Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize an AbilityOne program. Located at Tinker Air Force Base, the program has resulted in the employment of more than 1,300 people with disabilities around the state of Oklahoma. The AbilityOne Program buys products and services from participating community-based nonprofit agencies that are dedicated to training and employing individuals with disabilities. In doing so, the program affords Americans with disabilities opportunities to acquire job skills and training, earn wages and benefits, and gain greater independence. This program provides vital assistance to a segment of the population that has one of the highest levels of unemployment in our country. Since 1996, the Dale Rogers Training Center, with the assistance of Professional Contract Services, Inc. (PCSI) has improved the quality of life, helped remove barriers to independent living. The benefits to those that participate in the program cannot be overstated. The opportunity to work, be independent, and participate in community life enhances participant's lives and provides an avenue for them to contribute society. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I would like to thank all the people involved with the AbilityOne program, and PCSI for their important work to Oklahomans of all ages and abilities reach their full potential.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for my friends from Kansas. We usually agree, but in this case, we don't. I represent Tinker Air Force Base, which has 15,000 Federal civilian defense employees, along with thousands of private employees, working in contract facilities on and around the base. Usually, they work together, but sometimes, they compete for work. When they do, that work should go to whomever can do the work better and cheaper. This amendment overrides every other law in the book, in terms of managing the defense workload by prohibiting the transfer of the workload from the private to the public sector, even when the public sector can do it better and cheaper. That, in my view is inefficient, it is counterproductive, and ultimately it is unfair. We should allow the work to flow to those best able to complete it, and we should rely on the services to actually make the decisions in this regard. So I urge the rejection of the amendment.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 19 and Tuesday, May 20, 2014, I regret I missed votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 218, 219, 220, 221, and 222. I was in my hometown of Moore, Oklahoma on the first anniversary of the devastating tornado that tore through the Fourth District. Even though the storms last May were some of the worst we've experienced in years, we are pulling through and showing that disaster cannot crush our spirits or break our communities. That is and always will be the Oklahoma way.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to disagree with my good friend from Florida on one thing, and I think it is probably just a phrase, but I want to put an important corrective in the Record. My friend said we could finally vote on something that would be worthwhile. I would actually suggest that we voted on a number of things that have been worthwhile. Frankly, this would have been in December, but the Ryan-Murray budget agreement, I think, was very worthwhile. I think that the omnibus spending bill that finally put us back into some semblance of regular order in the appropriations process was worthwhile. I think the farm bill that was passed as both a safety net program for many of our needy families in our country, as well as an important economic tool that my friend Mr. Lucas got through on a bipartisan basis, was, again, very worthwhile. I think the flood insurance bill that this Congress has passed on a bipartisan basis was, again, very worthwhile. I think the fact that we have dealt with the doc fix, as there has actually been in Ways and Means an agreement as to what we should do-- not an agreement on how to fund it, but we bought a year's worth of time so our health care providers that do such a great job helping and seniors and our needy people on both Medicare and Medicaid are going to be continued to be reimbursed--I think that is a good job. I think this Congress doing the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research bill, taking money out of political conventions and putting it toward pediatric research, that is a pretty good job. I think the fact that a couple of appropriations bills have actually crossed this floor on a bipartisan basis and are ready to go to conference earlier than any time since 1974 is a pretty good job. So while we disagree--and I wouldn't say this is the most productive Congress in modern American history--to suggest that it is not doing its job and moving along legislation expeditiously is something I do have at least a different view on. I want to agree with my friend from California on H-1B visas. I actually think he is correct about that. As I understand it, there has been action on that issue in the Judiciary Committee. It actually passed out of committee. When it comes to the floor is sort of not in my lane, but I do hope we do deal with that. And no question, the whole immigration issue that my friend brings up is an important one. I appreciate him doing that. I thanked him for doing that last night. I thank him for doing it again today. I don't think this is probably the vehicle for a comprehensive bill. I think it would probably meet more resistance. But talking about it and pointing out the importance of dealing with some of these issues I think is extremely helpful. It doesn't change the basic fact, though, Madam Speaker. What we are dealing with here is pretty simple, but pretty important, though. Let's do something that in the past we have agreed on on a bipartisan basis. Let's focus on research and development so America is always at the cutting edge of technology and job creation and give our entrepreneurs and our businesses this very important tool and a sense of certainty that it is going to be there. Again, this is something we have been doing since 1981. It is not new. It has been bipartisan. I think making it permanent, letting businesses know that we can actually work together, is the right thing to do. Then we ought to proceed, as the Ways and Means Committee is proceeding, systematically and look at all these other extenders, some of which will make it, some of which won't. We will undoubtedly have a vigorous debate about that. It won't always be a partisan debate. I suspect on some of these things I will be with my friends on their side of the aisle and vice versa because things like the Indian Lands Tax Credit I don't consider partisan. It gets very good Democratic and Republican support all the time. So, again, let's work together. I think that is what Ways and Means is trying to do. They are advancing a product systematically and appropriately. I think we have the right rule for it. I think we have a good piece of legislation. I suspect and certainly hope there will be a strong bipartisan vote on the underlying legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I hate to keep repeating myself, but I think I will. My friends passed this tax credit themselves when they were in the majority in 2008 and 2010. So while I appreciate this newfound concern about deficits on their side of the aisle, I remind them that since we have been in the majority, the deficit has actually declined--and declined pretty dramatically--from $1.4 trillion, which is what they handed over to us, to about $540 billion today. I would be the first to agree that is far too high, but the movement has been in the right direction. So to suggest that somehow this side of the aisle has been fiscally reckless or irresponsible, I think simply doesn't bear up to scrutiny. Second, I remind my friends again this has been a bipartisan tax measure over the years. It has been routinely renewed, whether it was a Democratic Congress or Republican Congress, since 1981. It is as close as you ever get to be permanently in the Tax Code without actually being there. But we still have that level of uncertainty that is associated every time that we have a discussion over the extension. We are simply removing, I think, that uncertainty, and we are doing what all sides have done regularly, which is recognize this is an important component of our Code and that we think it generates a great deal in terms of valuable research and generates economic growth and jobs. I would agree with my friend that we are going to have to do different things to actually get the deficit down to where we want to go. I serve on the Appropriations Committee, not on Ways and Means, and I will tell you we have really made dramatic cuts in the discretionary budget, some of which I think are actually too extensive. We have done that in an effort to try and, again, restore fiscal sanity. I have cooperated with my friends on things like the fiscal cliff that have generated revenue. So it hasn't just all been cuts. I do agree with my friends that Ways and Means needs to do two things: it is responsible for taxes and it is responsible for entitlements. We all know that entitlement spending is the largest single driver of the deficit, by far. I would hope our friends, on a bipartisan basis, would sit down and start looking at entitlements on the Ways and Means Committee. In terms of taxes, I think that is exactly what they are trying to do in this measure; that is, begin to look at this piece by piece and pick out the things that are worth keeping. This credit, without question, both sides for over 30 years looked at and said, This is worth keeping. This is valuable. It generates jobs. It generates growth. If my friends on Ways and Means want to look at this and tinker and change it around the edges, they are the tax experts. I trust them to bring us something here that is good. But remember, this bill is going to conference. There is a United States Senate that probably has a different view than us. It is going to sit down and negotiate with us. Then the bill has to go to the President. So I look on this as a step in the right direction, not as a final destination point, let alone as some sort of dramatic departure from what we have been doing around here. It is actually pretty consistent with what we have been doing in terms of the policy. What we are doing is making important correctives, turning what has been temporary into something that is permanent. And we are doing it piece by piece. Because, again, not all of these extenders, quite frankly, should be extended, but we ought to look at them one at a time and make that decision. I really think that is all we are about, Madam Speaker. With that, I would again hope that we pass the rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to agree with my friend about his concern on the deficit. I know it is genuine. Frankly, I appreciate the fact that our friends on the other side of the aisle are concerned about the deficit. I will remind them, when we took the majority in this Chamber in January of 2011, the deficit was about $1.4 trillion. It is about $540 billion today. So to suggest that this majority has not been serious about lowering the deficit and has not made really tough decisions-- sometimes with my friends on the other side of the aisle, sometimes not--I think is to misstate the facts. We are concerned about the deficit. If renewing this R&D credit is irresponsible without an offset, I will point out to my friends that you did it in 2008 and in 2010 when you were in the majority, so I don't think you are being consistent here in terms of this particular measure. Finally, I want to make the point that the real key to getting out of this situation in the long term is threefold. First, obviously restraining domestic discretionary spending, we have done that, and it has been hard to do. Second, I think getting entitlement reform, we haven't done that. Hopefully, someday, we will. Third--and maybe most importantly--is getting the economy growing again, moving in a way that creates jobs first and foremost, that provides a higher standard of living for our people, but that, yes, generates extra revenue to the government. There is nothing like a growing economy to help shrink the deficit. This is a measure that both sides in the past have agreed actually stimulates economic growth; creates jobs; and, therefore, generates additional revenue. I think that we ought to approve the rule and that we ought to consider this thoughtful consideration of our Tax Code on a piece by piece, item by item basis and move ahead. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin, actually, by agreeing on a couple of points with my friend from Florida. Sandy, if you will recall--and I know you do. I actually voted with you. I believe that relief should have been rendered. I am glad we did that, and it was done in a bipartisan fashion; so certainly, where I am concerned, my friend knows that I have been consistent on that point. I also want to agree that there are a lot of extenders in this package that ought to be considered. As my friend knows, I actually raised one of those last night in an amendment at the Rules Committee-- and it was withdrawn--simply to make the very point that he is making, that we shouldn't only focus on a few, but that all of these need to be considered, and each of them ought to have an opportunity to be looked at and discussed. I think Ways and Means owes us a pathway, if you will. I have no objection to what they are doing here today, but I do think we all need to understand what is going to be considered. In my view, all of these, since we have routinely extended them in the past, probably ought to be considered in one fashion or another. I suspect, frankly, they will be because, once we arrive in the conference committee, the Senate will probably have passed that in total, and there will be some sort of discussion there. Again, my friend's point is an important one with which I agree, in that we ought to look at these things. The reason we are beginning with this one--and with a series of five or six others is--number one, these are ones that both parties have generally agreed upon in the past. This is not a controversial measure. When they were in the majority in 2008 and in 2010, my friends extended this particular tax credit, along with many others, so we don't think it is controversial in the partisan sense. Secondly, we think these are the types of tax cuts that broadly contribute to growth, and that is something I know both sides want. We want a growing economy, we want the jobs that that generates, and frankly, we want the additional tax revenue that a growing economy yields. We have made some very tough decisions over the last few years, sometimes on a bipartisan basis, about reducing this deficit. When this majority came in, the deficit was running at about $1.4 trillion a year. This year, it will come in at something like $540 billion. That is actually a very rapid decline. Along the way, some of those decisions have been pretty tough decisions--bipartisan, some of them. We, on our side, like to focus on the cuts we have made, and as my friend has pointed out, we have cut out literally hundreds of billions of dollars of discretionary spending. None of that has been easy--again, sometimes on a bipartisan basis. Eventually, it had to pass a Democratic Senate and be signed by a Democratic President, so in a sense, those reductions had been bipartisan. We have also generated revenue. The fiscal cliff bill, which I supported, preserved most of the Bush tax cuts, but it did generate revenue. Those things working together have helped bring the deficit down, but we are never going to get the deficit where I know both sides want it to be, if we don't have an economy that is growing and moving, creating jobs, innovating, is at the cutting edge, and is competitive with our international peers. This legislation is an attempt to do just that. It is also an attempt, in my view, by Ways and Means and by Chairman Camp to begin the process of looking at these tax extenders one by one. While all of them have some constituency in this body and while many of them have overwhelming bipartisan constituencies, there is no question that not every single one of them would pass muster if it were looked at individually, so I applaud Chairman Camp and his committee for what they are doing. I think we are trying to proceed in the right direction here. I don't have any illusions that this will be the final legislation. It will simply get us into conference with the Senate; and, hopefully, there will be more discussion there, but I think we are doing the right thing and are proceeding in the right way. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 4438, a bill that would permanently extend and enhance the research and development tax credit. The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 4438 and provides for 90 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. In addition, the rule provides for a motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, dozens of so-called temporary tax extensions expired at the end of 2013. Some of them, like the one we will consider under this rule, have long been bipartisan and long been renewed annually. As a small business owner myself, one of the things that a business craves is certainty, certainty that you can plan around. Providing a certain tax structure is important to businesses. Take, for example, the R&D tax credit for which this resolution provides consideration. The R&D tax credit has been repeatedly extended since 1981. If it doesn't make you think it is permanent, I don't know what does. Too often, we here in Washington tell businesses ``trust us,'' that we can promise to extend X, Y, or Z tax provisions indefinitely. But they can't take that to the bank. They can't take our word that we will be able to deliver on promises that we make. The only thing they can rely on is the law itself. If our tax laws expire every year, it injects an uncertainty into the business environment that inhibits economic growth. We all know that encouraging research and development makes good economic sense. Ernst & Young did a study that found that the R&D credit increases wages in both the short and long term. Additionally, the legislation we will consider also increases research-oriented employment in both the short and the long term. Many of my friends on the other side talk about raising the minimum wage and about increasing jobs. Those are certainly worthy matters to discuss. Permanent extension of the R&D tax credit does just that. That is why both sides have routinely extended this tax credit in good times and in bad. It is time to make it part of the permanent Tax Code. Mr. Speaker, others have criticized this legislation because it only deals with a small portion of the expired tax provisions. However, to them I would say two things: First, just as we have had to examine and pare back the discretionary side of the budget, we need to examine the tax side of the budget. There are over 200 tax expenditures, or spending on the tax side of the ledger, that, if all extended, will cost us more than $12 trillion over the next 10 years. We need to take a serious look at which credit should be extended. And secondly, this provision is the first of many that will be considered by this House. While the Senate has been content to move in a ``comprehensive manner'' on issues like immigration and even tax extenders, the House has taken a more deliberate approach. The Ways and Means Committee has marked up seven different extenders affecting a variety of industries that I hope the House will consider in the coming weeks. This will allow us to have a vehicle to take to conference with the Senate to provide individuals and businesses with the certainty that they so desperately crave. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Camp for beginning this process in earnest and look forward to consideration of additional measures at the appropriate time. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have supported the extension of the R&D credit because they have seen the value of making this provision permanent. I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and 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 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, the question before the House is should we now proceed and consider House Resolution 569. While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation. In my view, Mr. Speaker, the point of order is merely a dilatory tactic. In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation states that ``the bill contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.'' This legislation makes permanent a simplified research credit that will help open the door for economic growth and give businesses the certainty they need to thrive. This measure has been routinely extended and supported by both parties for many years. In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the point of order in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 569 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida. It is always a pleasure to appear with him. I do want to make a point that, with respect to all tax provisions, they almost always do come to this floor under a closed rule because, quite frankly, they have to be scored, i.e., we have to figure out how much the amendments cost and what have you. So it is very seldom we have an open rule on anything that deals with tax policy, and I think we are following customary procedure here. I also, again, want to make the basic point that this is legislation that, honestly, I think, over the years, most of the time, both sides of the aisle have agreed upon. There is no objection to research and tax credits. Both sides have decided it is good policy, that it helps American companies be competitive. It helps us stay at the head of the pack, in terms of innovation and technical development in this country. This is probably one of the least controversial provisions in the Tax Code, so I think moving it and making it permanent, removing all uncertainty and confusion, is probably, well, in my view, certainly a good thing for our economy. I hope, after the rule vote, that we can come together on that. Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to encourage my colleagues to move the process forward. This approach is important because it allows the House to consider individual tax provisions on their own merits and not hidden by a larger deal. This credit is good for economic growth. It both creates jobs and increases wages. It is important that we not lose sight of that in the midst of this debate, so I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 569 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 2. 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. 15) to provide for comprehensive immigration reform 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 and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Judiciary. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 15.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, my friend is, frankly, one of the most thoughtful and best Members of this body. There is no question about that. So, when we discussed this, I took it very seriously because it was my friend's proposal, and I think any other Member in this House would do the same. At the end of the day, I came to a different conclusion for a number of reasons. First, we are in a very tight budget. We have no increase at all, so funding this initiative means effectively taking money away from someplace else. Second, I looked at the long-term spending pattern of this program in the past. It actually peaked at $20 million, so I think starting at $2.5 million is not likely where it will end up over time. Third, quite frankly, I looked at what some of my predecessors in my position had thought, both Republican and Democratic. As my friend knows, obviously, the Democrats had the majority after 1995 for a 4- year period, which was relatively recently, and they looked at this and came to the same decision that was made in '95, and that, I think, we make today, which is that there are other sources of information. The Government Accountability Office, in particular, has developed a capability here, and we think there are other sources of information. While I don't deny that this has played a useful role in the past, I just believe, given the constrained circumstances that we have today, given the possibility that this will grow, and given what at least to date has been a bipartisan judgment that this is something we didn't need to renew, I, reluctantly, decided not to include this in the bill. For that reason, I would also oppose the amendment. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend, the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

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

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wanted to once again thank my friend, my working partner in this, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. She, in this area, is an absolute expert without peer in this House, which has been enormously helpful to me. Again, I want to thank the members of the committee. I want to thank all of the staff, frankly, from both sides of the aisle, all of the personnel offices. They have just been absolutely first-rate. As I observed, I think, in one of our committee meetings, if the current chairman of the Democratic National Committee and the former chief of staff of the Republican National Committee can work this well together, then surely all things are possible in this universe. It has been a pleasure to work with my friend. I look forward to continuing that collaboration as we go forward. With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was tempted to actually yield my friend from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) additional time, he was being so kind to all of us on both sides of the aisle. But I genuinely want to thank my friend who is a very valuable member of our committee and, again, someone who is always thoughtful, always helpful, and always works in a bipartisan manner. You saw it on this floor yesterday when he and Chairman Culberson delivered their bill in a very bipartisan and a very professional manner. He does the same thing on our committee. So I just wanted to thank my friend. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend and I have had a number of opportunities to talk about this issue. We talked about it in committee, we talked about it yesterday in discussion on the rule, and we are talking about it today because I think he wants to make his point, and I think he is using every opportunity to make his point. Quite frankly, it is a point that needs to be made and a point that deserves to be heard. One of the things I will miss about my friend a lot is his tenacity when he has got something that he thinks is important and his willingness to go through a little heat and a little criticism, which I know he has received over this, to make that point. That is a very valuable characteristic in any Member. I don't think we are in immediate danger, the kind of future and the kind of House that my friend describes, but I do think, if we were to continue this course indefinitely, we would be. Now, again, as I mentioned yesterday in our exchange, remember, a lot of people who come here for a short time aren't coming here to cash out on anything. They are coming here because they believe in the limited time of public service, and quite often, that is a pretty popular point of view in their districts. So I cast no aspersions on somebody that comes for 6 or 8 years, and that is their choice. In my State, that is exactly what Senator Tom Coburn did in this body for 6 years and what he has done in the United States Senate. I know that is a sincere opinion as to what he thinks the appropriate thing is, and quite frankly, he has certainly never cast himself out and hung around Washington, D.C. I think that is true of many, many Members. As my friend makes a good point about the character of the body and where we may be headed if we do the wrong things over time, I also think we are in a really critical point in our country where we are having to make a lot of difficult decisions. We have made a lot of difficult decisions on this committee, made a lot of cuts that we didn't want to make because we thought the budget deficit was too high, and we needed to ask people to make some painful reductions. I think if you are going to ask people to make painful reductions you have got to lead by example, and I think that is actually what both sides have tried to do. Again, I know when my friends were in the majority, we didn't always get cost of living increases and those sorts of things either. They had inherited a difficult situation. They were making tough choices, and they were trying to lead by example. I think that is exactly what this majority has continued to do, and so maintaining your personal credibility and your institutional responsibility, while you are arriving at and administering difficult decisions, I think, is a very important characteristic. So that is what we have tried to do in this bill. Again, I appreciate my friend for making his point because I think, over time, we could change the character of the institution if we are not careful. I don't think that is an immediate concern, but it is one we ought to reflect on as we move forward. Again, I thank him for his service, and I thank him for his persistence and tenacity. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the great State of Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, thank you for the recognition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, provides $3.3 billion for the operations of the legislative branch, excluding Senate items. The recommendation is the equivalent to the fiscal year 2014 level and a decrease of $122.5 million, or 3.7 percent, from the requested level. Conforming with the longstanding practice under which each body of Congress determines its own housekeeping requirements and the other concurs without intervention, funds for the Senate are not included in the bill as reported by the committee. Through seven hearings and meetings with agency heads, the committee listened to all who presented their respective concerns and budget requests. It was necessary to make some critical decisions and prioritize programs, and we did this in a bipartisan and transparent manner. We are presenting to the House today a bill that is fiscally responsible and maintains current operations for the Legislative Branch agencies. The bill includes $1.2 billion for the operations of the House. This is equivalent to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $20 million below the request. It is worthy to note that the funding provided for Member's Representational Allowances and Committees provides for the current operations, and I do not anticipate further reductions in the coming year. The bill also includes the Members' pay freeze for fiscal year 2015. With this bill, total funding for the House of Representatives is 14 percent below fiscal year 2010. The bill includes $348 million for the Capitol Police. This is $9.5 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $77 million less than the requested level. This will support 1,775 sworn officers and 370 civilian positions. A slight increase above last year is provided to ensure the Capitol Police maintain current operations and ensure mission-essential training. Knowing that access to the House office buildings is of critical concern to Members, we directed that the Chief of Police develop an action plan that will make sure public access to our buildings is easily accessible during heightened periods of visitation. The implementation of this plan is in the early stages, and we will continue to monitor the budgetary impacts to the Capitol Police. The bill includes $45.7 million for the Congressional Budget Office. This is at the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $378,000 below the requested level. The bill includes $488.6 million for the Architect of the Capitol, excluding Senate items. This is a decrease of $40.5 million from the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $79 million below the requested level. Within the recommended level, the committee continues its prioritization of projects that promote the safety and public health of workers and occupants, decrease the deferred maintenance backlog, and invest to achieve future energy savings. The committee recognizes the continuing challenge of preserving and maintaining our infrastructure and prioritizing critical projects in the current budgetary environment. It is important to note that $21 million is recommended for the final phase of dome restoration, a very high priority of this committee. In addition, we are continuing the 5-year practice of including funds for the House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund, a fund established by Ms. Wasserman Schultz when she was chair of this subcommittee in anticipation of the renovation of the historic Cannon House Office Building. Might I say, it is one of the really tremendous contributions that my friend and colleague has made, and I hope it stays inside of our operating procedure for many years to come. It was a wise decision. Also included is $16 million for the lease cost of a portion of the Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Office Building in preparation of the Cannon renewal project. The bill includes $595 million for the operations of the Library of Congress. This is an increase of $16 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $1.9 million above the requested level. The amount will allow the Library to continue at current operations. Established by Congress in 1800, the Library of Congress is one of the largest libraries in the world, with a collection of more than 130 million print, audio, and video items in 460 languages. It is imperative adequate funding is provided to maintain acquisitions, preservation, the administration of U.S. copyright laws by the U.S. Copyright Office for research and analysis of policy issues for the Congress by the Congressional Research Service, and the administration of a national program to provide reading material to the blind and physically handicapped. The bill before you accomplishes all of that. It is important to note $5.5 million of the funding is provided for the Deacidification Program, which is $1 million over the Library's request. And $8.2 million is for the Teaching with Primary Sources Program, at $1 million over the request, to be used for competitive opportunities for developing online interactive and apps for classroom use on Congress and civic participation. It is $1.2 million above the request for the Copyright Office to reduce the claims and processing time for copyright registrations and to conduct business analyses for the process engineering of the documentation recordation function. The bill includes $122.6 million for the Government Printing Office. This is an increase of $3.3 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $6.3 million below the requested level. Funds have been included for continuation of development and infrastructure costs associated with the Federal digital system and the system replacement for upgrading the extensible markup language. The bill includes $519.6 million for the Government Accountability Office. This is an increase of $14.2 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $5.5 million below the requested level. Language is included to establish a Center for Audit Excellence to build global institutional auditing capacity and promote good governance. This center is to be operated on a fee-based basis. Finally, the bill includes $3.42 million for the Open World Leadership Trust Fund. This is $2.58 million below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $4.58 million below the requested level. As a sign of support for Ukraine, the committee has reduced the program by 43 percent. This represents the program's percentage of participants from Russia. It is important to stress that Open World's program does not just focus on work with Russia. Ukraine has the next largest group of participants, closely followed by other nations in the surrounding region. Therefore, we encourage the center to do more in Ukraine and with other participating countries in the surrounding region. I would like to thank my good friend, the ranking member, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for her role throughout the process. We have worked well together in a bipartisan manner. It has truly been a team effort. Also, I extend my appreciation to all members of the subcommittee in their efforts in helping bring this measure to the floor. I also want to thank the truly excellent staff that has nursed me through this. Let me just add, parenthetically, that we had a pretty unusual situation in that, because of some early retirements and the loss of our dear friend, Bill Young, we had a lot of reshuffling to do on our committee. On our side, that meant we only had one carryover member, and that was the vice chairman, Mr. Harris from Maryland, who was indispensable and extraordinarily helpful to the rest of us. Again, without a capable staff and without, frankly, a wonderful working partner in my ranking member, we would have had a much more difficult time. Frankly, I don't think anybody in this institution knows this bill and this process better than Ms. Wasserman Schultz. She has been my friend. I was once on her committee as a very junior member when she chaired it, and I learned a lot from her then. I learned a lot more from her this time. I look forward to the debate, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01MY14.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01MY14.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01MY14.003