation in modern American history; the worst inflation in over 40 years. Looking around this Chamber, I think I am probably the only one here old enough to remember it. The reality is they took a crisis that was ending and used it to justify $1.9 trillion worth of spending that many of their own economists warned them would lead to inflation. They jammed it through without a single vote. The next year, they called something an Inflation Reduction Act that we all know was a climate bill. They crammed through another $500 billion worth of spending. That doesn't even include plussing up the regular discretionary accounts of the United States. My friends own the inflation that has impoverished every single American. Every American family is worse off, not better off, given the economic stewardship of this administration and, frankly, the Democratic Congress. We look forward to the debate. We look forward to something my friends aren't used to doing, that is actually negotiating, and that is what we are talking about. We are going to extend the debt limit, just as we said we would. Here is our negotiation. Here are our ideas where we can save money. Do you have any ideas where we can save money? Let's talk about that because you can't get what you want. You can't pass through a Democratic Senate a clean debt bill. If you can't do it there, you are certainly not going to do it here, so let's begin the discussion sooner rather than later. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend and I have had a very long day and have spent a lot of time together. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself quickly such time as I may consume just to correct my friend. I did not blame all inflation on President Biden. He had a lot of help. He had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate that worked with him to get there, so he certainly didn't do it on his own. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my very good friend, and a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in response to my friend's statement, we are certainly not trying to extort anything from anyone. Quite frankly, it is my Democratic friends who are trying to extract something from us that they can't get for themselves. If you believe a clean debt ceiling is the way to go, pass one in a Democratic Senate. You can't do it. The reality is there has to be a negotiation here. What we have said is: Hey, we are in good faith extending the debt ceiling; we are doing it in this bill. We have a lot of Members who have never voted to do that, who are actually doing it. Here is our opening position in the negotiation. What is yours? We haven't heard that. It is just simply, well, give us what we want and pass the President's budget. If they genuinely want to talk, we are giving them the opportunity to actually do that. I remind my friend, we look forward to discussion, but the first step is to raise the debt ceiling. That is what we are going to do here, then we will see what the Democrats do in the United States Senate in response. Then we can all go to conference and talk this thing out and hopefully come to a bipartisan solution. The hysterics and theatrics might make good print. That is not the reality of the process here. We are operating within the spirit of the process. We hope our friends do the same. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I begin by thanking my friend for engaging, as he always does, in a spirited debate. We don't agree on a lot of things, but I admire my friend's passion and appreciate his partnership on the Rules Committee, both when I was in the minority and now that I am fortunate enough to be in the majority. We do look at the world a little bit differently. My friend worries about a $2 trillion tax cut which, by the way, was stretched out over 10 years, much of which paid itself back in economic growth, but forgets about a single bill that spent $1.9 trillion last year that they managed to do. Look at the results. When the President walked in pre-COVID, the economy had the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, growing. Even after going through that, the Biden administration walks into a V-shaped recovery and a 1.4 percent inflation rate. In less than 2 years, they managed to flatten that out and give us the highest inflation rate in over 40 years. How did that happen? That happened by unrestrained Democratic spending, out-of-control budget proposals by the President, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House that wouldn't say ``no.'' Well, those days are behind us. I understand the agony of my friends, that they actually have to sit down now and talk with the Republicans and come to agreement. Now, we have come forward with a proposal that we think makes a lot of sense. My friend is worried about us driving up the debt. Why are we passing an extension of the debt ceiling? That is exactly what this legislation does. We are saying we just want to talk. Here is our opening proposal. We don't expect you will take everything or agree with everything. We know you control the United States Senate. We know the President of the United States has a veto, but you are going to talk with us, and you are not going to get a clean debt ceiling. We are not going to give you what you can't get yourself in a Democratic United States Senate. We are going to have a real discussion about what we need to do as a country. Now, my friend says we have different values. In some ways, we do. We have a common commitment to the institution. We have a common belief in democracy. I think we believe in civil discourse, even when we disagree. We have many things beyond that that we agree on, but we do differ in some ways. We believe we ought to live within our means, and that is a good thing to try and do. We think the American people ought to be able to keep more of their own money to spend on their own family and their own investments. We are willing to put some ideas forward how to do it. We think out- of-control spending is going to make life worse. The cruelest tax of all is inflation. My friends are worried about the poorest of the poor. I know that is sincere. I also know the inflation that this Democratic House and Senate of 2 years ago and the administration inflicted on the American public is a curse to the poorest of the poor. Let's sit down, find some common ground. We have done it before. We act as if it is extraordinary to actually debate around debt ceiling spending restraints. That is the way it is normally done, particularly in divided government. That is what the American people have given us. I suspect they want us to work together. We have done our part of the bargain. We will finish that out today. We will extend the debt ceiling, as we promised we would do. We will put forward a series of suggestions and proposals. We think they are good. Our friends won't agree with them all, but at the end of the day, they are going to have to come to the table. If they can't pass a clean debt ceiling--or if you can pass a clean debt ceiling in the Senate, go ahead and do it and come to the table with that, but I don't think you will be able to. We are going to sit down and find some ways to begin to restrain this out-of-control spending, and we are going to do it because there is a Republican majority in the House that demands that we do it; that we begin to live responsibly; that we not inflict inflation on the American people; that we prioritize our spending in some reasonable and rational way.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 327 and ask for its immediate consideration.