Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 560 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First, before I close, I want to thank my friend for the debate and for his thoughtful remarks. Not surprisingly, there will be a couple of areas in my close where I disagree with my good friend. One of them is the process itself. I share, actually, his frustration and the need for us to move under regular order. I share the frustration I think both sides share in this that we are doing an omnibus, but I remind my friends, we moved six bills across the floor here. Every bill has moved through the full Committee on Appropriations. Frankly, our friends on the other side of the rotunda need to take a considerable responsibility for the delay in the appropriations, since they prevented the Senate from actually picking up and acting on individual bills. I think, frankly, had they done so, we would have had a more orderly process and been out of here in an easier way. My hope is next year they will do that, because I think in the bipartisan budget compromise, we set a framework up by deciding early on what the top line numbers are for next year, where that process can, indeed, occur. I certainly promise to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle to see that we restore regular order, bring each appropriations bill down here. I am going to disagree with my friend, too, on this terrorist watch list idea. This is a very interesting point. I think Members on both sides are equally committed to making sure all of our citizens are safe, but the terrorist watch list that my friend has talked about is one of the more mysterious lists in the United States. As I read the press, I find one article that tells me there are 47,000 people on it; another one that tells me, no, there is 470,000 people; yet another that tells me there are 1 million people on it or more. I do know that the American Civil Liberties Union has called the terrorist watch list a ``massive, virtually standardless, government watch list scheme that ensnares innocent people and encourages racial and religious profiling.'' Now, that is not from a conservative group. That is the American Civil Liberties Union. I also know in this Chamber, one of our distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who, when he was a State senator, found out accidentally going to the airport he was on the terrorist watch list. He found out another Democratic colleague, another State senator, was also on the terrorist watch list. They inquired as to why, and they were told: Well, we can't tell you. Eventually, working with the Sergeant at Arms of the California Senate, they were able to determine Mr. McClintock had been confused with an IRA--Irish Republican Army--terrorist, and the other gentleman had been confused with somebody else. We know that the late Senator Kennedy was, at one time, on the terrorist watch list. So I think this is a very imperfect tool that will ensnare lots of innocent Americans in it. It is also worth noting--and this was a fact that was made acquainted to me by our good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) who, along with his distinguished record of service for over 21 years in the United States Army, is an arms manufacturer and an arms seller-- he pointed out actually the terrorist watch list is one of the lists that is used by the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms group to decide whether or not to issue a permit. So it is a factor in now. It is not exclusive. You wouldn't exclude somebody simply because they were there, but it is a factor taken into consideration. I say this just to suggest that perhaps we shouldn't seize on this as a be-all and a political talking point. This is worth a real serious look as to whether or not this particular list, how it is compiled, who is on it, what is the appropriate way to use it? I think the last thing we should do is attach it to legislation without the appropriate hearing and discussion of it, which actually I think my friend on the other side would generally be in favor of. There are plenty of reasons, anecdotal and serious studies, when, again, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union look at this as a very imperfect tool that will violate the civil liberties of the average American. Again, I caution my friends on the other side. It is a great political talking point, but I think it is a pretty imperfect tool, and I think they would find themselves embarrassed, frankly, were it used in the manner that they suggest here. Mr. Speaker, let me move to my close. Passage of the continuing resolution, as we both agree, is critical to prevent a government shutdown and, frankly, to allow both sides and the administration to continue to negotiate. A CR passed the Senate yesterday by voice vote. We should pass this rule, and we should support the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, and the Senate amendments to H.R. 2250, a continuing resolution which runs through December 16, 2015. The resolution provides a standard conference report rule for consideration of H.R. 644, with 1 hour of debate divided pursuant to clause 8(d) of rule XXII. In addition, the rule makes in order a motion from the chair of the Committee on Appropriations to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 2250, with 60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations on the motion. In addition, the rule provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, first, this resolution allows for consideration of the conference report on the Customs bill. I think it is important to put the work of this House in perspective. As Speaker Ryan noted yesterday, in the entirety of the last Congress, only three conference reports became law. However, with the passage of this conference report, this Congress will have passed three conference reports in 10 days. I am pleased that Speaker Ryan's commitment to regular order is already bearing fruit. This conference report is a good product. One provision especially important to me is the establishment of new tools for Customs and Border Protection, the CBP, to effectively act against the evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties. I was first introduced to this issue in 2009, when the Chinese dumped literally tens of thousands of tires on the U.S. market, leading to devastating job losses at tire factories across America. I helped to lead the charge at that time to ensure that the Department of Commerce would impose antidumping and countervailing duties. The ENFORCE Act language included in the conference report provides a mechanism and incentive for the CBP to properly investigate and apply appropriate duties to ensure that U.S. companies can compete on a level playing field. In addition, I am encouraged that the conference report includes language which permanently bans States and localities from imposing a tax on Internet access. Initially enacted in 1998, this prohibition has enabled greater access to Internet services and information. It is estimated that if Congress fails to continue the ban on taxes on Internet access, consumers could end up paying more than $16.4 billion annually. This moratorium has been law since 1998 on a temporary basis, and I am pleased this conference report reflects our intention to make it permanent. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Customs measure, this legislation contains a 5-day continuing resolution to allow the Appropriations Committee to continue its work towards an omnibus appropriations measure. It is simple, straightforward, and extends funding for all government agencies through December 16, 2015, at current funding levels. I urge all Members to support this short-term CR, which will allow the Appropriations Committee the time to conclude negotiations on a full-year funding measure with its Senate counterparts and the White House. I am encouraged by the hard work of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, whose leadership on this cannot be overstated. One of the preeminent responsibilities we are tasked with, as Members of Congress, is to ensure that government continues to function. While a CR is not the ideal vehicle, the alternative of a government shutdown is not what we have been sent to Washington to accomplish. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I want to thank my good friend from Oregon for coming to the floor and for, frankly, more ably explaining the Customs portion of this legislation than I could. I want to commend him and his colleagues for working in a bipartisan fashion to improve a bill that had passed earlier this year in ways that I think broadly make it more acceptable to a larger percentage in this body. He is to be commended for that. So are his colleagues on that committee on both sides of the aisle. So is the administration, which I know has been heavily involved in these deliberations. I think my friend makes an excellent argument for the passage of the underlying legislation. When you combine that with a permanent prohibition on Internet taxation--something I assume my friend also supports--and the necessary continuing resolution to give us a few more days to negotiate a bipartisan omnibus spending bill that, frankly, both parties will need to contribute votes toward and that the administration ultimately will have the prerogative of signing, I take these to be hopeful signs. With some of the things that have happened in the last few weeks on a bipartisan transportation bill and on a bipartisan education bill and with what I am convinced is essentially a bipartisan conference report here today and with what will be a bipartisan omnibus bill, it sounds to me like significant progress. It is something that leaders on both sides of the aisle can take some pride in as long as we get it done, hopefully, in a timely way next week and then come back here and build on this progress for all of next year, when we can move under regular order. Again, I thank my friend for his hard work on the Customs portion of this. I also thank him for giving what I thought was a very thoughtful, constitutional lesson in give-and-take. There are some things that we might all like to achieve, but that are just simply not possible, given the distribution of political power, the checks and balances in our system, and the fact that people do have, indeed, differing opinions and perspectives. But the fact that we have gotten to this point I think demonstrates we can produce a good product even within a complex constitutional system, with a rather polarized political environment, and given the hard realities of divided government. I am pleased we have made the progress that we have made, and I thank my friend for his participation in that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to begin by agreeing with my friend on the other side on a number of areas. I, too, have concerns about the process by which we operate, and would have preferred a number of these items to come, as my friend suggests, separately. But the reality is, of course, we are late in the year and late in the session, we have got significant work to do, and this, I think, is the best way to proceed. It is worth noting that the conference report itself is a compromise. The Democrats and Republicans were involved in putting that together, and, indeed, this entire bill has considerable Democratic support, as we work toward a larger compromise on the omnibus itself. It is also worth noting why we ended up in this situation. Frankly, the Appropriations Committee in this House accomplished its work--all of its work--for the first time in a long time early this year. All 12 legislative bills passed through the Appropriations Committee, six of them across this floor. To suggest that anything has been done in the dark or in the back room, frankly, ignores that fact. What happened was the United States Senate chose not to allow any appropriations bills to come to the floor. They didn't do that as a body. My friends on the other side of the aisle in the Senate--the Democrats--chose not to allow any bills to come to the floor. To be fair to them, they also completed every appropriations bill through the full committee. That is the first time that has happened in many, many years in the United States Senate. But, our friends, until we got this larger agreement, the budget agreement, which I was happy to vote for, and I know my friend on the other side also voted for, until we reached that point, the appropriations process in the other body didn't happen. At some point, that affects what is going on over here. If they are not moving bills, we stop moving bills because it is sort of a waste of time to do that. If you have got complaints, you should talk to your colleagues in the other body on your side of the aisle, and tell them hopefully next year they won't try to keep bills from moving to the floor in a normal way. Again, I am proud that this body moved all 12 bills through the Appropriations Committee. I also want to make a couple of other points in terms of where we are now in trying to reach an omnibus. This puts me a little bit, again, at odds with my friend. I don't think that is a closed process. Frankly, it is a pretty normal process. There are representatives involved in these negotiations, both Democratic and Republican, and from the administration. They are working very hard, in good faith, to try and do something that is extremely difficult. Writing a $1.1 trillion omnibus bill takes a lot of time, and there are multiple items to be negotiated. I think both sides are negotiating in good faith in this legislative body, and I think the administration is participating in good faith. My friend and I will also disagree that riders on appropriations bills, as they are called, is somehow unusual. They certainly, when they were in the majority, had lots of riders on appropriations bills. It is just not an unusual thing. There is, obviously, give-and-take on these things. But Congress, exercising the power of the purse, is a perfectly appropriate constitutional tool to use. In this case, where we end up will, indeed, be a compromise. The omnibus bill cannot pass either Chamber, and certainly has to be signed by the President of the United States. A Republican Congress, our friends with the appropriate tools and votes that they have, the President of the United States, who has the ultimate veto pen, all of these parties will have to be placated. Again, that negotiation is long and complex. We are making good progress. All parties are represented there. Eventually, a bill will be presented to this body, hopefully, in the next few days. I share my friend's concern. I would prefer not to be here. But if we have to be here next week and have two or three more days to have the process work out, so be it. The lessons I think we ought to draw from this, and that we have a chance to implement next year, are let's do a normal process. We already have an agreement now for next year's spending numbers. That is a step in the right direction, and, actually, says a lot of good things about all parties and all concerned that they were able to come to this larger agreement earlier this year. We have no excuse, in my view, not to move all 12 bills across the floor in regular order under an open rule so every Member can come down here and participate. I know that that is certainly the goal of Chairman Rogers, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I know that is the goal of his ranking member, the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). I think the hard work this year has set us up both for a fruitful compromise here in the waning days of the calendar year in the legislative session, and has actually laid the foundation for something we have not seen around here in a long time: regular order, next year. In the course of that regular order, all of us will be forced to compromise. We still live in a divided government: a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. We still operate in a system of checks and balances that our Constitutional forebearers set up over 230 years ago. That system has served us pretty well over the course of our history. I think it will continue to. And it will continue to demand compromise. We have seen a little bit more of that lately. I know my friend has his concerns, some of which, again, I share. I am pretty proud of a Congress that has: number one, produced the first unitary budget since 2001, where the Senate and the House agree that, for the first time since 2006, has moved all appropriations bills through the Appropriations Committee of both Chambers; that, actually, in recent days and weeks, passed landmark legislation, as my friend referred to, the Reauthorization of Higher Education Act, where I know he played a role in that; the highway bill that was recently passed; this conference report, which I know my friend has some concerns with, but, in fairness, speaks well of him, and pointed out a lot of things that he liked in this conference report. If we sit here and wait to pass things where we all get 100 percent of what we want, nothing will ever pass the United States Congress. Certainly, in a bill this large, when we reach the omnibus, that is going to call for many compromises. This bill before us has called for many compromises. But people have found a way to work in good faith. My friend is perfectly in order to oppose the rule. That is a pretty normal position for each side to take, minority and majority. I never have any problem with that. I think we will pass the rule. I hope he looks at the entire bill: the funding of the government and the Customs Act, where he had some concerns, but also had many things to point to that he thought were appropriate and good; and the Internet tax prevention that we now make permanent, where I know my friend has worked very hard for many years to do that. And, yes, there will be some things in this bill that he doesn't like. There are some things in this bill that I don't like. But I think if you look at the merits of it, the permanent end of taxes on the Internet, the Customs legislation that my friend very ably pointed out has many good provisions; finally, the essential operation of government for the next few days, so people negotiating in good faith for both my friend's party and my party and from the administration can actually arrive at a deal. I think there is a lot of merit in the underlying legislation. I would just ask that we be realistic. Again, my friend is perfectly within his rights to oppose both these measures, the rule and the final bill. I certainly understand his concern about the rule. If the roles were reversed, my concerns would probably be similar. I hope he looks to the underlying legislation when that vote comes and says, there are a lot of good things here. There is a lot of give-and-take by both sides. There is real compromise. We have done a lot of that in the last few weeks under Speaker Ryan. I think we have the opportunity to do more next year. Let's pass the rule, pass the underlying legislation; get to finishing our business in the next few days; hopefully give the American people what they deserve: some peace, quiet, and certainty in the Christmas season; and then come back here next year with an opportunity to build on this and do some tremendous things in a bipartisan way. That is what I intend to work for. I know that is what my friend will be working for. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by acknowledging what my friend said. I appreciate Mr. Thornberry and him working with us. This is a long and complex issue. I will just say, we don't see the 1923 Supreme Court decision is where it started. We think it goes back to an earlier period where the tribes did not ever agree to give up their reservation land. They want an opportunity to be able to repurchase what they think was taken from them, if it should become available on the market. I thank my friends again for working with me and look forward to continuing that process. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by noting how much I respect the sincerity and good intentions of my friends from Texas and their desire to settle this issue of landownership along the Red River. I want to particularly thank Chairman Thornberry and Chairman Bishop, who have been extremely cooperative and helpful in trying to resolve some of these thorny issues. I do, however, still have serious concerns about the unintended consequences that the suggested message for resolving this issue will most certainly have on Indian tribes in my district, specifically the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache. All three tribes oppose the bill and support this amendment. This bill gives Texas and Oklahoma the power to conduct a survey, the goal of which is to ascertain the exact location of the portion of the Red River currently owned by the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM land would be sold off in a three-step process. The first step provides for adverse possessors to apply for a patent to the BLM land. The second is a sale based on a right-of-first-refusal structure. The third provides for any remaining BLM land to be sold via a competitive sale process. The goal is to remove the Federal control that the BLM has over a 116-mile stretch of the river and, by the CBO's estimate, of roughly 30,000 acres. My amendment seeks to accomplish the following: Ensure that tribes receive fair notice of their right to appeal any survey conducted pursuant to this legislation. Ensure taxpayers receive full compensation instead of $1.25 per acre, as proposed, for any Federal land. This would also discourage fraudulent patent applications to BLM land that would hinder the process of disposal. Ensure tribes will be provided with rights of first refusal to purchase BLM land. And, finally, explicitly ensure that a survey and/or subsequent purchase does not result in any diminishment or alteration of tribal surface or mineral interests. Mr. Chairman, the first portion of this amendment is an easy fix. Providing tribal landowners with notice of their right to appeal a survey determination is a fundamental notion of due process. Tribes have been left out of such notice requirements in the bill, as currently drafted. The second portion of my amendment will help minimize the likelihood the projected litigation will commence. Litigation does nothing but unduly delay the opportunity for tribes to buy back their land at a fair market price. The $1.25 an acre price the current bill proposes is not the best deal for taxpayers, and Congress should vote to get the best value for BLM land. To avoid this result, my amendment raises the standard patent applicants must meet for their applications to be approved. The amendment also alters the right of first refusal structure for landowners to purchase BLM land by competitive sale. Indian tribes that formerly held reservation land in this part of Oklahoma, like the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, now have the right of first refusal for any competitive sale of BLM land that takes place pursuant to this legislation. Finally, my amendment would disallow the survey from moving the medial line of the river north to affect the surface or mineral interests of tribal allottees north of the river in Oklahoma. I simply cannot support a bill that would negatively impact tribal landowners in Oklahoma whose interests in surface, oil, gas, minerals, and water are critical to economic stability and funding for tribal government programs. Mr. Chairman, this bill would begin a process of give-and-take in redetermining landownership between Texans, Oklahomans, and Indian tribes. Congress should remain mindful of its trust responsibilities and tread carefully when it comes to what could very well be construed as a taking of the Constitution. Those in support of the bill will likely argue that tribes stand to benefit from re-surveying the river, citing that allotments bordering the river will actually expand in certain areas. That is a big gamble to take. The fact is that neither Texans, Oklahomans, nor tribal members have any indication of whether they stand to gain or lose as a result of the survey method to be used. As a result, they have everything to lose should this bill become law without the amendment. I urge the support of the Cole amendment to H.R. 2130. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call Vote Numbers 660, 661, 663, and 664, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on Roll Call Numbers 660, 661, and 663 and I would have voted ``yes'' on roll call vote number 664.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Republic of Turkey for hosting the successful annual G20 Leader's Summit in Antalya, November 15-16, 2015. While Syria and the fight against terrorists was already on the agenda, the Paris terrorist attacks by ISIS ensured that these issues remained in the forefront. Ultimately, the G20 countries issued a strong statement condemning the heinous terrorist attacks, uniting to combat them, remain committed to fighting the financial tools used, and supporting a comprehensive approach to one of the international community's greatest challenges in this century. The G20 was established on September 26, 1999 when the Finance Ministers of the G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) came together after the Asian financial crisis. The inaugural meeting was held in Berlin in December 1999. The G20 countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union. The economies of the countries combined account for 85% of the global economic output, 80% of world trade, and 65% of the world's population. When the group met for the first time in Washington, DC represented by world leaders in 2008, they discussed ways to respond collectively to the 2008-09 crisis to restore growth, strengthen the global financial system, and reform international financial institutions. Turkey officially took over the presidency of the G20 from Australia in December 1, 2014 and China will preside over the organization in 2016. The other three key objectives of the 2015 G20 Leader's Summit in Antalya were strengthening the global recovery, enhancing resilience, and buttressing sustainability. Turkey's growing economy is significant because Turkey's companies are expanding and trading with not only traditional markets such as neighboring countries or the European Union, but Turkish firms are also increasingly looking to invest in the United States, including Indian country. I am proud to have sponsored legislation which facilitated the investment from not only Turkey, but all WTO countries in native lands. As a member of Congress who has long championed US-Turkish relations and economic integration, I congratulate Turkey on hosting this important summit at a challenging time.

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 the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat mystified by the debate that my friends on the other side have offered. It has got a lot to do with campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the legislation before us that deals with that. I beg to differ in terms of whether or not the rules here are closed or inappropriate. Frankly, every amendment offered to H.R. 1737 that was germane was actually made in order; and, frankly, amendments on H.R. 511 simply aren't necessary. It is a yes or no type of question. Either the NLRB has jurisdiction that we think it has claimed inappropriately over Indian tribes and labor matters or it does not, and we think that clarifies things considerably. So again, we also are a little bit surprised to see what we do think is a housekeeping matter in terms of striking something out of the reconciliation bill objected to. I just remind my friends they voted overwhelmingly for the budget deal itself that included that measure. There is nothing untoward going on here. We are just trying to move forward legislation that we think is important and remove things that have already been enacted into law. So it is, indeed, as suggested, a housekeeping matter. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. H.R. 1737 undoes a regulation that should never have been made in the first place, and H.R. 511 restores a right, the right of self-governance, that should have never been taken away from tribal governments.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the debate so far because my good friends on the other side said absolutely nothing about H.R. 1737 and H.R. 511, so I assume that they support these bipartisan pieces of legislation. Just to reiterate, with all due respect to my friends, we are not here to talk about campaign finance reform, always a worthy subject of discussion. I remember a number of years bringing up campaign finance reform, trying to get rid of taxpayer subsidies for political conventions. We finally got that done and redirected that money to research for pediatric diseases but could never get it made in order when my friends were on the other side of the aisle, so I understand the frustrations. But again, we have got two important bills to consider, and I think that is where we ought to focus our attention. In H.R. 1737, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has literally gone beyond the mandate laid out in Dodd-Frank. So I must say I am mystified that I am up here defending a provision of Dodd-Frank, but in this case, it is actually the right thing to do. They have tried to extend their authority into auto lending, which is specifically prohibited under the statute, so we are trying to make that crystal clear. H.R. 511 does something that, frankly, this House can be very proud of. It recognizes and extends and restores tribal sovereignty in a very important area. That has actually been an area of bipartisan cooperation. We worked together in the Violence Against Women Act across party lines to extend tribal sovereignty with respect to domestic crime and domestic violence committed by non-Indians on Indian land against Indian citizens. Now we are trying in the labor area to once again restore tribal sovereignty to what it was before 2004 when the National Labor Relations Board, frankly, acted outside of its authority and seized jurisdiction it simply doesn't have under any statute ever passed by Congress. I would invite my friends to focus on those two areas, hope they do, and certainly look forward to working with them in a bipartisan manner to pass both of those bills. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising I would differ from my good friend on whether or not we have an open process here. Frankly, I think we can all point to times in the past where each of us believe the other has been less than open. I recall, during the Democratic majority, we literally would bring appropriations bills to the floor with absolutely closed rules, something that violates the tradition of this House. In terms of this legislation, I hope I am forgiven, but again, I find very little relevance of discussions of Benghazi and Planned Parenthood to this particular debate. I don't think it has anything to do. The legislation in front of us really deals with two bills: H.R. 1737, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau bill, actually seeks to simply restrain an agency from exercising authority that it is prohibited from exercising under the legislation, and all the amendments that were germane to that piece of legislation were indeed made in order. H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, frankly, is just simply: Does the NLRB have this jurisdiction or not? It doesn't take a lot of amendments. It is just a straight question. Our assertion is, obviously, that it does not. It has claimed authority it should not have, and we are simply restoring that to tribal governments. So I actually think the rule in question facilitates the debate, allows those who have different ideas to present them if they are relevant, and I think we will end up with a good result. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of two important measures. First, the resolution provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1737, the Reforming Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, makes in order three amendments submitted to the Rules Committee which were germane to the legislation, and provides for a motion to recommit. In addition, the resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, and provides for a motion to recommit. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule facilitates a conference with the Senate on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by replacing the text of S. 1177 with the text of H.R. 5, as passed by the House, and provides for a motion by the chair of the Committee on Education and the Workforce to request a conference with the Senate. Finally, the rule directs the Clerk to strike a provision from the reconciliation bill which was already enacted into law in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, facilitating consideration of the bill by the Senate. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1737 passed out of the Financial Services Committee by a vote of 47-10. It nullifies a guidance put forward by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which the CFPB was specifically exempted from making in the first place. In addition to the CFPB's disregard for its statutory limitation, the CFPB's methodology is severely flawed. According to a study by Charles River Associates, the CFPB's methodology overestimates minorities by up to 41 percent, leading many to question the reliability of these results. In addition, and more importantly to me, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015. When Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, it specifically recognized all governments were excluded. Subsequent regulations and case law further recognized this exemption applies to territories, possessions, the District of Columbia, and State-operated port authorities. From the 1970s until 2004, the NLRB recognized that tribal governments are exempt from the NLRA as sovereign governments. Unfortunately, in 2004, the NLRB decided to reverse 69 years of prior precedent and strip tribes of their ability of self-government. In our first terms in Congress, Chairman Kline and I both worked to try and restore the sovereignty this board had stripped away. While unsuccessful at that time, I am happy we are now able to rectify this injustice. H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act would unequivocally state that tribal governments are not subject to the National Labor Relations Act. I respect my friends who hold different opinions, but in this case, they are simply wrong. In the NLRB's 2004 decision, they made an arbitrary distinction between commercial activity and government activity. If you are a tribe and it is commercial activity, they said the NLRB could regulate it. But that same standard isn't applied to any other government exempted from the NLRA, regardless of whether it engages in commercial activities or not. Their nature, as a government, precludes their regulation under the NLRA. Practically every county and city in this country has a golf course. Most States have a lottery. The National Park Service operates hotels. Virginia and other States sell alcohol. Many cities operate convention centers. All of these activities are not regulated under the NLRA. It should be the same with tribes. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this rule sets up a process for us to go to conference on an ESEA reauthorization. The last time we considered an ESEA reauthorization was 13 years ago. It is far past time to reauthorize this critical program. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 526 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 208. Again, I want to again thank and recognize the support and assistance of both Chairman Chabot and Ranking Member Velazquez for including back in July my legislation, H.R. 2397, the Tornado Family Safety Act of 2015 as part of this legislation. The Small Business Administration is currently afforded the authority to issue physical disaster loans for 120 percent of the value of property destroyed but not covered by insurance. The purpose of the additional 20 percent is so that individuals and business can modify structures to reduce damage from future disasters. In Oklahoma, the threat of tornadoes is ongoing, and we are always in between tornadoes. Planning is essential in order to mitigate against damage and loss of life. This is why the legislation I introduced, The Tornado Family Safety Act of 2015, was included in the House bill in July. This section would allow those affected by disasters to use SBA disaster loans to build safe rooms as a mitigating measure against future similar disasters. It reinforces the intent of Congress that already exists in statue--The SBA should already be including the construction of safe rooms as a use for physical disaster loans because it is mitigating measure. The SBA's existing interpretation of existing language in the Small Business Act is incorrect. Because of misinterpretation of this section previously, the SBA should now understand that physical disaster loans can also be used for other types of storm shelters as well, including, but not limited to structures that protect occupants from not only tornadoes, but from other natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods and wildfires. The Senate Amendment makes modifications to the House-passed bill. Specifically, it requires safe rooms or similar storm shelters eligible for disaster loans under the bill to be constructed according to applicable standards issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It is important to note that loans may not be used to upgrade homes or make additions unless as required by local building codes and secondary or vacation homes are not eligible for these loans. The SBA does not duplicate insurance claim payments. Generally, loans are made over 30 years and interest rates are not more than 4 percent for those cannot obtain credit elsewhere and for those that can obtain alternative credit, the rate does not exceed 8 percent for the loan. While local and state governments have an obligation to meet the increase in shelter demand, the construction of the shelters is expensive. Under guidelines from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the International Code Council (ICC), a safe room should withstand 250 mph winds and the impact of a 15-pound plank hitting a wall at 100 mph, according to the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. Safe rooms designed to the FEMA and ICC standards are recommended for both tornadoes and hurricanes. For individual homes, a safe room could range anywhere from $3,000 to $12,000. For anyone who has experienced Mother Nature's most indiscriminate and unpredictable tenors, you can truly understand the extent to which they devastate lives and property. Again, Mr. Speaker, I support the Senate amendment which makes minor modifications to language in the House-passed bill and adds provisions of S. 1470, the Recovery Improvements for Small Entities (RISE) After Disaster Act of 2015, to the House-passed version. As I have stated before on the floor of the House, I hope every Member reflects on the situation of our fellow Americans during a time of crisis or disaster. While we may hope that our communities remain peaceful and safe from crisis; we certainly must support those that do not escape such natural and man-made calamities.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 625, on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 22 by Mr. Huffman of California, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make a couple of points. First, I want to thank my good friend for her work on this and her cooperation. I agree with many of the points she made, certainly about the fact that I hope this heralds a new beginning. Worth noting, we did have a budget agreement 2 years ago, and that worked pretty well for a couple of years. I am pleased to see that this follow-on agreement is here before us today. I think it will give us 2 years of stability. My friend will understand if I take mild exception with some of her remarks about being shut out of the process. Those of us who were here in the minority on the Republican side of the aisle certainly remember not being allowed to offer amendments to the Affordable Care Act, seeing the stimulus act come to the floor with no committee, and, frankly, having the long-time practice of appropriations bills coming under open rules totally suspended. But, in the spirit of cooperation today, I will leave it at that. Let's look ahead. I think my friend is exactly right when she suggests this bill not only solves some important issues that are in front of us in a bipartisan way, a give-and-take way, but creates an opening and an opportunity going forward. I really think, if we get this rule passed--and I am sure we will-- and we get the underlying legislation passed--I am sure we will be able to do that as well--that next year offers us an opportunity to do what we have not done around here, really, since 2006, and that is see every single appropriations bill come to the floor under an open rule so that Members on both sides can participate in the most important process of governing ourselves, and that is the appropriation of the taxpayers' dollars for the functioning of government. If we can build on this and achieve that, I think a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about regular order and who, frankly, have never seen it work will have an opportunity to watch it work. I would suggest the fact that we already have an agreement as to what the top-line number will be on what we spend in the normal appropriations process might make it easier for a lot of the votes to be more bipartisan. Frankly, I know that is certainly possible in my committee, the Appropriations Committee, and I think that is something that Members are genuinely looking for: an opportunity to debate priorities and discuss, but also to come together when there is common ground. Again, I want to look at this bill. I know there will be some controversy about it today and there will be some people who would have liked to have done some things differently. Frankly, I suspect every Member would like to do things differently. But the reality is we are in a period of divided government. We do operate in a system of checks and balances. It has been an exceptionally polarizing political environment. The fact that, with all of those challenges, the Speaker, the majority leader, the President, and the respective minority leaders of both Chambers could come together and find enough common ground to accomplish the things that this accomplishes is something that we ought to laud, not to disparage. I look forward to working with my friend. I look forward to this becoming the foundation for a much more productive 2016, where we can do something we have not done for a long time, and that is operate under regular order throughout the entire appropriations process. That is going to be my New Year's resolution after we get an omnibus done. I think this will set the ground for getting that done by early December and we can have stability next year and an opportunity to legislate the way I think most Members, regardless of party or philosophical point of view, want to legislate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend again. I again express my appreciation for the point that she raises and the willingness to work together. I reserve the balance of my time.