Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend, Mr. Gene Green--and he is my good friend--as I recall, those Texas legislators were called the Killer Bees. And if you want to compare them to mosquitos, I will leave you that luxury and that political risk. We just call Texas legislators welcome guests. So they are welcome to come any time. In terms of the point, though, I think I agree with much of what you say, other than the last part of what you said about adequately, responsibly funding. That is exactly what we are doing. The total amount of money here we are talking about, my friends keep forgetting about this $600 million that has already been deployed, and they keep suggesting that this is like only Ebola money. That is not the way the legislation is written. It is written for Ebola and other infectious diseases. In other words, we are using that money exactly the way we are supposed to use it, not shortchanging anybody. If we need money later--because this is money that is to be spent over multiple years--we will come back and put it in. But that money, frankly, if it had not been available, there would not have been an immediate response possible. It was available, so it is being used in the appropriate way. This is the next third. So when we hear this talk about only a third of what the administration requested, we have already done a third. We are getting ready to do the next third, and we are telling you, in bills that are coming to the floor, both State and foreign ops, and Labor-HHS, that there will be additional money that will essentially total about what the administration has asked to spend. We recognize that these things do develop, do change. Our understanding of them changes over time. This is actually a thoughtful way to do this. But the assurance has been made: if you need more money, then you have got it. We will work with you. We will find a way to do it. Our assistance is, if we can pay for it, then we do pay for it; and that is exactly what we do in this bill. We hear comparisons, erroneous comparisons, you are only doing half as much as the Republicans in the Senate. No. We are doing it through September 30 of this year. They are doing it through September 30 of next year. The amounts are essentially about the same. The difference, then, is also the same, frankly, with all due respect to my friends in the Senate, we are offsetting and paying for this. And that just seems, to us, the prudent way to do it, not to put more debt on the back of the American taxpayer when you don't have to. If we had some emergency that called for hundreds of billions of dollars or something of that nature, that would be different. That is not what we are dealing with here. Now, I have a lot of respect for my friend's concerns, but the chairman of our committee actually led a delegation to South America partially on this issue recently. I happened to have the privilege of going along with Chairman Rogers. We stopped in Peru, where there is a Naval research station we have operated for decades. It normally focuses on tropical diseases--we have a lot of issues with that when our military is deployed in those areas--but it is working around the clock on Zika and is doing some great work. Then we went to Brazil, which is really the epicenter of this outbreak; sat down and talked with the Centers for Disease Control people on the ground, which we did; talked with the Brazilian government, which we did; saw, as Brazil was deploying literally hundreds of thousands, 220,000 of its own military personnel, to go door to door. So I think probably Chairman Rogers has as good a grasp, with all due respect, as anybody in this body on what is being done, what needs to be done, and how to proceed. At every step along the way, he has shown that resources are going to be made available. They have been, but they are being made available in a responsible, prudent way, with appropriate oversight, in a timely manner, but in a manner which is offset and paid for. That is what I think the American people want us to do: take care of what is important, do it right, do it responsibly, and pay for it if you have the funds available before you automatically add it to the credit card that our kids and grandkids are going to someday have to pay off. So we will continue to work with our friends. We will work with our colleagues in the Senate. But to suggest for 1 minute that the Federal Government doesn't have the resources it needs, when it has much more than it has asked sitting still unobligated in funds, is just simply not the case. It has the money it needs. It is getting the resources in the right way. We are simply paying for them. I know that is hard for some of my friends to accept, but it is actually the appropriate way to proceed. We actually should do more of this in this body rather than less. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank, as always, my good friend from Florida. He is truly a delight to work with, one of the really great Members in this body. Not surprisingly, he knows I disagree with him on his characterization of the current Congress, because saying that we haven't done anything is forgetting what has actually happened. This is the first Congress to pass a multiyear highway bill since 2005 and the first one to overhaul common education since 2002. Last week, we had opioid legislation on this floor that we all know is critical and is certainly going to come into law, and it will be funded. We had the first real human trafficking bill; an overhaul of the Veterans Administration; a budget agreement that meant we had no closures and no debt crisis; more funding for the National Institutes of Health--it has been one of the central issues in this debate--than the President asked for last year, more new funding; and the same thing for the Centers for Disease Control. So I actually argue it has been a pretty productive Congress in many, many ways. In terms of Zika, though, let's again get back and just clarify things. The President asked for $1.9 billion in emergency funding. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee immediately said: You have got plenty of money. Use whatever you want; $600 million of that was used. If you need that replenished, we will replenish that in the normal course of appropriations. He now brings to the floor a bill that carries the next third of the funding that the administration has asked for, fully offset, money that is more than they expect to spend from now until September 30. Some of that money is available into next year, certainly the money that the NIH would need for diagnostics and vaccines. We will bring to the floor the rest of it. So the only thing that we really differ on is should we pay for this major effort or not when we have the resources. We have the resources. Ours is paid for. The administration's proposal is not. It is just that simple. Do you just want to add $1.9 billion, or do you want to responsibly work the problem? This committee, the Appropriations Committee, has been at the forefront of responding to this every step along the way. It will continue to do so. We will work with our friends. In closing, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution gives the Congress the power of the purse. Article I, section 9 gives that authority to Congress. While the President has every right and duty to submit a supplemental appropriations request, it is the duty of Congress to examine that request and provide for the funds and conditions it feels appropriate to execute them. That is exactly what we have done on Zika, and that is exactly what we have done on MILCON-VA. With that in mind, I would encourage my friends to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my concern with only certain aspects of the Calvert amendment that is included in part of the second en bloc of amendments to the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. I respect my colleague from California and his attempt to catalogue the numbers of civilians and contractors performing work for the Department of Defense; however, I object to the characterization of civilian employees and their role in the military structure. I have the great privilege of representing the men and women who serve our nation at Tinker Air Force Base and Fort Sill. There is no finer group of people anywhere in the world. They are patriots. And they serve as the backbone of military readiness for the U.S. Air Force and for the United States military. Without the work performed at Tinker, located in Oklahoma City, many of our most complex aircraft simply would not be mission ready. The aircraft could not be flown and our nation's defense would be greatly degraded. Therefore, to find that our civilian workforce is disproportionate, duplicative and is detracting from combat power is incorrect. Civilian employees are essential to the operations and readiness of our military. We simply cannot do the mission without them. I agree with the finding that across-the-board cuts to the defense civilian workforce are not the answer. However, it is important to note, that all areas of the workforce do not need additional cuts. For example, depots had already taken a greater percentage cut than the military and now we find ourselves in the unfortunate position that for military readiness purposes--for the absolute necessity of supporting our warfighter--we are in the position of requiring some of our Air Logistics Complexes to hire over 1,000 additional personnel per year for a 2 year period. In fact, this bill contains a provision which will provide direct hire authority so that the services can hire the people they need, quickly and efficiently. Sometimes in our zeal to limit or cut our civilians, we lose sight of the mission and make assumptions that are not rooted in fact. Again, I want to commend and thank our outstanding civilian workforce and particularly those who live and work in the great State of Oklahoma for their skill and their dedication to the military mission. Their contributions to our great country should be acknowledged and commended.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and not present for rollcall vote No. 108. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on final passage of S. 1826, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 99 West 2nd Street in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, as the Lieutenant Colonel James ``Maggie'' Megellas Post Office.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my profound disappointment in President Obama's recent decision to veto H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015. It is important to be clear and stand with my constituents in voting to override the President's veto of legislation that is a story of broken promises by President Obama and the Democrats who voted in favor of this legislation. I want to spend a few minutes describing just a few of the promises made during consideration of Obamacare which have sadly failed to come to fruition. First, Mr. Speaker, President Obama repeatedly told the American people that ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep it''. Sadly, in reality, it couldn't be further from the truth. More than 4.7 million people received cancellation notices in the fall of 2013, right before Obamacare went into effect. Politifact, no friend to conservatives, even went as far as labeling the President's promise the ``Lie of the Year.'' Secondly, while Obamacare promised lower healthcare costs and lower premiums, this couldn't be further from the truth. First, on lower healthcare costs, according to CMS' own actuaries, overall spending on healthcare is expected to rise by $621 billion over 10 years due to the law, at an average of 5.8% per year. That's more than double our projected GDP growth, and a higher rate than before Obamacare. The story on premiums is no better. While President Obama promised lower premiums, as John Adams stated, ``facts are stubborn things''. The facts are that the average premium for a family plan has increased by $18,610 from 2009-2013, and the overall cost of premium increases have been over $1.2 trillion. Third, Mr. Speaker, Obamacare promised more choice, more competition, and lower costs. Well, unfortunately, that is just not the case in Oklahoma, like many other states across the country. In fact, fewer insurers offer fewer options at higher prices than when Obamacare was passed, over my objections. Obamacare is not the answer and the American people know that. Instead, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to co-sponsor the American Health Care Reform Act of 2015 (AHCA), which I support as an alternative to a government-managed health care law. This legislation would provide a number of market-driven solutions to ensure everyone seeking coverage will be able to obtain it. First, it expands federal support for state high risk pools. Unlike Obamacare, which created an already oversubscribed Federal high risk pool, AHCA returns those concerns to the states, provides the necessary funding to sustain them, and caps the premiums in those plans. Additionally, AHCA tax incentives to equalize the treatment of employer-sponsored coverage and those purchased in the private market. In addition to ensuring healthy competition across the market place, it also ensures that if one loses their job, they do not necessarily have to lose their health insurance. Third, AHCA would provide real competition among insurers, by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance products across state lines and by permitting small businesses to pool together to negotiate better rates. AHCA is the type of legislation needed to replace a bloated, government-run healthcare system which has left a trail of broken promises in its wake. I am pleased to vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 3762. While I know this vote will not be successful, I am pleased that the President has finally had to confront the issues that the American people have with his signature piece of legislation, the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, Obamacare is none of these things. I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of overriding the President's veto.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my strong support for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015. Mr. Speaker, this legislation caps a long march by House Republicans to repeal President Obama's job- killing health care legislation, the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). But you don't have to just take my word for it. Since its enactment, PPACA has never been popular with a majority of the America people. The Kaiser Family Foundation has maintained a monthly tracking poll of the law's popularity and only once in the last five years was its favorability as high as 50%. House Republicans recognized this and voted over 60 times to repeal or modify provisions of PPACA. Because of this, eighteen different provisions of PPACA have been considered and passed by both the House and the Senate and have been signed into law by the President. The Senate Amendment to H.R. 3762 does three important things: it repeals the individual mandate, eliminates the employer mandates, eliminates the taxes on prescription drugs and medical devices, and it places a moratorium on taxpayer funding to abortion providers. These provisions are estimated to repeal more than $1.2 trillion in tax hikes on hardworking families, and reduces spending by nearly $1.5 trillion, over the next 10 years. As a member of the Budget Committee, I am proud to have played a role in shaping this reconciliation bill to repeal a law that a majority of Americans have never wanted, a law that has taken away coverage that people liked and replaced it with inferior coverage which costs even more. In addition to this, Mr. Speaker, the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3762 includes a moratorium on taxpayer funding to abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, and redirects those funds to community health centers. Like you, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to abortion and have been a consistent proponent of laws and policies that respect life and protect the unborn. I am pleased this legislation provides for a moratorium of funding to Planned Parenthood. Broadly, I do not believe that taxpayers should fund Planned Parenthood. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 217, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which would prohibit family planning assistance to an entity unless it certifies that it will not provide funds to another entity that performs abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, I have also cosponsored H.R. 3134, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015, which would prevent any funds from going to Planned Parenthood until it is certified that they do not perform abortions and supported this legislation when it passed the House, by a vote of 241-187, on September 18, 2015. In addition, I voted in favor of H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act, which gives states the flexibility to exclude abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, from their Medicaid programs. I do not believe it is appropriate to use public funds to pay for abortions and am pleased to see this further limitation as a part of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3762. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to respond to some of my colleagues' remarks that seemed to imply that funding for Planned Parenthood was included in the omnibus. Approximately 90 percent of Planned Parenthood's federal funding comes from Medicaid reimbursements, which is mandatory or entitlement spending, and not included in the omnibus at all. The other 10 percent of Planned Parenthood's federal money comes primarily from the Title X Family Planning Program in the form of competitive grants. This amounts to around $60 million in any given year that Planned Parenthood must compete for. Obviously, with this Administration, it seems likely that Planned Parenthood will receive funds; however, electing a pro-life President who will also select like-minded appointees and cabinet members is the long-term solution. Ultimately, even with a government shutdown, Planned Parenthood would still receive the vast amount of the funding it currently receives. As the Chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee responsible for funding the Department of Health and Human Services, I removed all funding for Title X programs that fund organizations conducting abortions, such as Planned Parenthood as part of the House version of this legislation. Unfortunately, we were not able to maintain that funding prohibition or the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act in the final version of the bill. For some to suggest, as they have, that more could have been done to stop this horrifying practice in the omnibus, is simply untrue. I am opposed to abortion and have been a consistent proponent of laws and policies that respect life and protect the unborn. Since becoming a Member of Congress, I have made protection of life one of my highest priorities. As stewards of the laws of this country, protecting the most vulnerable, including the unborn, should be one of Congress' highest priorities. I have a 100 percent pro-life voting record and intend to continue building on that record. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this legislation demonstrates what the American people have known for a long time: that Obamacare is deeply unpopular in both Washington and back at home. Forcing the President to veto this legislation demonstrates that the support is here in Washington for a full repeal. If a Republican President would be elected in 2016, I am sure this albatross around the neck of the American people would be no more. I encourage all of my colleagues to listen to the voices of the American people and vote yes on repeal of Obamacare and a temporary moratorium on federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my friend. As always, it is a privilege to have a debate and a discussion with him. I think his characterization of this legislation as a mixed bag is a fair characterization, but that is what I would expect in anything that is a compromise--and particularly a compromise of this magnitude. I take considerable pride, frankly, in all those involved in this. They did come to some major agreements. Again, I think each of the leaders of the House and of the Senate and certainly the President and his team could point to things they don't like in this bill or things they gave up or things they wanted that didn't make it. I know each of them has a long list of disappointments. But the bottom line is they found a way to get the job done. They found a way to sit down, work across the institutional divide, the partisan divide, their philosophical differences, and produce a good bill. I also want to agree with my friend on his concern about the process. He is precisely right; this is not the best way to operate. I am glad we got all these bills on the appropriations side through the full committee. I am proud that we got six of them across the floor. I am disappointed that our friends in the Senate, frankly, because of the minority's opposition, didn't get any onto the floor. They did get, though, in fairness, all 12 of theirs through committee. And that is progress for both bodies. We have moved in a broad direction. But my friend is right, we need to go further next year. I am going to disagree with him a little bit about the deficit. He is not going to be surprised. Again, I point out the reality that for the last 4 years my friends were in the majority, the deficit went up every single year; and since we have been in the majority, it has come down every single year. I don't think those are coincidences. I think they show who is committed. I am also proud that we have put forward real reform proposals on entitlement spending, the real drivers of the debt. I invite my friends to actually offer proposals in that regard or to look at Mr. Delaney's bill and my bill. I wish our side would do that, too, by the way, because I think it offers us a reasonable way to get to reforming the Social Security system, probably the most important single program that we have in the country. I am also going to disagree with my good friend on the oil export ban, not surprisingly. In my part of the world, we are losing thousands of jobs. The idea that you would restrict where Americans, who have produced a product, can sell it to only one place, when no other country in the world does that. This is something that shouldn't have been in this bill. It should have never happened in the first place. It should have gone 40 years ago. Now, my friend mentioned Mr. Clinton and balancing the budget. I think that is an appropriate thing to do. He somehow left out the part that it was a Republican Congress working with President Clinton. Frankly, President Clinton never ever submitted a balanced budget to the Congress. Congress reduced the spending, and eventually we got lucky. We had a growth spurt. We had a peace dividend. We had a lot of things going on in the nineties. We had the baby boomers at the top of their earning potential. They were not retiring at the rate of 10,000 a day, as we have now. So I would argue our problem is tougher, but my friend is right when he makes the point that in a bipartisan fashion, we dealt with this problem in the 1990s. We need to be bipartisan and deal it with again, going forward. Mr. Speaker, I think that as we conclude the legislative business of this Congress, it is critical for us to end in a way that honors the trust the American people have placed in us. Divided government is difficult; however, it is a position that we have been placed in. The last few weeks have been filled with legislative activity: a long-term transportation bill, a fundamental overhaul of our elementary education programs, a Customs bill which makes it easier for Americans to trade overseas, and finally, both tax certainty for individuals and businesses and the completion of the fiscal year 2016 appropriations process. None of these pieces of legislation have been perfect, from my perspective or I am sure from my friend's perspective, but they have all been better than the alternative we have faced. And they were, in my estimation, the best deals we could negotiate. That is a testament to the leadership of Speaker Ryan; Leader Pelosi; the committee chairman, Mr. Rogers; Mr. Brady on our side, of their counterparts, Mrs. Lowey; Mr. Shuster; the ranking member of Ways and Means, Mr. Levin, one of my favorite Members. With that, Mr. Speaker, I do want to end with one note. I want to join my friend, my valued colleague in the Rules Committee, in our joint hope that we do not meet again in that context. I want to wish him and his family a Merry Christmas, as well as to all those in this institution. And frankly, I want to congratulate all involved in this on a job well done. It was a hard deal, a long negotiation, but one where each side worked together.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2029. The resolution makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations that the House concur in the Senate amendment with two House amendments. Amendment No. 1, consisting of the text of the omnibus appropriations bill, is provided 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Amendment No. 2, consisting of the text of the tax extenders bill, is provided 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides for a separate vote on each amendment. In addition, the rule provides that, if one or both amendments are adopted, then the bill is sent to the Senate. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides the standard recess authorities typically given at the end of the first session of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be presenting to the House today the rule which will provide for the consideration of two critical pieces of legislation which are the product of long and hard negotiations between the House, the Senate, and the administration. First, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015, the PATH Act. This legislation makes over 20 different tax provisions permanent, like the Research and Development Tax Credit, section 179 expensing, and the State and local sales tax deduction. Many of these provisions have existed as part of the Tax Code for many years. However, they were often extended retroactively or on a yearly basis, making it difficult for businesses and individuals to plan effectively. Making these provisions permanent will allow businesses and individuals to make more sensible decisions throughout the year, not just during the final 12 or 14 days at the end of the year after Congress passes a retroactive extension. This bill also includes extensions of other tax provisions, like the New Markets Tax Credit, the bonus depreciation, and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit through 2019. Additionally, there are other provisions that are retroactively extended for 2015 and through 2016. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the PATH Act includes a number of program integrity measures designed to strengthen the integrity of the tax credit programs that have high rates of improper payments, fraud, and abuse. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill includes a series of reforms designed to rein in the power of the Internal Revenue Service and better protect the American people, like firing IRS employees who take politically motivated actions against taxpayers and prohibiting IRS employees from using personal email accounts for official business. In addition to these critical tax extenders, the rule also provides for the consideration of the omnibus spending bill for fiscal year 2016 at the funding levels agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget Act passed earlier this year. There is much to be proud of in this 2,000-page bill and accompanying explanatory statement. But, as I have told many of my colleagues, if you can't find something you don't agree with in the bill, you must not be looking hard enough. That being said, Mr. Speaker, this omnibus spending measure is a compromise and a reflection of divided government, but it also demonstrates a commitment by both sides to restoring regular order to this House. While I could provide a long list of things I wish were included, this bill still maintains key Republican and conservative priorities. For example, the bill keeps the EPA staffing levels at the lowest level since 1989. In addition, it terminates dozens of duplicative, ineffective, or unauthorized programs. Beyond the numerous cuts and restrictions on the executive branch, this bill also delays additional, onerous ObamaCare mandates. For example, it delays the Cadillac tax on healthcare insurance for an additional 2 years and imposes a moratorium on the health insurer excise tax in 2017. In addition to these important changes, the omnibus also reveals some of the programs that Republicans value and that, frankly, Democrats value as well. Included in this legislation is a $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health. Likewise, it increases funding by 9.8 percent at the VA while strengthening the restrictions and oversight to ensure that taxpayer dollars will be used more effectively. In addition, Mr. Speaker, this legislation includes a repeal of the crude oil export ban. Repealing this ban, which has been in place for the past 40 years, has the potential to create more than a million new jobs across the United States, add $170 billion annually to our gross domestic product, and lead to still lower gasoline prices. This provision is a victory for the American people. I am sure many of my colleagues will speak about other portions of this legislation. However, in closing, I would like to recognize the hard work of Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and Speaker Ryan, who were able to lead us to this necessary compromise. This is the second year in a row that we will have been able to complete a vast majority of the appropriations process before the end of the calendar year, giving us the ability to begin the process anew when we return in January. It is a culmination of the hard work of the Members and of the staff over the past 10 months, and it should be worthy of all of the Members' support. I urge the support of the rule and of the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 566 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin by agreeing with my friend from Massachusetts on a very important point, but perhaps adding a little bit of nuance. I celebrate, probably as much as anybody in this Chamber, my friend's and his side of the aisle's newfound commitment to regular order. When they were in the majority here, they certainly didn't practice it. As a matter of fact, in 2009, I think only one or two appropriations bills reached the floor. During that period, the right of having an open rule, where every Member with an amendment could come down and offer it in the House, was taken away by my friend. Again, I appreciate that. My friend and I will disagree about what happened this year, because, indeed, we did begin down the path of regular order, we did bring six bills across the floor, we did bring all 12 bills through the committee. But, as my friend said, the Senate did not do that. Frankly, when regular order breaks down on one side of the rotunda in the Capitol building, it breaks down on the other as well. You can't keep bringing bills down when the other side simply won't bring bills at all. You are wasting a lot of time and you are casting a lot of votes that, frankly, become meaningless. Let us put this behind us. I actually agree with my friend. I think because of the bipartisan budget agreement, which my friend supported, and I supported as well, we now know what our spending levels will be next year. We now have an opportunity to do exactly what I am sure he wants to do, and I think every Member, regardless of viewpoint of party, wants to do. That is to bring all 12 bills to the floor and give every Member an opportunity to participate. That would be a good thing. The second point I would like to make in response to my friend deals with sequestration. I agree with him. To his credit, he has been a consistent opponent of sequestration. But we ought to remember this about that particular proposal. Sequestration was President Obama's idea--suggestion--in the 2011 budget agreement. There are a lot of imperfections in that budget agreement. One of the things was that a supercommittee was set up that was supposed to work these things out and sequester was never supposed to happen. For whatever reason, that committee was unable to actually do that. Sequester did save a lot of money. Our deficit is considerably lower than it was. Speaking of deficits--and my friend raised his concern about deficit spending--I share that concern too. I think it is worth pointing out that the last 4 years that my friends on the other side were in the majority, the deficit rose every single year, peaking at about $1.4 trillion. While we may disagree on particular provisions, the truth is for the 4 years--and now 5--that Republicans have been in power in the House, the deficit has gone down every single year. I think that tells you who is committed to deficit reduction and who is serious about cutting spending. Indeed, we are spending less money in this omnibus spending bill in discretionary accounts than we were spending when George Bush was President of the United States in 2008, so that is a pretty serious reduction. I would invite my friends to work with this on the real driver of the deficit, and that is the entitlement programs, which desperately need reform--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That is something that can only be done in a bipartisan fashion, and, frankly, can only be done with Presidential leadership. In this case, sadly, the President of the United States has been AWOL in the effort to actually rein in entitlement spending. My friend raised the lifting of the oil export ban in his remarks. On this we just simply have a different point of view. I come from a part of the world that has produced energy for this country for over 100 years and exported it. We think this is the key to sustaining the growth in the industry. Frankly, right now, $38 a barrel for oil means actually thousands of layoffs in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and other energy-producing States. The productivity of that sector, which has benefited every American with lower energy prices and lower gasoline prices, has also created a lot of difficulty for them. We are the only country on the planet that does not allow for the export of petroleum--the only one. Frankly, I think this is a case where we ought to listen to other countries around the world, and we ought to recognize some basic principles. Willing producers, willing buyers, and free markets are good for everybody. That always gives you the best product at the lowest price and creates the most innovation. I think this is an enormous step in the right direction. I am very proud that the two sides compromised and made this tough call--I know for some of my friends--but I think the right call long term for our country. Finally, I would just like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by noting that in my friend's remarks, while he certainly made what I think were some excellent points about process, certainly had some points where we differed, and certainly made some fair and legitimate critiques in what is a very large bill--as I said earlier, you can always find something to be critical of in this legislation--my friend also pointed out a lot of the very many good things in this bill. Frankly, some of those things that he likes, Members on my side don't necessarily agree with. That is the product of a real negotiation between the two sides, the two Chambers, and with the administration. There are wins and losses in here--if we even want to call them losses. But I think there is a victory here for the American people--stability, certainty, some really key national investments, no government shutdown, and I think this year the foundation, if we pass this legislation, for regular order, which I know my friend very much wants, next year. We have moved a long way from where we were several years ago-- frankly, under both parties--to where we are today. I actually give both sides considerable credit for this because I think there is a genuine yearning from Members of both sides to get to regular order, to make sure that, when we appropriate, everything is down here, transparent, every amendment has an opportunity. So, in the spirit of the Christmas season, we can put aside maybe some of our differences here. I think we will pass, ultimately, a very good bipartisan bill. I think we can make a commitment, an early New Year's resolution, that next year we will go to exactly where my friend wants to go and where I want to go and, frankly, where I know the Speaker wants to go, and that is regular order where each bill comes to the floor, receives due consideration, every Member has an opportunity to participate, things are more transparent and, frankly, things are more orderly. That will be possible because we came to a bipartisan budget agreement this year early that set the spending limits for next year. I think that is a very good thing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to respond quickly to my friend from New Jersey on the refinery issue because I actually have two refineries in my district, so not all refineries are located on the East and West Coast or in the Gulf. There are quite a few of them in the historic middle part of the country as well. I am always concerned about those jobs as well because, as my friend suggests, they are extremely important. He is precisely correct when he says that just producing oil is not enough. You want to be able to refine it. I also will tell you that sitting in Cushing, Oklahoma, is over 250 million barrels of oil that can't be refined because there is not a sufficient capacity for that particular kind of oil in this country. I would also suggest that it is not fair for people to say you can only sell the product you produce one place. Nobody else in the world does that. Nobody else says you can't sell your product to any place in the world in any market you want to. Only we do that. Many people might want a captive audience, but that is just simply not fair to the people at the other end of the process. They ought to be able to sell their product, particularly when, in certain kinds of crude, there is just simply not sufficient capacity. I would suggest over time if we just have faith in the free market, those things will be worked out, and we will eventually have the appropriate balance and supply. Again, I want to agree with my friend about the importance of the refining industry, but I also want to agree about the importance of free markets and the right and ability of people that produce products and make substantial investments to sell their product anyplace to any market that they care to do that. We are the only country in the world that denies that privilege to people that find and produce oil. I think if we remove that, frankly, we will have a more robust domestic industry. Again, this is an industry that is to be commended because it has been their innovation that has created this abundance of production. We have increased production in the United States by 85 percent in the last 5 or 6 years. That wasn't done with any government program. That wasn't done by the government. That was actually done by hardworking entrepreneurs and workers in historic oil-producing areas and new areas that are being opened up, in States like Pennsylvania and Ohio. This is a good thing for the United States, and we ought to take full advantage. Their productivity has also brought them record low prices, and they need the opportunity to market their product anyplace in the world that they think they can get a decent price. In the long-term, that will preserve the industry in the United States. Again, to my friend's point, I care a lot about jobs. I would be happy to take you to my State and show you how many thousands of jobs we have lost in the last few months, in the last year and a half. It is not just a question of oilfield work; it is also machinery, production, and that sort of thing. Frankly, those losses will reach into the manufacturing section of our country that produces much of the steel, the pipe, and the concrete that are important. Those jobs aren't just in our part of the country; they are all through the country. Again, I want to work with my friend. I agree with his observation. There were efforts made in good faith by both sides to provide some tax relief to the refining industry. If that is not sufficient, I would be happy to work with my friend to try and do more in that regard. Again, I think this is a balanced bill. It is a historic opportunity to do the right thing. At the end of the day, we are always better off when we trust free markets, free men and women producing and selling the products that they choose to make as widely as possible. That is what has made the country great. That has certainly been the key to the success in the energy industry. This is a step in the right direction to make sure that we not only maintain, but expand that principle. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just very quickly, I want to thank my friend from Oregon for his hard, bipartisan work on Ways and Means and various elements in this package that came here. I want to thank him as well for the kind remarks he made about the omnibus and his interest in research. I know that is genuine, and he has been a champion of that. I look forward to continuing to work with that. Finally--and I know my friend would think this, too--we are all concerned about the deficit. Some day, if we get serious about entitlement reform, we will sit down and do it. Now, I believe that can only be done in a bipartisan way. I would invite my friend sometime to look at a bill that Mr. Delaney and I have to begin the process of perhaps reforming Social Security in a bipartisan way. So, again, I look forward to that. I appreciate my friend's good work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to join my friend from Texas in his concern about the national debt and the deficit. I think those are genuine and real. I do point out to my friend that every year his side was in power the annual deficit got greater for 4 consecutive years, peaking at $1.4 trillion. Every year the Republicans have been in power in the House, it has come down. We can argue about the specifics of national debt, but who ran it up and who is trying to bring it down I think is pretty clear over the last several years. Second, while my friend is critical of many of the provisions--and, frankly, I could list some provisions that I am critical of in this legislation as well--I remind him it was negotiated by the Democratic minority leader, the Speaker of the House, the leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the Senate, and the President of the United States. Whatever is in this bill has been signed off by the leaders of both parties, but certainly the leaders of his party. It is not some Democrats that are involved. It is the top Democrats that were involved. I presume they think this was in the best interest of the country. There are many items in here that we all like and agree on. There are going to be items that both sides do not like. I mean, that is just the nature of a compromise. I could certainly tick off a list of things that I think either should have been in the bill and aren't or that are in the bill that I don't like. I look at the broader virtues here. I think it is good. The final point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is this idea that we are making permanent tax cuts, the reality is they have been permanent anyway. We have been extending these things ad infinitum, forever. The problem is, when you extend taxes instead of create certainty, people don't know whether to invest, what to invest, what to do. You actually don't get the productive value out of the tax cut. I applaud my friend, Mr. Brady, on Ways and Means and his colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are trying to make some things that are common sense and that we do every single year or every other year permanent so the American people can make an appropriate calculation. I do invite my friend to come down next year and work seriously, as I know he will, on trying to come to some sort of agreement on entitlement spending, some sort of reforms. That is where 71 percent of the total spending of the budget is. If you want to balance, you can't rope it off and say these things we can never change over here. I would invite my friend to look at Mr. Delaney's bill and my bill, which is a process bill. It doesn't lay these things out. It doesn't cut anything. What it does do is actually force us to sit down and make some decisions. People on both sides of the aisle keep postponing this. We ought to go back and honestly do what Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neill, and Howard Baker did in 1983. They had a commission similar to what Mr. Delaney and I have. Any recommendation to that commission would have to be bipartisan. Then the Congress would have to vote on it up or down. I can assure you that there will be things in a reform package that both sides don't like, but Congress has ignored these things. On Medicare and Medicaid, two big drivers, I am proud that we have at least put proposals on the table in the Ryan and now the Price budgets, proposals I know my friends probably don't agree with, but I think are real efforts to actually reform those things. What we don't have is a Democratic proposal on Medicare, a Democratic proposal on Medicaid. Frankly, neither side has been willing to really put something out on Social Security. I think that is something we ought to do. That is something Mr. Delaney and I in a bipartisan way have tried to do. I hope other Members will work with us next year. I know that the Speaker is committed to trying to reform these programs so we can save them so that the scenario that my friend laid out does not happen, that they do not go bankrupt, that the American people do not lose them. We are going to have to sit down and make some hard decisions and make them in a bipartisan way. The fact that we did this on this bill, this omnibus spending bill and the tax extender portion, I think is a good start to sitting down and having that conversation more broadly next year. I hope we do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I listen with a great deal of attention to my good friend from New York whenever she rises on this issue because, frankly, I know she is much more knowledgeable about it than I am. I do not pretend to be an expert in this area at all. It is not something we handle normally on the Committee on Appropriations. It would normally come through another committee. I think, from what I have been told, that is actually what the great concern is. I don't think there is much doubt that there is a serious crisis here. Nobody debates that. I think that the intent next year, as I understand it, is to try to work through regular order and resolve this, as we should, because it is a complex problem. I think probably the decision at higher levels than mine was that this is not the appropriate vehicle. That does not take away from my friend's point that it is a serious problem. It needs the attention of Congress. I look forward to working with her in that regard. I do not think this was the right vehicle. I do think, actually, there would have been many Members with many questions who would not have had a chance to study it. It just makes more sense to work its way through the committee. I hope we do that. I think that is the right thing to do. I think my friend was certainly well within her rights and very appropriately raised an important issue that this House needs to turn its attention to next year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my friend from New Jersey for coming down here and making that point and, frankly, for his hard work and continuous dedication on this important provision. When this legislation was first offered a number of years ago, I was very proud to vote for it. I thought it was the right thing to do. I was happy to cosponsor its extension and being made permanent, and I look forward to having the opportunity to vote for it in this context again. My friend is exactly right when he talks about the consequences of 9/ 11 to the men and women who heroically went to the site trying to save other Americans, risking their own lives and health, as we know, in the long term. I dealt with a similar situation when I was secretary of state in Oklahoma in the Oklahoma City bombing. I must say, we got tremendous help from our friends in New York and New Jersey and other parts of the country. We had rescue teams. We got wonderful help from the United States in the aftermath of the disaster and the recovery. Of course, the scale of 9/11 dwarfs anything that has ever happened in our country. So I am glad on this note: The two parties have sat down and worked together and done the right thing. My friend from New Jersey has been a leader in that effort every step along the way. This is something in the bill that I think for even those who don't support the bill, frankly, had we run it individually, I believe it would have passed on this floor overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion, but it does come to us in the context of this bill, and I hope many of my friends can support the bill for a variety of reasons, and this would be one of the chief amongst them. Frankly, if they cannot, I would recognize again that, had this come individually, I think even those who are opposed would have supported this, because this is a uniting experience in American history. It is something we are proud of. And we can't ever forget the sacrifices that men and women on the ground at the site in the moment of enormous danger made for their fellow Americans and the example they set for us all. So the least we can do is to make sure that those who suffered on our behalf are taken care of appropriately in the aftermath of this great tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Frankly, I want to, number one, tell you how pleased I am with the portion of the bill that we were able to work with. My friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, and I worked together, and our members worked hard. We are exceptionally pleased to begin to reinvest again at the National Institutes of Health, to put $350 million for additional research in Alzheimer's, to put over $500 million into additional early childhood education, to send back to the States, frankly, over $400 million for IDEA, and to help school districts deal with children with special needs. We were exceptionally pleased to be able to preserve--in fact, aid-- something that the President had significantly reduced. But in saying that, I want to say we had a good working relationship with the administration. So this is a good product. This actually serves some really important purposes. I felt like we worked together in a bipartisan way to prioritize things that matter to all of us and certainly that matter very deeply to the American people. I want to, again, close by thanking my good friend from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for working with us. I want to particularly thank my friend, the ranking member, who worked very hard. I am especially proud of my chairman, Mr. Rogers from Kentucky, because I think he not only produced a very good product under very difficult circumstances, he also has brought us closer to restoring full regular order, which I know is his aim. The last people to thank, of course, are the people that make it all possible. We have had just a brilliant staff effort, hardworking, dedicated, thoroughly professional, and, frankly, bipartisan. So I want to thank each and every one of them. I would be remiss if I didn't single out, if I may, Mr. Speaker, my own chief clerk, Susan Ross, who I thought did an exceptional job, and to also thank Will Smith, our chief clerk of the committee for his extraordinary job. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to quickly respond to my friend's point and, number one, thank him for his hard work in getting us to this position on this very important Customs legislation. I appreciate the bipartisan manner in which the work product was clearly achieved. I take a lot of hope from the fact that our current Speaker was actually the chairman of the committee in much of that process, and obviously Mr. Brady from Texas continues in that tradition. So I am pretty hopeful that we are seeing a good, open process that is producing products that Members on both sides of this Chamber are happy to support and participate in. So this is a good and hopeful thing. Again, I thank my friend for coming back and educating us about an area he knows a great deal more about than I do. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, for coming down and raising important issues. I am not involved in the negotiations where HUD is concerned, but it would be my hope that her concerns would be addressed, quite frankly. I think, with the additional funds that are a product of the bipartisan negotiations of the Budget Act, which I know my friend supported, there is certainly a prospect that that will occur. The negotiations that are going on now are indeed bipartisan. I have no doubt my friend's point of view is ably represented by her Democratic colleagues in those negotiations and by the administration. So, hopefully, we will arrive at a product in the next few days that will address some of those concerns. I want to reinforce my friend's remarks about moving in a cooperative way. Again, we are not going to agree on every part of every piece of legislation, but I think the underlying legislation that we present today is a product of bipartisan cooperation and of compromise and of give-and-take. It is my hope that many people on both sides of the aisle will be able to support that. There are three important elements of the Customs proposals. My friend from Oregon earlier laid out the many virtues with them, and, frankly, my friend from Colorado has extolled many parts of them. The prohibition of taxation on the Internet I think is something we have routinely passed through this body since 1998. It has usually not been a particularly contentious issue. It is something we agree on on both sides of the aisle. Making it permanent makes a lot of sense, and I am hopeful that many of my colleagues who have worked so hard on that will see that as an advantage. Finally, I don't think we disagree on a short-term continuing resolution because we know that our Representatives on the Appropriations Committee--certainly Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey--are working really hard to find a bipartisan compromise. Now, I will remind my friends, we are not going to agree on every part of this bill. There will be elements, so-called riders, that are in them that probably some of my friends don't like. There will be Democratic riders in this bill, not just Republican riders. That is just the process of normal legislation. Congress has every right to use the power of the purse. I don't know any executive branch, be it Republican or Democrat, that ever likes Congress getting down to the details of this. They just expect us to write a check for whatever they ask for. Well, that is not the way our Constitution is set up. While the executive branch has a range of powers and authorities that are unique to itself, at the end of the day, we do fund every single activity that they engage in. At the end of the day, we have the right to say: Well, we agree with you here, here, and here, but we disagree here, and we are not funding that activity. Now, in this case, I would always point out that wherever we end up at the end of the day is, by necessity, going to be a matter of compromise. My friends, frankly, don't have the congressional strength in either the House or the Senate to dictate to us, but we don't have it to dictate to them either. Obviously, the President of the United States is of my friend's political party, and he has got to sign this legislation. So anything that gets done is going to involve a lot of compromises. Anything that comes to this floor, whether you like or dislike it, will have been approved at some level or, at least, accepted at some level by Members of both parties, as this is what we had to agree to. So I am optimistic about that, and I am very pleased, frankly, that this process is largely driven by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, and by Mrs. Lowey from New York. I know them to be exceptional legislators. I know that all parties concerned here and their Senate counterparts and their administration counterparts are involved in a good faith effort to give us a good funding bill for next year and to set the stage for what we hope is a normal appropriations process. If we have that process next year, my friends on both sides of the aisle will have the opportunity to see every bill on the floor, the opportunity to offer any amendment they want, the opportunity to literally educate the committee about some concern that may be unique to their district or something that they understand, frankly, better than the members of the Appropriations Committee. That is the process that we are trying to get back to. I know it will serve the country well if we can actually reach that. What we have done in the last few months of this year has actually set that up: the budget agreement, which was proceeded by a temporary CR and the budget agreement that came out of that, the omnibus we are working on now, and the legislation that has passed in the last few weeks in a very bipartisan fashion on education and highways. All of those things create a foundation for what can be an exceptionally productive year next year and one where we move through regular order. Again, I thank my friend from Texas for bringing her concerns to the floor. I look forward to working with her on the underlying legislation, which I hope has enough items in it to attract significant bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.