Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up a resolution establishing a bipartisan national commission on the domestic terrorist attack on the United States Capitol. This commission, modeled on the 9/11 Commission, will be charged with examining and reporting upon the facts and causes relating to the attack that occurred on January 6 of 2021 and with providing appropriate findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures. I can think of no more appropriate path for Congress to follow, Mr. Speaker, than to ensure that a bipartisan commission reviews all evidence and reports back to us on this horrific event. 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. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just a few days ago, the Nation was shaken by the violent and destructive actions of an outrageous mob that stormed the Capitol and attempted to gain access to this very Chamber, seeking to harm innocent lives and disrupt democracy at work. I vehemently condemn their lawless actions. This never should have happened, and the perpetrators of these despicable crimes that took place in this building must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. While Americans have the right to passionately voice their views and peacefully dissent in protest, the siege on our Capitol last Wednesday was the furthest thing from peaceful protest. As a result of the violent and frightening events of the day, six lives have been lost. This includes two courageous Capitol Police officers who put themselves in harm's way to protect us, secure the building, and restore order. We will never forget their selfless sacrifices and bravery. Our deepest prayers remain with their families, friends, loved ones, and the entire United States Capitol Police force as they grapple with their heavy loss. As we seek to pick up the pieces and move forward healing our Nation, I am concerned that the majority is proceeding with the wrong course of action. Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule for consideration of House Resolution 21. This is a nonbinding resolution calling on Vice President Mike Pence to convene the Cabinet and declare President Trump incapable of executing his duties pursuant to section 4 of the 25th Amendment. I think this resolution is misguided and inappropriate for the legislative branch to pursue. As such, I must oppose it. Mr. Speaker, under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, when it appears the President is unable to fulfill his or her duties, it is the responsibility of the Vice President, with the concurrence of a majority of the Cabinet, to initiate the process for making that determination. That responsibility, grave as it is, rests solely with the Vice President. There is no role for Congress in this process. The only role for Congress arises later and only in the circumstances where there is a dispute between the President and Vice President about the President's ability to fulfill his or her duties, but we are not faced with that situation now. Nor is this resolution intended to designate, by law, another body besides the Cabinet to exercise this power, which the text of the 25th Amendment says it may do. Instead, with today's resolution, what the majority is asking the House to do is to assume a power it does not have. The House has no role in initiating section 4 of the 25th Amendment, and we should not pretend otherwise. Instead, that power lies with the Vice President. And we should be very clear about what this resolution actually is. It is an attempt to pressure the Vice President into performing a duty he clearly does not believe is necessary at this time. Mr. Speaker, I was here in the Capitol last week, as were all of my colleagues. We all had the opportunity to watch Vice President Pence as he fulfilled his duty under the Constitution. He showed sound judgment and poise under pressure, and his actions were above reproach. Indeed, he fulfilled his oath of office and acted in a manner befitting his constitutional role. It was a statesman-like performance under the most difficult of circumstances. Despite witnessing the Vice President's sound judgment and ability to fulfill his oath in person, the majority is now seeking to push him into performing an additional action under the 25th Amendment. The Vice President has not done what the majority wishes him to do, and so they are bringing up this resolution now in effort to pressure him into doing so. This act, attempting to substitute the House's judgment for the Vice President's, is not contemplated anywhere in the Constitution. As we all saw last Wednesday, Vice President Pence's judgment is sound. There is no need for the House to attempt to substitute its judgment for his own. I personally have strong faith in him, and I believe he will consider his constitutional duty in the same manner that he carries out all of the other constitutional duties assigned to him: in a forthright manner that fulfills his oath of office and attests to his personal integrity. Should the Vice President ever believe that the 25th Amendment needs to be invoked, I have no doubt that Vice President Pence, both as a leader, as a former House colleague, and as a friend, would exercise good judgment with respect to performing that duty. That he has not taken that action thus far is not an indication that the House needs to push him to do so. His record of sound judgment should speak to us on this issue. As such, I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, a ``no'' vote on the underlying measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), who is the newest Republican member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), who is my very good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) for further explanation of the amendment.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would disagree somewhat with my good friend from Pennsylvania. I have had the privilege of being in this body for many years, and I have never seen what we see in sections 2 and 3 of this rule, the suspension of appropriate language. I understand the difficulties of dealing with this issue and respect that. However, at a time when the rhetoric has been over the top, I think we should set a high example. We have never done this before in my time here. We didn't do it in previous impeachments. The need to do it now is lost on me, Mr. Speaker. Again, I have great confidence in my friend. I have great confidence in my friends on the Rules Committee. So, the rule is the rule. This will almost certainly pass. I would just hope that everybody acts as good as they can. I mean, I hate to put it that simply, but this is an important issue. I respect all the Members of this body. I know they have very different points of view on this. That is to be expected. Generally, our debates are professional. Generally, that standard is something we are proud of and something that we aspire to. I hate to see it ever lowered or any exception provided. I also have great confidence in the Speaker's Chair, and I know that they will enforce the appropriate level of civility and decency on the floor. But, Mr. Speaker, I just ask my fellow Members to please, please think about this, because we have taken a very important safeguard off the rails of debate, so to speak. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my very good friend, the distinguished Republican ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain), who will be giving her first address on the floor of the House.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), one of our new Members.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader, to discuss this critical amendment in more detail.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my very good friend.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and ranking Republican member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my very good friend and a former member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished new Member from the great State of Texas (Ms. Van Duyne), who will be making her first address on the House floor.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my very good friend and the distinguished Republican whip.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we defeat the previous question, Madam Speaker, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately amend the rules package to strike the complete gutting of the MTR. My amendment will restore this sacred right to the minority to offer a final amendment to the bill. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), my very good friend and the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I really think that my good friends in the majority need more time to present a fair rules package. So I move to postpone consideration of H. Res. 8 until January 5, 2021. Motion to Table

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I want to urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rules package. The majority's proposed package will only continue the ongoing assault on minority voices. The changes in this package completely gut the MTR. With all due respect to my friends, we disagree on that. I am sorry you have a hard time handling it or getting your Members to where you want them to go, but the fact is, eight times in the last Congress, Democrats joined with Republicans in deciding that the Republican proposal improved the bill. It is that simple. We shouldn't be taking that away, particularly when the record, I think, is so bad in the last Democratic Congress in granting amendment opportunities to the minority. I remind my friends, when we were in the majority, you got 45 percent of all of the amendments made in order in the Rules Committee; the Republicans got 38 percent; the remainder were bipartisan. Last time, you got two-thirds of the amendments, we got 18 percent, and the remainder were bipartisan. When you are removing the MTR, on top of not giving us very many amendments to begin with, we look on that as an effort to limit our ability to participate openly and effectively in debate. This rules package moves us in another direction. I am sorry that the traditional rules of the House that have been here over 100 years are inconvenient to the Democratic majority. Sometimes it is good to be inconvenienced when you are in the majority. You are limiting our ability to participate. Frankly, it will find other outlets; it always does. I think that is a tragic mistake I think that you will live to regret. In addition to that, obviously, we disagree in the proposed rules package with eliminating paygo in some critical areas. We think you could drive a truck through those. It is a critical budgetary tool, and we do think it will be missed, and its absence will be used to pave the way for the Green New Deal. In addition, the desire to continue to subpoena Presidents, Vice Presidents, and White House staff that are no longer in office strikes us as clearly an effort to just continue to harass the departing administration. I regret that. I think you will, too. I think people want us to look forward, not backward. So we don't see much use in that, nor do we see the automatic ability to resubmit subpoenas from the last Congress as a good thing. Again, it is looking in the rearview mirror. Madam Speaker, I urge rejection of the package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, my very good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we are here today to address the majority's proposed changes in the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 117th Congress. These changes are some of the harshest and most cynical that I have experienced during my time in Congress. Democratic leadership is suppressing minority rights and paving the way for the Green New Deal by intentionally removing budgetary checks that have been in place for over a decade. The most egregious of these changes is the complete gutting of the motion to recommit. The motion to recommit, or the MTR, is the minority's right to propose a final amendment before moving passage. This is a right that has been guaranteed to the minority for well over a century. With today's changes, the majority is seeking to silence views they are afraid of with no regard for this institution or the American people's trust in our constitutional responsibility to govern and govern well. They are taking away the ability to debate a motion to recommit and the ability to offer a motion to recommit with instructions. This completely guts the minority's ability to offer a last amendment on the floor prior to passage of legislation. I would remind my colleagues that during the many years Republicans were in the majority, we never even thought to deny the minority this motion. And the only reason Democrats are doing so today is out of embarrassment. They are embarrassed that the Republicans were able to pass eight motions to recommit in the 116th Congress. But rather than acknowledging that Republicans sometimes have good policy ideas that should be incorporated into legislation, the majority is instead seeking to completely cut off this key right, and that, Madam Speaker, is simply reprehensible. Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit has been around since the beginning of the House as an institution, and it has been in its present form since 1909. In fact, in 1919, Representative Abraham Garrett of Tennessee, noted that ``the motion to recommit is regarded as so sacred it is one of the few rules protected against the Committee on Rules by the general rules of the House.'' And when Speaker Pelosi was herself in the minority, she equated the motion to recommit with the right of free speech enshrined in our Constitution. How this majority can now decide that a procedure that is so important it is on par with the guarantee of free speech must be eliminated is beyond my understanding. Madam Speaker, it is simply shocking that Democrats are so afraid of Republican ideas that they feel the need to rig the system against us. They don't want the House to work its will. They only want the Speaker's will. And we all know why that is. It is because the majority cannot effectively defend its policies against competing ideas. Eight times in the last Congress a majority of the House agreed that the Republican policy idea had merit and should be included in the final bill. But that state of affairs is evidently so embarrassing to Democrats that they can't stand it, and now they have to completely shut down minority rights lest they be embarrassed further, especially after the November election dealt them a harsh blow and they lost seats in their own ranks. Madam Speaker, I want to offer my friends on the other side of the aisle a word of warning: Majorities do not last forever. If there is one certainty we can take away from the history of American politics, it is that the party in power in the House of Representatives today will not hold that position forever. I can also guarantee you that your efforts to shut us down will not shut us up. So instead of having bills that pass with slight improvements made through an MTR, bills will fail here on the House floor. And for that reason, among others, I am sure Democrats will regret making this egregious change in the very near future. Republicans are proud to debate our policies and proposals, unlike the majority today, whose record of promised openness and fulsome debate is an abject failure. Now, Madam Speaker, while gutting the MTR may be the worst piece of this rules package to many, I want to applaud my friends for removing an almost equally egregious piece of this rules package. When the majority released this package over the weekend, there was a particularly noxious provision that would have empowered the Speaker of the House to censor the free speech of Members and employees of the House. What is worse, it would have empowered the Speaker to act as the sole judge, jury, and executioner, and included no clear guidelines for how this would be enforced. This proposed rule was downright un- American. Fortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle have listened to reason and removed that provision from this package. I wish they had further listened to reason and removed the provision taking away the minority's right to an MTR, which is why I offered a very reasonable motion to postpone for one day. Madam Speaker, I could go on all day about the MTR, but there are other changes in this rules package that need to be highlighted. Slipped into the package is another change that will effectively eliminate the paygo rule. Paygo is a useful budgetary control measure that essentially says that we can't spend money that we don't have. But if the majority gets their way, paygo will be eliminated for a broad category of topics, including for measures relating to climate change. This is doing nothing more than removing a key barrier to the Green New Deal and other liberal tax-and-spend policies. But never before has the majority tried to lift budgetary rules on something as absurdly expensive as the Green New Deal, which is estimated to cost as much as $100 trillion over the next decade, should it be enacted. It is clear that the majority doesn't even want to have a conversation about the cost of the Green New Deal, and instead wants to ensure that the American people never find out about the cost of their extreme plans. There are other measures in this rules package that are just as absurd. Not content with having investigated President Trump throughout his Presidency and subjected him to pointless impeachment, now Democrats are including provisions allowing them to send subpoenas to former Presidents, former Vice Presidents, and former White House staff, long after their administration has ended. This provision is a continuation of the Democratic majority's obsession with investigating President Trump and his administration, and ensures they will be able to keep their investigation gravy train rolling along long after the President leaves office. There is a similar provision which will allow certain committee chairs to reissue subpoenas prior to the committee organizing for the 117th Congress, thus ensuring that existing investigations into President Trump, no matter how silly or pointless, will not have to slow down or even let the new Congress consider their current merits or legislative justification. Allowing a chair to issue subpoenas without any consultation with membership or with the minority is nothing less than an abuse of power. But I suppose I should not expect any less given the other provisions in this package. Madam Speaker, despite my affection for my friend on the other side of the aisle, I have to tell him that this package stinks. It is deeply cynical and deeply short-sighted. It tramples on minority rights and it ensures a power grab by Democratic leadership. It will change the nature of this institution, and not for the better. Madam Speaker, today, I call on all Members to vote ``no'' on this rules package. I ask all of my colleagues, regardless of party, to reject these radical and, at times, ridiculous changes. I call on all my colleagues to protect minority rights. The future of this institution depends on it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.