Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to be clear with my good friend from Texas, Democrats didn't pass a budget. They proposed a budget. That is fair enough, but they never passed a budget in this House. There was a budget that was passed by the Republican majority. It is interesting, that budget actually came into balance within 10 years. Our friends on the other side never presented a budget that came into balance from any of their various groups. Frankly, the last administration never presented a budget that ever came into balance. So it is hard to talk about a budget that never comes into balance as if it is a responsible document. It is clearly not. In terms of my friend's concern about CHIP, it is an appropriate concern. The answer is right in front of her. Simply vote for this bill. You got a 6-year authorization that was longer than my friends originally asked for in the negotiations that were last fall. This House has actually, again, met all of its obligations. My friends' counterparts in the other body, frankly, have used their votes under the rules of that body to sabotage any appropriations process whatsoever. It requires 60 votes in the United States Senate. Unfortunately, we only have 51. So if Democrats won't sit down and negotiate, nothing much gets done over there. That is why we are here today. Frankly, we are here to make sure the government doesn't shut down. Now, again, my friends have every right to vote to shut down the government. If they vote ``no'' on this measure, that is exactly what they are doing. They are voting to shut down the government. They are voting not to reauthorize CHIP. They are voting to tax the American people by putting taxes on their healthcare plans and putting taxes on medical devices. They are missing the opportunity to help us with missile defense in a very dangerous era. And they are throwing away the time while negotiations on the topics they are concerned about are underway--negotiations on the budget and negotiations on DACA. So why my friends want to do this at this particular point is beyond me. But I would suggest it is not likely to work. It is likely to backfire. If we end up in a government shutdown--something I would very much advise against--I think my friends, all of whom will have voted to shut down the government, will bear the responsibility. I think the American people will understand. Now, again, I don't think my friends will succeed in this House, but they may well in the upper Chamber because, up there, they do have the votes under the rules of that body to shut down the government. I would urge them not to do that and to keep the government operational, to take these victories--and they are victories where we agree--and keep negotiating on the issues that most concern us. I think that is the appropriate way to proceed, and I would urge my friends to adopt that course. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my good friend refers to the drama of the moment. Frankly, there wouldn't be any drama if Democrats would simply vote to keep the government open while good faith negotiations are going on on the very topics they are most concerned about. They are concerned about the immigration issue; there is a negotiation under way. They are concerned about the appropriate balance between military and nonmilitary spending in the budget; there is a negotiation that is under way. Now, I suspect this effort to threaten a government shutdown in order to achieve policy aims that are unrelated to the funding and operation of the government will not succeed in this House. Here, we have a simple majority. But to my friend's point, and to be fair, that is not the case in the United States Senate. There, Democratic votes will be needed to keep the government open. Now, this House's responsibility is to do everything we can to keep the government functioning. In addition to that, there are important policy objectives in here that my friends, I think, either agree with or have even been demanding. The reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program is something both sides agree on. Actually, the 6-year extension is a year beyond what the Democrats asked for when the legislation was originally considered last fall. That is something I know they agree with, and I would hope they would vote for it. A couple of the unattractive parts of the Affordable Care Act, which even my opponents who supported it en masse agree with: It is not very smart to tax the health insurance plans of American workers. We have got a delay of that for 2 years. They also agree it is not wise to tax medical devices. Again, we have a measure in here that would delay that for 2 years. They also, I know, believe that we ought to protect the American people against missile attacks from rogue states. There is a request from the Pentagon in here, again, that is fully funded. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that my friends on the other side object to. There are many things that they support. Now, they are perfectly free to say, well, I would like this, and this, and this, and this added. But there is nothing in here to vote against. If you want to raise the other issues, I suspect we can work out an agreement. And I suspect those issues are being negotiated, literally, right now in budget discussions and budget talks. So that is the appropriate place to deal with them. But, again, there is no reason to shut down the government or threaten a shutdown unless you are trying to force some unrelated policy objective. In this case, the immigration issue that my friend refers to, actually things extend into March. There are talks underway there. I don't see how shutting down the government moves us toward that solution. The same thing is true with the other functions of government. So I would say we have a very reasonable prospect or proposal on the table here. I suspect that we will achieve the majority in this Chamber. Then we will go to the United States Senate, and we will see whether Democrats there really do want to shut down the government, as opposed to pass a number of items that they agree with: keep the government running and keep negotiations going. That is the responsible thing to do. That is what I think this House will do. That is what I hope Members on both sides of the aisle choose to do, both when they vote here and later when they take this matter up for consideration in the United States Senate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to, as always, thank my good friend. We disagree on this, but there is nobody that I enjoy serving with on the Rules Committee more than my good friend, the ranking member. She is a wise and able legislator. There are a couple of things she said I am going to agree with. She did say that facts matter. I actually agree with that. Facts do matter here, and the fact of the matter is anyone who votes ``no'' on this resolution is voting to shut down the government. Anyone--Republican or Democrat--who votes ``no'' has said: I am not willing to keep the government open while negotiations are underway. Anyone who votes ``no'' is voting against a 6-year extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program that we all agree on to say is critical. Anyone who votes ``no'' is absolutely guaranteed a tax increase or will be voting for a tax increase on American workers who happen to have a fairly decent insurance program. Anybody who votes ``no'' is going to raise taxes on Americans who are ill enough to require medical devices. Anyone who votes ``no'' is going to make sure we don't have the resources we need to protect this country in a time of international crisis against a potential rogue missile attack. Anyone who votes ``no,'' to begin where I started, is voting to shut down the government. It is that simple. My friends did that in December because they thought, ``Well, they can't do it without us,'' but we did. I suspect we will be able to do that again. But I regret that anyone would vote ``no'' on those kinds of votes because I think they will come back to haunt them. My friend also--and I think this may actually be the key to the issue--quoted polling data that said the Republicans are going to get the blame anyway. That may be true. I don't doubt the accuracy of my friend's numbers, but I suspect that, once they watch the process, the American people are pretty smart and they will understand a ``no'' vote is a vote to shut down the government. Now, if my friends are gambling that Republicans will get the blame for this because they have done this in the past, I think they are running a terrible risk with their own credibility. In this body, we will succeed. I don't serve in the United States Senate, never served in the United States Senate, never worked for anybody who served in the Senate. They have rules that will allow the Democrats to shut down the government if they choose to do it. I don't think they will. But if they do, I think they will regret it. Certainly, many on my side regret some of the decisions they made in the last crisis of this kind. I hope we do the responsible thing in this body and count on cooler heads in the United States Senate to do the same thing. I also would point out that in this bill that my friends are going to vote ``no'' on--probably in overwhelming numbers, I am sad to say-- there is nothing in it they disagree with. They don't disagree with the CHIP reauthorization. They don't disagree with delaying taxes in the Affordable Care Act. They don't disagree with providing additional missile defense. They tell us they want to keep the government operating, particularly when there are negotiations underway on the matters that actually concern them. That strikes me as incredibly disingenuous, shortsighted, or both. So I urge my friends: Do what you must on the rule. The rule is the rule. That is always a partisan exercise, and I always respect my friends for voting ``no'' on a rule. But the underlying legislation is real: whether or not the government operates; whether or not we take care of these knotty problems where we happen to agree; whether or not we actually put the well-being of the country, in terms of its defense, above the media partisan interests. Those things are all areas that shouldn't be tough votes. So I would hope my friends reconsider, come down and vote to keep the government running instead of shutting it down, come down and vote to keep taxes from being imposed on hardworking families through their health insurance plan or medical devices, come down and vote to make sure we have the strongest possible defense against any possible attack on our country, and come down and vote to keep the government open while negotiations are underway. I think the failure to do that is one that my friends will look back on with deep regret in the years ahead. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage all Members to support the rule. Today's bill represents the next step toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress: to fund the government. Although not perfect, the bill before us today will fund our government and keep it open and operating through February 16, 2018. We will also reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program for 6 years and achieve a delay in several harmful Obama taxes. While doing so, we bolster the defense of our country at a dangerous time. While I look forward to completing our work and passing a bipartisan, bicameral full-year omnibus spending bill, for now, this legislation will keep the government open and operating and give us time to continue working toward a bipartisan agreement for the American people. I applaud my colleagues for their work. The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows An Amendment to H. Res. 696 Offered by Ms. Slaughter At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 4. 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. 4820) to extend funding for certain public health programs, and for other purposes. 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 among and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 4820.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, the Children's Hospital Association has actually urged that this bill be adopted. They have urged that we, for 6 years, ensure the funding. They would like my friends--who I know believe in the program--to actually vote for the measure in front of them. Now, we have heard a number of things about kicking the can down the road. I confess, keeping the government open while negotiations are in progress is something we are trying to do. But I also point out this is not simply a normal CR. It settles the Children's Health Insurance Program for the next 6 years and appropriately funds it. It delays tax increases, which my friends also oppose, although they voted for them in ObamaCare on people's health insurance programs and on medical devices. It provides badly needed dollars for missile defense in an era of crisis with an irresponsible state. It doesn't have anything in it that offends my friends in any way. There is nothing in this bill they are against. If they are, I would like to know. Is it CHIP that my friends are against? Is it delaying the Cadillac tax that my friends are against? Is it, frankly, delaying the medical device tax increase that my friends are against? Is it putting more money in ballistic missile defense that my friends are against? Or is it just continuing the government's operations that my friends are against while negotiations are underway? I am not sure which one my friends are for, but it suggests to me if there is nothing in here they are against, then they ought to be voting for the bill. Finally, to my friend's point--and there is more to this than their comments would suggest--to suggest that we simply can control the universe around here isn't true. We don't write the Senate rules. I wish we did. They would probably look a lot different and we probably would have less of a problem. But my friends have not been able to shut down the government here, although they tried to in December. I don't think they will be able to shut down the government, although they will try to again today. But in the United States Senate, the Democrats will decide whether or not the government continues to operate; whether or not CHIP is reauthorized for 6 years, as the Children's Hospital Association urges; whether or not millions of American families are spared from a tax increase simply because they fought and worked for a decent insurance plan; whether or not millions of Americans who depend on medical devices for their survival have to pay more for them; and whether or not we have a higher level of certainty that we can defend ourselves against an unprovoked and dangerous attack that might occur at any moment. That will be a decision for Democrats in the Senate to make as long as we vote here to move this legislation forward. I think we will, and I would invite my friends to join us in that. There is nothing in here that offends my friends. There are many things that my friends like, and there are negotiations underway on the things that are my friends' concerns. I would suspect that is the course that we ought to take, and I would urge my friends to reconsider and adopt that course. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a press release from--my friends may have missed this--the Children's Hospital Association. [Press Release, Jan. 18, 2018] Children's Hospitals to Congress: Kids Can't Wait, Fund CHIP Now Washington, DC.-- The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is vital to millions of children and families. These families have been living with uncertainty since funding for CHIP expired at the end of September. States are exhausting all available program funds and have announced plans to freeze enrollment and, in some cases, end their programs altogether. Kids can't wait any longer. Congress has a chance to pass a long-term extension of CHIP that will provide security for millions of kids. The continuing resolution being considered by Congress includes a six-year extension of CHIP. Children's hospitals support a long-term extension of CHIP and urge Congress to take this opportunity to pass CHIP this week. The time is now to extend funding for this lifeline millions of children and their families count on every day. About the Children's Hospital Association--the Children's Hospital Association is the national voice of more than 220 children's hospitals, advancing child health through innovation in the quality, cost and delivery of care.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of a very important measure. The resolution provides for consideration of S. 140, to amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts in the White Mountain Apache Tribe Settlement Fund. This bill also includes the text of S. 249, a bill to provide that the pueblo of Santa Clara may lease for 99 years certain restricted land; and H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, 30 minutes of which will be equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, and 30 minutes of which will be equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. Mr. Speaker, the first two items are noncontroversial; however, I am very pleased that within S. 140, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act is included. This language would allow Tribal governments to be excluded from requirements for employers under the National Labor Relations Act. When President Franklin Roosevelt signed the NLRA into law in 1935, Congress wisely excluded governments, all governments, from the definition of ``employer.'' At the bill signing of the NLRA, President Roosevelt said: ``This Act defines, as a part of our substantive law, the right of self- organization of employees in industry for the purpose of collective bargaining, and provides methods by which the Government can safeguard that legal right.'' The President made clear in his speech at that time that the intent of the law is that it should apply only to workers in the private sector. Tribes are governments and should be treated as such. The intent of the law was and is clear: Tribal governments supervise the employees within their governments and enterprises, not the Federal Government. From 1935 until 2003, nearly seven decades, the National Labor Relations Board agreed and interpreted the statute in a way that did not apply to Indian Tribes because they were governments. In 2004, the NLRB abruptly changed course and, for the first time, held the act applicable to Indian Tribes. The NLRB did this by highlighting the fact that the act did not expressly include Tribal governments among those excluded from the phrase ``employer.'' This is simply an egregious act of bureaucratic overreach. Let me be clear. In this case, acting on its own, the NLRB expanded its jurisdiction. Neither the existing administration at the time nor Congress asked or ordered the NLRB to take this action. The impacts of labor strife on Tribal governments and economies are more harmful than on other governments because there is no effective tax base in Tribal communities. Indian lands are held in trust by the United States and are not subject to taxation. The high unemployment rates and legal restrictions make income taxation an unfeasible option. As a result, the businesses operated by Tribal governments, gaming operations, Tribal agriculture, energy and timber operations, and other Tribal government enterprise constitute the sole source of revenue that is used to fund essential government services for Tribes. This bill has drawn bipartisan support in our effort to reverse the decision of the NLRB. In the 114th Congress, the same language passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 249-177. This bill will strengthen Tribal sovereignty and correct this overreach, directing the NLRB to enforce the NLRA, National Labor Relations Act, as it was originally intended. In the end, Mr. Speaker, all we are doing here today with this bill is affirming what was Congress' original intent. The NLRA does not have jurisdiction over Tribal governments. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Colorado covered a lot of ground, so let me try to respond to some of that area because a lot of it doesn't have a whole lot to do with the legislation until the final phase of his remarks. In terms of CHIP, we actually agree. I think that's something--and, frankly, this House should be proud it passed a CHIP bill on a bipartisan basis months ago. Our real problem is the United States Senate simply hasn't produced legislation. It doesn't have to accept our legislation. It just needs to pass a CHIP bill so we can go to conference and bargain. I am pleased that both sides, frankly, have worked to make sure that, when we have done extensions of government spending as we work through some of these knotty issues, we continue to fund CHIP. I think the leadership on both sides of the aisle have been clear about that, and I think we will. But, again, it will be great when the Senate finally passes a bill or we make this part of a larger spending bill. In terms of my friend's points about the Dream Act, I am honestly heartened at the discussion that took place at the White House yesterday. I think there is a genuine desire to come to an agreement on DACA. But the real issue there is border security in addition to legal status. These folks, obviously, I think, deserve legal status; but you also have to fix the problem, and the problem is on the border. So the outline of the deal is there if people approach it in good faith on both sides of the aisle. I take the fact that we had leadership in both parties meeting with the President yesterday as a good sign in that regard. In terms of the budget, we probably have at least some areas of agreement. My friend didn't vote for it, but it is worth noting, the House passed every single appropriations bill before the September 30 deadline. We have been waiting now for over 120 days for the United States Senate to just pass a single appropriations bill. We are in discussions with them now, and I think at some point, when there is an agreement as to what the top line number is--and I think we might not be too far away from that--then we will be able to proceed. But again, this House has done its work. Just as it did on CHIP, it produced legislation on time, and it is prepared to sit down and negotiate with the Senate whenever the Senate decides it can get around to getting its job done. In terms of the National Labor Relations Act, the Tribal sovereignty portion of this bill, let me point out a couple of things. My friend does have an excellent record, honestly, in terms of support on Native American issues. This is just an issue where we disagree. There will be Republicans and Democrats who oppose this legislation. There will be Republicans and Democrats who support this legislation. It is not really purely a partisan question at all, but it is worth noting, the Indian community is united on this issue. The National Congress of American Indians, over 150 Tribal organizations and individual Tribes have come and asked the Congress to correct this oversight. The fact that this happened in the way it did, that is, the National Labor Relations Board acted on its own to extend its jurisdiction, had no instructions from Congress to do that, had no request from the administration to do that, they just decided they would do it all, that is my definition of a regulatory body run amuck. For almost 70 years, the NLRB recognized that it did not have jurisdiction in this area and did not try and do it. This is a very new thing. It aroused opposition in Indian Country immediately. Again, we don't apply these standards to any State government or any local government. We have lots of State governments and lots of local governments involved in activities that are not strictly governmental. They run municipal golf courses. They do water parks. None of these things are necessarily inherently government. They are not forced to comply with this. So we should extend to Tribal government, which we historically have done, the exact same status and rights in this regard as we do to State and local governments. We would all be pretty upset if the Federal Government decided it would interject itself in this way into the affairs of any individual State or any of the individual localities that we represent. Working for a public entity is different. You certainly have rights, but there are restrictions. You have certain rights, like the right to strike, that in most States and most localities do not exist. Tribes should have the same right to make those sorts of decisions for themselves. Again, they resent and have resented historically the violation of their sovereignty. In this case, a regulatory agency without the authority of this body and without the authority of the administration that existed at that time acted on its own. What the Indian nations and Indian Country have come and asked is: Restore us the sovereignty that you historically accorded us. That is all this legislation does. The last point, my friend says this is unlikely to become law. I beg to disagree. Not only did this pass the House on a bipartisan vote in the last Congress, but this Congress it has been reported out of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on a bipartisan vote. There is every reason to believe this. We will see what the administration does. But I suspect views change over 25 years, and I would hope the administration is supportive of this. As a matter of fact, as I recall, I think they issued a statement to that effect. So, regardless, let's do our job. Let's continue to do the job we did in the last Congress when, on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats alike decided Tribal sovereignty was an important issue. We should work together to defend it and to expand it. In this case, we are working to reclaim something that a Federal agency took away, acting on its own, over a decade ago. So the solution to this is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly urge my friends to support the rule and, more importantly, the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect my friend's right to bring up a subject that they think is important and is important, and it is appropriate that they use their time to do that. I would remind them that there is a negotiation underway. I think the issue here is less about DACA probably and more about border security. The issues are naturally paired together. These young people came here through no fault of their own. They are not responsible for any sort of criminal act. But they were transported across a very porous border. So to ensure that we are not here again doing the same thing again, strengthening that border at the same time that we provide legal status seems the appropriate thing to do. I suspect neither is achievable without the other linked together. So I take it that the two sides are negotiating. I am not involved in those negotiations. I am not a member of the relevant committees, but I think the two sides are involved in that negotiation. My hope is that they come to an agreement and that we can have a large, bipartisan victory and a piece of legislation that we are all proud of. But I suspect it is going to take some give-and-take on each side to achieve that. I do want to go back, though, to the principal underlying legislation here and ask my friends--many of whom, by the way, will support this legislation. There will be considerable Democratic support for this. But I would hope--and, again, I understand this is an issue of competing goods, but sovereignty is not something we should grant to States and localities and deny Indian Tribes. We should not have a double standard here. If we need to make changes across the entire Labor Relations Act, fair enough. I guess we should consider that. But we should not single out Tribes and make them subject to capricious, arbitrary, bureaucratic activity deciding on what their legal status is, what their rights are, and interfere with their ability to operate their own businesses, which are absolutely indispensable to supporting their governmental activities. We do not give Tribes the power to tax. They can't tax their own land. They can't tax their own citizens. If they are not successful economically, they have to rely on the limited resources given by the Federal Government to do everything from protecting their citizens to providing healthcare for their citizens and to making sure that there is appropriate education for their citizens. They ought to be able to do what other governments do and earn money and run their own affairs. We allow States to do that. We allow localities to do that. For almost 70 years, we allowed Indian Tribes to do that. Then we took it away from them. They are not even asking for something new. They are just asking for something that was taken from them, in terms of their authority and sovereignty, to be restored to them. Mr. Speaker, again, I go back to urging the passage of the underlying legislation. I hope that we continue to work on these other issues that my friends have brought up. We are working on them in areas like CHIP, like the DACA question, and like the border security question. But let's also take our time and pass this very important piece of legislation and restore to Indian Tribes what the National Labor Relations Board took away from them over a decade ago. Mr. Speaker, 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 the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, and I want to stress that, while we disagree on this, I appreciate his efforts in Native American issues. He has a record that, I think, is an excellent record overall. We just disagree very profoundly in this case. I will say this: if you happened to just casually turn on the coverage of the debate at any point, you might wonder what we were debating about. In the course of the debate, we have talked about CHIP, we have talked about the DREAMers, we have talked about the budget, we have talked about FISA. We have spent a lot of time talking about a lot of different things other than the information at hand. I don't begrudge my friend. He feels very passionately about those areas. It is interesting to me that, on the FISA issue, for instance, we will actually have a debate tomorrow. The amendment my friend supports will be in order tomorrow. We will have an opportunity to do that. I think there are good faith efforts underway on both sides on the DACA issue and on the issue of FISA, particularly on the issue of the budget as well. Again, I wish this place worked a little differently. Sometimes deadlines are like alarm clocks here, but those things are underway. What we are talking about today is also an effort that has been waged by Indian nations for over a dozen years to try and reclaim part of their sovereignty that was unjustly taken away from them. I am going to disagree with my friend very profoundly. Nobody's rights have been taken away. Every American's rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1965 makes it abundantly clear no Tribe can do anything in contravention and restrict the rights of Americans. The only people who have lost rights in this whole discussion and episode have been Tribal governments who had their right to regulate their labor affairs, the same way we allow States and localities to do it, taken away from them. It wasn't taken away from them by an act of this Congress. We never passed legislation. It wasn't taken away from this because the administration ordered some agency of the executive branch to do something. It was taken away because, acting in a rogue manner, the National Labor Relations Board, on its own, decided it would expand its legal authority. Well, that is great. They may have a case to make. But that is not what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to operate within the authority Congress gives them. If they think they need a grant of additional authority, they come to Congress and ask for that grant of additional authority. They don't simply, on their own, decide they will willy-nilly violate the rights of a sovereign Native American nation. That is exactly what happened in this case. Frankly, the Tribes have been extraordinarily patient in pursuing the remedy to this. I think we ought to, today, take the opportunity to rectify a wrong that an agency of the executive branch did without the consent of Congress or even without the consent of the President of the United States at the time and allow Tribes to reclaim the authority that they exercised for over 70 years. If we think we need to do something different in that regard, that is a fair point to make. If we do, it needs to be the same for State governments and local governments. You don't single Tribes out of sovereign entities and impose something on them that doesn't apply to everybody else that is a sovereign of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage all Members to support the rule, but I recognize my friends probably will not, and that is fair enough. That is normal partisan debate. But with S. 140, the House is taking steps to strengthen Tribal sovereignty. This body actually has a pretty good record. I worked with my friends across the aisle when we passed the Violence Against Women Act, which had a very important component giving Tribes back some of the jurisdiction that they needed to regulate domestic abuse and sexual assault on their own territory. My friends were overwhelmingly supportive and helpful in that measure. It would not have happened without them, so I know in many cases we do agree. But in this case, under this bill, Tribal governments will be able to be excluded from the requirements for employers under the NLRA, just like State and local governments. This legislation will reverse the bureaucratic overreach of the NLRB and clarify the law once and for all. This bill is a commonsense solution that will clarify the original intent of Congress that the NLRA does not have jurisdiction over Tribal governments. I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this work. We will actually have a split decision over this. There will certainly be some Republicans supporting my friend's position, but by and large, I think this House will do what it did the last time it considered this legislation, and that is, on a bipartisan basis, pass the law. This time, given the action of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, we have every reason to believe the legislation will be picked up and sent to the President's desk, where I am confident it will be signed.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to a couple of my friend's points. Let me begin by disagreeing respectfully with my friend's assertion that people are having their rights stripped away. The only people losing their rights here are Indian Tribes. That is what happened when the NLRB did what it did. Without the direction of Congress or the administration, it decided on its own it would treat Indian Tribal governments different than it treated other governments. So it is those rights to the Tribal governments that we are busy trying to restore. My friend, who, again, is very good on Indian issues, as a rule, and I understand the competing claims here. So I recognize the tension that is involved in that. But it is not as if Tribal governments don't have their own labor codes and their own standards. Frankly, those have to comply with American law. Under the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1965, there is absolutely nothing that a Tribal government can do that would contravene the guaranteed rights in the United States Constitution for all Americans. So to suggest that they are somehow violating the rights of American workers, I think, is to mischaracterize who they are and how they have acted. What they have said is, if we are sovereign, if the Federal Government says that State governments and local governments are allowed to regulate their own workforces, then Tribal governments are allowed to do the same. I want to disagree also with my friend. There are lots of municipal golf courses in the United States. There are lots of municipal water slides. There are park systems. You can go to the State of Virginia and it happens to own the liquor business in the State. It has decided it is going to make that a State function. We don't regulate those employees. So the idea that just because it is a money-making activity, that we then somehow treat it differently, we don't do that to any locality or any State in the country. We just had an unelected Federal agency decide on its own it was going to do that to Indian Tribes. It is not doing it to anybody else, just to Tribes. I would submit that that is fundamentally unfair. Again, nobody's rights are taken away. Every American citizen has exactly the same right. But if you were to go to work for the Federal Government, you don't have precisely the same rights you do in the private sector. The same thing is true here. If you choose to go to work for a Tribal government, you live within that regime. That regime has to comport with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and you have not lost your action rights in Federal court if you think there is a violation. So I think, frankly, this is a case that is crystal clear. You treat everybody the same way, every governmental unit the same way. That is all the Tribes are asking for. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a distinguished member of both the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 681 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Bonnie Kind for over 40 years of civil service. Bonnie began her career with the Social Security Administration as a student trainee. This month she will retire from the Social Security Administration, where she served most recently as the Associate Commissioner for Budget and principal advisor to the Social Security Administration's Chief Financial Officer. Bonnie has provided consistent vigilance and stewardship of SSA's approximately $1 trillion program budget and $12 billion administrative budget. As Budget Officer for the Social Security Administration, Bonnie provides executive leadership and direction to SSA in administering a comprehensive program of budget policy, formulation, presentation, and execution. She is responsible for the financial resources needed to provide for one of our nation's most vital public services--social security payments for more than 60 million people. Bonnie has worked collaboratively with Congressional staff on details of the Social Security Administration's budget and fostered an environment of open communication. She has excelled at developing relationships. Her knowledge of the budget process and the relationships she has established have helped Congress understand and appreciate the unique aspects of the service provided by the Social Security Administration and scope of the agency's impact, serving millions of Americans and employing more than 60,000 men and women across the nation. As Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee that oversees the administrative funding for the Social Security Administration, I want to thank Bonnie for her work providing information for Members and staff. Congress depends on the extensive expertise of dedicated public servants like Bonnie. Information from the agency is critical to making decisions--we could not do our work in Congress without the help of people like her. I want to congratulate Bonnie on her 40 years of public service. My understanding is Bonnie plans to travel to the Grand Canyon in the coming year and volunteer. I wish her the best of luck in her retirement.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge support for H.J. Res. 123, the short-term continuing resolution. I want to begin my remarks by, frankly, congratulating the chairman. It is his leadership, and my good friend on the other side, they have put together the bill in April that actually is funding the government today. A majority of Democrats voted for that in the House and the Senate. A majority of Republicans voted for it. The President signed it. Under the chairman's leadership, all 12 bills passed well before the deadline that fund the government of September 30. He has been prepared to negotiate for 80 days. He hasn't been sitting around in those 80 days. He also passed two disaster relief bills and is working on a third one right now. I think you probably have the hardest working chairman and committee in Congress. The rest of the government, the Senate in particular, needs to catch up with us. Now, to their credit, they are actually sitting down with the President today, and we are beginning to see some progress. We need this additional time to allow us to fund the government. To my friends who oppose it, what is your alternative? Shutting down the government? I know they don't want to do that. They have always argued against it. I have always thought they were right when they argued against it, but if we follow their advice and reject this amendment, the government will shut down on Friday. That doesn't do any American any good. Mr. Speaker, the chairman has offered the responsible alternative here. I urge its passage.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017. However, I would like to point out the positive outcomes this bill would provide to the Hydropower industry. This bill would improve the administrative efficiency, accountability and transparency in the process of expanding hydropower generation. It would bring certainty and timeliness to the licensing process, that right now takes decades to move through. This bill would require other federal agencies to submit earlier any foreseeable issues that would prolong the licensing process, instead of waiting until the last hour as they are able to today. With that said, H.R. 3043 falls short in its treatment of tribal communities. I believe the proponents of this bill have worked in the best interest of Indian Country, but have unfortunately fallen short. First, this bill would overturn the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Tacoma v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that held that the Department of the Interior has the mandatory authority to develop appropriate conditions to protect federal Indian reservations under the Federal Power Act. Also, that FERC has no authority to reject these conditions because the Interior Department did not meet FERC's schedule. H.R. 3043, would overturn this decision by allowing FERC to put a clock on other Federal agencies and force them to accommodate their schedule. For example, if the Interior Department misses the deadline then Tribal interests cannot be considered again until the next re-licensing opportunity at least 40 years later. H.R. 3043 does nothing to strengthen the tribal voice in the process and truncates our trustee agencies' responsibility. This bill would allow FERC to make the determination as to the scope of environmental review for 4(e) conditions, which the Interior Department is already required to give deference to. Hydropower projects affect entire watersheds, which in turn impact Indian reservations in ways that FERC and the hydropower industry have fought to deny. However, in Tacoma v. FERC, the Court was again clear that if a project is on Indian lands, Interior alone gets to determine what conditions, and by necessity the environmental review, that are necessary to protect the Indian Reservation. H.R. 3043 would require Interior to balance energy generating interests against the Agency's trust responsibility to protect Indian Reservations. Currently, under the Federal Power Act, Interior's only interest is developing conditions to protect federal Indian Reservations, which, frankly, should only be their interests in line with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and not the Department of Energy. Finally, H.R. 3043 would overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Escondido v. FERC, 466 U.S. 765 (1984) and give FERC the authority to make a determination that a 4(e) condition and fishway condition is inconsistent with the Federal Power Act. This is unprecedented change in the Federal Power Act, which will undermine the federal trustee agency's ability to protect Indian lands and resources. There is nothing in the bill that improves the FERC relicensing in regards to tribes and, frankly, would severely undermine tribal governments and Interior Department's ability to protect tribal and trust resources.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the chairwoman for yielding time to me, and I particularly want to congratulate her on doing something that is going to be pretty remarkable today. She is bringing a budget that actually balances in 10 years. My good friends on the other side will bring us three budgets, none of which come into balance in 10 years. In that, to be fair, they follow the tradition that President Obama set, who never ever brought us a budget that balanced and left us with a national debt roughly twice the size of the one he had when he came into office. If we don't do what Chairwoman Black suggests here, we are going to be in exactly that same position. I particularly want to congratulate the chairwoman for having the courage to take on the tough issue of entitlement and mandatory spending reform. She has $200 billion of it. It sounds like a lot of money, but it is out of $30 trillion over 10 years. This is something we can do--frankly, we should do more of--and that is the way to actually move toward balance. I also want to congratulate the chairwoman for actually working with other committee chairmen to help them identify the cuts so they are real. They are not just fictional things in an imaginary document. Finally, I particularly want to commend her for a wise investment in national security. That is a tough decision to make, but we have all seen the ravages left by sequester and by continuing resolutions that are the number one enemies of the United States military. We have actually, under the last administration, inflicted more damage on the military than any enemy could do on any battlefield anyplace in the world. Our chairwoman and our committee stops that, reverses that, and begins to invest. Mr. Chair, I just want to end by pointing out the long-term solution here to our problems really is entitlement reform. We have to get serious about mandatory spending. It is two-thirds of the budget now. Without changing the direction we are going, it will be 81 percent a decade from now. It is simply not sustainable. It is nice to talk about this discretionary program or that discretionary program. The fundamental problem that we face is mandatory spending. The chairwoman addresses it in her budget. We can come back and build on what she does next year and continue to go after the area that really unbalances the budget. Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of the budget.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 175 printed in House Report 115-297 to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 176 printed in House Report 115-297 to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.