Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I will also note that this is an initial allocation and the beginning of the congressional funding process. As always, I look forward to working with our counterparts in the Senate and my friends across the aisle to see if there are additional areas where we can cooperate. Finally, I want to note that the bill protects human life by continuing longstanding prohibitions against Federal tax dollars being used to pay for abortions, including new provisions to ensure that no tax dollars are used for research on human fetal tissue obtained by an abortion. This bill represents a balanced approach that will benefit every American and maintain the appropriate stewardship of taxpayer dollars that we have been entrusted with as Members of Congress.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the chairman of the full committee, the ranking member of the full committee, certainly the ranking member of the subcommittee, and the staff for the tremendous assistance they provided in putting together this rather large and complex piece of legislation. It is fair to note for the record that the allocation we received of $156 billion is $5 billion less than we had last year. While our lower allocation this year forced us to make some difficult decisions, I want to remind my colleagues that the cuts we are making today amount to barely 3 percent of what we spent last year and is essentially what we spent in fiscal year 2016. The bill before us today focuses on key national priorities: investing in biomedical research to find cures for diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer; ensuring our country is fully prepared and able to protect our citizens from disease outbreaks or bioterrorism; continuing to support early childhood education, particularly for those at risk; helping first-generation college students prepare for, access, and complete a postsecondary education; and continuing to support people living with disabilities. The bill also preserves funds for popular programs like career and technical education, support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, programs to help Native Americans, the AmeriCorps program, LIHEAP, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The National Institutes of Health, our Nation's premier biomedical research agency, is funded at $1.1 billion above last year. NIH is working to find cures for Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and develop the next generation of medical treatment through the use of precision medicine techniques. We need to continue to build upon the $2 billion increase provided in the omnibus last year. I view this proposal as a floor, not a ceiling, for biomedical research funding. I am hopeful that this number can increase as the process moves forward. Biodefense and preparedness programs, including new funding to prevent a pandemic flu from occurring, are increased across the bill. We are all aware of the terrible toll prescription drugs and opioid abuse is taking on our Nation. I am proud to say this bill includes another $500 million to continue comprehensive grant programs to enable States, localities, and tribes to develop anti-opioid initiatives focused on prevention, education, and treatment and recovery services. Head Start receives a $22 million increase in this bill. Preschool programs are continued at $250 million. Childcare programs receive a $4 million increase. Special education programs for students with disabilities are increased by $200 million, which will help local school districts ease the financial burden of providing specialized educational services. TRIO and GEAR UP, which help disadvantaged students prepare for and complete college, receive increases of $60 million and $10 million, respectively, over last year. The bill also includes $500 million for the Student Support and Academic Enrichment grant program. These funds can be used flexibly by school districts across the country, whether the need is in the area of counseling, computer science instruction, or teacher training and arts programming. Pell grants are maintained at a maximum of $5,920.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), my colleague, for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. COLE. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for speaking about the importance of this program in her district. I agree that Community Services Block Grant provides important services to help people escape poverty. The program has broad bipartisan support. As the gentlewoman knows, several challenging decisions have to be made to meet overall spending priorities and allocation. I take to heart the concern expressed by the gentlewoman and, as we move forward, I will work to ensure funding for the Community Services Block Grant reflects the priority of our Members.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), my colleague, for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 500 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin by discussing process with my good friend from Massachusetts, where I think he makes some good points, but I think he fails to recognize the progress that this bill represents. My good friend knows, because we have the privilege of working together on the Rules Committee, I have thought for many years, frankly, that we needed to get back to regular order. I remind this House the last time we actually operated under it in an appropriations process was in 2006. My friends were actually in the majority when we got rid of open rules on appropriations bills. My friends never brought all 12 appropriations bills to the floor and where they were subject to amendments by various Members. I would agree with my friend, this is not a perfect process that we have. If I had my way, we would go back to the way we operated in 2006, before the last Democratic majority, actually bring the bills down individually and, frankly, give every Member an open shot at amendment. I think that is the appropriate way to proceed. Again, my friends thought differently when they were in the majority and never made a move to restore regular order--quite the opposite. We have actually fought to do that. We did have a period of open rules on appropriations bills. We didn't get every bill down here, I regret to say, but we got quite a few of them down. But my friends decided they would engage in poison pill tactics. I regret, honestly, personally, that my conference gave into that; were more worried about casting tough votes. I think you are sent here to cast tough votes. So I will make this commitment to my friend. I will continue to work with him and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who would like to return to that process. However, I do recognize this is significant progress toward doing that. This is the first time, since 2006, that all 12 bills, in one form or another, will reach this floor, and, frankly, every single Member has been free to offer amendments on any portion of those 12 bills that they care to. Now, not all of them were made in order by the Rules Committee, and I would hope we get past that again some day. But, again, before my friends decry that too much, they need to remember the role they played in actually getting us out of that process. I also would like to talk just briefly with my friend about his thoughts about DACA, and I am sure we will have a good discussion on that in the course of the day, and, honestly, I think the discussion is helpful. But I think the President of the United States did the right thing when, number one, he recognized that he does not have the constitutional authority, something even his predecessor wondered about, to actually engage in law and put this issue back in the hands of the Congress. The Congress now has 6 months to deal with it. The Speaker has assured us that we will do that. I think the appropriate way to proceed is to have the committee of jurisdiction actually hold hearings and move forward, but we will see which way we go. But I think there is a better chance for a long-term solution, as even my friend agrees, if we have a legislative fix to the problem. I think that will involve some give-and-take, but my hope is we will end up at a place where all parties are satisfied. But we will see. That is what the legislative process is all about. Final point to make, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that what we are debating on here today, in terms of these four appropriations bills, and we will have another tranche of appropriations bills down here later, is actually a process. What we are really doing today is defining the position of the majority party as to where it stands on funding the government. I don't expect my friends to agree with that. There will be elements of these bills that they agree with without a doubt. I don't think they will oppose a lot of things that we do in regard to T-HUD, or in regard to some of these other various programs that we will deal with. But at the end of the day--and my side needs to recognize this--we are going to end up in a negotiation with the United States Senate and the administration some time probably after the 1st of October, and that negotiation has to be bipartisan. As my friends know, the other body requires 60 votes, and that would mean there has to be Democratic participation. And quite frankly, the appropriations bills that have moved across the floor here in fiscal year 2015, fiscal year 2016, fiscal year 2017, have all been bipartisan. They have all been the product of negotiations. At the end of the day--and I remind my friends, in May, a majority of them actually voted in favor of the omnibus spending bill for FY 2017 in the House and in the Senate, as did, by the way, a majority of Republicans in the House and Senate, and President Trump signed it. So we know how this process ends, and we know how to make it work appropriately. This is simply another step in the process. It is my hope that, at the end of the day, we arrive at a bicameral, bipartisan process that actually funds the government, and we are able to accomplish, in concert with one another, things that we think are important to the American people. I have a great deal of confidence we will get there because that is what we have done the last 3 years. We are actually doing it a little better this year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 3354, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, also known as the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act of 2018. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us is the second installment of the House's effort to pass all 12 appropriations bills on the floor for the first time since 2006. The overall package will consider the remaining eight bills, covering $416.3 billion in total spending. It represents many months of work by the Appropriations Committee. Today's rule covers four divisions of the bill: the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act; the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act; the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act; and the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Together, these four divisions encompass $168.2 billion of discretionary Federal spending. This represents a decrease of $7.8 billion from fiscal year 2017, as Congress seeks to fulfill its obligation to the American people to be fiscally responsible stewards of the taxpayers' hard earned money. Most importantly, it represents the next step in fulfilling the greatest responsibility we have as legislators: to fund the Federal Government and keep it open each year to provide our constituents the services they deserve while ensuring that we appropriately prioritize where and how to spend taxpayer dollars. Mr. Speaker, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies division will provide approximately $20 billion in appropriations, a decrease of $870 million from fiscal year 2017. The division will fund critical programs for farmers and ranchers, which is of critical importance to my home State of Oklahoma. The bill also supports conservative priorities, including language rolling back regulations that harm businesses, industries, farming and ranching operations, and rural and urban communities alike. In particular, the bill includes language allowing schools to get waivers from particularly problematic Obama administration regulations governing school lunches, and prevents the Commodities Futures Trading Commission from imposing harmful de minimis levels of trading activity that would force thousands of end users to comply with onerous regulatory requirements. The bill also includes language changing the Food and Drug Administration's predicate date rules for premium cigars, e-cigarettes, and vaping products, thereby preventing the FDA from regulating these industries out of existence. There is much to like in the Agriculture Appropriations division, and I look forward to considering the bill on the floor. On the security side of the ledger, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations division provides $44.3 billion, an increase of $1.9 billion over fiscal year 2017. Of importance, the bill provides $7 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an increase of $620 million. These funds will be used to enforce immigration laws and combat illegal immigration, which our constituents have repeatedly told us they oppose. The bill provides $13.8 billion for Customs and Border Patrol, an increase of $1.6 billion, to ensure the continued security of our border. It also provides $1.6 billion for physical barrier construction on the Southern border, thus fulfilling the first step of one of President Trump's key promises. It provides $10.5 billion for the Coast Guard and supports FEMA's disaster relief fund at $7.3 billion. As with the earlier security appropriations package the House passed at the end of July, the funds in this division will help ensure America's national security and go a long way towards funding key Member priorities. The State and Foreign Operations Appropriations division provides $47.4 billion, a decrease of $10 billion from fiscal year 2017. Even with this decrease, the committee has funded key priorities. Security assistance is funded at $8.8 billion, and full funding is provided for battling international organized crime, antiterrorism programs, and combating cybercrime. The bill also fully funds the $3.1 billion Memorandum of Understanding with Israel. The Appropriations Committee has prioritized programs of importance and de-prioritized programs that are not in the best interests of the United States, such as reducing funding for the U.N. by $939 million, eliminating all funding for UNESCO, and eliminating funding for the Global Climate Change Initiative. In producing this division, the Appropriations Committee made difficult choices about the Nation's priorities, and made them well, and ensured that taxpayer dollars are going to the most important, critical, and efficient programs. Finally, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations division provides $56.5 billion, an increase of $1.1 billion over fiscal year 2017. That number does not include $45 billion also authorized to be spent by the highway trust fund for America's highways. Of note, the bill provides $16.6 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, an increase of $153 million, to maintain and promote air travel and security. This sum includes $1 billion for so-called NextGen for more efficient air traffic control, and $162 million for the contract tower program, a crucial safety net that covers many districts across the country, including facilities like Westheimer Airport in Norman, Oklahoma, as well as towers in Lawton and Ardmore in my own home district. It provides $38.3 billion in net discretionary funding to Housing and Urban Development. Critically, it sustains Section 8 and Public and Native American housing programs at $27.5 billion. It also includes increases in funding for programs benefiting vulnerable citizens, including $573 million for housing for the elderly, an increase of $70.6 million over fiscal year 2017, and $47 million for housing for Persons with Disabilities, an increase of $800,000 over fiscal year 2017. In all, T-HUD Appropriations covers important priorities and ensures that our Nation's housing and transportation infrastructure will be adequately funded to meet our needs. 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 four areas: Agriculture; State and Foreign Operations, Homeland Security, and Transportation and Urban Development. I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their months of work in making this bill a reality, and I cheer their efforts on moving forward to the completion of the fiscal year 2018 appropriations process. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE

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

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, before I go to my next speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my friends. First, to my good friend from Massachusetts, and he is very much my good friend, but when I was in the minority, I asked repeatedly, I used to come up to the Rules Committee, as a former member of the Rules Committee, and I always got the warmest, most gracious reception, but I don't think I ever got an amendment approved. You can legislate on appropriations bills if the chairman of the authorizing committee consents to allow you to do it. I have a great deal of sympathy with my friend's position on Ms. Lee's amendment. I actually supported that amendment in subcommittee, but I recognize that we are not the appropriate committee, and if a different authorizing chairman wanted to do something, he could. Finally, with all due respect to my friend, we are not the ones that began this process of eliminating open rules on appropriations. My friend's party is. We actually tried to restore it. I regret that we did not succeed in that. This was not something I like doing, but, frankly, it has gotten around here where people are more interested in ``got you'' amendments than real amendments, and that is basically what has happened here. I hope we can revisit that someday and go back to the traditional way of doing this. Finally, to my good friend from Minnesota, I want to make a pledge to her, and she knows it is sincere: we will work together. I don't think this bill ultimately will be passed without bipartisan cooperation, and I look at the 2015, 2016, and 2017 bills that all did end up as cooperative measures. Just to refresh my friend's memory, it was back in April that we passed a $1 trillion-plus spending bill for fiscal year 2017 that was extremely bipartisan. A majority of my friends on the other side of the aisle voted for it, the majority of my friends voted for it, and the President of the United States signed it. This is a long and lengthy process to fund the government, and I suspect, at the end of it, we will come together. That is certainly what I am going to try to do as I work through the process. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond very quickly to my good friend from Oregon. I just remind him this is a long and winding road. It is a long process. As he said, the Senate may very well move in a different direction. I tend to focus here on veterans' issues as issues that have largely brought us together. Quite frankly, this bill has a very substantial increase in spending at the VA, and that is something that I know, in committee, garnered wide bipartisan support. Let's wait and see where we go. I just want to say I think there will be continuing discussion about this, but there is also a concern, always, on something like this that is controversial. We have seen our friends do this before. Sometimes you will put an amendment in but you won't vote for the final bill. When you are trying to calculate whether you pass something, you can't have amendments that cost you votes, that don't get you votes. I am not suggesting that is my friend's purpose. It is not at all. I know it is not. I know he is very sincere in this. I am saying that could easily be the effect. All I can tell you is we will continue to work through the bill. I suspect when we get there, at the end of the day, this will be a very bipartisan bill. It will pass with a very bipartisan majority. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to quickly respond to my friends and remind them that it wasn't Republicans that got rid of open rules on appropriations. It was my friends. So you can't set one standard for yourself, and then say: But you now have to go back to the way it was. We now have to be treated as a minority, in contrast to the way that we treated you. I am sorry, that is just difficult. We actually tried to do that for a couple of years, and we did come back to open rules. And I would still prefer that, to tell you the truth. I have lost this argument in my own conference. But if my friends will recall, last year on, I believe, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, they slipped an amendment in. It was perfectly legitimate for them to do so. It was an open rule. They got that amendment adopted. They did not vote for the bill, even though the amendment was adopted. We lost a lot of votes, in consequence, because of the amendment. So there is always that calculus when you put these things together. There is a difference between an amendment that is a substantive amendment, and an amendment that is unrelated and a poison-pill amendment. Our side just decided they weren't going to subject themselves to that any longer. I am not sure that I agree with that decision, but that is the reality of where we are. There is a second consideration here, too, in terms of limitation that I think is worth noting. We are moving under an expedited situation because we began this process late. I want to take responsibility for that on our side of the aisle. I think all of the appropriations bills could have and should have been finished for FY17 in December of 2016. Instead, we started to allow the new administration to have input. We pushed that off and did a 4-month continuing resolution. During that period, we did not negotiate back and forth. We finally passed a bill in April. So we are moving with exceptional speed. I think it is pretty remarkable at this point that all 12 appropriations bills have been reported out of committee, and are preparing to go here. Our leadership made, I think, a smart decision, in that here are four that all relate to a common theme of security for the country. Let's get those done. That is sort of first things first. Let's come back and deal with the other eight in September. It is my hope that that is what we will do, probably in packages again. But we are trying to move quickly. It is also finally worth noting that, again, this process, compared to the process my Democratic friends followed, is far more open. There are far more amendments now, even under a structured rule like this, than they allowed when they were in the majority on appropriations bills. We can go get the numbers and count, but we are at least trying to get back to getting the bills to the floor and having a pretty generous latitude for serious amendments. We will always disagree over which ones are made in order. A lot of Republican amendments weren't made in order either, but 72 amendments on an appropriations bill is a lot of amendments. Hopefully, this process can get better as we go forward. I want to work with my friends in that regard, but I am still very proud of the product that we are presenting and very proud of the number of amendments that are being allowed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly would never expect my friend to vote for the rule. I mean, I don't think I have ever voted for a Democratic rule. I know very few Democrats have ever voted for our rules. I don't think I know any. So that is kind of a normal part of the Chamber. I want to commend the gentleman for getting that language into the bill. Again, I respect the gentleman's right to not vote for the bill. It is a big bill. There are lots of different things in it. But I think he makes an important point, indirectly, that there are lots of overlapping things where we do agree inside this bill. My friends are certainly free to vote ``no,'' and I suspect many will. There are many occasions in a bill like this, particularly related to defense and particularly related to veterans, where the component parts actually have enormous bipartisan support. That is certainly true in the Veterans Administration. It is certainly true with the gentleman's provision that he has gotten in now successive bills even under Republican Congresses. I want to commend him for his work in that regard. I agree very much with his intention. My friend from Massachusetts and I may have some differences on this and that process, but that is another person that I agree with in terms of the War Powers Act and in terms of trying to get a new AUMF and reclaim congressional power. I actually think, strangely enough, even though we disagree on this, that this bill starts us maybe down that road again by requiring the administration to submit a report to justify legally where we are at and why, to tell us the strategy, to lay out the costs. I commend my friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce, for holding a hearing on that. I see us moving back in that way toward regular order and, hopefully, toward common ground. Again, I understand my friend's objections, even when I don't agree with him. But I also thank my friend from California for pointing out that there are parts where we do agree. They are important, and they are incorporated in this bill. Maybe we can make it better in the amendment process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the end product of many months of work by the Appropriations Committee. In this package, we will be considering four appropriations bills: Defense, Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. Together, the four parts of the bill make up the Make America Secure Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2018. The legislation ensures that our most important government services will be funded responsibly and appropriately and that we will fulfill our most important responsibilities as legislators: funding the government and keeping it open to serve our constituents. The bill provides a total of $658.1 billion for defense, an increase of $68.1 billion in discretionary funding above the fiscal year 2017 levels, and an increase of $28.3 billion over the President's request. It also includes $73.9 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations and Global War on Terrorism funding. These funds will help us enhance our military readiness, and the substantial increase marks an end to the ongoing erosion of our national military strength that occurred during the Obama administration. Importantly, this bill also provides an increase in funding for veterans. Over the past several years, the House has worked to improve the Department of Veterans Affairs and to ensure that all veterans receive the care and benefits to which they are entitled. The Department of Veterans Affairs will receive a 5 percent increase in this bill, including $74 billion for the Veterans Health Administration. The increased funding represents an important step toward fulfilling our promise to improve care, reduce wait times at the VA, and enhance benefits for our Nation's veterans. The Energy and Water portion of this appropriations bill provides $37.6 billion in funding for fiscal year 2018, a decrease of $209 million from fiscal year 2017. The bill includes an increase in funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration that includes funds to restart the licensing process for Yucca Mountain, the national disposal repository for spent nuclear fuel. It also provides $6.16 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, a $10 million increase over fiscal year 2017. H.R. 3219 also provides $3.58 billion for the Legislative Branch. It does not recommend funding levels for the Senate, as per our longstanding tradition. The bill includes a significant increase in funding for U.S. Capitol Police and adds additional funds for securing offices in Washington and in congressional districts. Importantly, it continues the freeze on Member pay. The package before us represents the House fulfilling its primary responsibility: to fund the government. This package funds hundreds, if not thousands, of Member priorities, particularly on the defense side. I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their months of working and making this bill a reality. It shows what the House can do as we move forward toward completion of the fiscal year appropriations process. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before I go to my first speaker in order to respond to some of my friend's points. I want to begin by talking about the amendment process just very quickly. It is worth noting 72 amendments are made in order here; 47 of those were actually Democratic amendments. Many of the amendments that my friend referred to that had been submitted to the Rules Committee, at least a third of them, were knocked out because they were simply out of order. But my friend is correct: it is not an open rule. I do remind him that the first people to eliminate open rules on appropriations bills were not Republicans. It was actually the Democratic majority in 2009 that ended the practice and, for 2 years, allowed almost no amendments on any appropriations bills, and most appropriations bills never came to the floor. So I think my friends bear a considerable amount of responsibility for where we find ourselves today. I do want to talk a little bit, too, briefly, about my friend's comments about the AUMF, because he has been a good friend and a close ally in an area that we have a similar concern. I agree with my friend. We need to debate this, and we need to have an AUMF that is more in tune with the times and, frankly, reintroduces congressional power and congressional oversight. I have worked with my friend in the past on that. I am going to continue to work with him on it going forward. But in the case of the Lee amendment, which, in full disclosure, I supported in the Appropriations Committee, the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, which is not the Appropriations Committee, made it known that he would lodge a point of order; so, in other words, that would never get to the floor. In place, we have put something that, frankly, will at least require the administration, on the passage of this bill or the Defense Authorization Act, in which it is also found, to submit a report that justifies where the administration is legally, lays out their strategy, lays out their costs, and gives us a chance to begin a debate. As a sign of good faith, I am happy to report that the Foreign Relations Committee, which actually does have jurisdiction here, actually had their first hearing on a new AUMF earlier this week. So I think we are trying to get to the same place. My friend may have a different way to get there, but I agree with him, we need to reexamine, redebate, and, I think, reenact a new AUMF. I think we are trying to get there in a step-by-step, logical progression. Finally, while my friend is concerned about where we will end up in this process and, I think, legitimately so, I also want to point out we have actually managed to come together here the last couple of years and, I suspect, will again. In fiscal year 2016, we had the same series of events, and yet Congress came to an agreement on full funding that was bipartisan and passed by substantial numbers of both parties participating, a majority in each party. The same thing was true in fiscal year 2017. My hope is that it will be true again in fiscal year 2018. But this is an important part of the process. We need to go through this. At the end of the day, and I tell this to my friends on the right and the left, we will end up with a bicameral, bipartisan appropriations bill. There is simply no other way to fund the Government of the United States, and we pledge to work toward that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), my good friend, a member of the Rules Committee, but also a distinguished member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank, as always, my good friend for a spirited and thoughtful debate. He always makes good points. Frankly, I always find myself more comfortable when we are on the same side--as we occasionally are--than when we are on opposite sides. My friend has made many valuable contributions to this institution, particularly pushing us relentlessly in the right direction of reclaiming our war-making authority. Having said that, it is always great to call for a new system, a new way, or a return to open rules without admitting you are the ones that abandoned them. We actually tried to restore them. I regret we failed in that, quite frankly, but I will have to say both sides have gotten used to not doing open rules because they don't want to cast tough votes. That is why my friends abandoned the open rule process when they were in the majority in 2009, and, honestly, that is why we abandoned it last year. I regret that. I will work with my friend probably not today but going forward in trying to reclaim that because I think when we lost it, we diminished the power of every individual Member in Congress. We thought we were protecting them, but the reality is they now can no longer come to the floor as an individual and present their own idea. But at least in this case there are 72 amendments. The majority of them are from my friend's side of the aisle. I would hope going forward, particularly when we consider the next eight appropriations bills, we will continue to be very generous in that regard. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. H.R. 3219 represents the first step toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress: to fund the government. We should all be proud of what we have accomplished in putting this bill forward. The bill contains the provisions of four of the bills passed out of the Appropriations Committee representing the work of the Subcommittees on Defense; Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies; Legislative Branch; and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. The bill will significantly increase funding for national defense and ensure that the men and women in the Armed Forces have the tools they need. We also increase funding to our veterans to ensure our fighting men and women will be taken care of long after they leave the service of their country, and we fund key Member priorities in the areas of Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies; and Legislative Branch. Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleagues for their hard work.