Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I do want to revisit, in closing, this issue of appropriations and openness, and I want to remind my friends on the other side of some recent history. In 2010, when my Democratic colleagues controlled the House, they only considered two appropriations bills. At that time, by the way, they also had control of the Senate. I presume it would have been easier for them to have cooperated with a Democratic Senate than for us, but perhaps not because they only got two appropriations bills done the last year they were in the majority. My colleagues deviated from the longstanding practice of open rules for appropriations bills by making in order only 40 amendments that year. You heard that correctly. Democrats considered two of 12 bills, with only 40 amendments made in order. This year, Republicans have considered seven of 12 bills, considering 404 amendments, 189 of them which were offered by my Democratic colleagues. I will let the American people decide who has the better record on actually bringing appropriations bills to the floor and opening them up for full consideration by this House. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all of those who spoke today for the sincerity and the thoughtfulness of the debate. I particularly know that we probably find ourselves on common ground in wanting to make sure the government doesn't shut down, pass a continuing resolution. It is interesting to me that that was not the subject of a great deal of contention; so I would hope that is something that brings us together. It is something that, certainly, the Speaker wants to accomplish, but the President and the majority leader want to accomplish that as well. Surely, we can find a bipartisan amendment for that. Obviously, the great issue of the day and this week is going to be this discussion over the Syrian matter, and, again, I want to congratulate my colleagues for the seriousness with which they are approaching this. I think we have all learned some very hard lessons in the last 13 years, and I am pleased that the amendment that would bring to the floor--an amendment, by the way, the President didn't particularly want. I would recall for the Record that the President wanted this authorization for active title 10 authority for him to train Syrians to simply be dropped into the continuing resolution. It was the Speaker with the support of the Democratic leadership as well that wanted to make sure that we had a separate vote and discussion on this issue. I think that is a very good thing. Now, I agree with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I would prefer a much more robust and fuller discussion, and I hope we reach that point. I think that is exactly the course that the Speaker recommended to the President. He said: I think the institution that I preside over will be better served, I think you will be better served, and I think the country will be better served if we have that debate. I know the Speaker made every effort to get to that point. Others have a different point of view. I respect the President. Like most Chief Executives, he has had to take some very expansive views of his authority under the Constitution. I recognize some people, frankly, are concerned about having this vote ahead of an election. Personally, I would prefer to do it ahead of an election, but I don't get to make those decisions, and I think the Speaker has done the best that he can do in reconciling all the conflicting opinions between the Senate, the House, and the executive branch and has managed to bring us at least something that is a serious debate and will be taken seriously by the country; moreover, I am particularly pleased that my chairman, Mr. Sessions, on the Rules Committee made sure that we will have not a cursory debate but 6 hours of debate. If any Member wants to voice their opinion, 6 hours is an awful lot of time. I suspect they are going to have the opportunity to come down here and do that, and I hope they will. I think what we are going to see is probably a bipartisan opposition to the amendment and bipartisan support. Frankly, in issues of war and peace, that is probably the better way for us to proceed; so I think it is a challenging situation. I think all concerned are trying to work together and do the right thing and to present clarity. I just want to go on record once again, personally, as hoping that as soon as possible that we come back--the President asked for broad authority--that we repeal the '01 and '02 resolution, something the President has asked us to do himself before, and work together and present a more precisely defined and limited resolution that gives him the authority to act robustly in the defense of our country, to punish people who commit the barbarous acts that we have seen in recent weeks, and to do the things that are necessary with the full bipartisan support of Congress to secure the security of the United States. Mr. Speaker, the underlying resolution upholds the primary responsibility the American people have sent us here to do, ensuring the continued funding of the government. While not my first choice, passage of a continuing resolution is better than any of the alternatives; additionally, it provides the President the additional authority he has requested to degrade and destroy ISIL. I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my friend from Washington for his kind words. I couldn't agree more with him about the Export-Import Bank. I think it is a very important institution that ought to be reauthorized, and I intend to work with my friend to make sure that happens when the time comes. I don't think, as a rule, reauthorization in a continuing resolution is a good idea. I think it is much more appropriate, particularly for a matter this controversial and this serious--and, again, I agree with the substance of what my friend says--that we go through a normal committee process and that we come to the floor and have a full debate. I don't think this is the appropriate vehicle for that. While I look forward to working with my friend on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, I doubt that it is going to happen in this particular vehicle so, hopefully, in the new Congress, as we make persuasive arguments, as my friend has advanced, we will find that we get the broad bipartisan support we need to do that reauthorization. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wanted to quickly note that I actually agree with a very good deal of what my friend from Texas has to say. I do want to correct him on one item. The amendment we are talking about is not like the authorizations of 2001 and 2002, mostly because it is very finely tailored to limit the executive branch. It actually runs out on December 11 or earlier if we actually pass a National Defense Authorization Act and deal with the Syrian issue in that context; so it is very limited in terms of time, very limited in terms of scope. It explicitly states that it does not authorize military action in Syria. With all due respect, I would suggest that most of my friend's disagreements are with this administration. They are largely disagreements with the President. The Speaker is doing what he can to provide an opportunity for us to debate and express that in the continuing resolution, and I will work with my friend from Texas to make sure that we have a fuller, more robust debate because I think the country deserves that, and I think my friend is right to demand it. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my good friend, a fellow member of the Appropriations Committee and a fellow subcommittee chairman.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to respectfully, once again, disagree with my friend from New York on the appropriations process. The reality is we have brought bill after bill to this floor. Every Member has had the opportunity to offer any amendment on seven different bills and to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on their final disposition. The Senate hasn't brought any. And, frankly, at some point the Senate's failure to do its job begins to impact our ability to do ours, because it is very difficult to get time on the floor and use it knowing there is not anything going on on the other side. And that is just the reality of it. So, if my friends can talk the Senate into beginning to move, I think they would actually find the House, which is already far ahead of them, would continue to work with them and we would actually begin to pass bills. But until the Senate will bring a bill to the floor of any kind for an appropriation, very difficult for us to get our work done over here. Now I want to address myself, if I may, to my friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern. There is much in what he says that I agree with. Frankly, I think he is correct when he says that we need at some point a full authorization, a full debate, full discussion. He is absolutely right, and I want to commend him for the action he took in his amendment on Iraq in July that we voted on. I was very happy to vote it. So I think, in substance, I find very little to disagree with in what my friend has to say. I do point out a couple of things, though. First, and I think my friend is aware of it, the Speaker has actually taken the position that we need a full authorization debate and discussion. And I am told that he conveyed that to the President and actually said he thought this institution, our country, which I know is what we care about supremely, and the President himself would be better off under such discussion. That is a viewpoint that I agree with, and I think many Members on both sides of the aisle and with both points of view on the issue also hold that opinion. So this is actually a decision that has been largely made, in a sense, by the President. We are trying to respond in a short period of time to what the President has asked us to do, and I think that is an important point to remember in this. This is not a fight on this floor between Democrats and Republicans or even for proponents. I think it is, at another level, a difference in perception about what authority the President has, his view versus probably Congress' view on a bipartisan basis. I think it is a challenge in terms of timing. It is extremely difficult for the leaders of either Chamber to look like they are undercutting the President at a time of danger and when he has come with this request. We have set 6 hours of debate aside for a reason. If you will remember, the President's original request was simply to drop this measure in the continuing resolution and have no vote and no discussion at all. It was actually our side and your side that insisted that it be pulled out and that a vote and discussion occur. When we come back--again, I share my friend's opinion--I would be prepared to do it before the election. I see no particular need in waiting, but I don't get to make that decision. At the end of the day, we are giving the Commander in Chief what he is asking for. I think we are trying to be both responsible and helpful. We have actually curtailed considerably what the President asked for. We noted specifically that this does not authorize the use of military force in Syria. We have required reviews. I suspect we will be revisiting this issue again--I certainly would hope so--and I look forward to working with my friend to make sure that we do. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 3043, the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act. H.R. 3043 would align federal Indian affairs policy with federal tax policy. H.R. 3043 would require field agents to receive training and education on federal Indian law and the government's treaty and trust obligations to Native Americans to ensure that their actions in the field follow the law and IRS policy. It would do so by clarifying that tribal government programs and services that aid the general welfare of the tribe are not subject to federal income taxation. It also establishes a Tribal Advisory Committee within the Treasury Department. Additionally, the Joint Committee on Taxation has determined the bill would do this at little to no cost to the federal government. The Constitution clearly states that the federal government shall provide for the general welfare of the people. The IRS excludes a broad array of government services including, but not limited to, education, public safety, court system, social services, public works, health services, housing authority, parks and recreation, cultural resources, and museums. Through treaties and executive order, Indian tribes ceded hundreds of million of acres of their homelands to the United States. In return, the U.S. made promises to provide for the health, education and general welfare of Native communities. Sadly, we have fallen short in meeting these solemn obligations. In recent years, Indian tribal governments have stepped in to cover these shortfalls in federal obligations by offering tribal government programs and services to meet the needs of their communities. To be clear, these are governments providing government services for their citizens. Instead of fostering these acts of tribal government self- determination, over the past decade, some IRS field agents have targeted tribes for audits and investigations seeking to tax tribal citizens for benefits derived from these programs and services. Field agent decision-making has been at best inconsistent and arbitrary. Activities allowed in one audit have been challenged in another. Field agents have conversely given wide deference to federal and state government programs that provide for the general welfare of their citizens. In doing so, they have exempted general welfare programs from taxation, an exception known as a ``general welfare exclusion.'' H.R. 3043 will codify and better align federal tax policy with Indian affairs policy and ensure that IRS policies that recognize appropriate tribal government actions are actually being implemented in the field. Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge passage of H.R. 3043, the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to point out that if the 2008 law is not the reason, then my good friend's remarks need to be directed to the administration because they have told us it is the reason. The President has cited this as the reason. But if it is because we have sent a signal down there by unilaterally changing something, there is some explanation for a tenfold increase in the flow of individuals across our border. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 700 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met to report a rule that would provide for same-day authority for any resolution reported from the Committee on Rules related to the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the southern border, border security, and related immigration law through September 5, 2014. Additionally, the rule provides suspension authority through September 5, 2014, on the same topics. Mr. Speaker, this rule is very straightforward. It allows the House the maximum flexibility to deal with the crisis on the southern border during the district work period by providing both same-day and suspension authority through September 5. Any legislation considered during this time period would still need to go through the regular process, by either a rule for consideration by the Rules Committee or under the standard suspension process. This resolution just allows for expedited consideration of those matters while preserving as much of the district work period as possible. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, obviously, my friend and I are going to have a disagreement about the nature of the bill that I think will, in rather short order, be before us. Let's go back and look at a little bit of history here. The administration was warned in 2012 and 2013 that we were going to have a crisis on our hands if we didn't do something, that we were going to get a flow of unaccompanied minors. They did absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, the President of the United States submitted a budget to us which cut money for enforcement and detention at the border, which cut money for support of people that were here while they were being processed, and that cut money for aid to the countries where most of these folks are coming from. That is real foresight. So we have been confronted with a crisis, and a crisis that, in our view, the President contributed to by unilaterally changing whole sections of the immigration law and leaving the impression, probably unwittingly, I would say, but leaving the impression to many people that, if we get to the United States, we are going to be able to stay. There is no question criminal elements have picked that impression up, broadcast it. Thousands of people have sent them tens of thousands--millions, really--of dollars and put children on a perilous journey of over 1,000 miles to this country. Now we are trying to act on that, and we think, number one, if we don't do that, the societies from which they are coming are going to be disrupted. And we have been told very clearly by the leaders of those countries: We would like our children back. Number two, if we don't stop this process, we are going to continue to enrich cartels to an extraordinary degree. Frankly, as one border agent told me, he said, from a cartel standpoint, this is actually easier than drugs, because with drugs we try to interdict you every step along the way, and if you get to the border to cross, we continue to try and interdict you. In this case, we actually, once they bring an illegal unaccompanied minor here, complete the transaction. So it is encouraging the flow, and that is dangerous for the young people involved. We all know that in the course of that journey there is a risk that sex trafficking will take place. There is a risk that people will be lured or forced into drug dealing. There is a terrific physical risk. We know a lot of those folks are abused in the course of this process or sexually assaulted, so we need to stop this flow. We need to do it in a humane and appropriate way. The President, by the way, has suggested that this is due to the 2008 law which we all passed, in good faith, to deal with sex trafficking. I personally don't think that is the case, but if that is true, then we ought to make some tweak to that law. We don't need to repeal it, but we need to make sure that we do something so that we don't have an enormous backlog here and we can actually handle the flow appropriately. We have waited in vain for the President to tell us what that tweak is. I mean, it was his Secretary of Homeland Security that actually raised this issue and said we need to be able--he said this in testimony in front of the United States Senate--we need to be able to treat people coming from the three Central American countries essentially the same way we treat Canadian and Mexican minors that arrive at our border. That was the position, but we have not seen any more requests. So if you look at our bill, frankly, number one, it is going to take care of that problem with a tweak. Number 2, we are going to provide additional moneys to handle this process through the end of the fiscal year and the end of the calendar year. Number 3, then we can work, because there will probably be additional resources needed next year, under the caps in the Ryan-Murray budget agreement and redirect that flow of money from less urgent to more urgent problems. So we think it is a responsible way to proceed. I think, essentially, that is what we are going to try and put before the House. Regardless, once we pass something, then the Senate can pass something. I am sad to say, Mr. Speaker, that the other body was unable to do anything yesterday and it has adjourned and gone home. Frankly, we were unable to get things done yesterday in a way that I think I certainly would have liked, but we stayed here, and we are going to continue to work through the problem, present a product. Hopefully, the Senate will come back and do the same, and then we can proceed legislatively and provide the resources and legislative corrections that are needed to deal with the situation. I am pleased that we are in session. I am pleased that we are working toward a solution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to disagree with my good friend, the minority whip, on a point. I don't think the Senate left yesterday because of anything the House did. It failed to act, and it left. It went home because it couldn't pass a bill. That is something we are not going to allow to happen here. We are going to pass legislation. We are going to get our part of the job done. The Senate, then, will be free to come back and pass something, and we can go into a conference and do exactly what my friend suggests, work out a compromise. So hopefully that is where we will end up in this process. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman may be surprised to find that, actually, we are not too far apart on the issue. Now, currently, we have over $700 million still on hand to deal with wildfires. The gentleman and I actually cosponsored legislation that our friend from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) has offered so that we can actually deal with this and change the structure of how we fund wildfire fighting. I suspect that issue will come back again. As a matter of fact, I was willing to work during the budget process with some of my friends on the other side of the Rules Committee to actually write the change into the budget. We had the votes on our side, working with our friends, to do that. For some reason, the Democratic amendment was withdrawn. I don't know why, and I cast no aspersions. But that is an area where we would like to work with you. I don't think it is particularly appropriate to be done in this bill. This bill is about dealing with the crisis on the southern border. It shouldn't be a Christmas tree or a grab bag. If we need additional resources, we should come back to do that. Again, we have sufficient resources on hand. Congress will be back in session in September, back in session after the elections. So I think we are going to have multiple opportunities to deal with this. I look forward to working with my friends on this particular issue when those opportunities occur. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to disagree with my friend on the root of this issue. I don't think whether or not we passed immigration reform has anything to do with the border crisis. I really don't. Frankly, what is occurring there would be illegal had we passed what the Senate passed. So it just simply doesn't address the problem. What the problem here is, by our own actions in this country, we have sent a message that if you get here, you can stay, whether you are legally entitled to or not. And it is going to take so long to process you, you will essentially never be sent back. And we have allowed criminal cartels to distort our position and to make tens of millions of dollars off of this. That needs to be stopped. That needs to be reversed. It is not helpful to anybody. Now, again, we may differ on the ideas. Although, I would point out for the record once more, the administration did ask: Please do something about the 2008 law. They asked that a month ago. And then they have sort of gotten quiet since then. We don't hear anything else about that. They have asked for resources. We have looked at what they need. We said we will be willing to do that. We are going to take them from existing moneys. We are not going to spend new money. This is an urgent priority. We think you are right. We are going to redirect that. And by the way, if you are going to need additional resources next year, we will work with you again there. We are going to do it under the Ryan- Murray budget cap. We are not going to go outside the process. And we are using that. I think my friend from Maryland, the minority whip, is correct. We are using exceptional procedures--but they are procedures within the traditions of this House--to react to a crisis situation, and we are trying to stay here to get our work done and hopefully challenge the Senate to come back and do the same thing. So we are working the process and the crisis as best we can. With that, we will continue to work. And I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker. I think we need to step back from the emotion a moment and look at the realities of the situation. Number one, anybody that seeks refugee status in the United States can go to any of the embassies in the country and request it. You don't have to travel 1,000 miles. You can go request it, and we will look to see whether or not you qualify. Number two, the President of the United States has said that the vast majority of these children will be returned. That is not us. That is the President. He has said that. We are trying to do it and work with him in an expeditious way because we think sooner is better. Number three, we are not returning them to criminals. We are returning them to the custody of their governments, their own officials, who are probably better situated to make these decisions than we are 1,000-plus miles away. So let's be real. Nobody is stripping any rights away from anyone. We actually have a situation--a 2008 law--where a loophole has been exploited by criminals. That is what is happening. And we are trying to stop the loophole and keep people from embarking on a dangerous journey and discourage people from giving thousands of dollars of their hard- earned money to criminal cartels to participate in that. That is the effort that is underway here. Nobody would have fewer rights than the people that are currently here from Mexico or Canada. We would still have the ability to adjudicate issues. The process would be a lot faster and, we think in that sense, more humane and more efficient and more expeditious. And with that, 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 couldn't disagree with my good friend from Texas more. I think everybody on both sides of the aisle cares about these children. Now, we care about them enough to restore the cuts that the President made in the aids to the country of origin. We care about them enough to restore the cuts that he made in his budget to our own border security. Yes, our border security does need to be armed, not to deal with children, but to deal with the criminals that brought them here and abused them in the process. That is what we are talking about here. Now, there is nothing to be gained by continuing this flow. Even if some of you would like every particular person that got here to stay-- and, again, I quote the President, the ``vast majority'' will not be allowed to, will be sent back--stopping the flow is what we ought to be focusing on and stopping people from giving thousands of dollars to criminal cartels to bring these children to the borders and abuse them in the process. The quicker that stops, the better off we are. We are willing to work with the countries of origin, I think, on both sides of the aisle. We had the President up here saying, pretty emphatically, that they needed some assistance in dealing with that. We think that is appropriate. We try to do that in legislation, and frankly, we have done it in the foreign operations bill, where we are more generous to the countries of origin than the administration has suggested we should be in its own budget. Mr. Speaker, we are interested in dealing with the problem, but we are also interested in helping countries keep their children in their country, which they tell us they want to do. We are also interested in making sure those children are never subjected to this journey, which I think all would agree is difficult and dangerous, and we are also extraordinarily interested in making sure that the criminal cartels who are making profit off this are discouraged from doing this, that they can't go and tell their potential customers: Give us the money and put your kid at risk, but if we actually get them there, there is a good chance they will stay. That false promise, that dangerous promise offered by criminals victimizing innocent people is frankly what we ought to be focused on and what we are trying to focus on. Again, we will continue to work toward that end. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we have a good product. I think that we will. The House will consider it, and then we hope the Senate actually comes back from its district work period and deals with it as well, and we will go from there. That is the reason for the rule. That is the reason, so we can act during this multiweek district work period, should the opportunity actually occur to do that. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. No, Mr. Speaker.