Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 25, 2011, I was unavoidably detained and missed the first vote in a series of two votes. I missed rollcall vote No. 630. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote No. 630: ``yea'' (On agreeing to H. Res. 363). Stated against:

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the Chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I want to praise the process by which we arrived at this. This is probably the hardest-working subcommittee on a very hardworking Appropriations Committee; 22 separate hearings, a very open process. I think even the minority that disagreed with some of the decisions that were made would agree that they were made fairly, openly, transparently, and by votes. And the American people can look at what we did. Usually, when you come to this floor, you come to debate and to disagree. We're certainly going to have a great deal of that over the course of the next several days as we work through the main legislation and the many amendments which undoubtedly will be offered. But I want to focus today on an area of bipartisan agreement, and that's the decisions that were made regarding funding in Indian Country and Native American programs. Mr. Chairman, our chairman generously mentioned, and appropriately mentioned, the hard work that Mr. Moran and Mr. Dicks did in setting the foundation for the progress that's being built upon this year. What he was too modest about was his own role, first as a ranking member and then as the chairman, and also seeing that an appropriate focus was placed on Indian Country. Frankly, while I disagree with the administration in many places, I want to thank them as well because in many cases, they had great suggestions, they certainly put forward serious proposals, and they've been very easy to work with in Native American issues. So there's a lot of praise here to go around. Most importantly, I think from an appropriations standpoint, the numbers speak for themselves. The Bureau of Indian Affairs funding was cut, but actually cut less than the President requested. The Indian Health Service got a 9 percent increase--almost $400 million. You can run through the program. IHS staffing for new facilities, $63 million. Fully funded at the President's request. Road maintenance, $25 million. Funded at the President's request. Indian guaranteed loan program, something to help tribes as they move into private industries, actually funded above the President's request. Contract support costs, fully funded, $228 million. Indian Health Service, fully funded, $574 million.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just remind my friend from California that when Republicans brought disclosure, they didn't link it to the contracting process, which this potential Executive order does. I think that's out of bounds. I would also remind my friend the Democrats opposed that and when Democrats were in the majority, and overwhelmingly in the majority, they failed to enact legislation similar to what she suggests in the DISCLOSE Act. I think this is something that this legislative body has looked at. If my friend from California wants to introduce a bill to do this, that's perfectly appropriate to it, but doing it in the context of the contracting process is simply wrong. People that are submitting bids will somehow think inevitably that they will be helped or hurt by their political activity. That has no basis in judging the quality of a bid for a Federal contract. In addition, frankly, my friends have never wanted to apply that same standard to labor unions or to affiliated groups applying for Federal dollars. I would actually agree with them on that. I don't think it has any place in a disclosure in those areas either. There's a place to do this, and there's a place not to do it. Doing it on a contract is inevitably meant to try and use the Federal dollars to impact, one way or another, what groups do politically. That's wrong, we shouldn't allow it, and we should never, never risk politicizing the procurement process. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, in April a draft Executive order was circulated that would force companies, as a condition of applying for a Federal contract, to disclose all Federal campaign contributions. In my opinion, if implemented, this Executive order would lead to a significant politicization of the Federal procurement process. Instead of judging companies on the basis of their past work performance, their demonstrated ability to do the job or their price, we would actually introduce potentially the element of their political participation and contributions and activities into the consideration process. This Executive order would not, in fact, lead to more objectivity in the evaluation process. It would, instead, chill the constitutionally protected right of people to donate politically to whatever candidate or cause or political party they choose to. Those very same people would fear repercussion to their bottom line as, frankly, I'm sure this Executive order intends to do. The draft order claims that these burdensome and intrusive disclosure requirements are necessary to ensure that contracting decisions, quote, deliver the best value to the taxpayer and are free from the undue influence of extraneous factors such as political activity or political favoritism. If one accepts this rationale--and I certainly don't--then delivering the, quote, best value to the taxpayer would require such disclosure by anyone receiving Federal dollars. This Executive order would not apply to Federal employee unions that negotiate with the government to provide billions of dollars in benefits for their members, nor would it apply to many nonprofits that receive Federal grants, many of whom have strong political agendas of their own. My amendment would prevent any funds from this act going towards the implementation of any rule, regulation, or Executive order regarding political contributions that takes effect on or after the date of the enactment of the act. It is important to recognize, Mr. Chairman, my bill does not change Federal campaign law in any way. It does not change the current disclosure requirements. My amendment has already been agreed to on three previous pieces of legislation: the Defense Authorization bill for FY 2012, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, and also the Defense appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, ``pay-to-play'' has no place in the Federal contracting process. Requiring the disclosure of campaign contributions for government contracts in my opinion does just that. Congress considered the proposed Executive order, something like it, during the 111th Congress as part of the DISCLOSE Act and rejected it. This Executive order is a backdoor attempt to implement the DISCLOSE Act by executive fiat. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I would just urge the body to support the amendment. I would disagree with my friend. Sham groups are quite often formed in labor unions or underneath, but that's another debate for another day. Let's just keep outside money out of the procurement process. I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of my amendment.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. COLE. I would simply say to my good friend from Washington, who I respect frankly as much I do anybody in this Congress, the intent here is to make sure we never link political contributions with the awarding of government contracts. If we want to require additional disclosure, the Congress has it within its ability to do that, and indeed we considered something like this in 2010 and decided it was inappropriate. And that was a time when my friends on the other side of the aisle were in control of both Houses as well the Presidency. So I understand the concerns, but I think this is an inappropriate way to address them. Number one, the executive order, frankly, is legislating through the back door. If we want to change the campaign contribution laws in the United States, that needs to be done here, not by executive fiat. And, secondly, to link it with the contracting process is inevitably going to raise questions, create fears and doubt and I think without question chill political speech. So let's just simply keep contracting and the awarding of the contract by the Government of the United States separate from partisan political considerations and contributions. I think we would be better off. I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite simple. It prohibits any funds in this bill from being used to conduct military operations in Libya, a place where I believe we are engaged in an illegal and certainly unauthorized conflict. Mr. Chairman, I feel a little bit today like a lawyer with two very unpopular clients. One of them is Libya, and the other one is the United States Congress. But in this case, each one of them has an important point to make. With respect to Libya, let me make it clear, I don't believe anybody in this Chamber supports Mr. Qadhafi, supports that regime, or wishes it well in any way. But Libya did not attack the United States of America. Libya did not attack any member of NATO. Libya has not allowed al Qaeda to operate with impunity out of its territory. A number of years ago, Libya turned over nuclear material to the United States. Quite simply, however much we detest Mr. Qadhafi and his regime, we have no reason to be at war or conducting military operations in Libya. And, frankly, if we allow that situation to continue, I think we have to ask ourselves: Are we willing to attack any nation any time that we disagree with a regime that we don't like simply because the President chooses to do so? More troubling than the attack on Libya, in my view, is the circumvention of this body, the United States Congress, and its warmaking authority under both the Constitution and the War Powers Act. Only Congress has the ability to authorize and fund military operations. The administration consulted with NATO. The administration consulted with the United Nations. The administration consulted with the Arab League. It never, in any real sense, consulted with the Congress of the United States before beginning military operations in Libya. Two weeks ago, this House made clear its opposition to the Libyan venture by refusing to authorize even the limited use of force. We should build on that by removing funding today. Some may question whether or not this amendment is germane to this particular piece of legislation. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I worked very carefully with the Parliamentarian on the language, and, more importantly, it's modeled after the famous Boland amendment of 1983 to the Defense approps bill that year that was approved by this body 411- 0. Some may argue, like the administration, that we really aren't engaged in hostilities in Libya. That simply is laughable. Attorneys at both the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice of this administration believe that our activity requires congressional authorization under the War Powers Act. We've flown over a thousand combat sorties over Libyan airspace. We've launched 228 Tomahawk missiles. We've launched over a hundred Predators. We're refueling and supporting NATO aircraft that are engaged in attacking Libya every single day. If that's not war on our side of this situation, I can assure you that people on the other side consider it war and certainly consider it hostile. The reality is we should not be engaged in military action of this level unless it's authorized and funded by the Congress of the United States. In Libya, the President has, quite simply, overreached. However, in Congress, we have so far allowed him to do so. We've not authorized this activity. There's not a single line in the Defense authorization bill or in this bill which actually funds this activity, and we ought to explicitly prohibit the President from concluding. I think, like many in this body, this is a very important moment for the Congress of the United States. Whether or not we claim warmaking authority and exercise our power under the Constitution is really the issue here. You could be for the Libyan venture and still be able to support this legislation, or you could be against it. At the end of the day, it's extraordinarily important that we stop the erosion of the warmaking authority and responsibility of the Congress of the United States, that we end this ill-advised adventure in Libya, and that we reassert the rightful place of this institution in conducting war and authorizing it and funding it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, in April a draft executive order was circulated that would require all companies bidding on Federal contracts to disclose all Federal campaign contributions. If enacted, this executive order would effectively politicize the Federal procurement process, in my opinion. Companies wouldn't merely be judged by the merits of their past performance, by the capability to do the job, but would also be obviously considered on the basis of who they gave money to or against. This would clearly chill the constitutionally protected right to donate to political parties, candidates and causes of one's choice; and, I think, frankly, that's exactly what the executive order, proposed executive order, is intended to do. My amendment would simply prohibit funds from this act being used to implement such an executive order. It doesn't change existing Federal campaign contribution law in any way. It doesn't prevent the disclosure of campaign contributions. It simply says we won't spend money from this bill to require campaign contribution information to be submitted along with bids for Federal contracts. This House has agreed to this concept on three previous occasions: once in the bill, once in an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, and once in an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act. Finally, it's worth noting that Congress has rejected an effort to do exactly what this proposed executive order intends to do when it failed to pass the DISCLOSE Act in 2010. Mr. Chairman, pay-to-play has no place in the Federal procurement contract, and we should try to keep politics out of the selection of vendors and businesses and contractors to go about doing Federal works. So I would urge the adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to offer a somewhat different perspective than my friend from Massachusetts does on the trend line of defense spending. Looking at the long term, defense spending has actually, over time, come down pretty dramatically as a percent of our gross national product. In 1960, at the height of the Cold War, we spent about 9 percent of the GDP on defense. In 1980 in the great Reagan defense buildup, it was about 6 percent. It fell as low as 3.5 percent on the eve of 9/11. It is barely 5 percent, or in that range, today. So by historical standards, particularly since 1940, we do not spend a large percentage of the national wealth on defense. By the way, the same thing is true of the Federal budget. In 1960, about 50 percent of the Federal budget was defense spending. It was about 33 percent in 1980. It is about 18 or 19 percent today. Certainly a lot of money, and that is certainly not the only way in which to judge military spending, but if looked at in terms of the size of the Federal budget or the wealth of the country, defense has been, comparatively speaking, a bargain compared to other parts of the budget. I would also like to point out that, frankly, this Defense Subcommittee and the administration have worked to find additional economies. Secretary Gates made $78 billion in reductions over the next 5 years, and this budget itself is below what the President of the United States asked us to appropriate by $9 billion. In addition, the Secretary has laid out a path for an additional $400 billion worth of savings. I think most Americans would be shocked to find out we are engaged in two or three wars, depending on how you want to count, with an Army that is almost 40 percent smaller than it was in 1982. So I yield to no one in terms of trying to find savings in defense, but I think the record ought to be clear: As a percentage of our national wealth, as a percentage of the Federal budget, what we spend on defense has come down. And, frankly, we ought to remember that we are at war; we are in a dangerous situation. This is not the first place to cut, although cut we have. In my opinion, I think it is the last place that we ought to cut. And the consequences of what my friend proposes, I think, would be terrific. We would be reducing and canceling training for returning troops, canceling Navy training exercises, reducing Air Force flight training, delaying or canceling maintenance of aircraft, ships, and vehicles, and delaying important safety and quality-of-life repairs. This is not the time for us to embark on additional cuts on top of the restraints in spending that we have already done as a House. I would urge the rejection of my friend's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. It's well-intentioned, without question. It's meant to limit our involvement in Libya, it's meant to support our allies, and it's meant to rein in a President who in my opinion is conducting an illegal and certainly unauthorized war. It does both too little and too much. It does too little, frankly, because even after it's passed, the President will continue essentially to be able to operate as he's been operating for several weeks. And it does too much because it gets us into a situation where we effectively micromanage the military by literally listing what missions they should take. The resolution neither holds the President accountable nor ends our involvement in Libya, and it essentially leaves things exactly where they are. Congress should reassert its constitutional authority, Mr. Speaker, by either authorizing the use of military force or ending it. This resolution avoids either course. It postpones a decision. In doing so, in my view, it erodes the constitutional war-making authority of Congress and enhances an executive branch that is already overreaching. We will appear to do something and we will actually do nothing. For that reason, I reluctantly urge the rejection of the resolution.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 478. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal 2012 Defense Appropriations Act and urge all Members to extend their support as well. This is a fine bill that the committee worked on in an open fashion, and it includes input from both sides of the aisle. Thanks to Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks, it is a strong, bipartisan bill that will do much good for the defense of our country. Mr. Chairman, we will have many spirited debates on amendments during the course of the consideration of this legislation, and that is a good thing. But, rest assured, at the end of the day this legislation is and will remain a very good product. The spending levels in the bill do not exceed the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Appropriations Committee, which are within the overall spending level approved by the House budget resolution. The bill itself includes $530 billion for the normal operations of the Department and $118.7 billion for the conduct of the global war on terror. It includes a 1.6 percent pay raise for the troops. It has $453 million for the procurement of additional updated Abrams tanks, and it has $2.7 billion for the continued development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a weapons system that is critical to maintaining air superiority for the United States Air Force. Additionally, the bill will withhold 75 percent of the funding for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund until the Secretary of Defense provides lawmakers with a report detailing the strategy and metrics for the use of those funds. The committee also adopted an amendment that would provide $1 million for the creation of a bipartisan commission to make policy recommendations on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, this is a strong piece of legislation, one that I fully believe we should support, and I would ask all Members to do so.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, in April, a draft executive order was circulated that would force companies as a condition of applying for a Federal contract to disclose all Federal campaign contributions. In my view, if implemented, this executive order would lead to a significant politicalization of the Federal procurement process. Instead of a company being evaluated and judged on its merits, their past work experience, their ability to complete the government contract in question, this executive order would introduce the potential that they would be evaluated politically as opposed to professionally. It's never a good idea, Mr. Chairman, in my view, to mix politics with contracting. My amendment would prevent the President from implementing the proposed disclosure requirements. Congress actually considered something similar to what the President is proposing in the 111th Congress, the so-called DISCLOSE Act. It's instructive to me that that Congress--the majority of which in both Houses was controlled by our friends on the other side--decided not to implement such a requirement. Frankly, I think doing so now by executive order is effectively legislating through the executive branch. The executive order in question that's being considered would not in fact lead to more objectivity in the bidding process, and it could potentially chill the constitutionally protected right of people to donate politically to whatever candidate, political party, or cause that they chose to do so. It's worth noting that nothing in this amendment would affect the current Federal disclosures under the law. We're not trying to change things; we're not trying to let people do something they can't do now. We're simply trying to make sure that political contributions and political activities never move into the contracting process. Pay-to- play has no place in the Federal contracting process, and requiring the disclosure of campaign contributions for government contracts does just that. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully urge that the amendment be adopted. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, if the information isn't necessary for the bid or for the evaluation of the bid, then it's not necessary for the executive branch to have it or for us to run the risk that it might be misused, so I urge the adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. I couldn't disagree more strongly with my friend from Maryland. Quite frankly, the information that this proposed executive order would extract and require from companies is not necessary to evaluate any bid that they've made. It's a political quest, not a quest for more information, for a better product or a better bid, and it legitimately raises political fear of retaliation. We've seen time and time and time again in history where politics have been linked to contracts. This is yet another effort to do it. I also dispute my friend about whether or not it is appropriate for the executive branch to even consider this in the first place. It is not the job of the executive branch to legislate. That's actually our job in this body. If we want to add additional requirements, we can do so. We looked at requirements very much like this last year in a Congress which was controlled at both ends of the building by my friends on the other side, and it did not enact such legislation. I think to do so now actually through executive fiat raises even more concerning fears. All I am asking is that we leave the law as it is, the disclosure requirements as they are, and, frankly, keep the executive branch from engaging in fishing expeditions and from potentially imputative political activity against companies and individuals who are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, last month a draft Executive order was circulated that would require companies to disclose all Federal campaign contributions as a condition for submitting a bid on a Federal contract. If implemented, this Executive order would effectively politicize the Federal procurement process. Companies and their bids would run the risk of being judged on the basis of politics as opposed to their professional capabilities. The danger of that is obvious. It's never a good idea to mix politics and contracting. My amendment would prevent the President from implementing his proposed disclosure requirements. And it's worth noting for the record, Congress actually considered something similar in the 111th Congress, the so-called DISCLOSE Act, and chose not to pass that particular legislation. This is, in effect, a backdoor effort to implement something that Congress has previously decided not to legislate on. It's worth also noting that all current Federal campaign requirements and disclosure requirements would remain effective. There is nothing in this amendment that affects current law. However, we do prevent the administration from taking that extra step and chilling the First Amendment rights of companies and corporate executives. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.