Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5119, legislation that would extend availability of CARES Act funds provided to tribal governments through December 30, 2022. Currently, CARES Act funds will expire on December 31, 2021, and tribes will be unable to use these vital resources. Although $8 billion was set aside for Tribes in the CARES Act to help respond to the coronavirus pandemic, they did not receive any funds until May 5, 2020, and some are still in the process of being distributed. It is important to note that this legislation does not increase federal spending, rather it extends the timeline to use money already allocated. After the CARES Act was signed into law, there was minimal guidance offered on what this funding could and could not be put towards, which led to an inadequate timeframe for Tribes to prepare an effective spending plan. A one-year extension will allow them the necessary time to best allocate these resources to their members without a rushed agenda. Coronavirus Relief Funds have been put towards many essential services such as, improvements to health care, purchasing protective equipment, and distance learning programs. Tribes used these funds in many different ways. Whether it was turning facilities into emergency operation centers or building meatpacking warehouses to help with the food supply crisis, they stepped up to provide for their members and community during the pandemic. With the delayed allocations and limited guidance, tribes were put at an unfair advantage to begin with. This is why a December 31, 2022, extension of availability for CARES Act funds is necessary to allow tribes the time to effectively use these resources. As Co-Chair of the Native American Caucus, I commend Vice Chair Young and Representative O'Halleran in introducing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 5119.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my good friend, a former police officer, and a member of the Law Enforcement Caucus, to provide further information about the previous question.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a fellow appropriator and former sheriff, to further explain the previous question.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today's rule, Mr. Speaker, covers three items. I will begin my remarks on a bipartisan note with the House amendment to S. 1605, the vehicle for the agreement between the House and the Senate for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022. It has been a long road to get us to this point, Mr. Speaker, but with this week's action, the House and Senate are poised to enact the NDAA for the 61st consecutive year. This is quite an accomplishment, and one that could not have been possible but for the bipartisan cooperation in the House and the Senate. It didn't always look promising. At the beginning of the process, President Biden proposed a defense budget that would deeply underfund our national defense. Chronic underfunding of defense was the hallmark of the Obama-Biden administration, a trend that was thankfully reversed by President Trump and a Republican Congress. With his first budget, President Biden appeared poised to return to the previous sorry state of affairs. Fortunately, a bipartisan group of legislators on the Armed Services Committee rejected this approach, ensuring an increase in defense funding that would be sufficient to meet the country's needs. This increase garnered overwhelming bipartisan support in the committee, allowing the NDAA to be reported out on a 57-2 vote, and extending to final passage out of the House, with a bipartisan 316-113 vote. At a glance, it is easy to see why. The United States and our allies face significant threats around the globe. We see this every day in trouble spots around the world, ranging from the Middle East, to Afghanistan, to the Taiwan Strait. Between Russian adventurism in Eastern Europe, Chinese development of new hypersonic missiles and saber rattling against Taiwan, and the ongoing threat posed by extremist terror organizations like al-Qaida and the Islamic State, this is not the time to underfund our national defense. Fortunately, the 2022 NDAA will adequately fund our defense needs and set clear priorities for our Armed Forces. The bill before us funds continued acquisition of ships to ensure the United States Navy can meet its mission. It funds the procurement and development of new weapons systems, which ensures that our military will be prepared to meet new and emerging challenges in the coming years. It provides our servicemembers with a 2.7 percent pay raise. And perhaps most important of all, it includes many provisions designed to provide much-needed oversight of President Biden's bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan. America deserves answers about decisions that were made and the resulting failures of leadership that occurred at all levels. Thanks to this bill, they can be assured that they will get them. Our second item is the House amendment to S. 610, which addresses Medicare sequestration. While most of the Members on both sides of the aisle would agree that a resolution of this problem is necessary, I fear today's bill is a missed opportunity for bipartisanship. Rather than pursuing a clean, bipartisan deal, we have a bill which includes provisions addressing the debt ceiling and delaying the paygo cuts from the majority's partisan reconciliation bill earlier this year. Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago Democrats passed a measure to increase the debt ceiling, leading us to the deadline we face today. At that time, Republicans told Democrats two things which I think bear repeating. First, Democrats needed to step back from their massive partisan spending priorities. And second, they needed to work with the Republicans on solutions to our ever-increasing, structurally imbalanced debt. Instead, Democrats have doubled down on their spending habits without using reconciliation to address the debt ceiling. Earlier this year, the majority passed a $1.9 trillion reconciliation bill with only Democratic votes. Last month, the House passed another partisan reconciliation bill, with only Democratic votes, which may ultimately cost us as much as $4.5 trillion. Even if you take the Democrats at their word and accept their claim that these measures are fully paid for, all the new revenues this legislation claims to raise do nothing to address the existing $29 trillion national debt. They just go to new programs overwhelmingly designed to benefit the wealthy and liberal special interests. Both of these measures are larded up with more spending, more taxation, and more Big Government control over the lives of everyday Americans. And these measures come on top of normal Federal spending and on top of the trillions of dollars appropriated last year and earlier this year to address the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic crisis. After continuing to spend money in such a reckless and partisan manner, it is deeply disappointing that the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate waited until now to address the debt ceiling. Waiting until this point has placed the House in an awkward position, resulting in today's unfortunate bill. Additionally, the paygo cuts due to be implemented next month, due mostly to the Democrats' first reconciliation bill, are not addressed. Instead, they are delayed until the end of 2022, setting up an even bigger crisis at that time. Finally, the House is also considering H.R. 5314, which the majority is calling the Protecting Our Democracy Act. This is a package of purported reforms relating to Presidential power and foreign interference in elections. But the reality is that this package is an attempt by the majority to write into law supposed solutions to every complaint they ever had about the previous President. The best thing I can say about this package is that it is duplicative. Many of the provisions included in this package have already passed the House as part of the majority's previous purported reform packages, notably including H.R. 1. But not content with having passed these partisan provisions previously, the majority is pushing ahead with today's package. This is such a waste of time for this institution. At a time when the American people are deeply concerned about inflation and the weak economy, and when we are seeing the consequences of President Biden's weak leadership, both domestically and abroad, the majority is once again wasting time by talking about the last administration. I can think of countless other ways we could and should be spending our time that would be more productive and would deliver better results for our constituents. Mr. Speaker, this is a sorry state of affairs. I continue to hope that the majority will shift its focus back to where it should be. Governing in a deeply partisan manner may be satisfying to their base, but it is hardly productive for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up H.R. 1995, the Protecting Our Communities From Gang Violence Act of 2021. This bill would make alien gang members inadmissible to the United States and deportable. It would also authorize revoking the citizenship of certain naturalized individuals who are members of a criminal gang, and it would ensure that individuals associated with criminal gangs are ineligible for asylum or temporary protected status. Mr. Speaker, gang violence continues to be a scourge on American communities, threatening the lives and livelihoods of ordinary, hardworking Americans. Certain gangs, like MS-13, operate internationally, bringing violence from overseas to the United States. If enacted, H.R. 1995 would ensure the Federal Government has an appropriate response to gang members and wrongdoers who seek to enter the United States or who have taken advantage of our broken immigration system to cause chaos in our communities. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, we have at least one, I think perhaps two, if the gentleman can make it back in time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my good friend and one of the recognized experts on defense in the Congress.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend, a fellow member of the Rules Committee and distinguished member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for a speaker, but I would inquire of the gentlewoman if she is prepared to close, we will go ahead and close. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my prepared remarks and close, just in response to my good friend's last remark, I want her to be aware, we don't have an appropriations bill or budget because my friends, frankly, have riddled what happened in the Appropriations Committee with poison pills, taking out the Hyde protections. We have been waiting to negotiate that. Our friends have refused to do that. It has been extended now to February 18. I hope that we meet that deadline and that we actually do get an agreed-upon appropriations bill. If we do, I would be happy to support it, as I have so many years in the past. Mr. Speaker, in passing a final, bipartisan, bicameral version of the NDAA, we are fulfilling our responsibility to provide for the common defense. This would mark the 61st year in a row that Congress has passed a final NDAA, and I celebrate that fact. This year's bill increases defense spending to a level commensurate with our needs, unlike the President's budget. It ensures a needed pay raise for our troops and ensures that the warfighters of tomorrow will have the weapons and capabilities they need. It will also provide needed oversight over the President's debacle in Afghanistan and will ensure that the American people receive the answers they deserve. I want to publicly commend Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers for working so well together in a bipartisan fashion and also commend their negotiating counterparts in the United States Senate, Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Inhofe, for cooperating and bringing this important measure before us. I certainly hope we can pass it and move forward from there. Today's rule, unfortunately, also advances a measure to address Medicaid sequestration. This is a bill that could and should have been bipartisan but instead must be used to address the Democratic leadership's failure to resolve the debt ceiling vote. That is sad. Democratic leaders have chosen to divide us when they could have chosen a different course that would have united us in a bipartisan agreement. Hopefully, they will learn from that lesson. Finally, this rule also advances a highly partisan and unnecessary collection of purported government reforms, many of which are duplicative of measures that have previously passed the House. I urge the majority to rethink these measures. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the bill in front of us, in some ways, is a simple bill. It is a continuing resolution. It goes for a certain amount of time. Sadly, it reflects the basic failure of this institution to focus on its job. We have had more than a year to deal with what we should be dealing with, the passage of the budget. We extended--I actually voted for the extension--the last continuing resolution to provide time. Now, my friends knew at the beginning of this process the number of things that they had to do. They knew if they took out the Hyde language and those protections that they would never get a deal. Yet, they did that anyway. They did that without consultation. They did it in committee. They had the votes. They had every right to do it. They also knew at the end of the day they were going to have to have bipartisanship on appropriations bills. They will not pass in the Senate because of the filibuster. There is sufficient support on both sides of the aisle. Every single Republican in this Chamber actually supported the reinsertion of the Hyde amendment in the legislative process, telling our friends: If you take this out, we are not going to be working with you until it is restored. So far, we have not seen any effort to do that. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side also put in lots of poison pills--again, lots of things that they knew Republicans would not accept. That is fine in a reconciliation package. They really don't need our votes. That is not true in an appropriations bill. It is my understanding that both ranking members in both Chambers on the Committee on Appropriations said: Look, we are not sitting down to negotiate until the Hyde protections are back in. They are historically bipartisan. They have been there 45 years. Most of my friends on the other side of the aisle have voted for them over and over and over again, whether they liked them or not. Frankly, if you are going to have to get a bipartisan deal, when you put partisan pills in, you know you are going to have to take them out at some point. You might as well do it at the beginning of the session. We also have had no engagement from either the administration or our friends on the other side about any spending limits whatsoever. What is our top-line number? Nobody has been willing to sit down and talk about that. Quite frankly, that is a problem. Mr. Speaker, we probably ought to be looking at that, as we have done in previous years over multiple years going forward. We could also make adjustments if we are in a crisis. We have done that before. But we had a framework that we could operate under, and it has actually facilitated the appropriations. I would recommend to my friends that might be something they want to talk about with both sides. But in the end, the deal here is not hard to see. The deal involves three simple things. There are lots of details, lots of other things to be negotiated. First, defense spending is going to have to come up. That is not just Republicans telling you that. The Democratic-controlled House Committee on Armed Services and the Democratic-controlled Senate Committee on Armed Services both put in $25 billion more than in the President's base budget or in the bill that our friends passed out of committee but never brought to this floor because they don't have the votes to pass it. So that is one. Number two, my friends, in the 12 bills that they have passed through the Committee on Appropriations--and I commend them for that--raised domestic spending by 17 or 18 percent. That number is going to have to come down. We can talk about how much, and we can talk about where, but it is way too much, and it is way out of balance. And number three--and my friends were told this over and over and over again--if you take out the Hyde protections on life, there will be no Republican votes for your bill. Now, we can pass continuing resolution after continuing resolution. After all, that is Donald Trump's last negotiated budget, the budget you got when you had a Republican President, Republican Senate, and a Democratic House. Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, many of my friends on my side of the aisle would prefer that. I would prefer a deal. I would prefer a more robust defense budget. I am willing to talk about some of my friends' domestic priorities--quite frankly, some of which I share and would support and have in the past. I am also, though, not prepared to yield on the Hyde amendment, and my friends know that. Mr. Speaker, we know what a deal is: more defense; less domestic spending; removal of poison pills; restoration of historic, bipartisan protections on life. Do those things and we can have a deal, I think, pretty quickly. Stay where you are at and we will not have a deal, and we will be right back here in February, doing another continuing resolution. The most basic responsibility of Congress is to fund the government. Unfortunately, we are no closer to a full- year spending deal that we truly need. My colleagues in the majority have wasted months focusing on other matters--notably, a wildly expensive and unrealistic reconciliation spending package--rather than doing the hard and essential work of governing the Nation. I urge my friends in the majority to rethink that course. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), my very good friend and the ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor, for further explanation on the previous question.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Ms. Letlow), the sponsor of H.R. 6056 and a member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), my good friend and ranking member of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee, for further explanation of the previous question.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), my good friend and not only fellow member of the Rules Committee, but fellow appropriator, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today's rule covers one item, a continuing resolution to fund the government and keep it open and operating through February 18, 2022. While I am grateful that we are taking steps to avoid a government shutdown, I am disappointed by the solution before us, yet another short-term funding bill with full-year funding negotiations no closer than they were a few months ago or a few weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, today's resolution is the second continuing resolution we have had to pass to cover fiscal year 2022. Sadly, I expect it will not be the last. This state of affairs was absolutely avoidable and reflects poorly on the Democratic leadership. I have often said that government funding is the most fundamental responsibility of Congress. Unfortunately, we are nowhere close to a full-year appropriation funding deal. We are no closer to an agreement today than the last time we passed a continuing resolution in September. The reality is that the reason we are having to consider another continuing resolution today is because of the majority's insistence on focusing on partisan priorities rather than on the critical business of governing the nation. For months, the majority's focus has not been anywhere near where it should have been. Instead of reaching a full-year deal on government funding or even a top-line agreement on funding levels, the majority has insisted on working on other partisan matters. Since the passage of the last stop-gap funding measure, House Democrats have focused solely on their massive reconciliation bill, month after month, focused on enshrining partisan policies into law. These efforts may satisfy their progressive base, but they fail the American people as a whole. The majority currently controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and if they can swing the votes, they can pass whatever they want into law. But with that ability also comes a grave responsibility, a responsibility to govern the country. Unfortunately, the majority has been abandoning that responsibility. Mr. Speaker, October 1 marked the beginning of fiscal year 2022. By rights, the House and the Senate should have both passed our standard 12 appropriations bills through both Chambers of Congress and into law by that date. But since we did not, a continuing resolution was necessary. Now we are on the second continuing resolution of this fiscal year, and in all likelihood, a probable third one is coming in February, unless my friends on the other side actually start negotiating in earnest. At this point, we are unfortunately no closer to passing these 12 bills or an omnibus spending bill than we were back on October 1. This is truly a failure to govern. While the majority focuses on a push to make the government bigger and bigger, they are failing to fund the government which already exists today. What happens as a result? We move from continuing resolution to continuing resolution, getting no closer to a final spending deal. Not involving Republicans until the very last minute and just expecting us to indefinitely support CR after CR is no way to govern, and frankly, the failure to have any conversations about how to come to an agreement on a full-year appropriations bill is indefensible. While I am sure former President Trump will be pleased to know his last budget continues on almost a year after he left office, there is real work that can and should be done. But what is perhaps the most frustrating has been the way in which the majority has bungled reaching a relatively simple deal on this particular continuing resolution. Knowing full well that this Friday's deadline was coming up, the majority instead dithered for months on their reconciliation package. This week, finally acknowledging that real discussions needed to be had with Republicans, the majority instead continued to twiddle their thumbs. Indeed, Republicans in the House were completely shut out of this process, leaving us all in the dark about the nature of today's bill until this morning. Once again, the majority has chosen to go it alone rather than choosing to work across the aisle. The majority is well aware that their current stance on a larger deal is dead on arrival in the Senate. As long as they continue to insist on omitting the historically bipartisan pro-life protections which have existed in law for more than 45 years, Republicans cannot and will not support bills that end these protections, and the Senate will not pass them. But that is not the only point of disagreement. The majority has been unwilling to fund our Nation's defense at the levels agreed to by the authorizers and appropriators in the House and currently being debated in the Senate. These increased levels are necessary to ensure continued defense readiness worldwide, especially given the ongoing tensions in places like Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the Taiwan Strait. But instead of governing and seeking to address these challenges, the majority is pandering to the most extreme elements of their Caucus, trying desperately to pass bills that lower defense spending levels and omitting key bipartisan pro-life protections from appropriations bills. And instead of governing, the majority holds the American people hostage under the threat of a government shutdown, dragging the country from one self-inflicted crisis to another. Mr. Speaker, the sooner the majority gets serious about reaching a full-year deal, the better for the country. There are real, damaging consequences to the failure to pass full-year appropriations bills, both at home and abroad, and the sooner the majority brings its attention back to the critical business of governing the country, the better off we all will be. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment on the rule to immediately bring up H.R. 6056, the Parents Bill of Rights Act. Mr. Speaker, education is one of the most important issues that we face today. Determining how our children will be educated determines the future fate of our Nation. Unfortunately, many school districts have been ignoring the wishes of parents or, worse, telling parents they cannot play a role in their child's education. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe made Democrats' position on education clear when he said: ``I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.'' I couldn't disagree with him more, and thankfully, neither could Virginia voters. Instead, H.R. 6056, developed by Education and Labor Committee Republicans, would enshrine a list of rights into law to make clear to parents what their rights are and clear to schools what their duties to parents are. These rights include the right to know what their children are being taught, the right of parents to be heard, and the right to protect their child's privacy. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Arkansas for yielding and being so generous with the time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4352. Along with my good friend, Representative McCollum of Minnesota, I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. The legislation amends the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and reaffirms the right of the Secretary of the Interior to place land into trust for federally recognized Indian Tribes. Madam Speaker, as I am sure most people in this House know, the history and relationship between the United States and Indian Tribes isn't something to always be proud of. Frankly, with the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887, Tribes all over the country, but particularly in my State of Oklahoma, were systematically stripped of their lands, and individual Tribal members were as well. I know this because my Tribe was one of the victims. My family was one of the losers in the process. In 1934, the Federal Government wisely saw that it had made a bad mistake and intervened with the Indian Reorganization Act to protect the remaining Indian lands and to allow modest additions and reacquisitions of that land. For 75 years, it worked pretty much the way it was supposed to work, whether it was a Democratic or a Republican administration. Land was protected and modestly brought back into trust--only 9 million acres so far since 1934, so it is not as if we have had a large transfer of land back. But we have protected what was there and added back to Tribal patrimony where it made sense. All that was upset by the Carcieri v. Salazar decision in 2009. That was a really bad decision, quite frankly. It did, as my friends from New Mexico and Minnesota both pointed out, upset the balance. It created a two-tiered system and penalized Tribes that had not been federally recognized in 1934. That, by the way, wasn't just ``new Tribes.'' A lot of them--the case was based on the Narragansetts in Rhode Island--actually had been around for a long time. The Narragansetts are in the same place they always were. They were recognized by the State of Rhode Island but for some reason weren't in the 1934 bill. So a lot of people have been victimized by this, and frankly, a lot of interests have tried to exploit it. We have had an opportunity on a couple of occasions to fix it. Actually, this House should be proud. In December 2010, my amendment to an appropriations bill, supported by my good friend Ms. McCollum, we got it out of the House, but it died in the Senate that same December. As my friend from Minnesota alluded, we passed legislation in the last Congress to deal with this issue on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. I would just say, for the record, I have introduced legislation on this every year since 2009. My friend, Ms. McCollum, has done pretty much the same, and we have always cosponsored one another's legislation. So I am very proud to be here and support this bill. I urge passage of this bill. It is a matter of justice for the Tribes, but it is also a matter of equity and a matter of, frankly, legislative convenience. Madam Speaker, I strongly support my friend's bill, H.R. 4352, and urge its passage.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider a resolution that would add a new House rule stating that any resolution proposing to remove a Member from a committee assignment shall not be in order unless offered by, or with the concurrence of, the leader of the party of the Member that is the subject of the resolution. Madam Speaker, my amendment would reinforce the longstanding norm of basic fairness that today's resolution does not comply with. Throughout the entire history of the House of Representatives, it has been an unwritten rule, or norm of conduct, that one party does not attempt to exercise a veto over the other party's committee assignments. The reasons for this are obvious. It protects the operations of the institution and ensures that politically motivated attempts to remove Members from committees do not happen. But the majority's actions, both today and earlier this Congress, threaten that norm and threaten to set off a new round of escalating partisan punishment anytime the majority changes hands. Establishing this as a written rule of the House would ensure that no Member ever faces this kind of partisan retribution again. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of my amendment, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.