Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on consideration of H.R. 4487, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. COLE. Again, I want to thank my friend because I know he is, indeed, committed to this idea. In closing, Madam Chair, I think, as usual, my friend Ms. Wasserman Schultz probably made the salient point of the debate. We are taking from our historic trust fund, which preserves this building, and redirects that resource. That is a mistake. That is just simply a mistake. If there is another way to fund it, I would still have grave reservations about reintroducing it because I do think the information is available elsewhere, but robbing from your seed corn, I think, is something we shouldn't do. We have established this fund. We have been able to maintain it under Democrats and Republicans alike. We are going to have these challenges going forward. I do not want to set the precedent of this becoming a piggy bank to fund other things out of. We need to maintain our campus. This is an important way to do it, and I think weakening it in any way would be counterproductive. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, after spending the last few hours debating and amending this bill, we have before us a bipartisan piece of legislation that funds this House, its safety, and the agencies that support the legislative process, and all in a fiscally responsible and, frankly, bipartisan way. Yesterday, in nearly a unanimous fashion, this House passed a bill that provided nearly $4 billion in funding that directly supports and assists our wounded warriors, and I think most all of us on both sides of the aisle are proud of that. This includes $2.6 billion for the Prosthetic and Sensory Aids Service, $560 million for the largest system of spinal cord injury of care in the United States, and $135 million to assist blind and visually impaired veterans. It also includes $96 million for research that benefits wounded warriors in areas like prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, and the like. The total medical care budget of the VA for FY15 is $59.1 billion, enough to care for 6.7 million patients and, again, is something that I think every Member in this House ought to be proud of and was more than delighted to support. This legislation, as with all appropriations legislation that we bring to the floor, makes every stride to ensure that the very best care for our wounded warriors and veterans is available. I know that I speak for this entire body when I say we deeply respect and respect the service and sacrifices of our troops and veterans and that the bill we passed yesterday is hard-and-fast proof of that. Frankly, had we wanted to do more, I would suggest that yesterday would have been the time to do more because, clearly, everybody was willing to support that measure. Keep in mind, the bill before us now is the smallest of the 12 appropriations bills, but it is still incredibly important; and advancing this bill gets us one step closer to completing our necessary work, our constitutional duty of funding the Federal Government. Motions to recommit like this one, quite frankly, are mostly political ``gotcha'' tactics, and both sides do it. I cast no partisan stones here. I have seen it happen on this floor many, many times before. But I think both sides probably ought to stop and reflect if we are really honoring the veterans or if we are using them to make a political point. I would hope not the latter, because yesterday we did the right thing; today we are trying to score points at one another's expense. Yes, both sides have done this. I am sorry it happens. My personal opinion is that it shouldn't, and I hope we will dispense with it going forward. The bill in front of us has bipartisan support. If it is allowed to proceed, it will pass overwhelmingly. Over the past 2 days, we have done some great work, kicking off the appropriations process at the earliest date in decades and passing our first bill yesterday with overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. Let's continue that good work today. Let's pass this bill. Let's reject the motion to recommit. Let's get the work of the people done. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Chair, I want to thank my friend. Again, I appreciate the spirit in which he approaches this. This is an interesting point of discussion because we actually have Members of both parties who really like this program and think it is very important, and we have Members of both parties that share your point of view. It is not a partisan debate in the least. I would say that there are a number of both contemporary points and a number of longer-term points that ought to be taken into account. First, this was originally a $6 million item. We have cut it by 43 percent aimed at Russia. All the other participants in this program are the very countries that Russia threatens right now; particularly Ukraine, which is the second largest participant. I think it would be a really bad signal for this country to actually cut programs that are supportive of democracy in the areas immediately around Russia and, frankly, I think more or less plays into Mr. Putin's hand. Beyond that, we have a unique institution, a unique arrangement, and a unique person heading it at the Library of Congress, Mr. Billington, who is probably the world's most expert on Russian history, culture, and literature. This has been well placed, as long as he has been the librarian, and well used. So, again, I appreciate my friend's motives, but I would urge the rejection of his amendment. With that, I would like to yield the remainder of the time that I have to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my good friend.

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I want to accept this amendment. You certainly aren't behind the times. You are usually ahead of the curve. In this case, the gentleman certainly is. I appreciate him pointing out an area where we can save $300,000. He is precisely right on this. We are more than happy to accept the amendment and, again, very much appreciate our friend for bringing it to the floor and for saving the American taxpayers $300,000.

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. COLE. Madam Chair, first, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I want to thank my friend too because I know he is very serious about looking for places to cut costs. Indeed, later on, there are a number of items that Members have brought to our attention that we will accept. In this case, we don't think it is appropriate. I do want to thank my friend from Florida. I happened to be on this committee as a junior Member when she did do, I think, an unbelievably good job in working us through what had been a bad process and cost overruns in the Center. At the end of the day, this is where millions of Americans--this is their portal to the Capitol. It is well run, and it is well managed. I think maintaining access and keeping it safe and keeping it welcoming, if you will, is very important. So while this is a legitimate question to raise, I agree with my friend and would oppose the amendment.

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I want to thank my friend too because I know the spirit in which this is brought is to save money and to make some tough decisions, and I share that. It is worth pointing out that we did reduce the Architect's request by $79 million. Frankly, we are spending about $40 million less than we did last year, so it is not as if we have not been serious about this. We did look at this particular area. My friend from Florida made the point that not only is it a well-traveled destination point and very desirable place, but it is a pretty old building, and we really do have serious problems here that we think are potentially health hazards. We have chunks of the building, 5-15 pounds, that have fallen off from the height of 40 feet, and that is a health hazard; so given the traffic there, given the fact that we have been pretty tough across the board, we thought this was one of those urgent priorities that needed to be taken care of. Again, I have no qualms with my friend's motives. I know he is trying to save money. I share that belief. We have made a lot of tough decisions across the board, and it is certainly appropriate for this body to look, and if people can find areas, we are happy with that. In this case, our judgment as a committee--and certainly my judgment--is that we need to make certain that a facility that is this well used is kept safe and in good repair, so we don't risk liability and risk injury and, frankly, that we do keep open and functioning one of the most beloved institutions of the Capitol complex.

Mr. COLE. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Chairman, I just want to thank my friend from California for bringing this amendment. I think it is a truly important amendment and something that we are more than happy to accept, and appreciate her raising the issue very, very much.

Mr. COLE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. COLE. I want to begin by thanking my friend. We serve together on the Rules Committee. It is very seldom that I would disagree with my friend, who not only has a distinguished record here, but a distinguished record in law enforcement. And let me make it clear. I am quite content to let the body work its will on this matter. I appreciate my friend actually bringing it forward. I think it is important to discuss. I had not really thought about this a great deal until I saw my friend's amendment. I don't lease a vehicle through my office at all. Although we have discussed it and looked at it, it just never seemed to be appropriate or make sense for us. We do have 63 Members, however, who do do this practice. The average cost of the vehicle is $589. Now, I can't tell you that I have taken a survey of all 63, but I have talked to a few--just sort of tell me what your reasoning is--and the responses are pretty diverse. But you could break it into two or three categories. First, some of them cover exceptionally large districts, and they find this the most cost-effective way to actually cover it, I mean, even to the point of saying, as one Member said: I go through rough terrain to reach remote areas. I need a vehicle that, frankly, is quite a bit more robust than members of my staff have or that I even have personally, sometimes, to reach some of my constituents. I thought that was a pretty impressive reason. Second, others, again, just find it much more cost-effective than actually paying and reimbursing for mileage. But I think the core thing here is to trust--actually trust--the Member to make the decision. I think an important point here is to note that we are not going to save any money, really. This comes out of the Member's Representational Allowance as it is, so there is not a real savings here. And it is all publicly disclosed, so Members take some considerable risk if they do this. They have to be able to explain it to their constituents. At the end of the day, I just simply don't want to micromanage individual Members in how they spend the money which we allot them through this bill. And with that, I understand my good friend would like to say some things, so I will yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member.

Mr. COLE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I want to thank my friend for bringing this to the floor. He is precisely right in everything that he says about both the costs and the functionality of the document in question. His staff member is to be commended for bringing it to his attention and for you acknowledging her. I think staff people every place are grateful. We are delighted to accept this amendment, delighted to save the money, and, again, appreciate our friend bringing it to our attention, pointing it out, and saving the taxpayers $200,000.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate what my friend from California had to say, the reality is this legislation doesn't have anything to do with the minimum wage, and frankly, it would be inappropriate to consider the minimum wage here. It would be legislating on an appropriations bill, something that as a rule we do not do around here. Second, while not wishing to engage in a long debate about the minimum wage, I will say this. Remember, the people of this country and the people of individual States have the opportunity to move on this issue when they choose. Indeed, 19 States, if I recall correctly, actually have minimum wages above the Federal minimum wage. There is serious concern that the one-size-fits-all minimum wage doesn't make a lot of sense. I can tell my friend I don't pretend to be an expert on what the cost of living in California or New York is, but I am sure it is considerably higher than it is in the State of Oklahoma, and at the end of the day, I actually trust the Oklahoma Legislature, the Oklahoma Governor, and the Oklahoma electorate to make this decision for themselves. I don't think imposing a national solution or national standard in this case is necessary or desirable. So, again, I think you leave this to the wisdom of the States and localities. I think that is what our Founders generally envisioned we should do when we had questions of this nature. Again, I am sure we will have this debate another time and on other occasions. It is a perfectly appropriate debate to have. It is not an appropriate debate, it would not be something we could do legislatively on this particular rule or the underlying legislation. So it seems to me not a strong reason to vote against either one because this vehicle could not carry the legislation that my friend from California would like to see enacted. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I would like to say that one of the basic functions of Congress is to fund the government, and this rule would begin the process for consideration for fiscal year 2015 of actually doing that function and doing it in an orderly way and appropriate way. I am particularly pleased that the appropriations process has moved as well and as quickly as it has so far this year. To that, I give credit to my friend, Chairman Rogers, and my great friend, Ranking Member Lowey. They have worked well in a bipartisan manner. I want to also commend the chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. Mr. Bishop is the ranking member, and Mr. Culberson is the chairman. I think they have done a wonderful job. Frankly, I have had the opportunity to work with my good friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the legislative branch as the ranking member, and I am currently privileged to be the chairman. I think that has been a very productive relationship. I have no doubt we are going to have some contention in other bills, but these bills have really moved together in a bipartisan fashion, and I think given the allocations that we had, have been worked through in a very professional, workmanlike way. Now, my friend from Florida did mention the syrupy debate, and I know that is not his style. I have had the privilege of serving with him on the Rules Committee not just in this Congress but in a previous Congress, and he is one of the best debaters on the floor, and I have no doubt on every occasion I have seen he always gives as good as he gets and makes his case quite well. But I have appreciated having the opportunity to have this exchange with him. Obviously, I would urge that my colleagues actually support the rule and the underlying legislation. While the rule vote is a procedural vote, and it is not uncommon for us to basically have a partisan division, I suspect that when the underlying legislation actually reaches this floor on the MilCon bill, the VA bill, and on the legislative branch bill, we will have a great deal of bipartisanship. Certainly, I look forward to that vote. I look forward to the debate and discussion over those. But the first thing we have to do is pass the rule, so, again, I urge my colleagues to pass this. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 557 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 1010.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin by thanking my friend from New Jersey and again recognize his very special and very distinguished service in this body. This is a typical example of the good sense and the compassion he brings to the floor on a regular basis, and I know I appreciate that. And while we are in different parties, he is one of the people, like my friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who spoke earlier, that I most admire and I think is generally admired on both sides of the aisle. So I associate myself with the remarks he made and appreciate that very, very much, and I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do next because he has certainly distinguished himself here, as he had in his academic career before he came here. And whatever he does next, I know he will be equally distinguished in that field, but we will miss him very much in this body. And 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 thank my friend from California for working so closely with Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop on what is a genuinely important contribution to the legislation; and I think, frankly, it is pretty exemplary of the manner in which Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop worked together throughout this process. I saw it myself during our full committee markup where, literally, they were working together to make changes to try and respond to Members' legitimate concerns in this area and did it right to the last minute of the bill. So I know we are going to have contentious moments in the appropriations process; we always do as we go forward. But in this particular case, in this legislation, and certainly between the chairman and ranking member, I think we have an example of how to work together in a bipartisan fashion that most Americans, if they had a chance to learn about it, would be genuinely pleased with. So again, I thank my friend from California for participating outside the committee in that. I think she made a very valuable contribution, and I am pleased that she made that point. And again, I recognize the wonderful work of Mr. Culberson and Mr. Bishop. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to begin by extending the same regard and personal affection to my friend that he was kind enough to display toward me. I have had the privilege of serving with him on the Appropriations Committee, obviously, ever since I arrived at that committee; and we currently serve on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee together, the Legislative Branch Subcommittee together, and Interior Subcommittee together. And on that committee, Interior, of course he was an absolutely superb chairman. I happen to think he is an even better ranking member. But he was a superb chairman, and we have worked together on many items. And I, like my friend from Florida, am going to miss my friend from Virginia, who I think has rendered distinguished service in this Chamber, and certainly to our committee. In terms of his suggested amendment, I will make two points. First, we are advised this is a clause 2 violation to be legislating on an appropriations bill; and I thought there was a reasonable chance, secondly, that we would have a chance to discuss this and he would have a chance to make his point. And I am glad that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) did make the point that he made because I think it is a very important point to be made. I particularly share your concerns about the long-term character of the body, and I think those were well stated. I don't think we are in any danger right now of reaching that point, but I think my friend does point out a trend that could occur. I would also be quick to add, there are about as many different styles of Members as there are Members themselves. Some people come here with the idea of being here for a long time. Other people come here for shorter periods of time, not with the idea of cashing out, but because they believe that is the appropriate way to serve. In my State, my good friend Senator Coburn has always lived by term limits. He did when he was in this Chamber. He has, again, in the Senate. So not every Member that comes here and serves 6 or 8 years is trying to cash out. They just think that is the appropriate length of time, and that is a judgment that is quite often shared by their constituents. And again, I think either one is appropriate. I think Members and districts make that decision for themselves. But I also think, in consideration of the decisions we have made in the last several years--by both parties, by the way. Again, my friends, when they were in the majority, had some concerns about increases in salaries as well, and I think that was because they saw the fiscal problems of the country. We have had to make some tough decisions around here in the last few years. We are going to have to make, I think, some more tough decisions. And I think sometimes, to add legitimacy to those decisions, you have to lead by example. I think that is what we have tried to do. I think that is what my friends tried to do as well during the period that they were in the majority. So as long as we are preaching fiscal austerity, we have got to practice a little fiscal austerity. But I want to conclude by saying, I still think my friend's point is a very important one to be heard. I am glad he made the remarks that he did and has raised it. I am sorry for your staff because I am sure the incoming mail and calls have been extraordinary. But again, one of the things I like about my friend, even when I disagree with him--because on occasion, we do--he is never afraid to articulate a position and present a point of view. And if there is a little fire associated with that, so much the better. I think he enjoys the give-and-take of that. And that is one of the things I am going to miss the most about him when he departs this Chamber. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend for putting an emphasis and a spotlight on an area of bipartisan cooperation in the veterans area. He is precisely right in the concern that both sides of the aisle have for the men and women in uniform that have fought this Nation's battles. While the wars themselves have been contentious, I actually don't think the funding of veterans has ever been contentious, regardless of who was President and regardless of who was in control of this Chamber. Quite frankly, as I recall, during the Bush years, we increased veterans expenditures by about 100 percent over an 8-year period. That has continued under President Obama. Again, you can never do enough, but I think the Congress actually, over an extended period, has really tried in this area and has worked together quite well in a bipartisan sense. My friend also referred a little bit to the legislative branch, and there, again, we probably have some areas of agreement, maybe some areas of disagreement, but not profound ones. The reality is we are in a difficult time financially. My friend is absolutely correct when he points to some of the reductions in House expenditures. We have reduced, by about 14 percent, House expenditures over the last 3 or 4 years. I would suggest, while those changes have been difficult, they have been appropriate, given the size of the deficit and the fiscal difficulties we had. It is important to note, in this budget, we make no further reductions. As a matter of fact, we actually increase expenditures in some important institutions that actually support Congress and its work. We have not done it again, as my friend has correctly stated, for Members' offices or for committees. We did do a little bit of that last year in raising so-called MRAs and committee budgets. This year, because of the allocation we had, frankly, I have chosen, as chairman of that committee, to focus on things like the Government Accountability Office, the Government Printing Office, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, areas that are absolutely indispensable in the operation of this institution. The Library of Congress, another one where the Congressional Research Service is housed, again, is very important to what we do. Hopefully, as we go forward, we will be able to do more in some of these areas, but I think, given what we had, we have done reasonably well; and again, while these have been tough decisions, they have been made in a bipartisan manner with the cooperation between majority and minority on the appropriate Legislative Branch Subcommittee. Finally, my friend did point to the Senate, and I suppose we always have a little bit of envy of the other body in terms of its funding. I would suggest, while their expenditures have gone up, they have not been particularly dynamic in their legislative performance. Frankly, far be it from me to offer a definitive opinion. We normally let each institution do what they want to do, but I am always happy for the contrast in the budget of a Republican House and a Democratic Senate because I think it is abundantly clear which one is serious about fiscal responsibility and which one is not, and I suspect we will have that debate going forward. Again, I thank my friend for his remarks and his focus on what is genuinely important, and I know, when he talks about this institution and its staff and its functions, he does so with genuine respect and genuine concern. Again, some of those concerns, I certainly share, and perhaps, going forward, as we did last year and we tried to do in some of the supportive institutions this year, we can restore some of that capability that I know he and I would both like to see us have. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.