Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to say I think my good friend from New York makes an excellent point. There are going to be some issues like this that I think we need to look at very carefully in the coming weeks and perhaps find some common ground on. In an agreement of this magnitude, occasionally we are going to have some problems. I have some other areas of concern in some of the offsets, agricultural crop insurance being one of them. I suspect, in the coming weeks, perhaps we can find some common ground on these issues. I certainly hope so. Of course, if we get an omnibus spending bill done, which this is the foundation or the predecessor for, then we will have a vehicle where perhaps we can address some of the concerns that my friend raises and as I know others have in different areas with respect to this agreement. Again, I want to thank my friend for bringing the issues forward. I think they are important to air and make note of. I just pledge that I will do what I can to see if we can find some common ground here and iron out some of these knotty problems that we have.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 495 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my good 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, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 1314, the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the majority leader that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1314, with an amendment consisting of the text of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader. Mr. Speaker, I want to start with a phrase I often share with my fellow Members: In a negotiation, you are always going to get less than you want and give up more than you would like. I think that is a fitting way to describe the bill we find ourselves presented with today. In an era of divided government, that is the reality we find ourselves in. At the beginning of the negotiation, the President demanded a clean debt ceiling increase with no changes and no conditions. In addition, he wanted more spending and higher taxes. Given that, I think the deal that we have before us is a testament to our leadership's ability to negotiate. As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, nobody is going to be popping champagne corks at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue over this bill. It is what most things are in divided government, in a system of checks and balances, and in an era of polarized politics. It is a deal that leaves both sides unsatisfied, but it is a deal that avoids default, prevents a government shutdown, and adequately funds our military. Moreover, it reforms and funds the Social Security Disability Insurance Fund, saving it from bankruptcy, and prevents a crippling increase in the premiums paid by many people who receive Medicare part B. There are any number of provisions that Members on both sides can point to as reasons to oppose this legislation. I, myself, would have negotiated a different deal. But in determining one's support for this legislation, I encourage Members to look at what the alternative would be, and that is this: the first default on our Nation's debt in the history of this country, significant cuts to our military in a time when we need our military the most, and an almost 50 percent increase in Medicare premiums for many of our seniors. That is the reality of what happens if we do nothing. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by a number of provisions in this legislation. First, just like the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, this legislation sets forth 2 years of budget certainty for the Appropriations Committee. That certainty puts us on a path to ensure consideration of full-year spending bills for the next 2 years, just as we were able to accomplish this past fiscal year. In addition, this budget certainty provides the needed investment for our military. With the ongoing conflicts across the Middle East, Russian activity in Eastern Europe, and Chinese claims in the South China Sea, it is clearer now than ever that America needs a robust military. Mr. Speaker, most importantly, all these discretionary spending increases are fully paid for by offsets in mandatory programs. In addition to these critical investments, the legislation before us makes a number of commonsense, structural reforms to SSDI, like requiring a medical review before awarding benefits, and expanding Cooperative Disability Investigations units to investigate sophisticated fraud schemes before benefits are awarded. These reforms both ensure that the disability trust fund will be able to pay full benefits and ensure that those who truly are disabled have access to this important program. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, this legislation realizes over $30 billion in Medicare savings within the budget window and countless billions in years to come. I am pleased to again be talking about the real drivers of our debt: the two-thirds of our government spending that is on autopilot. If we are unable to deal with these mandatory programs, they will end up bankrupting us. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation suspends the debt ceiling through March 15, 2017. Since its inception in 1917, 20 debt limit laws also included a change in fiscal policy. I am pleased that this debt limit increase is yet again accompanied by mandatory reforms. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred stronger reforms, but, in this era of divided government with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, no one will be able to get everything they want. The President wanted a clean debt limit increase. Congress wanted significant entitlement reforms. What we are left with is a compromise which lowers the trajectory of our debt, but also assures the world that the United States will pay its bills. While not a perfect piece of legislation, I believe this moves us in the right direction and funds critical priorities for our Nation. I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. I certainly yield to my friend.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to just reiterate a number of points that I opened my remarks with. First, I don't think this is a perfect bill. I doubt that anybody on this floor does. However, it is the only deal that can be considered in the timeframe we have before the debt limit is breached. Secondly, the deal ensures an appropriate level of discretionary government spending for the next 2 years, a level that robustly funds our military and ensures America's security. Finally, this deal is fully paid for and includes mandatory offsets that will build over time, further decreasing the trajectory of our expanding debt, shifting the burden to where the true drivers of the debt are and where the supercommittee was intended to actually find cuts and brings us back to fiscal balance. Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I also want to add a personal tribute, if I may, to our Speaker. This is probably the last significant piece of legislation that this body will pass under Speaker Boehner's leadership. He was instrumental in forging it. I know there are many people who are critical of particular aspects of this deal or about the process. Indeed, our Speaker himself has used rather colorful language in expressing his opinion of the process by which we arrived at this agreement. However, I think it is worth noting that, in the finest traditions of this House and the institutions that we all cherish, the Speaker, the President, the majority leader, the minority leader in the House, the minority leader in the Senate, came together, put aside differences, and found common ground. In doing so, they solved some really difficult issues for us. They dealt with an impending default to make sure that didn't happen. They dealt with a potential government shutdown or at least bought us the time to deal with it between now and December 11. They made sure that the additional discretionary spending that they both agreed to was offset by a variety of means. They included a really important reform in the Social Security disability system that, again, will keep it from going bankrupt and help millions of Americans who need help. Finally, they also made sure that millions of Americans who are facing literally 50 percent rate increases under Medicare part B will not have those increases. That is no small achievement. And John Boehner, for 25 years in this institution, from a freshman to the highest pinnacle that we have, the Speakership, has operated with integrity and has operated from principle, but has never been afraid to try and find common ground for people with different points of view. I, for one, appreciate the manner in which he has led our House, the manner in which at the very last minute he continues to work for the good of the American people and to reach across the aisle to find common ground with those with opposing views and opposing partisan affiliations. I appreciate the manner in which he has dealt with our own Conference, which is the largest since 1928, and, consequently, probably the most fractious. He has worked with Members of differing opinion and found common ground and brought us together. So I just, again, speaking for myself, want to say how much I have enjoyed, throughout my entire career, having had the opportunity to serve with Speaker Boehner, first as a freshman member on his committee when he chaired Education and the Workforce, then at the leadership table when he became the leader of our party, and, finally, just as another Member who admires and appreciates his many, many accomplishments, his character, and the manner in which he has led. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the Speaker of the entire House, Mr. Boehner, for his distinguished service to this institution and to this country and for being a valued friend and a person that I genuinely admire and I think people on both sides of the aisle genuinely admire. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I support the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act which has been a remarkable success with overwhelming support among parents whose children participate. Every American child deserves the opportunity to receive a great education. Education is the key to success no matter your background, race or religion. As a former educator, I know the importance of making sure our children learn the skills they need to succeed in life. And while education is, and should remain, primarily a state and local issue, Congress has constitutional authority for the District of Columbia. I am committed to making sure the parents and teachers in Washington, D.C., and throughout the country, have the tools necessary to provide a world class education to all children. No child should have to attend a low performing public school when alternatives are available and those alternatives provide positive and long-lasting benefits for a lifetime. I believe strongly in the authority of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children with minimal interference from government at any level. Consequently, I am an advocate of charter schools, vouchers, and opportunity scholarships--all of which are supported through this legislation. Choice and the possibility to have an opportunity to attend the highest performing schools is what all parents want for their children. I am hopeful that with the passage of this legislation many more families will have the opportunity to take advantage of public, charter, and private schools. Research has found voucher recipients are more likely to graduate from high school than their public school counterparts--82 percent of students who took advantage of a scholarship program graduated high school, while only 70 percent of students who applied but did not receive a scholarship graduated high school. Education is essential to not only individual success, but the success of this great nation. H.R. 10 continues the emphasis on educational quality across D.C. and brings opportunity to those most in need by providing them with the option and means to attend a private school. By providing the opportunity to choose, children in D.C. will have an opportunity for a brighter future. For these reasons, I support this legislation, and thank Speaker Boehner for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my good 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 448 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank my friend again for also emphasizing the areas where we agree, which is on the maintenance of the government. And while we may have a difference over the rule, I would hope that my friend and many of her colleagues on the CR that has been agreed to would look on that favorably and would be able to support the CR, itself, as opposed to the rule. Mr. Speaker, passage of the CR is critical to prevent a government shutdown and to demonstrate to the American people that Congress can actually govern. The CR abides within the budget caps and does not provide any additional funding for Planned Parenthood, as some have claimed. In addition, the rule provides for consideration of an enrollment correction bill that would again make the position of the House clear in opposition to any additional funding for Planned Parenthood. I want to encourage my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. And, frankly, I want to encourage those who are now engaged in negotiations to arrive at a framework where the appropriations process can actually go forward, where we can sit down and seriously consider in a bipartisan way how best to fund the government in the coming year, and where, hopefully, we can get an agreement large enough that we can have a normal appropriations process next year where we actually bring bills individually to this floor, as we did 6 times, but actually do it for the full 12 that would be in order. That is my hope. That is what I am going to be working toward. I know my friend will be working in the same direction. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to, first, point out a couple of areas where my friend and I do disagree. We certainly disagree about the value of the Benghazi Committee. Frankly, I think it has been conducted professionally and seriously by Mr. Gowdy. I think we have already learned some things we wouldn't have known, including the fact that the former Secretary of State had a private server over which only she had access and control, a very unusual arrangement. So I will just let the committee continue its work and see where we end up at the end of the day. I want to disagree with my friend, with all due respect, on Planned Parenthood. That is just an area where we have a difference of opinion. I don't think it is appropriate that they receive Federal funds. There are plenty of other ways. We provide $3.5 billion to thousands of public healthcare centers and community healthcare centers around the United States. Those provide all these same services. That is appropriate, and we should do that. But I also want to agree with my friend. I agree very much with her sentiments on a government shutdown. She is precisely right, in my view, about what happened in the last government shutdown. It should not have occurred. This is a sincere effort to make sure that doesn't occur now. The Appropriations Committee is certainly doing everything in its power to do that. Obviously, we need the administration, the Senate, and the House leadership to sit down and give us a framework. We are trying to buy them that time. I think we are doing it in a very responsible way. So, while my friend and I may have some disagreements in some areas, on the functioning of the government we have absolutely no disagreement whatsoever. I am pleased to be here working with her in those areas, and I am hopeful that the President, the Speaker, the majority leader, and the respective minority leaders can indeed come to a larger agreement that would allow a normal appropriations process to take place. First, an omnibus bill this year, and, hopefully, next year, an actual complete appropriations process such as we haven't seen around here in many, many, many years. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule for consideration for both H. Con. Res. 79, directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 719, and H.R. 719, the Continuing Appropriations Act 2016. The rule provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 79 under a closed rule with 20 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and his designee and the minority leader or her designee. In addition, the rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 719, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Speaker, first, this resolution allows for consideration of H. Con. Res. 79, which directs the Clerk of the House to include the text of the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 in the enrollment of H.R. 719. This would allow the House to again state its position in opposition to the funding of Planned Parenthood as it has already done by passage of both H.R. 3495 and H.R. 3134. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of the short-term continuing resolution. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I am always disappointed when we are forced to consider continuing resolutions, especially given the work this House has done in the appropriations process this year. For the first time since 2009, the House Appropriations Committee was able to complete all 12 appropriations bills, and complete them before the August recess. Unfortunately, just as in years past, Senate Democrats prevented consideration of any appropriations bills on the floor of that body. This leads us to the unfortunate situation of having to put forward a short-term CR to fund the government through December 11. This continuing resolution is simple. Most programs will continue being funded at their FY15 levels; however, it does adjust certain spending levels for critical needs, such as providing $700 million for wildfire suppression activities in the West, and it extends several programs that would otherwise lapse, like the collection of recreation fees for public lands. In addition, it maintains the moratorium on State and local jurisdictions' taxation of the Internet. I hope that in the weeks and months ahead the House, the Senate, and the President can come to an agreement on a path forward which ensures we are not in this same place in December. Some of my colleagues have stated publicly that they cannot support this CR because it provides funding for Planned Parenthood. I want to assure my colleagues that no funding for Planned Parenthood is included in this legislation. First, a majority of Planned Parenthood funding, about 90 percent, comes through Medicaid and is not subject to appropriations. Of the remaining 10 percent, the largest portion, roughly $28 million, is funded through title X. These grant programs are competed for every year and are awarded in April, long past the length of this continuing resolution. While I share the same disgust over the evidence seen in the atrocious videos that are so widely known, I want to assure my colleagues that no additional funds are provided for this organization in this bill. I am encouraged by the hard work of Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and, of course, the Speaker, whose leadership has made all this possible. One of the preeminent responsibilities we are tasked with as Members of Congress is to ensure that the government continues to function. While a continuing resolution is not the ideal vehicle, the alternative of a government shutdown is not what we have all been sent to Washington to do. I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. 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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to begin by congratulating both my chairman and my ranking member for the exceptional job they have done this year in getting all 12 appropriations bills through the full committee for the first time since 2009. So we really have on the Appropriations Committee done our work. Six of those bills have come across the floor. And, frankly, I think we would have had more across the floor if our friends in the Senate, who are blocked by the Democratic minority, had an opportunity to bring their bills to the floor. I think we are here, in part, because the inaction by the minority in the United States Senate has ground the whole process to a halt. But I am very pleased to see both my chairman and my ranking member here making the argument to keep the government funded. I think we all know that shutting down the government is always a mistake. It is a political mistake, frankly, for people that want to use it to achieve some political tactic. But, more importantly, it is simply the wrong thing to do for the American people. They send us here expecting us to get our work done. The fact that some amongst us has kept that from happening is regrettable and I think a disservice to all of our constituents. I also believe, in this particular case, that we have an opportunity, if we pass this continuing resolution for those that are, as I like to say appropriately, above our pay grade--that is, the President, the Speaker, the majority leader, and the two minority leaders--to have time to negotiate the framework for a larger deal, for a larger understanding, that would allow us to move ahead and actually have an omnibus bill where we actually--not as good as moving it across the floor--but had a large bill where we looked at every line, we made concessions to one another, we made agreements, we moved the ball forward, and it could open up a possibility for a normal appropriations process next year. In that regard, I was very heartened by Majority Leader McConnell's recent remarks that he is interested in a 2-year deal, somewhat similar to Ryan-Murray in terms of its duration. Again, that would allow this House next year to move appropriations bills across the floor one at a time in a give-and-take bipartisan manner. I think that is extraordinarily important. If you look at where this committee was at in terms of frozen activity before my good friend, the chairman, became the chairman, he and, again, with my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York, have brought us back a long, long way. If we don't finish that journey in the next 2\1/2\ months, we have got several things that are going to happen, the worst of which will be a sequester of $40 billion, roughly, on the American military. That is an unacceptable outcome. And, frankly, that is something that the Commander in Chief and the respective leaders on both sides of the aisle in this body need to make sure doesn't happen. I promise you, if the administration, the Senate, and the House can get to a larger agreement, I have no doubt that my chairman and my ranking member and their counterparts in the United States Senate will then introduce a normal negotiating process and we will get to the right place. So we have a moment, an opening, a little bit of bipartisanship here. I would expect, when this bill is actually voted on, we will have large majorities on both sides of the aisle that actually support it. So I urge the other Members--again, both Democrat and Republican--to seize this opportunity, to not just focus on where there are differences, but focus here where we have come together, bought the time, and then, frankly, where they can use their influence on both sides of the aisle in both Chambers and with the President to make sure that an adequate deal is arrived at and that we spare the country and certainly the men and women in uniform that defend us each and every day from the agony of dealing with a second sequester. This is not the time for that to happen. It is a dangerous world. We have not Russia relitigating the borders of Eastern Europe. We have got China building islands in the South China Sea. We have got ISIL having established a caliphate of sorts in the Middle East. We have a dangerous Iran. The worst thing in the world would be to not do this CR and then not carry it through to a fuller agreement and undercut our military. So I think the stakes of what we are doing are very, very high here. I want to conclude again by commending my chairman and commending our ranking member for working together, as they have this entire year, so we could get our bills across, as they are doing now in this process, to buy our leaders time, and, frankly, as I know they will do in normal negotiation on an omnibus bill at the end of this process and then, hopefully, on a regular appropriations process next year. Again, I urge my fellow Members on both sides of the aisle to pass this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and not present for Roll Call vote number 518. Had I been present, I would have voted ``YEA'' on final passage of H.R. 348, the Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015. On Roll Call number 514, (Gosar of Arizona Amendment No. 8 to H.R. 348) I intended to vote ``YEA.''

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and not present for Roll Call vote number 495. Had I been present, I would have voted ``YEA'' on H.R. 1214, the National Forest Small Tracts Amendments Act.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran that was negotiated and endorsed by President Obama and sent to Congress for review. Last week, I was encouraged that House Republicans and principled Democrats voted against approval of the deal and to pass other measures requiring the president to provide information regarding every aspect of the deal negotiated with Iran. If this deal is implemented, it will almost certainly lead to a nuclear-capable Iran in the near future. While the President insists on trusting this dangerous state sponsor of terrorism, he is recklessly jeopardizing the safety and security of America and our allies. While the House followed appropriate steps in response to the Iranian nuclear deal, I am disappointed that the Senate didn't allow a vote on it at all. Certainly, an agreement of this magnitude with such dire consequences to our national security deserves a vote in both chambers. In a matter of this importance, the American people deserve to know where all their elected officials stand. Nevertheless, it is clear that the President has chosen to disregard the opinion of a bipartisan majority of the House and the Senate, as well as the overwhelming majority of the American people, and press ahead with the ill-considered and deeply flawed agreement with Iran. The President and his allies in Congress now bear sole responsibility for the adverse consequences that the agreement will have for the United States, for our friends and our allies in the region and for those threatened by Iranian-sponsored terrorism around the world.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my friend from Washington and my friend from Tennessee for organizing this exceptionally important discussion tonight. I think the case, from a national standpoint, in terms of maintaining the Ex-Im or the Export-Import Bank, is really almost uncontestable. It is not a new institution. It has been around well over 80 years. It is not a unique institution. As has been mentioned here on the floor several times, literally dozens of other countries have a similar tool in their toolbox to facilitate exports. It has not cost the American taxpayer a dime during the course of its existence. It has actually made billions of dollars back, indeed, since 2007, $2.8 billion last year alone, a billion dollars extra to the United States Treasury. What it has done and what every American ought to be interested in is it creates thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs for our fellow Americans competing in the international marketplace. Now, I can talk about some big companies that have a presence in my State that have been enormously well served by the Ex-Im Bank. Boeing aircraft, we have almost 3,000 Boeing jobs in Oklahoma. That is important to us, and we are very proud to have them. Halliburton, historically founded in California, headquartered now in Texas, but their largest machinery production facility is in my district in Duncan, Oklahoma--1,500 jobs. Those are real Oklahomans going to work. What impresses me the most is the opportunities that the Export- Import Bank have created for small companies to get into the international marketplace. The Export-Import Bank in Oklahoma in recent years has helped 129 exporting firms; 87 of those, over two-thirds, are small businesses, and that has made a difference in small communities. The small business is the bedrock of the American economy, and Ex-Im helps them open markets that they would never have had an opportunity to participate in, absent that particular mechanism. Don't take my word for it. Here is a story from a third-generation Oklahoma company about how the Export-Import Bank has been able to help them. The Mills Machine Company operating in Shawnee, Oklahoma, just outside my district but in the district next to it, has been in business since 1908--over 100 years. It makes drill bits, augers, and other tools for water construction in geothermal industries. According to the current president, Chuck Mills, who is actually the third generation in the family to run the company--his grandfather started it; his father maintained it, and he is now operating it. He was the first one to think about operating overseas. How does a small company in the middle of Oklahoma identify and finance overseas sales? He figured out the Export-Import Bank would be the way to open the door for him to create jobs for his employees in Shawnee, Oklahoma. Today, the Export-Import Bank provides credit insurance when his company is selling their products abroad, which is awfully necessary because some of those individual items, while they sound mundane, cost up to $30,000 apiece. That is a lot of risk for a small company. Access to the Ex-Im Bank has allowed the Mills Machine Company to actually increase their exports overseas by 20 percent. Now, when you are a company of 20-30 employees, 20 percent is five or six jobs that literally would not have been there absent the services of this Bank. The Export-Import Bank actually allows our companies to compete in the global marketplace where countries often directly subsidize or own the means of productions. We don't have a free market today in every way. Our competitors have this tool. They use this tool aggressively. We need to have the ability to counter them, when necessary, with the Export-Import Bank. I want to encourage my colleagues to support this bill to understand how essential it is to some of--not just the biggest, but some of the smallest exporters in the American economy and how many thousands of jobs it creates. Remember, it has never cost the taxpayers of the United States of America a single dime. It has always put billions of dollars, over time, into our Treasury. Most importantly, there are thousands of Americans working today thanks to what the Export-Import Bank has done to facilitate the export of American products into the international marketplace. I want to urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of this important institution.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 208, Superstorm Sandy Relief and Disaster Loan Program Improvement Act of 2015. I appreciate the support and assistance of both Chairman Chabot and Ranking Member Velazquez to include my legislation, H.R. 2397, the Tornado Family Safety Act of 2015 as part of this legislation. The Small Business Administration is currently afforded the authority to issue physical disaster loans for 120 percent of the value of property destroyed but not covered by insurance. The purpose of the additional 20 percent is so that individuals and business can modify structures to reduce damage from future disasters. In Oklahoma, the threat of tornadoes is ongoing, and we are always in between tornadoes. Planning is essential in order to militate against damage and loss of life. It is for this reason that Section 4 is necessary. It reinforces the intent of Congress that already exists in statute--the SBA should already be including the construction of safe rooms as a use for physical disaster loans because it is mitigating measure. The SBA's existing interpretation of existing language in the Small Business Act is incorrect. Because of misinterpretation of this section previously, the SBA should now understand that physical disaster loans can also be used for other types of storm shelters as well, including, but not limited to structures that protect occupants from not only tornadoes, but from other natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods and wildfires. It is important to note that loans may not be used to upgrade homes or make additions unless as required by local building codes and secondary or vacation homes are not eligible for these loans. The SBA does not duplicate insurance claim payments. Generally, loans are made over 30 years and interest rates are not more than 4 percent for those cannot obtain credit elsewhere and for those that can obtain alternative credit, the rate does not exceed 8 percent for the loan. While local and state governments have an obligation to meet the increase in shelter demand, the construction of the shelters is expensive. Under guidelines from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the International Code Council (ICC), a safe room should withstand 250 mph winds and the impact of a 15-pound plank hitting a wall at 100 mph, according to the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. Safe rooms designed to the FEMA and ICC standards are recommended for both tornadoes and hurricanes. For individual homes, a safe room could range anywhere from $3,000 to $12,000. For anyone who has experienced Mother Nature's most indiscriminate and unpredictable terrors, you can truly understand the extent to which they devastate lives and property. Again, Mr. Speaker, I support Superstorm Sandy Relief and Disaster Loan Program Improvement Act of 2015. As I have stated before on the floor of the House, I hope every Member reflects on the situation of our fellow Americans during a time of crisis or disaster. While we may hope that our communities remain peaceful and safe from crisis; we certainly must support those that do not escape such natural and man- made calamities.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 45th anniversary of President Richard M. Nixon's Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs. For nearly two hundred years, Federal Indian policy has veered from one failed policy to another. Past policies have included treaty- making, outright war and hostilities, land allotment, assimilation, and termination. On July 8, 1970, President Richard M. Nixon issued his Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs. In the message, he acknowledged that the state of Federal Indian policy was wholly inadequate. President Nixon noted that the Indians were the most deprived group of Americans, ranking at the bottom of nearly every economic and social measurement. He related that, despite inconsistent and often hostile Federal treatment, the story of the American Indian was one of great struggle, but ultimately overcoming overwhelming challenges. He highlighted the long history of cultural contributions to American society which have become part of the American experience and spirit. He also noted the ``record of enormous contributions Indians have made to this country, its art and culture, its strength and spirit, its sense of history, and its sense of purpose.'' The President's Special Message was of particular importance because it called on Congress to repudiate and repeal the termination policy expressed in House Concurrent Resolution 108, and instead he promoted a policy that would allow Indian tribes to become part of the American fabric and participate in their communities across this great nation, at every level. The President's message represented a fundamental change to how the United States engages Indian tribal governments and their people, proclaiming ``the time has come to break decisively with the past and to create the conditions for a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions.'' Since then, the United States Indian policy has become one of Indian Self- Determination, without Termination. Congress responded to the Nixon Administration's initiative in 1975, by passing the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, paving the way for the enactment in 1988 of the Tribal Self-Governance Program. As a result of these enactments, Indian tribes currently manage and administer one-half of all programs and services offered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service. In an effort to further develop a relationship of trust and confidence between the Federal government and Indian people, the President endorsed legislation to restore the Blue Lake lands to the Taos Pueblo Indians. Previously, the United States had appropriated the land for the purposes of creating a national forest. The Pueblo held the land sacred and necessary to express their religious faith. The message also proposed reforms to Indian education, encouraged investment, economic development and job creation in tribal communities, called for liberalizing land leases, and increasing support for Indian health. Since then, Congress and the Executive Branch have collaborated to enact and implement statutes to improve Indian education, health, housing, sacred site protection, energy and economic development, and international trade and tourism. Every President since Nixon has embraced and implemented the policy of Indian Self-Determination. This policy is supported by the twin pillars of strong tribal governments and vigorous tribal economies, and continues to be the most successful Indian doctrine to date. Mr. Speaker, I come before you now to commemorate President Richard M. Nixon's Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs, affirm its support for the enduring truths contained therein, and call for the policy of Indian Self-Determination to be expanded and strengthened by this and future Congresses and Presidents.

Mr. COLE

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