Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to begin by thanking my very good friend from Florida for what we always get, which is always a thoughtful debate, always professional, always civil. And even when we disagree, I always enjoy the exchange, so I thank my friend for that. I will disagree vehemently, though, that the process in terms of impeachment that we are going through right now is remotely transparent. The American people can't get in there. And, frankly, I can tell you, Members, under the rules of the Intelligence Committee, all of us, as long as it is not classified, are supposed to be able to get transcripts. We haven't been able to get those things. So we will watch as this unfolds. But my friends would have been far better to do what has been done in previous impeachments; that is, to hold a formal vote, to set up a process. I do remind my friend, when we went through this during the Clinton years, the President, President Clinton, had the right to have counsel there, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to subpoena witnesses. Our friends who were then in the minority had the right to subpoena witnesses. None of that exists now. There is no process. It is very one-sided, very opaque, very obscure, and extremely partisan. But back to the legislation at hand. The tragedy here is that we could work together on a variety of things that we both agree would make good law. My good friend, the ranking--excuse me--the chairwoman on the House Administration Committee, Ms. Lofgren, mentioned that last night. There are actually elements in this bill which, I agree with my friend, are things we could work on together. There are other things that, whether we are right or wrong, my friend knows we will disagree with and we will not accept and, frankly, the United States Senate will not accept and the President will not accept. So it is a classic legislative dilemma: What do you want to do? Do you want to make a point or do you want to make law? If you want to make law, you get to the things that you agree on and that can pass the other Chamber and be signed by the President. So far in this area of election security, I think my friends have been more interested in making a point than actually in making law. So I urge opposition to the rule on H.R. 4617 because it is deeply flawed and a partisan bill that will not solve the underlying problems. It will not prevent foreign interference in our elections. It will only make it harder for Americans to participate in their own democracy. It applies inappropriate regulatory schemes to online advertisement. It applies overly inclusive definitions that could make almost any advertisement a political advertisement and expands the power of the Attorney General at the expense of the States. My friends seemed, over and over, to want to federalize State elections. We don't want to do that. That is a big mistake. One of the best securities we have is that we have multiple jurisdictions, and the people close to the people make the laws under which our elections occur. We can work together in a bipartisan manner and find real solutions to real problems, and I hope and I believe some day we will, Madam Speaker. But in the interim, I urge the House to reject both this rule and this bill so that we can actually advance, together, on something that can pass and become law. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just quickly, to respond to a couple of points my friends made, first, let's remember, in 2016, President Obama was the President of the United States when a lot of the activity that my friends are concerned about took place. In 2018, when President Trump was President, we don't have accusations of foreign interference. As a matter of fact, it was a pretty good election cycle for my friends, and I congratulate them on that. So, I suspect this administration has done a better job than the last administration in dealing with these issues. But I agree there are some things we can and should work on to improve our system, and we have offered--Mr. Davis chief among them--a variety of areas where we can cooperate and where we, frankly, agree. In the areas where we can't agree, let's set them aside and have our disagreements. But where we can, let's put things together that we all agree on and at least get those things passed. That would be my recommended choice. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately suspend the House's impeachment inquiry until the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 and the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2020 are law. Madam Speaker, Congress has failed to meet the deadline for one of our most crucial responsibilities, to pass the authorization act and the appropriations bill for our national defense prior to the start of the fiscal year. We did not succeed in getting either of these bills into law by September 30, and now the Department of Defense is operating under a continuing resolution, which in no way adequately supports and funds our military. Instead of pushing forward, the House is distracted by an unprecedented and unauthorized impeachment inquiry, which is remarkable mostly for the complete lack of transparency the majority has adopted. Republicans have been repeatedly denied their reasonable requests to attend depositions with witnesses and even to review transcripts and other documents. Moreover, the House is proceeding in this inquiry without ever taking a vote to authorize it or establish the parameters and ensure due process. At a time when threats are continuing to emerge around the world, and our constituents want us to tackle important issues impacting their everyday lives, the House can ill afford the distraction this inquiry is causing. Consequently, my amendment will require us to suspend the impeachment inquiry until such time as both the NDAA and the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2020 have been enacted. 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 rise to exercise the time that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my good friend, has extended to me. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, my very good friend, the distinguished vice-chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would be the first to admit that there are some good things in this bill. But to say also to my good friend, at the end of the day it is a very easy no. And that is sad. Frankly, we could have had an opportunity to work together in a bipartisan fashion and actually produce a product that would be effective and one in which every Member of this Chamber could vote for. But my friends have chosen not to do that. Madam Speaker, we are here on another attempt by the majority to push deeply partisan measures to change America's electoral system in response to the 2016 Presidential election. Earlier this year, the majority pushed through H.R. 1, which they gave the misnomer of the, ``For the People Act.'' The reality was that H.R. 1 was completely misnamed. It was not ``for the people,'' it was for the Democratic majority, by the Democratic majority in hopes of maintaining the Democratic majority for many years to come. Similarly today, we are considering H.R. 4617, yet another misnamed and misguided bill aimed at changing America's election laws. The majority has called H.R. 4617 the SHIELD Act. Unfortunately, this bill shields us from exactly nothing. It expands the power of the Federal Government, limits freedom of speech, and reduces the ability of the American people to participate in their own elections, all while failing to protect our democracy from foreign interference. Before I talk about the problems with the SHIELD Act, I think we should be clear: Republicans stand ready and willing to work with Democrats on bipartisan solutions to reform our election system and protect it from foreign influence. My good friend from Illinois, Ranking Member Rodney Davis, has proposed such a bill that would do exactly that. H.R. 4736, the Honest Elections Act updates existing election laws in a fair way. It strengthens the Foreign Agents Registration Act to combat election interference, modernizes online political ad disclosure, increases monitoring of spending by foreign nationals in our elections, and bans the practice of ballot harvesting. These are the kinds of bipartisan solutions Republicans and Democrats should be able to come together on. But instead, the majority is once again proposing a partisan bill that fails to put forward real solutions to these problems. Let's take a look at just a few of those provisions in H.R. 4617: First, H.R. 4617 imposes draconian limitations on online political advertising that will only make it harder for Americans to participate in our elections. It applies a model of regulation designed for TV ads to online ads, which are two very different media. And it requires the same four-second disclosures for online ads as they currently require for TV ads, even though online ads are generally significantly shorter. H.R. 4617 also attempts to add limitations on the ability of foreign nationals to buy online ads for electioneering communications. But I note this will likely have very little effect. The primary means by which Russia interfered in the 2016 election was through traditional social media posts and troll farms, which this bill will not impact. What is worse, the bill also expands the definition of the term ``electioneering communication'' to include, ``issues of national importance.'' This term is going to become so overinclusive that it will become meaningless. If a company wants to take out an advertisement talking about the need for jobs in their community, they may be shocked to learn that they have actually purchased an electioneering communication and are now subject to new rules of political advertisement. This kind of overinclusive, ill-defined regulation will do nothing to protect our democracy, and will, instead, just simply make it harder for Americans to exercise their right to freedom of speech. What is worse, the bill expands the power of the United States Attorney General--hardly a nonpartisan figure--by allowing that political official to interfere in State elections, by any means necessary. This unprecedented intervention ability would mean that the Congress is once again expanding the power of Washington at the expense of the States. Madam Speaker, a bill this flawed should never have come before the Rules Committee and should not be coming to the floor. Republicans are ready and willing to work with Democrats on bipartisan solutions to prevent foreign interference and secure our elections, but instead, the majority is putting forward a deeply partisan product that will not secure our elections and will only make it harder for Americans to participate in their own democracy. And, frankly, they are putting forward a product that I think they have every confidence the Senate will not take up, and the President, I would predict, would almost certainly not sign. We can and should do better than that. I look forward to when my friends decide they want to do better than that to actually working with them. Madam Speaker, 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 Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), distinguished ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, and my good friend.

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

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I was not present for Roll Call Vote 571 which took place on October 22, 2019. However, if I had been present, I would have voted ``NAY'' on Ordering the Previous Question; Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2513) Corporate Transparency Act.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I was not present for the following vote which took place on October 21, 2019. However, if I had been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on: H.R. 4407--SCORE for Small Business Act.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to and urge Congressional action on the Crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up H.R. 4261, a bill to prohibit taxpayer funding in support of campaigns for the offices of Senators or Representatives. Earlier this Congress, my Democratic friends passed H.R. 1, which included a public funding scheme for congressional elections that would transfer hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to congressional candidates, most particularly to incumbents. That bill included an astonishing 6-1 match for campaign contributions under $200. For every dollar a congressional candidate raised, taxpayers would kick in an additional $6 if that contribution was less than $200. If the goal is to fix the campaign finance system and level the playing field, throwing even more money into the system--especially taxpayer dollars-- makes zero sense. As an appropriator, I find it hard to think of a worse use of taxpayer dollars than creating a government-funding campaign ATM. At a time when we could be funding the National Institutes of Health to help find a cure for cancer, or fund needed infrastructure projects across the country, or bring broadband internet to rural areas, Democrats in the House of Representatives have, instead, made clear that they want to spend taxpayer dollars on themselves. Congress should take immediate steps to ensure that taxpayer dollars are never spent on congressional campaigns, and H.R. 4261 would accomplish that goal. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, in closing, while I certainly oppose the rule, I want to urge support for the underlying measure. H.R. 4378 is a bipartisan continuing resolution that will fund the government and keep it open for the American people while we complete our work on appropriations for fiscal year 2020. It will also provide extensions for critical programs impacting constituents in every district in the Nation. I want to associate myself with my friend's remarks. While I haven't voted for very many of the appropriations bills--I don't think I voted for any of them that this Chamber has passed because I have some strong disagreements--the House has largely done its work. We have largely completed the appropriations process here. I am glad our friends in the Senate--and they had a reason to do this--they waited until we had a bipartisan deal with the administration in both chambers on the top-line spending level. But I agree with my friend that it is time to get to work. It is time for these bills in the Senate to start moving and get passed. Then we can sit down, have the appropriate negotiation between the two chambers, hopefully arrive at a bipartisan agreement, and present the legislation to the administration that, hopefully, the President will be willing to sign. Again, I think buying the time we need here, without inconveniencing the American people, is a wise thing to do. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support that and vote no on the previous question, no on the rule, but yes on the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his kind words, and I mean that with all sincerity. We, obviously, have different opinions, we represent different parties, but we do work together well. I appreciate the manner in which my friend runs his committee and discharges his responsibility on that committee and to this entire House. We are here today, Mr. Speaker, on a bill that represents one of the most fundamental roles of the United States Congress. That is to fund the government to keep it open. Today's bill is a bipartisan continuing resolution ensuring that critical government funding will remain in place through November 21. The extension of funding is necessary to ensure that the House and the Senate have the time to reach a deal for full year appropriations for fiscal year 2020. Mr. Speaker, I call this bill a continuing resolution, but I think the other word I used is much more important. That word is bipartisan. That is what this bill truly is: a bipartisan compromise between the two parties. It is amazing what we can get done when we agree to work together and move towards a common goal. In putting forward this bill, that is exactly what we have done. H.R. 4378 is a bipartisan compromise that ensures that we will keep the government open and operating through November 21. The American people deserve no less. H.R. 4378 not only funds the government and keeps it open, but it also provides critical authorization extensions for some important government programs. Without passing this bill, crucial programs impacting millions of Americans in every district of the country would expire. These include programs like community health centers, the Commodity Credit Corporation, the National Flood Insurance Program, the Special Diabetes Program, and the Special Diabetes Program for Native Americans. Every one of these programs is one of great importance to my district, but the same could be said of every other Member of the House. All of us have constituents who use these and other important programs every day. All of us have constituents whose lives are changed for the better because these programs are there. And if they were to expire and stop working, all of us--every last Member--would, rightly, hear about it from our constituents the following day. The bill before us today is not a perfect bill, but that is the nature of a compromise. When the two parties agree to work together, both sides have to give up some things for the greater good. That is the nature of compromise and the nature of what we can do when we agree to set aside partisanship for the good of all those we are privileged to represent. Mr. Speaker, while I cannot support the rule, I do support the underlying measure. I think it represents a real bipartisan achievement that every Member of the Chamber, Republican and Democrat alike, can and should support. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, but urge support for the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), my good friend.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with my friend very much. These two pieces of legislation are excellent, and they are must pass, and I look forward with working with him on that. But this is such an extraordinary outbreak of bipartisanship, I think we should go for broke and bring up this other legislation as well, which is equally bipartisan, as my friend says. I don't want to waste this magic moment, Mr. Speaker. We don't get many of them around here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), my good friend.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to begin by thanking my colleague for a good debate and, frankly, for both of us having the enjoyable and unusual position of being in favor of both the pieces of legislation that are dealt with in the rule. I want to go back and talk, just briefly, about the Venezuela TPS legislation that our good friend and our fellow Rules Committee member, Ms. Shalala, has. That is an important piece of legislation. That is an important statement of American principles. I think it is an important institutional moment for us in the House, because we are passing something jointly to try and get the other body to do something jointly as well, because I am quite convinced if that got to the floor, it would pass in a very substantial bipartisan way. I am glad to work with my friends to achieve this. I suppose I am even more pleased about the bipartisan Budget Act. I want to again congratulate the five leaders on both sides of the aisle who actually got this done. The President of the United States sat down and negotiated this. We have a lot of people on my side of the aisle that are big supporters of the President of the United States. I hope they show that support today by actually voting for the deal that he negotiated and has tweeted out that he supports. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate in our own Chamber the Speaker and the Republican leader, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. McCarthy, for also participating in that and working together. I know each one of them had to go back to their caucuses and probably deliver some news that people in those caucuses did not want to hear. That is certainly true on our side of the aisle. I know it is true on the gentleman's side of the aisle as well. That is what leaders do. They come to agreements and they go back, and they explain to their supporters, ``Hey, I couldn't get you everything you wanted, even though I wanted those things, too,'' but every now and then you need to sit down and put what is good for the American people first. We all know that a catastrophic debt ceiling crisis and default, what that would do to our economy, how many people that would put out of work. We all know what having an agreed-upon deal in terms of stability going forward for 2 years means for the American military, but for every other agency of government as well. These are huge, huge wins even if there was some sacrifice. Now, would I like to do some more on deficit reduction and entitlement reform? I absolutely would. We will continue to work on that. But any time I can come to an agreement that saves the economy, that provides government stability, that gives our military the ability to plan and to rebuild itself over a 2-year period, and that the Commander in Chief is asking me to do, I am going to vote for that every single time. I am very proud to be voting for it with my friends on the other side of the aisle, who also, again, had objectives in this that they weren't able to reach. Finally, I would be remiss--I do this as seldom as possible--but I will praise the United States Senate, because the majority leader and the minority leader were also indispensable in getting this done, and in many ways probably came to an agreement between themselves faster even than the other parties involved. But at the end of the day, again, both of those leaders, the majority leader and the minority leader in the Senate, had to go back and tell their caucuses, ``Look, this is the best deal I can get. I can't get everything I want. We are not going to achieve everything we would like to achieve.'' Again, I respect my colleagues who look at the deal and say, ``That is not good enough.'' That is fine, but can they tell me what is better that they can get passed? I see no alternative to this particular piece of legislation that is not worse. The worst thing to do would be to defeat this bipartisan budget agreement and then deal with sequester or a debt crisis or a shutdown or, at best, a CR that would project these quarrels forward into the next year. It is already a pretty tense political time between all sides. The fact, again, that we are coming together and making a bipartisan agreement really reflects well on our respective leaders on each side of the aisle and certainly on the President. I think if the Members will vote in a bipartisan fashion, it will reflect well on them and on the institution as well. Mr. Speaker, I know some doubted that we could ever work together. I think this is the most significant thing we have done together this year, and I just want to thank all concerned. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to supporting it enthusiastically. I hope others of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do the same. Mr. Speaker, with that, while I oppose the rule, I would certainly urge passage of both these important pieces of legislation, and I look forward to working with my friends in that regard. Mr. Speaker, 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 my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we are here today on two items, both of which are actually bipartisan ideas. And though this has been an eventful week and month at the Rules Committee, I am pleased that we are ending on such a high note before we return to our districts. Of course, this rule is not all sunshine and roses. It does add same- day authority for any measure through tomorrow. My good friend, Chairman McGovern, had a term for this procedure in the last Congress. He called it ``martial law.'' I would remind my friends that pushing through bills on short notice, at the last minute, and using the martial law procedure is a recipe for potential disaster, and certainly is no way to make good law. It is also contrary to the commitment the Democrats made, upon taking the majority, to provide 72 hours notice before bringing a bill to the floor for a vote; a rule they already are violating with one of the measures today, albeit only by a matter of hours. I would also remind my friends that with consideration of the budget agreement today, there is absolutely no other legislation that is so critical and that must be done this week to justify needing this extraordinary procedure. The only thing my friends would use this martial law for is to advance highly-partisan messaging bills in order to appease some faction or other in their caucus ahead of the recess. That is a waste of the committee's time and a waste of the House's time. And I assure you, you will have plenty of time for these types of bills in the fall. On a much more positive note, though, as I said at the start of my remarks, the two bills covered by this rule today are actually bipartisan, and we should all be encouraged by that. One bill, H.R. 549, the Venezuela TPS Act of 2019, was brought up on the floor on suspension on Tuesday. It, unfortunately, failed to reach the required two-thirds threshold needed for passage under suspension of the rules. But I have every confidence that it will easily pass the House later today under this rule; and I certainly look forward to supporting it with my friends on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people talk about the need for bipartisanship around here, but in our second bill for today, we have an excellent example of what the word actually means. H.R. 3877, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, is as advertised. It is a bipartisan bill that sets budgetary needs for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. It suspends the debt limit until July 31 of 2021 to protect the full faith and credit of the Nation. And it avoids devastating sequestration cuts. I said a moment ago that this is an excellent example of what bipartisanship means, and I truly believe that to be the case. This is a bill that was negotiated between the President of the United States and the leaders of both parties in both Houses of Congress, resulting in the kind of bipartisan, bicameral budget deal in which all Members can have confidence. Is this bill a perfect one? No, of course not. No bill ever is. I, myself, would have preferred that this bill address entitlement reform and deficit reduction, and I am certain that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle would have preferred a lower defense spending number. Some of my friends on my side of the aisle would have preferred a higher defense spending number. But even when we both agree that this bill isn't perfect, it is still a good deal for the American people. I think this bill achieves four bipartisan goals that I would like to highlight. First, with the passage of this bill, we would avoid the horrific consequences of defaulting on our national debt, which would lead to an economic chaos the likes of which none of us should ever wish to see. Second, in setting new budgetary levels, we will avoid the automatic and devastating sequestration cuts that would have taken effect at the beginning of October of this year. Third, it allows us to move forward with clarity on the appropriations process for the coming fiscal year and probably for the fiscal year after that. And fourth, it allows us to resume the process of rebuilding our military after years of underfunding left it with a severe readiness crisis. When the Commander in Chief tells us that he needs something to defend America, there can only be one answer, and that answer is yes. Mr. Speaker, I think every Member of the House can be proud of the work done by the leaders of both parties to get us to this point. All five of the people in question, the President, the Speaker, the House Republican Leader, the Senate Majority Leader, and the Senate Minority Leader, negotiated in good faith and produced a compromise bill that all five of them stand behind. In order to get there, every one of them had to give up some things. That is what it takes to make a compromise, and this is what makes this bipartisan bill possible. I know there are Members of this House who are disappointed with this bill. I, too, as I mentioned earlier, am not completely satisfied with it. But I trust my leaders to negotiate on our behalf. And when they came back with this deal, I trusted that this was the best compromise they could reach. Everybody had to give something to get something, and I trust that the leaders of my party achieved as much as they could in the course of the negotiation. The same should hold for my friends across the aisle with their leaders of their party. Working together, all five did exactly what leaders are supposed to do; they led and, in doing so, came to the best deal possible, not for each party, but for the whole Nation. Now it is up to the Members of the House to say yes and move forward with the passage of this bill. 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 want to begin by doing something unusual in a rules debate. I want to agree with everything my good friend from Florida had to say. I am very pleased with her work and my colleague Mr. Diaz- Balart's work on this legislation, as well as the other Members that she mentioned. This is an important bill for us to pass for exactly the reasons my friend laid out. The reality is we have an unfolding political crisis in Venezuela, and we have people at fear for their life and, frankly, leaving a collapsing economy. This country ought to be a refuge for people in those kinds of circumstances, so I share my friend's hope that we get this done here and then we get action in the United States Senate. I do want to advise the Chair, Mr. Speaker, that, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up H.R. 336, the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act of 2019, with an amendment that will make it identical to S. 1, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan vote of 77-23 earlier this year. This bill includes many critical provisions, but the most important section of this bill is the Combating BDS Act of 2019, which will allow a State or local government to adopt measures to divest assets from entities using boycotts, divestments, or sanctions to influence Israel's policies. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the House passed H. Res. 246, a nonbinding resolution opposing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement; and while I appreciate the House's action in passing that resolution, we can do better in opposing this heinous practice than simply passing a nonbinding resolution. Actions speak louder than words. We cannot just say we believe in something. We must do something. H.R. 336 would do something. It would allow a State or local government to stand with us in defense of Israel. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), my good friend, for further explanation of this amendment.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation. This is actually a very sad occasion, I think, for the House; it certainly is for me personally. I have never voted against a national defense authorization in my 17 years in Congress. As a matter of fact, most of our Members have never done that for the last 58 years, so it is pretty unusual for us to be here and we, personally, regret that a great deal. My concerns with the substance of the bill are many, although there are, as my good friend from Massachusetts said, lots of good things in there, and there was lots of bipartisanship in writing it. But the top line number is $15 billion less than the President requests and the Senate has already enacted in their NDAA bill. We think that hurts readiness. We have concerns with the reversal of some decisions, both slowing down the modernization of our nuclear forces, and moving us away from low-yield nuclear weapons, which we think we need to counter Russia and its current aggressive posture. We are disappointed the bill doesn't include longstanding prohibition against transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United States. Those provisions were put in by a Democratic Congress in 2010. We are sorry our friends seem to reverse a decision that they believed in a decade ago. And it includes a lot of restrictive policies and prohibitions on securing the southern border, including prohibitions on funding a border wall, fence, physical barriers. I understand there are differences there, but I would hope we could give the executive flexibility in that area. Mr. Speaker, as concerned as I am about the substance of the bill, I am very concerned about the process. I grant my friend's point that a lot of amendments have been made in order. We could have made more. We actually offered an open rule last night that would have made everybody's amendments in order. It wouldn't have taken away any of the amendments my friends wanted to put out there, but it would have allowed everybody's amendments to come to the floor for full and robust debate. Now, the amendments that were made in order, 67 percent of them, are Democratic amendments; 14 percent are Republican. We don't think that is a fair, remotely fair ratio. And frankly, the en bloc arrangements in which we are going to bring many of these to the floor are even more imbalanced; basically 63 percent of those will be on Democratic initiatives; I think two are on Republican initiatives. So we are very concerned about that. I think if we don't stop this process, we are about to make the mistake that we made 2 weeks ago. Now, the Senate has given us, as it did 2 weeks ago, a different example. They have passed a national defense authorization by a vote of 86-8, so overwhelmingly bipartisan. The President has said he would sign their bill. The President sent us a message that the partisan bill that we are embarking on and about to pass he will not sign; so we are headed for a confrontation. It is a confrontation where we will produce a partisan bill that the President won't sign. The Senate will produce a bipartisan bill that the President will sign, and I think we know how that story ends. So we are dangerously close to repeating the mistake we made only 2 weeks ago, and I would hope that we stop, because if we proceed down this path, we will find ourselves in precisely the same situation we found ourselves in with the border wall. Now, I also want to take issue with my friend a little bit about the 9/11 issue and our friend Mr. Wilson's bill and my good friend in the chair's bill, as well. I just want to say, putting a bill, those things that are bipartisan, in a rule, it just literally means that our side is not going to vote for it. It would be the same if it were your side. You can say all you want. It was going to pass no matter what. So we don't think this was necessary.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the additional time, and I will be brief. So it is with a great deal of sorrow--not sorrow that I oppose the rule, because I think the rule needs to be much more open, much more inclusive, but I hope that we can get back, Mr. Speaker--and by rejecting this rule and rejecting the underlying legislation, we can-- to a bipartisan process where we produce a bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule and rejection of the underlying legislation.