Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am reiterating my earlier announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I will not yield for any other purpose.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and then I will turn and yield time to my friend from Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly respond to my friend's concern about the Election Assistance Commission funds. As I am sure he is aware, that was the last installment last year, this fiscal year, of a $365 billion authorization that was actually done back in 2002. Currently, 39 percent of those funds for this year are still available to the States. Actually, 19 States have yet to submit any sort of request, and the legislation itself has not been reauthorized. If the authorizing people reauthorize it, I am sure we will revisit this matter. It also worth noting that anything added will be available only from October 1, and the election is 5 weeks after that. So the idea that we are going to do something in that period of time, I think, is a bit of a red herring. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), my good friend from the Seventh District.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me make a couple of comments in response to my friend. It was the last President, not this President, who told Russian leaders that he would be more flexible after an election. It was the last President, not this President, who said Russia was not a geopolitical threat and chastised Mitt Romney when he raised it in the campaign. And it was the last President, not this President, who drew a red line and then refused to enforce it. If you actually look at the Record, it is this administration and this party that, frankly, has begun to restore America's defenses after years of neglect by the last administration. That is not good news for Russia. It is this administration that has also encouraged and cajoled some of our allies to increase their defense level up to the levels that they, themselves, had committed to. It was this President that twice enforced red lines in Syria. It was this Congress that administered ever-increasing penalties on Russian sanctions. So I think if you look at the actions, the actions are pretty impressive. But I want to actually get back to the matter at hand, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. Today's bill represents the next step toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress: funding the Government of the United States. Although not perfect, the bill before us today will lead to the completion of the House's work on two more appropriations bills. We will provide funding for important government activities like fighting forest fires, funding the Indian Health Service, enforcing tax and securities laws, and funding our national parks; and we will ensure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is no longer allowed to operate without congressional oversight. While I look forward to completing our work and passing all 12 appropriations bills, this legislation represents an important step along the way to fulfilling that goal. I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their work.

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, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 6147, the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019, which also includes the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2019. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us is the third installment of the House's effort to pass all 12 appropriations bills on the floor for fiscal year 2019. We have previously passed appropriations bills covering Energy and Water, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Defense. Today we turn to the work of the Appropriations Committee Subcommittees on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies and Financial Services and General Government. Once the House finishes its work for the week, we will have passed 6 of the 12 appropriations bills across the floor. Overall, the package covers $58.65 billion in spending. Of those funds, $35.25 billion are allocated to the Interior bill and $23.4 billion to the Financial Services bill, which is equal to the enacted level for fiscal year 2018 for both of these bills. The package represents many months of work by the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Speaker, as I have so often said when discussing appropriations bills, today's package represents the most fundamental duty of Congress, to fund the government and keep it open each year to continue to provide our constituents with the services they need and deserve. But, importantly, this package also fulfills an additional duty of Congress to the American people: its fiscally prudent stewardship of the taxpayers' hard-earned money and to ensure that we appropriately prioritize where and how to spend taxpayer dollars in the most efficient manner. Mr. Speaker, the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill funds critical programs at the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other crucial areas. Among the areas of greatest importance, the bill includes $3.9 billion for the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service to fight wildfires. It includes $500 million for payments in lieu of taxes to help local governments, and it provides $2.6 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund. It funds the National Park Service at $3.25 billion, an increase of $53 million over fiscal year 2018. Of great import, not only to my home State of Oklahoma but to Native Americans all across the country, the bill honors our treaties and trust agreements by providing $5.9 billion for the Indian Health Service and $3.1 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Education. The bill also fulfills an additional commitment to the American people by including provisions to rein in the runaway regulatory agendas of parts of the Federal Government. It reduces the EPA's regulatory programs by $228 million. It also fully repeals the economically damaging waters of the United States rule and includes various prohibitions preventing the EPA from overregulating agricultural operations and exempting livestock producers from EPA greenhouse gas requirements. The Financial Services and General Government portion of this bill provides $23.4 billion across several important accounts. It provides $7.7 billion for the operation of the Federal court system. The bill also provides funding to help combat the opioid crisis, including $415 million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, including $280 million for high-intensity drug trafficking areas and $118 million for other Federal drug control programs. It encourages responsible spending at the Internal Revenue Service by appropriating $11.6 billion for IRS activities, an increase of $186 million over fiscal year 2018, and continues stringent oversight and protections of taxpayer dollars that have been included in recent years. The bill provides $1.66 billion for the Securities and Exchange Commission and will help grow the economy by providing $737 million, or full funding, in capital to various Small Business Administration loan programs. Perhaps most importantly, this bill includes provisions that will finally bring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under congressional oversight. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, when the CFPB was created in the original Dodd-Frank Act, the new agency was allowed to operate without congressional oversight because it did not receive appropriations. Consequently, since its inception, unelected bureaucrats at the CFPB have been allowed to operate entirely without congressional supervision. Today's bill will remedy that and will ensure that the CFPB falls under congressional authority, oversight, and supervision once and for all. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. The package before us represents a fulfillment of our most important responsibility as Members of Congress and provides appropriate funding in two divisions: Interior and Environment, and Financial Services and General Government. I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their months of work in making this bill a reality and cheer their efforts on moving forward to completion of the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good 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 996 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed recorded votes on rollcalls Nos. 291, 292, and 293 on June 26, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 291, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 292, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 293. personal explanation

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, for more than a decade, we have overused and underinvested in the United States military. This bill marks a welcomed change of direction and a recapitalization of the American military. I could go through a lot of the weapons systems and missions and programs. I am fortunate enough to represent a district in which all four services are active, both at Fort Sill, where we have Marine artillery and Army artillery and air defense artillery, and Tinker Air Force Base, where we have the Navy E-6 wing as well as the largest air depot in the world. This bill will make a difference for all of those installations. Much more importantly, what the American people need to understand is, at the end of this process, we will have a larger Army, a larger Navy, a larger Air Force, and a larger Marine Corps. They will be better trained, better equipped, and better able to serve us and, thank goodness, better compensated as well. Mr. Chair, I want to thank, particularly, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky. I wish people could have watched this process. I have served under three very capable chairmen on this subcommittee. To watch them work back and forth in such a bipartisan, pragmatic, and thorough way and to interact with professionals in our military and to give every member of that subcommittee an opportunity to participate in a meaningful way was a legislative marvel and probably a minor miracle in the way things go. I think you can see that just by listening to the remarks on both sides of the aisle about our chairman and our ranking member and the process in which they engaged. Mr. Chair, I want to urge everybody on the floor to vote for this bill. It was arrived at the right way. It is the right thing for the country and the American military. More than that, I am proud of our chairman, I am proud of our ranking member, and I am very proud to have been able to participate in this process.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. Originally, I have to say, I was skeptical when the administration raised the idea of rescissions, not because I am against saving money-- I think we need to do a lot more of that around here--but because I thought this might undo the bipartisan agreement that the administration and our leadership had negotiated. Frankly, this bill does nothing of the kind. And I want to compliment the President and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, our former colleague, for using a tool that has not been used in 20 years. They did the right thing. They did it in the right way. This is the largest rescission package ever in the history of Congress. It will save almost $15 billion. But where are those savings coming from? They are coming from funds that we, frankly, didn't use or we overappropriated. My friends talk a lot about CHIP. The authorization for $5 billion of that money ran out. You can't even legally spend it. Why would you leave it in the account? Another $2 billion is taken from an account for when States go beyond their spending limits. We have never spent more than $350 million of that money, and we actually left $500 million in the account. Why not reclaim the savings and return them to the Treasury? You can go on and on. There was $4.3 billion for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program that nobody has applied for or has not been used since 2011. Again, there is example after example. It is a wise thing to reclaim unused money and spending authority and return it to the Treasury of the United States. I am very proud to cosponsor the legislation. I am very supportive of it and would urge its passage.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. However, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 181; YEA on Roll Call No. 182; and YEA on Roll Call No. 183.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, the House is often described as a family, but it is a lot bigger than 435 Members. Our extended family, of course, includes the staff of the House and the staff of each and every Member; the Capitol Police who do such an extraordinary job of protecting all of us; the maintenance crews that make sure the facilities function, are open to the public; and, frankly, all those others who make the House of Representatives a very special place. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to report what many of you already know, the loss of a member of that extended family, my longtime chief of staff, Sean Patrick Murphy. Sean has been a professional associate and friend of mine for 19 years. He was my chief of staff for 11 years, and, frankly, we both believed he would be the last chief of staff I would ever have. Sean Patrick Murphy left us, unexpectedly, in February. He had based his life on three things: his faith, his family, and his friends. Those people who were privileged to know Sean know that he was a very devout Catholic, and his faith was not something that was casual to him. It was something that he lived each and every day and carried out in each and every relationship that he had. Nothing was more important after his faith than his family. Sean Murphy was the consummate husband and father. He loved his family, and he lived a life of total dedication to them. His wife, Johannah, and his sons, Patrick, Peter, and Charlie, were fixtures that we all heard about in our office each and every day, particularly the boys because there would always be a funny story about what they happened to be doing at any given moment. Sean worked hard so Johannah could stay home and actually homeschool those three children, so they were an extraordinarily close group. And, finally, there were Sean's friends. No one had more, no one, frankly, held his friends longer, and no one treasured them more than Sean. Because of that, if you happened to attend his funeral, you saw over 2,000 family and friends show up to remember this extraordinary man. As a person, Sean had all the wit, all the wisdom, all the decency of the Irish. He was a natural leader and a loyal colleague. People followed him because they trusted him. He was fair. He was decent. He was selfless. He always put others first. And if you sent spent a day with Sean Murphy, you were going to laugh. He made people laugh partly by laughing at himself. In all the years that I knew him and all the many capacities we dealt in together, I never had one other person come and complain to me about Sean--no constituent, no fellow staff member, no lobbyist, no member of another office. All of them thought they were his best friend. Now, he was pretty good at that and would give you a pretty good opinion later about whether they were really a friend or not, but the point is everybody that knew him liked him, and everybody believed that he liked them back. Sean's lifelong profession, and, really, it began when he was quite young, was his passion for politics. He took it first as a volunteer, and then it did become the manner in which he lived his life. Now, his gentle nature hid an extraordinarily competitive personal spirit. Politics, I like to say, is an adult team sport, and Sean played it exceptionally well. He was astute in his judgment about people and about politics. In all the many issues we discussed over many years, both in terms of dealing with political campaigns and dealing with the politics of the House, itself, both on the floor and in our Conference, I never got a piece of bad advice from Sean. But with Sean, politics always had a purpose, and that purpose was always to achieve some greater good, some more important goal. He wasn't just good at winning; he was good at governing. He, frankly, never sold out. He had plenty of opportunities to go and make a lot more money than I could have ever paid him, but he worked for principle. He always put his country and his party and people above anything that might benefit himself. And he believed in the things that he worked for, and he worked to make a difference in this country each and every day. Frankly, he cherished this institution above all else. He enjoyed not only the politics, but those rare moments of drama when great things happen on the floor of the House; and he made sure that any Member he worked for--and I wasn't the only one--had an opportunity to impact those events thanks to his good advice, thanks to the wonderful staff that he built and created, and thanks to his shrewd strategy. All of us that knew him believed that he left us far too soon, but that is pretty presumptive, Mr. Speaker. Who are any of us to say something like that? God chooses the time that we come and the time that we go. How can you be bitter when your friend went to his bed, innocent and untroubled, and woke up in Heaven with our Lord and Savior? But God does allow us to miss him, and miss him we all will. He will be missed as a husband and a father and a friend. He blessed all of us with his life. And for me, in particular, Mr. Speaker, I will miss him for all my days. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Honorable Ronald A Sarasin on the occasion of his retirement as President and CEO of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society. Since January 3, 2000, Ron has directed the Society as it has communicated the rich heritage of Congress and the U.S. Capitol to a wide, diverse audience. School children, scholars, historians, artists, people from all walks of life, and even Members of Congress have learned more about this great institution because of programs offered by the Society. Under Ron's leadership, classroom programs, symposia and lectures, awards and outreach, and recognition of the history of Congressional committees has flourished. The Society has brought elementary and secondary students to the Capitol for tours and visits to our offices. It has sponsored symposia where scholars have shared their research and insights. It has taught about Constantino Brumidi and his beautiful artwork. At a recent Society event, guests were invited to climb the temporary stairs and walk on the scaffolding to view the restoration of the ceiling of the Brumidi Corridors at eye level. During Ron's tenure, the Society has dedicated over $100,000 to fund fellowships for historians, political scientists, artists, and scholars of other disciplines. The Society even became a publisher, producing 12 books on Congress. Ron has been a great ambassador for Congress. He has led countless numbers of students, visiting dignitaries, business executives, international guests, and Society members on tours of this great building. As a former Representative from Connecticut, Ron knows our institution well and has been generous in sharing his insights. As Members of Congress, we too have been enriched by the Society. As guests to the annual presentation of the Freedom Award over the years we have met American icons such as filmmaker Ken Burns, historian David McCullough and writer, director and star of ``Hamilton,'' Lin-Manuel Miranda. We have been honored by Society dinners celebrating the history of the Congressional committees on which we serve. We have been feted at welcoming receptions for new Members of Congress and at thank you receptions for Members who retire. Ron's outstanding leadership was recognized when the National Endowment for the Humanities honored the U.S. Capitol Historical Society with its National Humanities Medal in 2004. Upon receiving the award from President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush, Ron noted, ``There is so much more to be told about our nation's history from inside this building (the Capitol) than simply the making of laws.'' Indeed there is, and Ron Sarasin has excelled in telling the story of the Capitol and Congress for the past 18 years. I thank Ron, for his persistent advocacy of Congress and the Capitol. Congratulations on a job well done and best wishes as he turns his attention to other endeavors.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the FY2018 Agreement that will fund our government for the remainder of the fiscal year. The agreement is consistent with the direction given by House Republican Leadership under the bipartisan budget deal. Funding increases within the Labor HHS portion of the agreement, for which I am responsible, are targeted toward key conservative priorities that all Republicans can support: Enhancing biomedical research, Increasing our Nation's biodefense capabilities, Helping states and local governments combat the opioid crisis, Giving local schools flexible funds to respond to school safety and other locally-generated needs, And helping young adults and displaced workers train for and secure new jobs in fields that will grow our economy. At the same time, the bill holds down spending for controversial items, such as punitive labor enforcement agencies, family planning funds, and Washington bureaucracy. I'm proud to say the agreement continues all existing pro-life provisions, including the Hyde amendment prohibiting federal funding from being used for abortions, the Dickey-Wicker amendment prohibiting stem cell research on human embryos, and the Weldon amendment providing conscience protection for doctors, nurses and others who do not wish to participate in abortions. Additionally, the agreement rejects language pushed by Democrats which would have tied the hands of the Trump Administration and forced the Administration to continue funding for Planned Parenthood and other controversial family planning grantees. The Trump Administration has already announced termination of these grants. The bill includes $37 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a $3 billion increase over FY17, which will continue progress toward finding cures for cancer, Alzheimer's disease and other life- shortening conditions. The agreement includes a billion in increased funding for biodefense activities to protect Americans from threats, both man-made and naturally-occurring, and includes an increase of $3 billion for states, tribes, local governments, nonprofits and faith-based groups to help prevent, treat and stop the opioid epidemic that is damaging our country. The agreement maintains a longstanding provision prohibiting funds from being used to support gun control and does not include any dedicated funds to support gun control research. The agreement increases funding for training in high-growth job fields, including nursing, dentistry, primary health care and mental health. The agreement targets programs toward veterans, young adults and displaced workers struggling to enter new career fields, including increasing apprenticeship programs by $50 million. The agreement increases funding for child care vouchers and early head start programs to enable these workers to find high quality care for their children that will allow them to enter or return to the workforce. The agreement includes additional funds for adoption incentives, meals on wheels, family caregivers support, and independent living centers so that adults with disabilities can remain employed and in their own homes. The agreement includes flexible funding for mental health programs designed by local governments and schools that will enable them to find creative solutions to increase school safety, including a $700 million increase, up to $1.1 billion, for a newly-authorized student support and academic enrichment grant program. This fund can also be used by schools for other locally-determined needs, such as teacher training, computer programming courses, or arts programs. The agreement includes an increase of $75 million for career and technical education programs to help young people enter careers in fields that do not require a four year college degree. The agreement also increases the maximum Pell grant by $175, to a total of $6,095, enabling college students and others returning for a degree greater choices in a higher education program that will meet their needs. The agreement also includes targeted increases for first- generation students to enter and succeed in college, growing our economy and breaking the cycle of government dependency. Mr. Speaker, this agreement targets the funding increases approved by House Republican Leadership toward conservative priorities that will protect all Americans and enhance our Nation's health and economic prosperity. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the chairman, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I have a formal statement I will include in the Record, but I want to begin by praising Chairman Frelinghuysen; Ranking Member Nita Lowey; the staff; my negotiating counterpart and wonderful ranking member, Ms. DeLauro. It has been a collaborative effort, and it is one that you can be extraordinarily proud of in terms of having gotten all our bills done on time and presented and across this floor, having worked on a pretty short time frame when the Senate finally came to the ability to negotiate. We were waiting about 180 days for that. They finally got there. And in 4 weeks, you got the work done. It is an exceptional product. From a Republican standpoint, the big win is defense. We all want to defend the country, but that was probably the top Republican priority in the bill, and we more than met our obligation in that respect. I want to focus, in the little time I have left, on some things I am particularly proud of in the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies portion of this legislation: $3 billion increase in the National Institutes of Health. That is the largest increase in 20 years. $3 billion for opioids, a common problem in all our districts, something that we all care about. $3 billion, roughly, in round numbers, for early childhood education and early childhood care. Again, dollars well spent. Major increase in mental health funding, actually beginning to match appropriations with some of the authorization done in the 21st Century Cures, one of the great achievements of the last Congress. Tremendous increase in money for school safety grants, from $400 million to $1.1 billion. The Pell increase, which has been referred to by several people. More money for career and technical education, more money for apprenticeships. All things that will create a more productive economy. We can go on and on. But the reality is, in a very difficult time, in a very partisan era, we will have Members from both sides of the aisle passing an important piece of legislation and the administration, which has urged its passing, doing the same. I urge the passage.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his gracious comments. I appreciate the time, and I appreciate the fulsome praise. I do want to talk just a little bit about process because I think, if you are not on the Appropriations Committee, you probably haven't been able to follow a lot of this. And, frankly, this process can be made better; there is no doubt about it. I suspect, processwise, my friend from Massachusetts and I are not very far apart on where we think it ought to end up. But I do want the full body to understand what we went through to get to this point. First, it is important to remember that all 12 subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee produced legislation last year. There were full hearings and fulsome debate, and each subcommittee reported out their product. Then the full committee dealt with each subcommittee's report and presentation, and in doing so, all amendments were open from both parties. Eventually, of course, all those 12 were put into a single bill. There were hundreds of amendments from both sides of the aisle that were made in order in that process. That bill was brought to the House floor in mid-September, and it was passed. So, the House effectively did all of its work. It did the hearings; it did the markups; it reported it to the floor; and it moved it across the floor. We have been waiting for about 180 days for the Senate to respond. I could point some fingers. I am not going to. They didn't get a single appropriations bill across the floor, and only a few out of the full committee. We have finally, about 4 weeks ago, had a bipartisan negotiation at the leadership level that reset the numbers: a big increase from the Budget Control Act for defense spending. That is something Republicans very much wanted, and many Democrats did as well. And, frankly, also, an increase from nondefense discretionary spending as well--so new numbers. At that point, we began what is a pretty normal appropriations process at the committee level. That is the so-called four-corner prospect, when the ranking member of each subcommittee and the chairman of that committee sit down with their Senate counterparts and negotiate the differences between what were effectively Senate committee bills, but bills that the House had moved fully across the floor. There is a great deal of give-and-take in that. When you go as far as you can to the subcommittee level, you kick them upstairs to the chairman at the next level. They negotiate, and they solve those. I can give you an example. In Labor-HHS, we had 12 issues unresolved in a $170 billion bill. That is actually awfully good. They were moved up to full committee. Nine of those issues were resolved there. Eventually, three more were kicked up to the leadership level, and they were all resolved there. That happens for each and every subcommittee. So there is a great deal of give-and-take. Frankly, we begin this process knowing it needs to be a bipartisan product in the end. You have to have 60 votes in the United States Senate. There are 51 Republicans. Frankly, over here, obviously, they will take both Republican and Democratic votes. So there is a good deal of give-and-take in this particular process. At the end of the day, we have got a bipartisan bill that both the chairman and the ranking member brought before us last night. Again, as I mentioned earlier, from a Republican standpoint, you are probably most pleased with the defense number. That is something we have wanted and the administration wanted. But in the nondefense area, there are many, many things that both sides agree on are very important for the national well-being: a $3 billion increase at the National Institutes of Health, the largest increase in a generation; substantially more money on opioids, a crisis we know affects all of our districts, $3 billion this year and $3 billion next year spread over a number of subcommittee jurisdictions. There is a substantial increase in early childhood education and childcare, something, again, that people on both sides of the aisle feel strongly about. There is lots of money for mental health to follow up on some of the initiatives that were laid out in the 21st Century Cures Act, again, a bipartisan product. Now you are seeing bipartisan appropriations to try and match the money with the legislation that was created by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. There is money for school safety. This is probably the largest single increase we have had. I think last year under, title 4, we did about $400 million. This bill has $1.1 billion, a pretty substantial increase in something I think we all care about. So, again, it has been pretty extraordinary. Also, I want to point out--we are all proud of our respective committees--that Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey produced an omnibus last year in April or May. They have done three supplementals for the disaster relief. They now have produced this omnibus which will fund the government for fiscal year 2018, and they are hard at work on the next one. So they have been extraordinarily productive. My friend is right. I wish more of this work got piecemeal to the floor so we could look at each bill. Hopefully, we can do that going forward since we now have a top-line agreement between the two sides for fiscal year 2019 as to what the bill will be.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, we have the possibility of having a more regular measure. But whether that can be achieved or not, I don't know. In passing this bill, we have at least laid the groundwork for it. I particularly want to single out Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey because they have shown how Congress can work together. They have managed all 12 of these bills--multiple bills in multiple areas--and gotten them to the floor and across the floor in a bipartisan manner. So, if we can do the same thing in the body as a whole, I think there would be much more appreciation and understanding and, frankly, much more input. That would be a good thing. My friend is right about that. But if we are going to do that, I would also add we have to think through how many amendments there will be. How much floor time do you want to give us? If you are going to come down here with 200 or 300 amendments on each side of the aisle, I guarantee you that all you will be doing is appropriations for the whole year. As appropriators, we might like that. As legislators in other areas, you might not. I think there has got to be some leadership give-and-take on what the appropriate structure is going forward. But none of that should take away, number one, that the rule itself is bringing to the floor an extraordinarily important product. If we don't get that product passed here on a bipartisan basis and in the Senate by midnight tomorrow night, both parties will have participated in shutting down the government of the United States. I don't think that is something either of us want to do. As a matter of fact, each of us have tried this once or twice, and we now know it is not a very productive way to proceed. I think we have got an opportunity, by passing of the rule--and I urge passage of the rule--and then the underlying legislation, to do some really good things for the American people to fulfill our obligations.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 4547 (as amended) and ``yea'' on approval of the Journal.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and ordered a rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 195, the Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act of 2018. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the fourth continuing resolution to fund the government for the fiscal year 2018. In bringing up this bill, the House is fulfilling its primary obligation to the American people: to fund the government and keep the government open and operating. With the package under consideration today, Congress will fund the government through February 16, 2018. We will provide crucial dollars to keep the government functioning, to support our troops and the military, and to ensure we are all working for the American people. We will provide time to negotiate a larger agreement on funding the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, as well as a badly needed immigration reform measure. In addition to funding the government, this bill also includes several other important provisions. Most notably, it reauthorizes the Children's Health Insurance Program--or CHIP, as it is popularly known--for 6 years. It also implements critical delays in certain taxes imposed by the Affordable Care Act, including a 2-year delay for the medical device tax, a 2-year delay for the so-called Cadillac tax on health insurance plans, and a 1-year delay on the health insurance tax. As a supporter of repealing and replacing the entire Affordable Care Act, I am gratified to see this delay in imposing these harmful taxes on the American people. Finally, I am also pleased that this bill provides additional funding for ballistic missile defense, which is of crucial importance when dealing with rogue states like North Korea. Mr. Speaker, in 2017, Congress actually got a great deal done. The House and the Senate have worked with President Trump to do more to deregulate the economy and free small businesses from harmful regulations than any previous Congress. The Senate has been productive in overhauling the judicial branch, confirming a new Supreme Court Justice and 12 judges for the courts of appeals. The House and the Senate have approved and passed into law a new National Defense Authorization Act, which will provide new tools to rebuild and strengthen our military in the face of global threats. We have passed two supplemental appropriations bills to deal with the damage caused by multiple disasters across the country, and I am confident we will pass a third in the days ahead. Above all, the crown jewel in this first year of the 115th Congress has been the passage of major tax reform legislation, which will boost the economy, reduce the tax burden on workers, support working families, and simplify and modernize our burdensome Tax Code. I am particularly pleased this bill included the repeal of the ObamaCare individual mandate. The place where Congress has not gotten its job done is in the appropriations process. This is not the fault of the House of Representatives. Under the leadership of Chairman Black, the House wrote and passed a budget for FY18--fiscal year '18--in April. Through the efforts of Chairman Frelinghuysen and the other members of the Appropriations Committee, the House wrote and passed all 12 appropriations bills prior to the start of the fiscal year. However, our friends in the Senate have failed to act. We have been waiting for over 120 days--4 months--for the Senate to either act on our bills or write their own and send us passed appropriations legislation to consider. The Senate has not done so. Given their failure to act, we need yet another additional short-term CR to ensure the government remains open. It is my hope, in the interim, that the leaders of the two Chambers and the President will be able to come together to determine what our spending top lines will be for the fiscal year 2018. Once that happens, all the interested parties can meet to put together a bipartisan and bicameral full-year spending bill. If the leadership of both Chambers come to an agreement, I am confident that the appropriators can produce bills to fund the government in fiscal year 2018 and begin the important task of producing a budget for fiscal year 2019. Let me be crystal clear about the consequences of voting against the underlying legislation: A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote against reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program. A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote to tax the health insurance plans of millions of Americans. A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote to tax the medical devices that millions of Americans rely on. A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote against badly needed funds to protect America against missile attacks from rogue states like North Korea. And a vote against the underlying legislation is a vote to shut down the government of the United States. I hope every Member on both sides of the aisle understands these consequences and votes accordingly. Mr. Speaker, today's CR accomplishes several important tasks and keeps our government open and operating. But there is still more work to be done. In the words of Winston Churchill: ``Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 696 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let's be crystal clear on something. The House of Representatives never held up CHIP. It actually passed it in October. We are still waiting for Democrats in the Senate to work with Republicans in the Senate and send us something back. In the meantime, in this bill, my friend said they want to reauthorize CHIP. We reauthorized it for 6 years. There is nothing in it they object to. They believe in the program. I believe in the program. It has had bipartisan support. When we passed it, it got almost every Republican vote, a couple of dozen Democratic votes. We actually made the bill better in the process, so if you want to fix CHIP, you just simply need to vote for this bill. And my friends, frankly, we wouldn't be racing Members back here, or the President of the United States, if my friends weren't threatening to block vote against funding the government while negotiations are underway. What advantage do you have in shutting down the government of the United States, which is precisely what my friends are threatening to do? I think they will not succeed here but actually have the ability to do it in the United States Senate, should they choose to do it under the rules of that body. While negotiations are going on, if you think shutting down the government is a good idea, I beg to differ. If you are using it as a negotiating tactic, then you ought to be ashamed, because that is no way to treat the American people. We are operating in good faith. There is not an item in this bill that offends any Democrat. Nobody I know is against CHIP. We just heard that. Nobody I know is against delaying the Cadillac tax or the medical device tax in ObamaCare--two parts of that bill that even my friends who supported it tend to disagree with. I know my friends are not opposed to providing ballistic missile defense for the United States of America. I know my friends surely don't want to handicap the American military at a dangerous time by a government shutdown. There is nothing in here that could possibly be offensive to them. And there are negotiations underway on the very items they are most concerned about: immigration and the appropriate balance in funding level. Shutting down the government while those negotiations are underway isn't going to help us get DACA reform, isn't going to help us actually get a budget that we can operate on. It will actually just simply switch attention away from those and create a crisis, which I assume my friends think will work, somehow, to their political benefit. I don't think that is true, and I speak from some experience here. I argued against it, but I watched my own side do something like this when it came to defunding ObamaCare. It was not successful. It was not the appropriate way to proceed, and there was a pretty harsh verdict by the American people. I suggest my friends are running the same risk today. Now, they have every right to do this. I never question any Member's right to vote how they think is appropriate, but, in this case, in this body, I think we have the votes to make sure that they don't shut down the government as they have threatened to do. In the United States Senate, that is going to be up to them. Frankly, if Democratic Senators want to shut down the government to achieve some policy objective, that is their choice. But I think it will be crystal clear at the end of the day who actually closed down the government for some unrelated policy aim that was actually under negotiation at the time. So I would, again, just urge my friends to benefit from our experience and sit down and keep negotiating while we keep the government open. I think if we do that, we will arrive at a constructive solution for the American people. I think if we don't, it is going to be a political crisis that was unprovoked and unnecessary. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.