Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), my very good friend and my fellow member of the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my good friend. It is always a pleasure, honestly, to engage in debate with him because it is going to be spirited, but it is going to be civil. So I thank my friend for that. And, frankly, when my friend points out that he and President Trump are actually on the same side for once, I think the second coming may not be very far. So we are all in a pretty good mood here. But I do want to echo a couple of points that my friend made, and made, as always, with great skill. There is a lot in this bill that brings us together. This was a product of genuine compromise. We have Republicans in the House and Democrats in the House, Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the Senate, and, obviously, the administration. It is really a five-corner negotiation. I think we ought to step back a little bit and reflect that, in the course of that, while all those parties began with very different positions, and some verbal fisticuffs, as well, they actually moved closer together over the course of discussion. And that has effectively meant that we are going to have the first bipartisan, bicameral negotiation in this administration that has been successful. I would hope it becomes a model for some of the things that lie in front of us, things like infrastructure, and like tax reform. I recognize we won't always agree. But, to me, this agreement shows that we can work towards agreements, if we will sit in good faith and compromise with one another. I think the President, frankly, did a lot of good things from his point of view here. I think the additional money for our men and women in uniform, the raise in pay for those we have asked so much from, and who have never let us down, is something he can be proud of. I think the additional money on the border, where we know we have a security problem, we may debate the best way to address that. That is fair enough. But that is an achievement that he deserves credit for. And I think, frankly, breaking this artificial linkage of domestic spending and security spending was something that is really important. Sometimes we will actually need more domestically than, perhaps, we need in defense. But we are going to have to look at those things logically, not create artificial formulas. I actually fear sometimes my side might do that in reverse by demanding cuts in exchange for military spending when those cuts are, in themselves, not wise. Finally, I look at things where we find a lot of common purpose here. My friend, Mr. Dent, mentioned a number of those. Things like more money for the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Disease Control. Believe me, pandemics and bioterrorists don't care if you are Republican or Democrat, or Liberal or Conservative. We have to maintain this effort. It is extraordinarily important. I think, again, and my friends pointed out, we worked together to provide additional funds for early childhood, to provide additional money through programs like GEAR UP and TRIO, to help those who have never had an opportunity to go to college and succeed. And, frankly, things like the year-round Pell grant, that, again, as speakers from both sides of the aisle pointed out, are going to help students actually succeed and help them wrestle with the financial burden. So there is a lot in here to be proud of. Now, our vote on the rule is always a partisan exercise, so I recognize that. But I am very proud that, after that vote, we will have substantial numbers of Members from both sides of the aisle voting together on something they worked on together and achieved. It will be sent over to the Senate, and I think we will see the same result there, and eventually to the desk of the President of the United States, and I think he can sign it with a great deal of pride and a recognition that: hey, occasionally, bipartisanship and negotiation actually work. With that, again, I want to thank my very good friend for the debate. And I want to point out in closing that this is so much better than a continuing resolution. This is real governance at work. This is us working together, exercising oversight, and appropriately funding, and compromises on occasion, important functions for the American people.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 305 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I go to my next speaker, I want to take a moment to respond to my friends. Mr. Speaker, I actually came here to debate the appropriations bill, which is a great bipartisan compromise, but I am always happy to engage in the healthcare debate as well, if that is what my friends choose to do. I am happy to do it because I remember the conditions under which ObamaCare was passed. I remember the promises that we would save $2,500 a family--not true. I remember, if you liked your plan, you could keep it--not true. I remember, if you liked your doctor, you could keep that individual--not true. This was sold, frankly, on a tissue of fabrications and some predictions that were outlandishly false. Those people who say this is a good system, come to my State. We are down to a single provider--one. That provider, by the way, I always say thank God for them, because they are losing money. We are down to one. Our rates are going up 69 percent. So anybody who thinks this is a successful system should go look at it. If it were successful, my friends would probably still be in the majority instead of the minority. It has not been successful. The American people have, in election after election, rendered a verdict that this particular system is not meeting their needs, and it badly needs to be overhauled and changed, if not rooted out completely. Frankly, again, as, I think, through the President's actions and what my colleagues in the leadership of my party are doing, I am very glad they are working overtime right now to try and make sure that we have something better for the American people than my friends delivered on the other side of the aisle when they had the opportunity to do so. It is not working. I hope very much we have to cancel travel plans so the next day or two we can actually vote on this. I would be ecstatic to do that. So, again, I would be happy to debate that. When the time comes, we will. But I look forward to engaging in that debate because I am absolutely convinced we can do a lot better for the American people than we did when ObamaCare was passed, and we can implement something a lot better for the American people than we did when it was rolled out. And we certainly can avoid some of the catastrophic consequences. As for my friend's concerns about preexisting conditions, frankly, they are not going to be reversed, but I happen to live in a State where I trust my Governor and my legislature to make smart decisions. Frankly, I trust them a lot more than I do anybody in Washington, D.C., to understand what is going on in my State. I suspect most people in here actually trust their Governors and their legislature to be more in touch with the needs of their people than anybody in Washington, D.C., happens to be, so I am happy to see a devolution of decisionmaking from Washington to other parts of the country. As I read the Constitution, we call that federalism. It has worked very well for the American people for almost 240 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Fourth District of Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar), my good friend in his second term, but a new member of the Committee on Appropriations. I am very glad to have him on my Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

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, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, 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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, my good friend, for yielding me the time and for those incredibly gracious and generous remarks. Mr. Speaker, I certainly rise to support the rule and the underlying legislation. By the very nature of Rules debates, everything seems to be partisan because it seems to be sort of shirts and skins as it is on the rules. The reality is the legislation we are talking about has actually been requested by both parties. We had both the chairman and the ranking member in there requesting because they are working together in a bipartisan way to produce a major piece of legislation that will direct spending for the United States government in the range of about $1 trillion between now and September 30. The important thing to note is that it is a very bipartisan negotiation between two very skillful legislators, Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Nita Lowey. When they bring that legislation to the floor, as they will next week, it is going to have some pretty important and pretty major things on it. We are not only going to adequately fund our military, we are going to increase that. We are going to give the President some things he has asked for in terms of supplemental money for defense to upgrade and improve our military. We are going to give him some additional things for border security as well that, again, both parties have agreed on. I think we all want secure borders. We know there is always some debate about exactly how or what we should do, but, in this case, we have a bipartisan agreement. We will actually give a very substantial increase to the National Institutes of Health, which, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) mentioned, great work is done on behalf of the American people in that institution. Frankly, it has been Republicans that first doubled that back in the late 1990s and early 2000s and now have reignited the biomedical research engine by putting additional resources in there. It is something our friends support, but actually it was Republicans who took the initiative to achieve. We will see some really important increases in some education programs that give some of our less advantaged citizens opportunities to go: TRIO, GEAR UP. Both prepare individuals for higher education and then have a chance to exploit the opportunity when it comes. So that bill will have a lot of good things in it that will be bipartisan. My good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) mentioned--and I think appropriately so--that there is a certain amount of dysfunction in the appropriations process. Where we probably disagree is--I have got to tell you, it is not new. Since we passed the Budget Control Act over 40 years ago in 1974, budgets and appropriations have been completed on time exactly four times. It didn't matter who was in charge. So maybe we ought to go back and look at that defective process that was set in motion by our friends back when they controlled both Chambers in overwhelming numbers and rethink how we do this. I do agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that it is important to focus on first things first. And while tax reform is a very important goal that, I think, this Congress will achieve and while health care is a very important goal, which I certainly hope this Conference achieves and I think we are working toward, there is no question the most important thing we do around here is fund the government every day. We make sure that our military has what it needs to protect us and that our border control officials have what they need to make sure they are secure, that we do things like look for cures for Alzheimer's and cancer at the NIH. To me, that always is the most important thing it has to do. So, in this bill and in the bill that will follow next week, we are actually doing what we should do. We are putting first things first. Let's make sure these basics are done for the American people, and then let's get about the important business of changing their Tax Code and making sure that they have the best health care in the world. In my view, Congress could have--and to my friend's point--could have and should have done this months ago. It is important to note that the Appropriations Committee had reported out all 12 of the bills that fund the day-to-day operation of the budget. Five of them actually moved across the floor. We did run into problems in the United States Senate where there was a lot of obstruction, but the Appropriations Committee did its job. We just have to now, as a Congress, do our job and make sure those bills get to the floor in a timely manner, and that we do the right thing so that they pass. The Appropriations Committee can only prepare them. They don't get to schedule them on the floor. They don't get to move them across the floor. That has to be done with all sides working together for the good of the American people. Again, it is worth noting that we can do this process. Two years in a row, we have done all 12 bills. So I would hope in the future, as we make these decisions--and my friend is right, a decision was made in November or December. It is not one I agreed with--to wait and say let's let the new administration have some input on this. Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with that. The new administration wants to come in, and there is a vehicle called a supplemental, where, if they want to tweak the budget, they can do that and they can bring it to the floor, and that is what we should have done. But we shouldn't ask them to write the budget for the very year in which they show up. They simply don't have their people in place. They are not ready to do that. They have got to get their Cabinet appointed. So I would hope, in the future, we remember that and do first things first. Still, it is never too late to do the right thing, as my mom used to say. And the right thing to do today is to pass this rule, pass this bill, give our friends, the appropriators, the time that they need to negotiate a final bill. I am confident we will do that; I am confident we will do it on a bipartisan basis, Mr. Speaker; and I am confident we will be back here with a bill the American people can be proud of because that will have been negotiated in good faith, it will be bipartisan, and it will give us the stability that we need from now until September 30.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 225.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his remarkable leadership in this important debate. Seven years ago, I was on this floor and I heard that, if you liked your plan, you could keep it. I heard, if you liked your doctor, you could keep that doctor. And I heard that healthcare costs were going to drop by $2,500 per family. None of it was true. I sit here now and look at my State, and I know what is happening next year. The rates on the ObamaCare exchanges are going up by 69 percent. We are down to a single provider. That is what 7 years ago brought us. Today we have a chance to do something different, and everybody from my State will do something different. They will vote for a plan that actually does what it says it is going to do. Number one, they will be able to actually have plans that are designed by Oklahomans, not by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. They will be able to have a tax credit, if they are not already insured under Medicaid or Medicare or from their employer. They will be able to have an individual tax credit to purchase a plan that they design, that they like. They will be free of the mandates of ObamaCare, free to make their own decisions, free of the mandates that require them to buy insurance products that they simply don't need. I have got a lot of people in my district that are in their fifties and sixties. Some of them might like to have children again, but they are not likely to have children again, and they mostly don't want maternity care. So it is a pretty simple choice for us. It is a choice to be free and make our own decisions. It is a choice to design our own plans. It is a choice to have Federal assistance where we need it, but to be used under our direction. It is an easy choice. I urge the passage of this rule, and I urge the passage of the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend for yielding. Before I begin my prepared remarks, I had no idea there was such interest in the Arbuckle watershed, but I am flattered and pleased that all of you are here for this important legislation. I rise in support H.R. 132, the Arbuckle Project Maintenance Complex and District Office Conveyance Act. This bill is straightforward. As has been mentioned, it is a land conveyance which has both Federal and local support. I would like to remind my colleagues this legislation was passed in the 114th Congress on December 7, 2016, by a vote of 412-1. Clearly, it was so good, everybody wanted it back again. H.R. 132 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain lands and buildings of the Arbuckle Project in Murray County, Oklahoma, to the Arbuckle Master Conservancy District. In 1962, Congress authorized the payment of reimbursable costs for construction, operation, and maintenance of the Bureau of Reclamation's Arbuckle Master Conservancy District in south-central Oklahoma. The district completed repayment of the capital costs of the project in September of 2012. In accordance with the Bureau of Reclamation's policy framework for title transfer, in December 2014, the Bureau of Reclamation and the district executed an agreement to transfer, in fee title, certain facilities that could be more effectively and efficiently managed at the local level. The title transfer involves approximately 2.83 acres of land. On this land is a small house, associated structures, and the conservancy district's headquarters office building. The house and property are used to accommodate a district employee who maintains and inspects the dam and the pumping facilities. The headquarters office building is the base of operation for the district. This bill also divests the Federal Government of its responsibility and liability associated with the district's facilities. Reclamation and the district have worked cooperatively and successfully to address all of the elements necessary to bring this legislation forward and make this transfer proceed as smoothly as possible. I am pleased this bill is an agreement in which both the Federal and local interests are satisfied. I want to urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation once again. I want to again thank the chairman for his help in expediting this matter.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and, frankly, I want to thank her for taking on this rule and the role she plays in this House. She came to Congress with an extraordinary expertise in national security, probably unsurpassed by any new Member. So she is not only a valuable member of the Rules Committee, she is an important voice for the security of the United States of America in a very dangerous era. Before I begin, I want to actually agree with my friend from Massachusetts on a couple of very important points that he made. First, I want to agree with him that this should have been done earlier. My friend is exactly right about this. This could have been done, in my view, in November and December. We should have gotten it done then. We would have avoided a lot of problems that come with a continuing resolution. I am very pleased that we are moving it now, but earlier would have been better, no question about it. And that is true with every other bill, and my friend made that point as well. We really should make sure that each of the appropriations bills are passed. All of the problems associated with the continuing resolution are so evident for our military, are evident, frankly, in every other department. So I would hope my leadership continues to do what they are doing today and that is move these bills forward. My friend is also right, in my opinion, about the authorization of the use of military force. This is something we have agreed on, even when we disagree on other things. This is a congressional responsibility. The President has announced he is going to announce a new strategy going forward on ISIS. I would suggest to my side of the aisle and to the administration, now would be a great time to come to the Congress so we could have this robust debate on deploying and using our military and discharge our constitutional responsibilities. I am less persuaded by my friend's arguments about the spending levels here. I just point out for the record this is well below what former Secretary of Defense Gates, when he was Secretary in the Obama administration, recommended we should be doing at this time. Frankly, that is because the last administration dropped the ball and simply didn't listen to its own experts as to what the appropriate level of our forces should be. The underlying legislation here is an excellent bill. My friends have already talked about it in detail. I am going to take a 30,000-foot look at the bill and remind our listeners and our colleagues, there are three important objectives that this bill achieves: The first is stopping the erosion in end strength, something that went on for years under the last administration that somehow thought we would be safer if our military got smaller. That was a bad assumption. The second is to restart the procurement cycle. We have fallen far, far behind what we should be doing in terms of replacing, upgrading, and improving the weapons systems and the communication systems, every system that we move into war with and that we ask our men and women to use. And finally, this actually begins to address a problem that my friend from Wyoming discussed in great detail: readiness. We simply are not ready now to fight with the effectiveness. Now, I don't have any doubt, if we had to deploy massively, that our forces would do well and they would win, but a lot of people would die because they hadn't had the appropriate training, the appropriate time on task to get ready. The other great objective that this bill meets is that we finally match up spending with the authorization. Last year, we had an excellent authorization bill out of the House Armed Services Committee. Unfortunately, that doesn't get you very far if the money doesn't match the policies and the recommendations that they advanced. This now takes care of that problem. I also remind our colleagues that passing this bill is only a first step. As my friend from Wyoming pointed out, we are going to need a supplemental later this year, just for this year. We are going to need a robust increase in the fiscal year 2018 authorization and appropriation, something that the President has committed to and something I hope we can advance on a bipartisan basis. Finally, again, as my friend pointed out, real military buildups take years, not months and weeks. We are going to have to be at this task for several years to restore and strengthen, frankly, what we allowed to decline, what the last administration allowed to decline over several years. So this is an extraordinary first step, but it is only a first step; and I would hope my colleagues would join us on a bipartisan basis, while we have differences, but come together and put the defense of the country in a very dangerous time ahead of all else that we do. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the bill and the underlying legislation, and I urge the passage of the rule. Again, I want to thank my friend from Wyoming. I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts. We sometimes disagree, but he makes very valuable and very important points in some of the critiques he offers, and I hope that we heed them well. With that, again, Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the underlying legislation and the adoption of the rule.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of two important measures. First, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 428, the Red River Gradient Boundary Survey Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, and provides for a motion to recommit. In addition, the resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 42, providing for congressional disapproval of a rule issued by the Department of Labor with regard to drug testing. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, and provides for a motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 428 is a product of months of negotiation between the States of Texas and Oklahoma and the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Tribes in my district. I am happy to have been able to work with my friend Mr. Thornberry to come up with a fair and equitable solution which all interested parties have agreed to. As you may know, the Red River serves as the State line separating Oklahoma and Texas. Over time, the river has moved, as much as a mile in some areas, causing landowners' properties to be affected. Instead of working to resolve this, for nearly a century, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, has been unwilling to survey a small portion of the Federal land along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River between Oklahoma and Texas. H.R. 428 would direct the survey to be completed, using the gradient boundary survey method that was mandated by the Supreme Court, so that ownership of the land, which has been under dispute, can be effectively resolved. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for the consideration of another Congressional Review Act resolution, which would overturn a Department of Labor rule related to drug testing for those applying for unemployment insurance. In 2012, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act made a number of reforms to the unemployment insurance program, including overturning a 1960s-era Department of Labor ban on the screening or testing of unemployment applicants for illegal drugs. The 2012 provision allowed, but did not require, States to test unemployment insurance applicants who either, one, lost their jobs due to drug use or, two, who were seeking new jobs that generally required new employees to pass a drug test. Unfortunately, after 4 years and a now finalized rule, States are no closer to being able to implement this sensible policy. Instead, because of the Department of Labor's overreach, three States which have enacted necessary State law changes to implement this commonsense policy are actually now precluded from moving forward with this sensible, bipartisan policy. Mr. Speaker, most States already limit unemployment insurance benefits or individuals who refuse to take or fail an employer drug test or who have previous employment issues with drugs. We should empower States, employers, and prospective employees who are looking for work and overturn this onerous regulation. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out again that, while my friend is correct, we have two different pieces of legislation under a single rule, and those legislations, as my friend points out, are not particularly related. As a matter of fact, they are not related to one another in any way. Each piece of legislation will receive a separate debate and a separate vote on the House floor. There was simply no reason to have two rules when one would suffice for two bills that basically need to come into the same format, in our view. I also point out that, when we are talking about the vote under the Congressional Review Act, we are actually following a form prescribed in statute, and we are moving at a pace that the law dictates and that, frankly, is necessary in order to retain the privileged status of the legislation in the United States Senate. So nothing unusual here, other than we are actually being pretty productive and undoing a lot of rules that, frankly, we think were misguided and rushed into the final days of the last administration. My friends are free to disagree with that, but I think the issues are pretty clear, pretty easy to decide, and don't require a great deal of amendments. On the Oklahoma-Texas issue, and that is something I know a little bit about since it affects my district, last year, when we considered this legislation, we actually did have an amendment. It was my amendment, and my amendment that probably made it unacceptable in the Senate. But I was indulged by my chairman of the Rules Committee, and for the very important reason that we actually make sure that the tribes have an opportunity to be at the table. In this case, they do. Mr. Thornberry has worked very hard, and so there is no dispute between the delegations in Oklahoma, the delegations in Texas, the interests of the various Indian tribes. Everybody agrees that we need a common set of information, a common survey that we can all trust to, frankly, work out the differences here that have multiplied over a century as the border has literally shifted. So that is the appropriate thing to do. We don't need a lot of amendments on that. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. H.R. 428 is a fair and equitable solution which all interested parties have agreed upon and which can provide certainty that many landowners have sought along the Oklahoma-Texas border. In addition, H.J. Res. 42 undoes a regulation that should have never been made in the first place. By preventing implementation of this regulation, we can ensure that those actively looking for work are provided with the support necessary to reach that goal. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to take a point of personal privilege. This is the last time my good friend and my staff member, Mr. Waskiewicz, will be on the floor with me. He has been with me for 6\1/2\ years. He has made a smart career move and is moving on to the Budget Committee, a more august position. But I have had the good fortune, as I know my friends have and we all have, to have very many wonderful staff members over the years. I have never had a better staff member than Steve Waskiewicz, never had a better friend, never had a harder worker, never had anybody who was more selfless in putting the interests of our office and the constituents whom we are privileged to represent ahead of all else. So I want to commend and thank him publicly and on the record for his wonderful service.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to point out for the record, Mr. Speaker, that actually this rule that we are trying to repeal, the measure we are trying to instate, doesn't force drug testing on anybody; and that is not going to happen in any State, unless the people in the State decide that that is something they want to do. I am quite content to let people in any State make that decision. I think in my State, I am pretty certain that the people who I am privileged to represent would be very upset if they thought somebody was receiving unemployment compensation while they were on drugs, because they think that is going to make it pretty hard for that person to ever get back into the workforce, and they want to be able to identify that. They don't want to incentivize it. Other people may have a different opinion, and that is legitimate. It is a big country. That is why our Founding Fathers adopted a Federal system, so I wouldn't begrudge another State that saw it differently. What we are trying to avoid here is a one-size-fits-all or this body and any administration dictating to every State what they ought to do. Frankly, I would suggest that my good friend's remarks suggest that is the concern, that they actually want to decide in Oklahoma what we would do. We are not trying to decide in Connecticut what our friends would do. We are just thinking this ought to be down to the States. That was the intent of Congress. When this was written, it was to empower the States to allow them to pursue policies they thought were appropriate. Frankly, if they do that and they pursue different policies, which they may well, we may actually learn something out of this. Again, that is part of the genius of our system, having 50 different laboratories out there. But let's not have a bureaucracy decide that it will circumvent the will of the Congress of the United States and write a rule that is clearly meant to undo the intent of a legislation that was passed across this floor with bipartisan support. Again, we just disagree on the issue, but, for the record, we are not trying to impose our beliefs. We are trying to let every State do what that State thinks they ought to do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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. Actually, I listened with a great deal of interest to the debate from my friends on the other side. None of it had very much to do with the rule or with the underlying legislation that we are going to discuss shortly, so I don't pretend to be an expert on the issues. I do point out, simply in passing, that it really is up to the President of the United States as to whose advice he or she wants to take. Frankly, you know, to say that there aren't ``political people on the National Security Agency,'' with all due respect to a Chief of Staff that I admire profoundly, I think Leon Panetta is one of the great Chiefs of Staff to ever serve any President, but I would tell you that he is a pretty political guy. He was in this body, and one of his jobs was to help make sure the President of the United States was reelected. So there was a political dimension to what he did. I don't know Mr. Bannon. I have never met him. I don't pretend to be familiar with him or his thinking. I do know that he is a valued adviser to the President of the United States. And if the President of the United States is going to seek advice from somebody--and it may be in these areas of national security--frankly, personally, I would prefer them to be part of the National Security Council, simply to have the educated debate of some of the very best professionals that we have and so that their opinion, when they advise the President, is fully formed. Again, I see this as the President's decision, not some enormous departure. On occasions, Mr. Axelrod, who was not a chief of staff who was primarily a political counsel, did sit in on national security meetings at the request of the President. So, again, we can have this argument. I am not sure it is particularly relevant to the legislation. But at the end of the day, I want anybody advising the President of the United States--and he gets to make that choice--to get the best information they can possibly receive so that that advice is well-informed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), who is here to offer some important thoughts about some of the issues that are involved in the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 99 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Obviously, the gentleman and I have some disagreement here, but let's talk for a minute about the form of what we are doing. The gentleman is correct in that this rule covers two different pieces of legislation that don't have anything substantive in common. However, the legislation itself will be debated separately. We will have one debate on the Oklahoma-Texas issue, which involves the boundary between those two States and the tribal interests that are also intimately part of that. We will have a separate debate on the rule. That is the appropriate way to proceed. There is no reason to have a separate rule for each one of these debates, but it is appropriate, as the gentleman suggested, to have two different debates because they are two different subjects. I am going to disagree with him--and I am probably being parochial in this sense--for, if you live in Oklahoma, we actually think the border between Oklahoma and Texas is pretty important. This is an issue that, frankly, was dealt with legislatively last year. This body did not vote out the bill. I actually opposed it last year because it did not take care of the tribal interests involved and they had not been suitably dealt with. We amended the bill. Actually, I should say it was brought up, but it was not taken up by the Senate. We changed it, but we kept working for many months. Chairman Thornberry is the person who deserves most of the credit here of trying to bring the parties together. Also, just by way of explanation so everybody is clear, this does not settle the issue. This doesn't force anything on the Federal Government or the two States or the tribes. It simply creates a common database. The two States have been asking for a complete survey of the contested area for many years. The BLM has refused to do that. You simply can't sort through this problem of a shifting border--set well over a century ago--with conflicting tribal interests if you don't have a common set of data here. So that is all that is being done here. I can assure you that, certainly, the tribes in question would not have consented to go forward if they had thought they were having a solution imposed on them. What they think they are getting is a database that will allow them to determine exactly what their interests and rights here are and, hopefully, negotiate that with the two States in question; but, if necessary, they will litigate the issue. So we see this as a reasonable effort to bring parties together where there is a great deal of confusion through nobody's fault. And we think the BLM has been lax here and, frankly, may well be claiming things beyond its authority. But the survey, again, will hopefully take care of that. So I hope that eases the concerns that people have. In terms of the drug rule, we see this as an issue where Congress made its intent in 2012 very clear, that is, we wanted States to have options to make these decisions for themselves. We think the Department of Labor rule made that more, rather than less, difficult. We can argue over the merits of any individual treatment of people that have used illegal drugs or what the appropriate testing measure is or whatever. I happen to think those decisions are best made at the State level where you have got interested parties that are more knowledgeable about local conditions than us dictating a one size fits all. So we just simply disagree on that. Finally, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) mentioned some concerns about the speed with which we are acting and also the form with which we are acting. The form, frankly, is basically dictated by statute. The Congressional Review Act dictates the manner in which we can bring these items on rules to the floor, the timetable which we can operate under. If we alter that over here, then, frankly, we lose privilege status in the Senate and the chances of succeeding actually diminish pretty greatly. We think, in this case, the issues are pretty clear. These aren't really things that need to be amended. We need to decide whether or not the regulation is appropriate or not. If you think it is, you should vote in favor of keeping the regulation as it is and against this effort. If, on the other hand, you would like to see decisionmaking devolve down to the States and where we think better decisions will be made, then, you should vote in favor of the rule and the underlying legislation. So, again, I don't think these issues are overly complex. I do think this is an important time to deal with them. Again, we have a limited period of time on the Congressional Review Act. We have a certain format. We think we are abiding within both that timeframe and that format. On the Oklahoma-Texas border issue, it is a knotty issue. It has been around for decades. There have been multiple efforts to deal with it. Most of them have faltered because we have not had the various parties arguing from a common database as to what their positions are. We have asked the Bureau of Land Management repeatedly to survey the affected area. They decided they didn't want to do that. In this case, Congress says: Look, we have two sovereign States and three sovereign Indian tribes here that have a concern. We want them to be able to work it through. We want them to draw on a common set of data. So we are going to essentially make sure that that happens and hopefully we can avoid a protracted court case between the States and the Indian tribes and actually resolve an issue that needs to be had. There are literally thousands of people along this border that are not certain whether or not they own the land that they have actually been farming, in some cases, for generations. There are three Indian tribes that have historic rights to this land that predate, frankly, the existence of Texas as a State and certainly the existence of Oklahoma as a State. They want to make sure their mineral rights issues and their land issues are appropriately handled, and they want to preserve their rights going forward if they want to litigate. Again, they need this kind of data to make those sorts of determinations. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry). I, again, look forward to working with my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) on these issues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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 ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 9, 2017, and further when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on Monday, February 13, 2017, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Not surprisingly, my friend and I have a number of disagreements on the wisdom of getting rid of these particular regulations. We do agree on the importance of actually capturing methane gases. Frankly, my friend is right. That is a profitable thing, and most companies try to do it on their own. We do, frankly, need more infrastructure in this area, no question about that. The BLM has been less than cooperative in allowing that infrastructure to be built on Federal land, and that has made this problem more difficult than it needs to be. But it is important to recognize, overall, the amount of methane gas that actually escapes has gone down steadily and, frankly, dramatically, even as production has moved up. So additional regulation is unlikely to change that process. It may actually complicate it. In terms of where the appropriate authority lies, again, I would just remind my friend, as he knows, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to do this. So if it felt like it needed it, it could. The BLM has actually moved into a new area beyond its traditional jurisdiction because it does not have authority, under the Clean Air Act, to draft these kind of rules and regulations. The Clean Air Act, again, is already in place. The EPA has the authority. If we need to do something, let's do it. In terms of the disbarment procedure for contractors, what we have is already awfully robust. Almost 2,000 firms, or on 2,000 occasions, companies were disbarred in 2015 from Federal contracting work. It was the same in 2014. So there is something in place. We don't need additional regulatory expense, additional people working for the government. We can rely on the procedures we already have. My friend is concerned about the lack of hearings. I would remind him, while we haven't had hearings on these items in this Congress, we certainly did on both of them in the last Congress, in some cases, multiple hearings. There is not any need to rehash and go over the same ground, in my view. Finally, in terms of just the process itself, the Congressional Review Act actually limits the form in which these sorts of things can be brought forward. If amendments are made in order, frankly, the item loses its privilege in the United States Senate, which, obviously, changes the speed at which you can move and perhaps even the number of votes that are required to actually move forward. So we think, again, these are items that have been explored, looked at, debated. The evidence is pretty clear. We think it is important to move quickly in these areas, and I would urge the body to do so. Adopt the rule. Support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.