Tom Cole

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 857 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the conference report of H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. Additionally, it provides that the report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, is intended to fully fund our forces overseas and at home. Mr. Speaker, at a time when our sons and daughters are deployed overseas in a wartime environment, this legislation provides critical funds that will be used to conduct ongoing operations in the global war on terror. Unlike other wars, this war is one where terrorists are having a critical impact and one that requires the perpetual vigilance of not only our forces but the American people. To our forces' credit, just last week they were successful in killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the critical players among the nonstate terrorist actors. This success required professionalism, perseverance, and tenacity, qualities our military has in abundance. It is worth noting that if we were not in Iraq we would never have killed al-Zarqawi. However, it is also fair to observe that al-Zarqawi was dedicated to pursuing and killing Americans around the globe. If we had not found him, he surely would have found and attacked us. Mr. Speaker, the Iraqis also deserve to be commended for their efforts in this struggle. During this war, they have held three elections, written a constitution, and just last week formed a permanent government. They played a key role in locating al-Zarqawi and are assuming an increasing role in defending their own country. They are watching what we do here today. They require and request our continued support as they move forward in their efforts to build a new and better Iraq. The passage of this rule and the underlying legislation is an important sign that this country and this Congress will keep its commitment to Iraq as it strives to create a future of hope and promise. But, Mr. Speaker, real challenges remain, and it is these challenges that require our action today. Our military, our sons and daughters, need these funds immediately. They require our support and we must give it to them. Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some may question the cost of the global war on terror. Some may question its worth. But, Mr. Speaker, today is not September 10 of 2001. We know what terrorists are capable of doing. Our enemies have chosen to make Iraq the central theater in the global war on terror. They seek to do to us what their predecessors did to the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and that is a triumph which we must deny our enemies for our own sake as well as that of the Iraqi people. This war is a generational test, one that will affect not only our children and grandchildren but our great grandchildren as well. We cannot fail in our objectives. We chose this path as a Congress in 2002, and now we must stay on the hard road to its completion. We must support our forces now by passing this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, many may wish to raise extraneous policy issues in this debate. Some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are superfluous to the question at hand. Frankly, I welcome the debate today and later this week; however, now is the time to support our sons and daughters deployed overseas in the field of battle. Now is the time to accept the true challenges we face. We can do so by passing this rule and the underlying legislation. Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I wish to note that this supplemental has another purpose. It contains funds that are badly needed by our fellow Americans on the gulf coast as they are still recovering from the devastating effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Our fellow citizens need and deserve our support. I am proud that we are responding as we have twice before. This, like the war on terror, is a national priority. These twin issues, the war on terror and recovery of the gulf coast, demand and will receive resources from the Congress on a bipartisan basis. However, I am pleased to note that in our negotiation with the other body our conferees have kept their focus on the challenges at hand. They have not allowed the generous impulses that underlay this legislation to be perverted into a reckless spending spree on other items. For that they are to be commended. They have given us a bill that meets the needs at hand, yet remains fiscally responsible. That is no small accomplishment. This legislation deserves support from all Members. Mr. Speaker, to that end I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that I believe we have had a good debate on the rule. I believe the importance and the timeliness of this legislation could not be more self-evident. This bill has been carefully crafted and worked in a way to ensure that our servicemen receive the best equipment when they go to war. We had an interesting historical discussion and debate here today. It was an interesting debate as to how we got into this war and whether or not Saddam Hussein, it was appropriate to remove him at the time and in the way that we did. I suspect history will vindicate our judgment in that regard. He was a terrorist, he was a tyrant, he was a threat to global peace; and the world is better because he is gone. Iraq has a potential future because he is gone. However, I would ask Members to remember this is a vote about our willingness to support our service men and women and not about other policy issues. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. In good conscience, we should give them nothing less. It is also a vote about whether or not we will support our fellow Americans on the gulf coast. On that I doubt there is any division in this House. To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important amendment that will aid the outstanding work of the Shadow Wolves. The Shadow Wolves, who were recognized by Congress in 1972, patrol the international land border within the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation in the State of Arizona. The Shadow Wolves' officers are Native Americans who combine modern technology and traditional Native American tracking techniques. Their unit includes the Blackfoot, Cheyenne and Pima tribes. Their motto is: ``In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall escape my sight, for I am the Shadow Wolf.'' Mr. Chairman, these agents, numbering only 16, have combined to seize an average of over 100,000 pounds of illegal narcotics annually. In some years, they intercept as much as a third of all the marijuana stopped by Customs officials in Arizona. This commonsense amendment is budget neutral. It will merely transfer the Shadow Wolves' unit funding from Customs and Border Patrol to Immigration and Customs enforcement. Funding for the Shadow Wolves should not be held hostage by internal power struggles within the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, they should be funded and allowed to operate to their fullest potential. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for bringing this excellent amendment to the floor.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5429, the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act. This important legislation will reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, moderate gas prices for consumers and create high-paying jobs. This legislation will do all of that while also reducing our trade and budget deficits. Opening up ANWR, according to the mean estimate, would make available 10.4 billion barrels of oil for domestic consumption. That is more than the proven reserves in all of Texas. The resulting economic activity will create as many as 250,000 new jobs. As an additional benefit, royalties and corporate taxes in the amount of $111 billion would flow to the Federal Government over 30 years, a modest but real improvement in our Nation's budget picture. Madam Speaker, opponents of this legislation are going to make two different arguments. They are going to say that passage of this legislation will not address all of our energy problems, and they are going to voice environmental concerns. I want to briefly say a word about each of these points. On the first argument, it is true: Opening ANWR will not solve all of our Nation's energy problems. But in point of fact, there is no single solution for all of our energy problems. We should no more reject ANWR because it fails to solve all of our energy problems than we should reject investing in promising sources of energy that may be many years away from fruition. Likewise, we should not reject efforts at conservation just because this too can only solve part of the problem instead of all of it. Simply put, we cannot afford to reject any measure that helps us reach the goal of energy independence. Madam Speaker, on the second concern regarding the environment, much has been said. My own view is this: With this legislation, we are faced with the choice of whether we have more of our energy production done overseas or whether to have more of it done in the United States. This choice has real environmental consequences. We can have more oil production occur here where it is done under the most stringent environmental regulations in the world, using the most sophisticated technology, or we can have more oil production done overseas where, in many cases, far weaker environmental regulations prevail. True environmentalists think globally, not nationally. On this basis, we should produce as much energy as possible in the well-regulated confines of our own country. I would urge Members to support this important legislation that would provide our Nation with a secure new source of domestic energy for many years to come.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 148: ``no'' (On Agreeing to the DeFazio of Oregon Amendment to H.R. 4200).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5386, the Department of Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. Mr. Chairman, I commend the distinguished chairman, Mr. Taylor, and his committee for including funding in the Indian Health Service facilities budget for joint venture projects. I believe the Service should take advantage of opportunities like the joint venture program to leverage tribal dollars with Federal dollars. In my State of Oklahoma, I am pleased to note that the Chickasaw Nation has pledged an unprecedented $135,000 million in tribal funds to design, construct, and equip a new state-of-the-art medical center to meet the needs of its people, its community, and neighboring tribes. Congress and the Indian Health Service should look favorably upon tribes willing and able to make those investments back into their community and provide the necessary supplemental resources. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of H.R. 5386.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a second rule for consideration of the House Report for H.R. 5122, the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a structured rule and provides for further consideration of the bill, H.R. 5122. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of the resolution. The rule provides that amendments printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, except as specified in section 4 of the resolution, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read. It provides that each amendment printed in the report shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order against amendments printed in the report and those amendments en bloc as described in section 3 of the resolution. Additionally, it authorizes the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, or his designee, to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the Rules Committee report not earlier disposed of, which shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their designees, and shall not be subject to amendment or demand for division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole. The rule provides that the original proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc. The rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to recognize for consideration any amendment printed in the report out of the order printed, but not sooner than 30 minutes after the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee or his designee announces from the floor a request to that effect. Lastly, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. Yesterday, I believe we had a good discussion about the importance of the underlying legislation, and the rule passed overwhelmingly. The same facts that were true yesterday remain so today. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud about the way the rules for the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act have been structured. Let's have a minute to review the facts here. The underlying legislation had broad bipartisan agreement, passing the committee by a vote of 60-1. Between the subcommittee and the full committee, the Armed Services Committee passed 75 amendments, 36 of those by Republican authors, 38 by Democrats, and one bipartisan amendment. Out of the 100 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, we made 31 in order, 15 Republican, 13 Democrats and two bipartisan. In addition, six amendments were incorporated into the manager's amendment. Today, we may well hear that the amendment process was arbitrary and unfair, but the facts do not support the claims. This legislation proceeded through regular order. We will have a vigorous discussion today, and the amendments in order will allow either side to improve and perfect the defense authorization further. As usual, minority rights are protected by allowing a motion to recommit with or without instructions. This process has been open, thorough and fair. While not every amendment was made in order, all were considered. Only nine of the 60-odd amendments that were not included were actually raised by the minority for consideration in the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I spoke about the importance of four long-term challenges relating to national security and how this bill addresses them. Additionally, I drew attention to the fact that our deployed servicemen and women rely on this legislation to directly support their efforts in our Global War on Terror. Nothing said today will change these facts. Today is really the day we should be focused on uniting as Americans and supporting our troops in the field. No one piece of legislation is ever perfect. Today is no exception. But today we have a very good piece of legislation that was crafted in a bipartisan way through regular order. At the end of this debate, the House will have considered over 30 percent of all submitted amendments on the floor. The others were previously considered at the committee level. There are no irregularities here. While we will no doubt have some spirited disagreements on some amendments, including some not brought to the floor, this bill is, at its core, an example of bipartisan cooperation and consensus. The Members of the minority who serve on the House Armed Services Committee have praised the committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for its inclusiveness and have said that the legislation we are considering today deserves to pass. When all is said and done, it will pass by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. That is something in which this House, the American people and, more importantly, our men and women in uniform can take pride. Mr. Speaker, realizing the facts surrounding the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, I urge the support of the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. No, Mr. Speaker, I do not. Those matters can be dealt with on a motion to recommit.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 811 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and to insert tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, we have had a good chance to debate the issues in the process today. After this debate, I am convinced that the process worked as it should. There can be no debating the basic facts. The House Armed Services Committee considered 88 amendments; 75 of those amendments, 38 Democrat, 36 Republican, one bipartisan, were incorporated into the legislation. The House Rules Committee received over 100 amendments; 31 of those were made in order. They were about evenly balanced between the two parties. An additional six were incorporated into the manager's amendment. Numerous minority amendments were accepted and moved through regular order. The ranking members of the subcommittees and the full House Armed Services Committee all support the underlying legislation. Ultimately, there can be no dispute that the process followed for this legislation was fully the regular order. It was fair and protected minority rights. I think that we should focus, as we come to the conclusion of this debate, on what unites us instead of what divides us. The fact is that we agree on both sides of the House with 97 or 98 percent of what is in the actual legislation. This is actually a model of bipartisan cooperation, a consensus, despite some of the rhetoric that we have here today. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. No, I am prepared to close. Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my good friend from Washington again. We actually visited Iraq together. I know how strongly he feels about this issue. I respect that. I would also point out, though, that we have discussed Iraq on many occasions in this House. We have in the past, we will in the future. In addition to that, again I just wanted to remind my friends of the simple numbers: 88 amendments considered by the House Armed Services Committee, 75 accepted, about evenly split; 100 amendments proposed to the Rules Committee, 31 accepted, 6 considered or incorporated in the manager's amendment. Frankly, all the other matters where folks are disappointed or have a different point of view can be dealt with in a motion to recommit. I suspect they will be. The reality is, we have had a very bipartisan process. We agree on 98 or 99 percent of the issues that will be incorporated, I suspect, on the final vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I would love to have the chairman take a drive in my district any day. We have Fort Sill Army Post, Tinker Air Force Base, and he loves soldiers, so that is fine by me. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I simply point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle that all of these matters can be dealt with in a motion to recommit. I would invite them to do that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wish to quickly point out, again, the record which seems to get lost in the rhetoric: 88 amendments considered in the House Armed Services Committee, 75 accepted; 100 amendments dealt with by the Rules Committee, 31 brought to the floor; six others dealt with during the manager's amendment. If my friends had their way, it wouldn't matter how many times amendments were defeated along the way. Every single one would come to the floor of the House of Representatives. If we were going to operate that way, we simply could do away with the committee system all together and simply operate by Committee of the Whole. I don't think that makes good sense. So we are very pleased with the manner in which this bill has been dealt with. Members of both sides have regarded it as a very bipartisan piece of legislation. I will make a prediction it is going to pass with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I may, again, I want to thank my good friend from Missouri. There is nobody who cares more about men and women that wear the uniform of the United States than Mr. Skelton. I do wish to point out again the amendment was considered by the full House Armed Services Committee. It did not succeed. I also want to point out again we made considerable progress in TRICARE, many millions of dollars spent. And, finally, something which maybe many Members may not be aware of because they don't serve on that committee, active duty family members actually get most of their prescriptions free from military hospitals. Only 11 percent of prescriptions are obtained through a TRICARE retail pharmacy. So we are really not talking about a great deal of money. And we have a study authorized in this legislation under way to look at what the appropriate distribution of the cost of these types of items should be. I actually think the House Armed Services Committee has gone a very long way in trying to address this very, very important issue; and I have no doubt we will revisit it next year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter.

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin, if I may quickly, by reminding my friends on the other side of the aisle the basic nature of this bill. It was a very bipartisan bill. It was universally praised as being bipartisan by Members of both parties. In particular, Chairman Hunter was singled out for operating inclusively, in a bipartisan manner. There were 88 amendments offered in the House Committee on Armed Services. Seventy-five of those passed. Of those passed, 38 were Democrats, 36 were Republican, one was bipartisan. There were over 100 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. Of those, 31 were made in order, an additional six were dealt with in the manager's amendment. Only eight amendments were brought up for reconsideration in the Rules Committee by the minority. Now, I understand that not everybody is pleased with every aspect of the bill, but to characterize the bill as anything other than bipartisan, and bipartisan in process, I think is to not recognize the nature of the process we have gone through. With respect to Mr. Skelton's amendment, nobody in this House, I can assure you, respects Mr. Skelton more than I do. I have served with him on his committee. I publicly praised him yesterday, and that praise is fully and well deserved. He is one of the distinguished Members of our body. I do point out his amendment was, in fact, considered in the House Committee on Armed Services. It did fail. There were bipartisan members for it and bipartisan against it, although it was largely a party-line vote. At some point you have to ask yourself, why do we have committees, if not to make these decision? When a matter is dealt with fully by a committee, who are well-versed in it, I think that should carry heavy weight in determining whether or not we move on and consider a particular amendment on the floor; and in this case, I think that was thoroughly vetted and thoroughly discussed although, of course, my friends still have the opportunity to include that provision in a motion to recommit. Let me conclude by just quickly going on and going through some of the things that were included in TRICARE. Under the bill that was fashioned by our distinguished chairman and ranking member, working in a bipartisan fashion in the House Armed Services Committee, H.R. 5122 will prohibit until December 31, 2007, the Department of Defense's ability to increase TRICARE Prime, Standard and TRICARE Reserve Select cost shares. H.R. 5122 calls for an independent analysis to determine the appropriate cost-sharing formula for the TRICARE program. H.R. 5122 zeros out the costs for generic and formulary prescriptions for participants in the TRICARE pharmacy and mail order program. H.R. 5122 also adds $735 million to the Defense Health Program to restore funding cuts included in the DOD budget request in anticipation of increased beneficiary cost shares which, as mentioned, H.R. 5122 prohibits. H.R. 5122 includes TRICARE coverage for forensic examinations following sexual assaults and domestic violence. H.R. 5122 provides TRICARE coverage for anesthesia and hospital costs for dental care provided to young children and to mentally or physically challenged beneficiaries. I say this simply to make the point that we have had several years, frankly, where this committee has worked diligently to improve the TRICARE system to enhance the benefits available to our men and women. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.