Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern).

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 immediately to bring up H.R. 3056 for consideration under an open rule. The bill provides $4.5 billion of funding to address the immediate humanitarian crisis on the southern border. This is a crisis of significant proportions, Mr. Speaker. Our facilities for holding new arrivals, particularly children and the vulnerable unaccompanied minors, are already at the breaking point. Simply put, we need more resources, and we need them today. This is not the first time we have needed to provide supplemental appropriations for this purpose. Back in 2014, then-President Barack Obama asked us for $3.7 billion in supplemental resources for precisely the same purpose. He got it. At the time, we had 60,000 unaccompanied minors who arrived in 2014. We face a similar and, frankly, larger humanitarian crisis today. President Obama was right to request supplemental funds to deal with the crisis then. We would be right to appropriate supplemental funds to address that similar crisis now. 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, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hadn't had this in the opening, but I want to disagree with my friend right off the top. The President of the United States does not work for the Congress of the United States. He works for the American people, and he heads up a branch of government that is a coequal branch of government. So, on that, we will have a long discussion. Mr. Speaker, it has been a very eventful week in the Rules Committee, and it is only Tuesday. Last night, the committee met and reported out a rule that covers two drastically different measures. H.R. 2740 is an appropriations package that covered first 5 and then 4 of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2020. We also considered H. Res. 430, a resolution that gives authority to the Office of the General Counsel of the House of Representatives to seek to enforce certain subpoenas for documents through litigation. Shortly after we finish here, the committee will again convene to consider the remainder of the appropriations package, which will be on the floor as part of a separate rule tomorrow. Meanwhile, our Members will attempt the miracle of being in two places at once as we continue to debate H. Res. 430, which falls into our original jurisdiction here on the floor. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 430 comes from a dispute over documents relating to the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. The dispute also stems from the inherent oversight authority of Congress and our ability to perform oversight functions over the executive branch. It falls into the fuzzy boundaries between the branches of governments as to when and how we may compel the executive branch to turn over documents to the legislative branch. I lay out that framework because there is an important point here that is being lost. The Democratic majority clearly wants to make this dispute entirely about this President, this Attorney General, this White House counsel, this investigation, this subpoena of documents. The Democrats want to focus attention there because they think it helps them politically to do so. But this dispute really shouldn't be about just that. It should, rather, be about the difficult and thorny questions that emerge in a system like ours with three branches of government with checks and balances. In a sense, what the majority is seeking to do here today is completely unprecedented, both in its intent and in its execution. Consider the only other times the House has filed a lawsuit to seek to enforce a subpoena for documents. It has happened twice before, Mr. Speaker, once in 2007, to seek documents from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, and again in 2012, to seek documents from then- Attorney General Eric Holder as a result of the congressional investigation into the Fast and Furious scandal. In both of these cases, the House had already voted to hold both Miers and Holder in contempt of Congress before filing suit, which has not yet happened in this case. In the Miers case, 138 days elapsed from the first document request to the Judiciary Committee voting to hold her in contempt. In the Holder case, it was significantly longer, in that 464 days elapsed from the first document request to the committee voting to hold him in contempt. That was well over a year. Here, the majority is forcing us to rush forward at a much faster pace. Just 44 days elapsed from the date of the first document request to the Attorney General until the Judiciary Committee voted to hold him in contempt. James Holzhauer has been champion of ``Jeopardy!'' for longer than that. I don't understand the majority's haste here. Without exhausting all other options--continuing negotiation, discussion, compromise, and turning to a vote on contempt as the last resort--the majority is, instead, pushing this forward into litigation with the executive branch. In doing so, they may well be placing the House in a position that causes significant long-term damage to the institution. When this matter goes before the courts, it will do so as a case of first impression and under an untested legal theory. In both the Miers and Holder cases, the House previously voted to hold those two individuals in contempt of Congress. Nothing like that has been done here. Using untested tactics like this could set a dangerous precedent that harms us all, Republicans and Democrats, in the long run. Finally, I would also note that it is not clear what this resolution will ultimately accomplish. Since the House has not yet exercised all the tools in its tool kit, and since it is not clear that the negotiations with the Justice Department and the White House over the documents at issue are at an end, this whole thing may be nothing more than sound and fury. Indeed, given how quickly the majority is rushing into things, it seems unlikely that the only course of action left in the House is to file a lawsuit. I strongly urge the majority to continue working with the Justice Department and the White House to find a resolution to these issues without resorting to knee-jerk lawsuits that may ultimately damage the House as an institution. Today, we are also beginning consideration of H.R. 2740, an appropriations package covering 5 of 12 appropriations bills: Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education; Legislative Branch; Defense; State and Foreign Operations; and Energy and Water Development. These five bills cover over 70 percent of our total discretionary spending for fiscal year 2020. To be precise, Mr. Speaker, we were to do five bills. At the last moment, the majority pulled the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. I will let them explain why at their leisure. As a longtime member of the Appropriations Committee, I am pleased that we are beginning to move the appropriations bills to the floor. Unfortunately, the bills before us have numerous flaws, most notably that they are marked to allocation levels that aren't realistic. As we move forward through the appropriations process, I think we need to be clear about the challenges we face this year. At the end of September, fiscal year 2019 expires, and sequestration cuts contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011 will automatically take effect for fiscal year 2020. In order to prevent that, we need to come to a bipartisan, bicameral budget deal that the House, the Senate, and the President can all agree on. If we don't, then it doesn't really matter what fake number the House marks to. Sequestration will hit, and our defense budget will automatically be slashed by 11 percent and our nondefense budget by 9 percent below the allocations of 2019. The spending levels in these appropriations bills are not just ambitious; they are unrealistic. Not only are the funding levels for many of these bills too high, so high that the Senate and the President will never agree to them, but the allocations the Appropriations Committee used reflect the misguided notion that any increase in defense spending must be matched by an increase in nondefense spending that is more than twice as high. That is simply not a realistic assessment of our national priorities or the fiscal limitations imposed on us by our rising national debt. The defense provision of this bill, for example, comes in at $8 billion less than the President told us was needed to adequately fund the military, maintain readiness, and be prepared to confront international threats. After years of severe underfunding of our Armed Forces and at a time when threats are emerging everywhere around the globe, spending less than the administration asks for on defense in order to push more money into domestic programs is not a wise course of action. I am disappointed that the majority chose to strip out pro-life provisions that have been carried in appropriations bills for years. Instead, they added controversial pro-abortion riders that virtually guarantee no Republican support whatsoever for this package. As the former chair and current ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am familiar with the need for compromise on that particular piece of legislation. But by pushing forward with blatantly partisan riders like these, the majority is guaranteeing the outcome of these bills: dead on arrival in a Republican-led Senate and no chance of getting a Republican President's signature. In the coming months, I hope we work through these problems, as we did last year, frankly. If the majority intends to move forward with unrealistic spending levels and insists on maintaining partisan riders, then we are simply guaranteeing a failed appropriations process. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, our failure has consequences. A best- case scenario is a yearlong continuing resolution that funds the government at the exact same level as the current year. That is the best scenario if we fail. The worst-case scenario is another government shutdown or sequestration that automatically cuts all government funding levels. Neither of these is a good outcome for the House as an institution, for the Federal Government, or more importantly, for the American people. Mr. Speaker, although I cannot support either bill before us today, I am hopeful that, eventually, we will reach a bipartisan, bicameral compromise on spending that the vast majority of Members in this House can support. That requires realistic funding levels and elimination of partisan riders from this package. The spending package before us today may be a worthy starting point, but it will take hard work and compromise to move the final bill that can become law. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this supplemental appropriation covering numerous disasters. Communities hit by hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, and other natural disasters have been waiting too long for this needed relief. Over 40 States will be able to receive long-needed funding provided by this bill. The bill provides critical aid to help farmers and ranchers recover from losses to crops and livestock. Funding for cities and schools that have had their infrastructure damaged by natural disasters will be able to begin necessary repairs to buildings. The bill includes $50 million for the Department of Labor's dislocated worker national reserve. This funding will go to States to create temporary employment opportunities to assist with cleanup and recovery efforts for areas impacted by a disaster. The bill includes over $300 million for the Department of Health and Human Services, and $80 million is provided to support community health centers for construction, equipment, and healthcare services for low- income populations. The bill provides $20 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess and mitigate environmental hazards, and $100 million is targeted to mental health and substance use services, helping people rebuild and recover. The bill includes $30 million for childcare services and over $50 million to repair damaged Head Start facilities. The bill includes $25 million for the community services block grant, flexible funding that supports a range of social services for vulnerable populations. The Department of Education receives $165 million to help restart operations at elementary and secondary schools and colleges and universities in areas damaged by natural disasters. This funding will also support school districts and colleges and universities outside of the affected areas receiving students displaced by the storms and other covered disasters. Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't mention what is not in this bill, and that is more than $4 billion to deal with the intolerable situation at the southern border. This money has been requested by the administration. Most of that money is to take care of the unprecedented influx of unaccompanied minors. Our Democratic friends claim they care about these young people, but they fail to provide the funds needed that are required to feed, house, and provide medical care to this population. This is something that we need to look at and, frankly, deal with immediately. As past chairman and now ranking member for the subcommittee that looks after the Department of Health and Human Services, I can tell you they are on the verge of running out of money, and we are going to have a real disaster with young people that I know none of us wants. So I want to urge my friends to turn their attention to that urgent matter and work with the administration on it. I urge passage of the legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished ranking member, for yielding time. I want to thank both my friends, the chairman and the ranking member, for their help in bringing this legislation to the floor. It could not have happened without both of their assistance. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 375, legislation that would amend the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian Tribes. Between the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887 and the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, the Indian landmass in the United States shrank by 86 million acres. Since the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act, the Department of the Interior has taken back approximately 9 million acres of land into trust status. Tribes have used their trust lands to build community facilities such as schools, health centers, and housing that serve their Tribal members. This land is also used for Tribal enterprises and promotes economic development in communities that are often underserved and poverty-stricken. In 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned long- existing precedent in its decision on the Carcieri v. Salazar case. The Supreme Court ruled specifically that the Secretary's authority to hold land in trust under the Indian Reorganization Act was limited only to recognized Tribes ``now under Federal jurisdiction,'' with the word ``now'' meaning June 18, 1934, the date of the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act. Previously, lower courts have viewed the word ``now'' as the instant when the Secretary invoked trust acquisition authority. However, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling on the interpretation that the term ``now under Federal jurisdiction'' in section 19 of the Indian Reorganization Act was to be interpreted. It found that the phrase refers only to those Tribes that were under Federal jurisdiction of the United States when the Indian Reorganization Act was enacted in 1934. As a result of the Carcieri decision, the Secretary of the Interior may no longer use the Indian Reorganization Act to acquire trust land for any post-1934 Tribe without specific authorization from Congress. Because the Secretary has acquired lands in trust for dozens of Tribes recognized after 1934, the Carcieri ruling calls into question the validity of the trust status of such lands and jeopardizes their immunity from State and local taxation and regulatory jurisdiction. Many Tribes have been forced into court to defend the status of their trust land, costing them millions of dollars and compromising their investments and jurisdiction. H.R. 375 would amend the Indian Reorganization Act and clarify the language the Supreme Court ruled against by striking ``the term,'' which I have previously referenced, and inserting the words ``effective beginning on June 18, 1934, the term.'' It would also amend the statute language from ``any recognized Indian Tribe now under Federal jurisdiction'' to ``any federally recognized Indian Tribe.'' The modest changes clarify that the Secretary does have authority to take land into trust for any Tribe that the Federal Government has recognized. As a member of the Chickasaw Nation and co-chair of the Native American Caucus, I commend the Natural Resources Committee for favorably marking up this legislation and this body for moving forward with the passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 375.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. It is a very generous gesture when we have a different point of view on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act. Mashpee Wampanoag people have lived in the Massachusetts area for thousands of years. In fact, our shared Thanksgiving tradition highlights a celebration of Pilgrims and Indians breaking bread together over the first colonial holiday, and it is the Mashpee who sat at the table. In 2007, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe was federally recognized. Mr. Speaker, 8 years later, the Bureau of Indian Affairs approved the decision to take land into trust on behalf of the Mashpee for a reservation. The Tribe was then able to provide services directly to its citizens, become eligible for Federal programs, and explore economic opportunities. Shortly after, in 2016, the Mashpee's reservation decision was challenged in court by plaintiffs stating that, because the Tribe was federally recognized after 1934, the Department of the Interior could not take land into trust on behalf of a Tribe. This decision stems from the 2009 Supreme Court decision, Carcieri v. Salazar. It is an example of why that law needs to be fixed. In 2018, the administration issued a decision that would take the Mashpees' reservation out of trust. This marked the first time since the termination era that a Tribe has lost their trust land. Frankly, from my standpoint, Mr. Speaker, an attack on trust land anywhere threatens trust land everywhere, so I am very happy to be working with my good friend, Mr. Keating, on H.R. 312. It is a bipartisan bill, and it is necessary. It will reaffirm the trust status of the Mashpee reservation. The local elected officials with jurisdiction over the land are supportive of the bill, as is the State's entire congressional delegation, as is the Republican Governor of the State. Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote on this bill will right a wrong. It is a vote for local control. It is a vote for Tribal sovereignty, and it brings the Mashpee land back into trust. It marks another important step in our shared American journey. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. COLE

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

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to urge opposition to the rule. The majority has proposed three different measures today, and while I am a supporter of the bill concerning Tribal rights, I am opposed to H.R. 5 and H.R. 987, and I regret that. Quite frankly, had the process on these bills been different, I think the vote that we would see in this Chamber would be very different today. I think, literally, a more fulsome and more open process and amendments on H.R. 5 might have unlocked dozens of additional votes for that legislation. I think with H.R. 987 we don't have to speculate. We know three of those bills passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee with unanimous, bipartisan support, all of them dealing with drug prices. That would have been an easy vote. We could have moved that through. My friends could have still brought the other four matters that they cared about under a rule, brought it to the floor. They have got the votes to move it. It would have precisely the same prospects of success it is going to have in the United States Senate. The President has already made it clear, since he issued a statement, that he is very likely to veto it if it were to make it to his desk. So why in the world we threw away an opportunity to do some good for the American people in an area where we agree, in order to advance something that we know cannot become law, is mystifying to me, to say the least. Again, H.R. 5 is well-intentioned and designed to expand civil rights, but it also adds a term with no clear definition to our civil rights laws without regard for how it will work in practice. H.R. 987 has four bills that are unacceptable, three bills that are eminently acceptable. I do want to close though on a positive note. Madam Speaker, I do applaud my friends for bringing the Native American issue to fruition today. I am going to be opposing them on the rule but supporting them on that legislation. I think it was a very wise decision to put it under a rule, quite frankly, and I applaud my good friend Chairman Grijalva for working with my good friend Chairman McGovern and making sure that that happened. This important piece of legislation, which, quite frankly, is important not just to the Tribe in question, but establishes the principle that we won't let land going into trust be taken out of trust, is very important. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. We, Madam Speaker, are here today on three very different pieces of legislation, which, unfortunately, makes this a complicated rule. One of our bills concerns civil rights, one concerns healthcare, and one concerns Native Americans. I will move through each of these bills relatively quickly, and then I want to address the process we followed to get here today. The first bill, Madam Speaker, H.R. 5, is a complicated and complex piece of legislation that would make sweeping changes to our Nation's civil rights laws, if enacted. In general, the bill adds the terms ``sexual orientation'' and ``gender identity'' to the list of protected classes under the Civil Rights Act, joining classes like race, gender, religion, and national origin. As I noted in our hearing yesterday, most Republicans in the House will oppose this bill not because we do not believe that all people should receive equal treatment under the law but because we have real concerns about how this bill will work in practice. A term like ``gender identity'' has such a vague definition that even proponents of the bill do not agree on exactly what the term means. That should cause legislators to be especially thoughtful and provide clarity about what the term means and how the law will be applied. But we have not done so here. Republicans have raised numerous questions about how this bill will work in practice. Will female athletes in junior high, high school, and college be forced to compete in women's athletics against competitors who were born biologically male? Will female sexual assault victims be forced to share vulnerable same-sex spaces like locker rooms and dressing rooms with other individuals who were born biologically male? And since the legislation appears to allow people to define their own gender identity, will it allow people to shift back and forth between gender as it suits them? These are not rhetorical questions. They are real concerns that we have raised, with good reason, throughout the process. H.R. 5 is known as the Equality Act, and I know every Member of the House, Republican and Democrat, agrees with the principle that all people should be treated equally under the law. But even as we strive toward that goal, when we are dealing with legislation of this magnitude, we must consider how the bill will work in practice. Unfortunately, I don't think my friends in the majority have clear answers to very legitimate questions. Last night, during debate at the Rules Committee, our concerns were dismissed as we were told that the courts and administrative bureaucrats would sort out these unanswered issues. That is simply unacceptable. Why would we want any ambiguity when it comes to a person's civil rights? We should be very clear about congressional intent, and the only way to do that is to write a law the way you intend for it to be carried out. Sadly, this bill falls well short of that certainty. The second bill, H.R. 987, is actually seven bills: three genuinely bipartisan bills addressing prescription drug costs and four partisan and controversial bills addressing ObamaCare. As I pointed out last night in our hearing, I don't particularly understand what the majority is trying to accomplish here. There are three bills that are all bipartisan that could easily progress to becoming law. I am even a cosponsor of one of those bills. Yet, I have to vote against the entire package because I do not support the partisan and controversial bills attached by Democrats. Madam Speaker, at some point, the majority needs to decide if they are here to score political points or if they are here to govern. If they want to continue scoring rhetorical victories, then by all means, they should keep doing what they are doing, keep putting up partisan bills that won't go anywhere in the Senate and won't be signed into law, keep putting up messaging bills for the purpose of signaling to their primary voters, and keep spending their days engaged in show votes that won't ever improve the lives of those they were elected to represent. If they want to govern for the American people, then the majority must move forward with real legislation that can get real support here, in the Senate, and at the White House. We had the chance to do that with this package. The majority chose not to do so. I think that is a real missed opportunity for us, both as an institution and as a country. Finally, the third bill, H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act, is a matter I want to discuss at some length because I think there has been, frankly, a lot of misinformation put out about this particular piece of legislation. The Mashpee Wampanoag is a federally recognized Tribe based in Mashpee, Massachusetts. H.R. 312 would simply reaffirm the taking of land into trust for the benefit of this Tribe. When the Federal Government takes land into trust for a Tribe, it is reserving that land for the benefit of the Tribe and Tribal members both now and into the future. It ensures that the Tribes have a home, that they have a stable place to build communities and to marshal their resources and conduct business. It ensures that the land that was promised to Tribes, and that was held by those Tribes, in many cases for many centuries, remains in Tribal hands. Holding land in trust is a commitment made to Tribes by the Federal Government. It affirms Tribes will continue to be able to exercise sovereignty over their own land. That is really all this issue is about today, whether or not the Mashpee Wampanoag will be able to exercise their own sovereignty over their own land. Unfortunately, some who oppose this bill are doing so because they are viewing this issue through a purely political lens rather than what our own Constitution says about Tribal sovereignty. This isn't a bill about a particular use for the land, and it isn't a bill about particular Members of this institution or the Senate. Instead, this is a bill about keeping Federal promises to Tribes. Our country hasn't always kept those promises, and we have an opportunity today to step up and make clear that regardless of what happened in the past, today, the Federal Government keeps its promises to Tribes, no ifs, ands, or buts. Before I close, I would like to make a couple of points about the process this week, particularly on the Equality Act and the healthcare issue. On the Equality Act, 35 amendments were proposed. I thought that many, if not most, of these should have been considered on the floor. Yet, in the final rule, not one amendment was made in order, and we are considering this bill under a closed rule. The majority is choosing not to make in order many amendments that deserve our consideration on the floor, like Ms. Holmes Norton's amendment to clarify that Washington, D.C., residents cannot be excluded or disqualified from jury service based on sexual orientation or gender identity, or the bipartisan amendment that would restore the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to this bill, or Representative Johnson's commonsense amendment clarifying that nothing in the act should be construed as to deny parents the right to be involved in their minor child's medical care. These are all deserving amendments that should have been heard on the floor, and yet the majority chose to make precisely none in order. On H.R. 987, the majority went in a different direction. In total, 51 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, and 15 of those were sponsored by Republicans. Yet with today's rule, 27 amendments were made in order, but just one amendment was made in order that was sponsored by a Republican, along with one bipartisan manager's amendment--one out of 15. All the remaining amendments, 92 percent of those made in order, were sponsored solely by Democrats. Madam Speaker, I think we can do better than that. Last week, I reminded the House that when my party was in charge of the last Congress, we went out of our way to make minority and bipartisan amendments in order. Forty-five percent of all amendments made in order in the last Congress were sponsored solely by Democrats, while a further 17 percent were bipartisan. As of today's rule, the stats are looking much worse for the current majority. Seventy-three percent of all amendments made in order were solely sponsored by Democrats through May 14. Thirteen percent are bipartisan. Just 14 percent were sponsored by Republicans. We had an opportunity today, particularly on H.R. 5 and H.R. 987, to take steps toward remedying this issue. I must continue to encourage my good friend, and he is my good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, to work with us to make more bipartisan and minority amendments in order and to ensure that all Members, regardless of party, have an opportunity to be heard on the floor, as he has often promised. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to inform the House 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. This bill includes four titles, three of which passed the House last Congress, and one of which has already passed the House this Congress on suspension. My amendment will also include three additional provisions agreed to by the Senate when they considered their version of this bill, so that what we will debate will be identical to what the Senate passed with an overwhelming majority vote in February. The most critical title of H.R. 336, in my opinion, 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, disbursements, or sanctions to influence Israel's policy. Madam Speaker, yesterday was the 71st anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. I can think of no better way to celebrate Israel's independence, reaffirm our support for Israel, and indicate our ongoing commitment to a peaceful and more secure Middle East than to consider and pass H.R. 336 immediately. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for just a few minutes to respond to my good friend, the chairman. I want to tell you, there is nobody I hold in higher regard in the House of Representatives than Chairman McGovern, nobody I consider a better personal friend, nobody I consider a more responsible Member. On this, we disagree. The gentleman is right, neither side is perfect. In this case, we are going to bring attention to this amendment issue until we see results. That is precisely what my friend did when he was in the minority, and there are some times we should have listened to him and we did not. In this case, I think the imbalance is so egregious that we are going to continue to make that case until we see a change. Maybe we won't. Hopefully we will, because I know my friend approaches this with good intentions. Secondly, I would say this bill was so important, the Equality Act, it ought to have amendments. That is the point. That is how you build consensus. I think they are missing the opportunity to get a lot of people who would support the basic concept that they are trying to advance. And, finally, on the drug bill, I have just got to be honest with you. When they had a chance to pass something that would work and chose to bundle it with something that they knew couldn't pass, that makes me wonder how serious they are about dealing with that problem. But, hopefully, we will get an opportunity to deal with that again. And that is an area we know we can work together on. We have proved it in committee. So, with that, I look forward to continuing to work with my good friend, the chairman. I know that we will occasionally have differences. That is what this is all about. We will work those differences out. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my very good friend, who also is a distinguished member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself a few seconds to respond to my friend from Pennsylvania. We don't consider the markup in committee a very good markup. Only four amendments were considered, none were accepted, and, frankly, a number of Members seeking recognition for amendments were not recognized. So to think that this was anything other a train moving through a station, I think, is to mischaracterize how that particular markup worked. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, fellow member of the Rules Committee, and also a leading member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Missouri.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, Mrs. Lesko, for yielding. Well, we are here again, Madam Speaker, on yet another bill that isn't going to pass the Senate, isn't going to become law, and doesn't really do anything. As they have done over and over again over the past few months, my Democratic friends seem content to bring up virtue-signaling messaging bills as a substitute for passing real bipartisan legislation to solve problems facing the American people. Today's bill purports to force the President to return the United States to the Paris Agreement on climate change, never mind that he hasn't actually pulled the United States from that agreement yet, nor can he until the day after the next Presidential election in 2020. But on that day, to be fair, I think he will. Ineffective though it may be, the bill does nothing to address the serious fundamental flaws in the Paris Agreement, nor does it offer any substantial legislation to consider the problem of our own changing climate. Instead, like many other bills the majority has offered in Congress, today's legislation is all talk, no action. It is simply another messaging bill to allow the majority to go on record in opposition to President Trump. That is not legislating. Madam Speaker, it didn't have to be this way. We had an opportunity to improve this bill both at the committees of jurisdiction and again at the Rules Committee this week, and we could have made the bill better if we had made more amendments from both sides of the aisle in order for consideration on the floor. Legislating is better and more effective when all Members can have their ideas considered before final passage. Making more amendments in order is a pledge that we have heard time and time again from my good friend and my good chairman, Mr. McGovern, so it is unfortunate that this rule misses a perfect opportunity to have robust debate on ideas from both sides of the aisle. At the Rules Committee Monday night, 91 amendments were proposed and considered. Of those, 45 were proposed by Democrats, 44 by Republicans, and 2 were bipartisan. Of the 44 Republican amendments, 35 had no points of order against them or any parliamentary issues, yet when the final rule was proposed and passed out of committee, it made in order 30 amendments: 1 bipartisan amendment, 26 Democratic amendments, and just 3 Republican amendments. Is that really how the majority wants to operate going forward, 58 percent of the Democratic amendments allowed to come to the floor, but just 6 percent of the Republican amendments and just 8 percent without points of order? That is an abysmal result. For example, my good friend Rodney Davis of Illinois proposed an amendment that simply would have noted that the 2018 farm bill is relevant to achieving the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and would have required the President to add the Committee on Agriculture to any reports he sends on this topic to the Foreign Affairs and Energy and Commerce Committees. This is a commonsense amendment that takes into account the role agriculture can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, yet the amendment was blocked from consideration on the floor. What is the harm, I ask, in debating that amendment here on the floor and bringing our Nation's farmers into the discussion? Dr. Burgess, my fellow member of the Rules Committee and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, submitted two amendments that required the President to consider how carbon emission-free nuclear power and other forms of renewable energy with zero emissions, like hydropower, could contribute to meeting the United States' obligation under the Paris Agreement. It seems logical to me that, when you are seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, using energy sources that are emission-free makes sense, yet the majority didn't even want to discuss that on the floor and blocked both of Dr. Burgess' amendments. What harm was there in discussing them? I could go on and on, but the reality is that the majority has used its power at the Rules Committee to block consideration of dozens of amendments that could have and should have been discussed on the floor. When the Democrats took majority control in the House, they promised a more inclusive process with more minority voices heard, more Republican amendments considered.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me additional time. When the Democrats took majority control of the House, they promised a more inclusive process, more minority voices heard, more Republican amendments considered. If today's action is any indication, we have a long way to go in making that promise a reality. Instead, we are moving forward with a deeply flawed bill that could and should have been improved through the amendment process. I have been a member of the Rules Committee for a long time, including many years in the majority. It is fair to ask: How did we do when we were in the majority? Let's look at the record. In the 115th Congress, under Republican control of the Rules Committee, 45 percent of the amendments made in order were Democratic, 38 percent were Republican, 17 percent were bipartisan. The statistics for today's rule is a far cry from the fairness of that record. If the majority truly wants to address the environment and wants to legislate, then we can all certainly do better than the bill before us today, and we can do better than the process we saw with this bill. All Members should have an opportunity to be heard, and we should all have an opportunity to make the bill better today. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, a member of the Budget Committee, for yielding, and my colleague on the Rules Committee. I rise to oppose the rule and oppose the underlying legislation. Now, I oppose the rule because it is not really a rule at all. It is really legislation masking as a rule. Buried in this rule is a measure that will, what we call self- execute, but deem what the budget is going to be. In other words, our friends are telling us: We may not have the votes, even though we have a substantial majority, to pass our own caps bill. But just in case, the rule vote, which is a partisan vote, we are going to put it in here. Now, that doesn't speak to a high degree of confidence that my friends will have the votes, which they should have, on their caps deal. I would argue it is technically legal, but it is not a very seemly practice to actually express your distrust of your own majority that directly. Second, let's talk a little bit about the underlying legislation. There is a lot here I don't agree with, but I want to focus on one thing in particular, Mr. Speaker, and that is the ``budget'' itself, because it is not a budget. It is a caps bill. It is not even a caps deal. It hasn't been negotiated with the Senate. It hasn't been negotiated with the administration. It is an arbitrary number. It has no chance of becoming law. There is no way a Republican Senate will have double the amount of increase for domestic programs as it has for defense. It is just not going to happen. So, now, the Appropriations Committee--and I am always happy to have numbers as an appropriator--will now move on down with a set of numbers that we know will not survive negotiations with the Senate or with the President. So we are going to mark up a lot of bills, but they are going to be the numbers that are a fantasy. Finally, in this caps deal, we ought to point out, our own rules require the majority to present a budget. We couldn't even get a budget out of the Democratic Budget Committee. Now, that is a failure to govern. The Speaker, herself, said on one occasion: Show me your budget, and I will show you your values. It suggests that you don't want to show the American people your values, because you certainly aren't showing us a budget in this legislation. So the rule, frankly, is a backdoor way to enact some sort of caps legislation, caps legislation that will not be accepted by the Senate, that will not be accepted by the President of the United States. The underlying legislation doesn't have a budget, which our own rules require that it have. It has a mere statement of spending levels that, again, are not going to be accepted by the other Chamber or by the President of the United States. And, finally, our friends have abdicated their most important responsibility, which is showing the American people their view and their vision of what the budget ought to shape. The rule ought to be rejected; the underlying legislation ought to be rejected; and our friends ought to challenge themselves to bring us a budget that they can support, that they can put in front of the American people.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Arizona for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule, and to offer conditional support for the underlying legislation, H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019. I oppose the rule simply because my friends didn't make in order quite a number of proposals that we had that we think ought to be debated on today, but in fairness, I want to thank Chairman McGovern for making in order quite a few amendments that related particularly to VAWA in Indian Country, and I look forward to supporting those amendments. I have always tried to consider legislation within its full context and look at the overall benefit of the bill, and I will certainly do the same with respect to VAWA. Certainly there are provisions in this version of the reauthorization with which I profoundly disagree. Those are particularly related to the Second Amendment; this includes a misguided provision to strip someone of the right to possess a firearm following a misdemeanor conviction. Frankly, I hope and expect that these provisions will change as the bill progresses through the legislative process. To enact VAWA, to actually achieve the objective, my friends are going to have to do something they haven't done so far: that is actually compromise. They will have to compromise with a Republican Senate and a Republican President, or this important legislation will not come into law. However, there are compelling things about this legislation, and I believe them particularly to be consistent with my own views and my own voting record on Tribal sovereignty and protection of native women, and I want to be supportive where I can be. In 2013, Congress authorized the Tribal Court's jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders that are arrested for committing domestic violence or assault against women Tribal members on Indian lands. The legislation we are considering today expands this jurisdiction to include not only women, but also Tribal children. Further, it extends critical protection to Tribal police officers. There are several important amendments that will be debated related to Indian Country, and I urge the adoption of all of them. I support the right of Tribes to enact their own definition of domestic and sexual violence, rather than replacing it with the Federal Government's definitions. States already have this flexibility; Tribes should as well. In addition, I also believe Tribal law enforcement should have the authority to have access to the National Crime Information Systems. Mr. Speaker, more than four out of five American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced violence in their lifetime. More than half of the American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced sexual violence in their lifetime. American Indian and Alaska Native women are almost twice as likely as White women to have experienced violence in the past year. Native women face murder rates more than ten times the national average in some parts of the country. They are also more than twice as likely to have experienced rape than non-Hispanic white women over the course of a lifetime. Given these statistics of acts of violence, 96 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native women who are victims of sexual violence experience violence at the hands of non-native perpetrators. To reiterate, nearly all the violence committed against native women is committed by non-natives. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the protection of all women and children is or should be treated as a partisan issue. Tribal governments, through trust and treaty obligations, should have the same authority as States to protect women and children in vulnerable situations. All States, Tribal, and local law enforcement authorities should have access to the use of the same tools to prevent these crimes on or off reservations. As I have said before, hunters know where to hunt, fishermen know where to fish, and predators know where to prey. The passage of a reformed Violence Against Women Act gives Tribes badly needed tools to combat the epidemic of violence and abuse in Indian Country. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of the House of Representatives to work together in a bipartisan manner to create, in the end, a bill that can pass both chambers and be enacted into law.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we had quite the debate on this bill in the Rules Committee last night, and I expect the debate on the floor today will be along similar lines. Today's bill is H.R. 1, which my friends on the other side of the aisle are calling by the misnomer ``For the People Act.'' Unfortunately, this bill is completely misnamed. It is not for the people. It is, instead, for the Democratic majority, by the Democratic majority, in hopes of maintaining the Democratic majority for many years to come. Every provision in this bill reflects that goal. That began with the process the majority used to put this bill together. H.R. 1 was referred to 10 different committees, yet only one, House Administration, held a markup. My friends hold a 2-to-1 advantage on that committee. There are only three Republicans who can participate. Later, we will be hearing from some of the Republican ranking members of these committees, each of whom will talk about provisions that they had hoped to address, had their respective committees marked up the bill. This failure to allow other committees with jurisdiction to mark up the bill reinforces the desire of the majority to push this bill through as quickly as possible without any additional consideration. Without further hearings and markups, it is all too easy for the majority to sweep the bill's flaws under the rug and pass it quickly without allowing the American people to see what they are up to. This bill would be more aptly named the ``For the Politicians Act'' or ``Welfare for Politicians Act.'' It reinforces the idea that the majority cares only about passing a bill that will lead to more Democrats in the House of Representatives. We do not have time today to go over every provision in this bill, but for now, I will take a moment to point out some of the bigger flaws in this product. First, H.R. 1 takes taxpayer dollars and uses them to create a special piggy bank for campaigns. That is right, Democrats want to use taxpayer dollars of the American people to finance their political campaigns. H.R. 1 creates a matching program for small-dollar campaign contributions, thereby shifting taxpayer dollars to politicians to run their campaigns. In essence, Democrats are demanding that your tax dollars be used to subsidize and fund political candidates. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, since 2000, total spending on Federal elections has exploded, going from $2.7 billion that cycle to $6.4 billion in 2016. With so much money being raised from private sources, one wonders why the majority wants to waste taxpayer dollars adding even more money into campaigns. Second, H.R. 1 completely takes over elections, removing authority from States and local election boards and giving it to Washington, D.C. Currently, States have the authority to determine how they want to structure their own elections, including voter registration, timing, and even redistricting. But all that goes away under H.R. 1. States would no longer be able to set voter registration requirements, nor hold elections where and how often they want, nor reapportion voters into appropriate districts. Instead, under H.R. 1, Washington, D.C., takes over all these functions. I doubt any secretary of state or supervisor of elections in America supports this federalization of the election process. In fact, last night in the Rules Committee meeting, Mr. Speaker, I entered into the record a letter from the Oklahoma State Election Board opposing H.R. 1 on precisely these grounds. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record that letter again today. Oklahoma State Election Board, Oklahoma City, OK, March 4, 2019. Re Election Administration Provisions of H.R. 1. Hon. Tom Cole, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Cole: As Oklahoma's chief state election official, I am very proud of Oklahoma's election system. Our state has one of the most effective and efficient election systems in the world. It is uniform, it is fair, it is secure, it is accurate and it is fast. As the House of Representatives prepares to consider H.R. 1, I want to take a moment to express some concerns about several of its provisions related to election administration. While I believe H.R. 1 to be well-intentioned by its sponsors, its ``one-size-fits-all'' requirements for state election systems would require Oklahoma to make extensive changes to the way we run elections. I am concerned that some of H.R. 1's mandates could negatively impact the very things Oklahoma's election system does so well. Based on my review of H.R. 1, here is a list of my top concerns. ``Voting by Mail'': To combat Oklahoma's past history of absentee ballot fraud, several decades ago the Oklahoma Legislature enacted legislation requiring most voters to have their identity confirmed by a notary public when voting by absentee ballot. Oklahoma law also requires absentee ballots to be received by the county election board no later than 7:00 p.m. on Election Day. These procedures help prevent fraud and enable county election boards to have 100% of absentee ballots counted on election night. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 seems to do away with these safeguards and efficiencies, instead requiring county election boards to (1) accept signed affidavits in lieu of notarized ones and (2) to accept an absentee ballot postmarked on Election Day. H.R. 1's mandates would prevent Oklahoma from counting all absentee ballots by Election Day, would require the counting of absentee ballots to continue for days or weeks after an election, and would take away a critical security feature of our election system. ``Early voting'': In Oklahoma, county election boards typically have a very small staff. (Many have only the secretary and one assistant.) For federal and state elections, Oklahoma currently allows ``early voting'' on the Thursday, Friday and Saturday prior to Election Day. Most counties have a single early voting site, but several have two sites. Even with the assistance of absentee voting boards paid for by the State Election Board, most counties barely have enough budget and staff to successfully conduct early voting on the three days currently required. H.R. 1's requirement for FIFTEEN CONSECUTIVE DAYS of early voting is simply not feasible given the small budgets and staffing levels of the 77 county election boards. This would make it virtually impossible for county election board staff to perform their other critical duties (e.g., processing mail absentee ballots, processing voter registration applications, and preparing supplies for precinct workers) if they are instead conducting early voting during this time. ``Same Day Voter Registration'': Oklahoma has a very reasonable deadline for voter registration (applications must be submitted by the 24th day prior to an election). H.R. 1 requires county election boards to conduct voter registration during ``early'' voting periods and on Election Day. This mandate is not currently feasible with the current funding and staffing levels of county election boards. The logistics of predicting how many ballots to print and how many precinct officials to assign to polling places, with the number of potential voters unknown, would be extremely difficult and inefficient. Same day voter registration increases the risk that due to error or fraud an ineligible person is allowed to register and vote. ``Provisional ballots'': Oklahoma has a county-based election system. While Oklahoma uses the same voting system statewide, for security reasons each county's system is siloed and does not directly interact with other counties' systems. (For example, one county cannot print or count another county's ballot.) Oklahoma law requires a voter to vote in the assigned polling place in the county where the voter is registered. Provisional ballots are issued for a variety of reasons, and, if eligible, are counted after 2:00 p.m. on the Friday following Election Day. However, H.R. 1 requires a provisional ballot to be counted even if it is cast in the wrong county, which creates a security risk and is not currently possible given Oklahoma's election security features. ``Online Voter Registration'': Oklahoma will implement online voter registration in the near future. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 sets different requirements for its federally-mandated online voter registration system than is required by Oklahoma law. (For example, H.R. 1 does everything from defining acceptable signature requirements, to mandating a telephone version of an online voter registration system, to micromanaging the features required for a state's customer support system.) Further, Oklahoma's future online voter registration system will require that a registrant's identity be conformed by matching the person's information with an existing driver license or state I.D., but H.R. 1 sets different (and less secure) standards for confirming a registrant's identity. ``Federalism'': While I believe H.R. 1's sponsors are well- intentioned, a great many of its election provisions--even those that are not concerns--relate to policy decisions that are best left to the states under our federal system. I am concerned that, in its current form, H.R. 1 could lead to costly and lengthy litigation. While these are not my only concerns, they are the most serious. I appreciate your representation of our state in Congress, and I feel it is my duty as Oklahoma's chief election official to make you aware of some of the potential negative impacts H.R. 1 could have on our state's election system. If you ever have any questions about elections in Oklahoma, please feel free to contact me or Assistant Secretary Pam Slater. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Paul Ziriax, Secretary, Oklahoma State Election Board.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that, in the case of redistricting, if the State cannot reach a resolution, H.R. 1 hands over the redistricting function to an unelected Federal court here in Washington, D.C. Everywhere you look, this bill represents an erosion of traditional State authority and a power grab for Democrats here in Washington. Perhaps even more egregiously, the bill places limits on freedom of speech, criminalizing actions that we would currently describe as mere advocacy for candidates. Not since the Sedition Act of 1798 has the Federal Government tried to pass something that tramples so heavily on freedom of speech as H.R. 1. The bill is so bad in this regard that even the American Civil Liberties Union is opposing it, which is a perfect illustration of just how bad H.R. 1 really is. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. Everywhere you look, H.R. 1 fails to do what the majority has promised. They have promised it is to be about returning power to the people. Instead, this bill only gives power and money to Democratic politicians. It takes away authority from States and gives it to the Federal Government, wastes taxpayer dollars on political campaigns, weakens the voting system, and limits freedom of speech. In sum, Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine how any Member can stand up with a straight face and support this bill. I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to disagree very profoundly with my friend. Frankly, what this amendment does is keep politics out of contracting. My friends want to put politics back into contracting. The decisions, as my friend, Mr. Norman, mentioned, on contracts, ought to be made on the basis of the quality of the bid and the quality of the job. There is no reason to ask for political information when you are evaluating whether or not a bridge should be built or whether or not a road should be paved and who should do that. Frankly, what we are going to do is inject politics by requiring the list of political contributors. If you don't think that will matter, I think you are being painfully naive. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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