Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the instructions in each of the amendments numbered 60, 61, and 66 printed in House Report 115-259 be modified by striking ``the division'' and inserting ``division D''.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 473 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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who is the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to advise my friend that I am prepared to close, although, believe me, I could talk about this a long time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by associating myself very much with the remarks of my good friend from Massachusetts. Frankly, this is an area where we have found common ground because I think we both deeply revere this institution and, frankly, respect the Constitution of the United States. When he says that we have shirked our duty, in my view, we have. I think it is absolutely a fair statement to make. I think the gentleman from Washington is also correct that it is hard. This is a very complex, difficult kind of war. It is a new kind of war, its enemies morphing into different forms and different places. All that is true, but it doesn't excuse us from the obligation to do our job and give those men and women the assurance that they are acting at the direct request and order of the American people in fulfilling the responsibility we have asked them to take. It doesn't directly relate to this issue, but I felt very much the same way as my friend did at the time about Libya. We stretched the NATO alliances so far to get involved in a country where, in my view, we should have never been involved. More importantly, Libya didn't attack NATO. It really didn't make a lot of sense to use that kind of instrument to justify a war. I aim this at no particular President, either the last one or current one, but, frankly, Presidents don't like Congress very much to tell them what they have to do. They want to be able to do it. Well, I am sorry; the Constitution is very clear about that. One of the reasons we have a Constitution is because we didn't want to live under a system where it is a monarchy as opposed to a Presidency. It is part of our duty to keep a check on the extraordinary power that we place in the hands of the Chief Executive of the United States, regardless of who that person is, regardless of what party they represent. My friend makes a good point when he says sometimes we don't trust one another, or we don't want to give the President too much power. We also don't want to take too much responsibility ourselves, sometimes. For that, we ought to look in the mirror. We ought to be willing to take that awesome responsibility that the Constitution entrusts us with and make the tough decisions that the American people send us here to make. I actually think going through this process will be very good for this institution. My friend is correct, it is a baby step, and I share his frustration. But I think the current administration deserves a chance to be heard and to present a justification, not just inherit an ongoing conflict. I think the committee of jurisdiction, the Foreign Affairs Committee, deserves the opportunity to hear this. My friend expresses a concern which, quite frankly, I share, that we will have a hearing and not much more. That would not be where I would propose that we end. I would hope and would work with my friend to make sure that is not where we end. I think at the end of the day, whatever the deliberation is, whatever the recommendation is for a new AUMF, it needs to come to this floor, and it needs to be open for full debate. If we can't muster a majority to approve that, then we shouldn't be fighting in the places we are fighting if we are not willing to actually vote and use that. So I am going to pledge to continue to work with my friend and urge the administration, assuming this actually gets in the final bill, to take it as an opportunity to establish a very clear set of objectives, a very clear strategy, a very clear estimate of the budgetary cost, and a very clear analysis of the legal framework under which they are operating. I think they, and we, owe that to the country. We certainly owe it to the men and women that we have asked to go and do difficult things and risk their lives on our behalf. They do it willingly. Again, the Secretary of Defense said this would be helpful. This kind of debate would make a difference. I, again, thank my friends for their cooperation in this. I thank particularly the chairman and the ranking member for allowing us to use this particular vehicle to express it. I thank the leadership of the House for being willing to grapple with this issue. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for his persistent efforts; and my friend from California, Ms. Lee, who has also worked on this. A lot of people on our side of the aisle feel exactly the same way. This is a debate about the future of a conflict, but it is also a debate about the appropriate constitutional authority of the Congress of the United States and a willingness by the Members to embrace this. So it is actually, I think, a good day, even though it is the first step in a long journey. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, since 2001 when we passed the original Authorization for Use of Military Force against al-Qaida and against associated enemies, the nature of the war on terror in which we find ourselves has changed dramatically. We now find ourselves fighting enemies that simply did not exist at the time in areas that nobody in Congress anticipated we would be at war. This has caused a number of us to have very serious concerns as to whether or not the original Authorization for Use of Military Force is still relevant, and frankly, many of us have concerns that the war- making power of Congress is slipping away from us. Indeed, we find ourselves engaged since that original AUMF in 14 different countries on more than almost 40 different occasions without Congress authorizing the use of force. In our view, a new AUMF is necessary. However, I also recognize that needs to come through a process. My effort here is to try and set up a process where the administration can participate, we can have an orderly discussion, and the appropriate committees can mark up a new AUMF if Congress, indeed, thinks it does-- and again, I think many of us do. A new AUMF would provide clear authority for ongoing operations against ISIS and other terrorist groups, and it would fulfill the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of force. My amendment directs the President to put forward a strategy, an analysis, and a framework that we can actually debate and take action on. The underlying bill being considered today provides authorization for training and equipping our military. Just as important is the time to debate and deliberate how that military should be used to defeat our enemies. Recently, in an appearance before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Secretary Mattis made an appearance, and I actually asked him would it be helpful to have an AUMF. At that time, he said it absolutely would be helpful. Our men and women who we have deployed in places, again, that nobody in 2001 thought they would be deployed to, need to know that the Congress of the United States is fully supportive of their deployment. So this amendment would direct that the President, within 30 days after the passage of the legislation, present to Congress a report that, again, justifies the action, tells us the strategy, lays out the objectives. Within 30 days after that report was received, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense could be called before the relevant committees to actually explain and defend that. Now, again, in my view, I still think we need a new Authorization for Use of Military Force, but I want to start a process whereby that would begin, and I think this would help us achieve that. If others have an opinion, that is fine too, but I think they would still find the report useful and the testimony invaluable. Sooner or later, Congress needs to take responsibility. I think with the best will in the world, we have slipped into almost endless warfare in a lot of places that none of us anticipated we would be. Again, these are not actions that I necessarily question, but I think they have not been authorized, not been debated, not been examined, and, frankly, the American people have been denied that debate. Also, frankly, they have been denied the opportunity to hold their Members responsible. Remember, that original Authorization for Use of Military Force was 2001. Almost 80 percent of the Members of this body have been elected since that original authorization. I think they ought to listen to the debate, and, frankly, their constituents ought to be able to hold them accountable. So I would urge adoption of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee for their approach to this problem. It is well known in this body that probably the House Armed Services Committee is the most bipartisan committee that we have. The fact that you have tried in the past and the fact that you are willing to work with us here today is deeply appreciated. I also thank my friend from Massachusetts, and I want to associate myself with his frustration. He has every right to be frustrated. My friend, the ranking member, is correct. This is a difficult job. It will require bipartisan cooperation and bicameral cooperation. But isn't that what war is about, to achieve a national consensus? I think that is exactly what Secretary Mattis was asking for: We will go do any mission that you as the Congress and the administration ask us to do, but give us a clear mission and give us your absolute support in carrying that through. If we have this debate, there will undoubtedly be dissenting views. That is what democracy is supposed to be about, too. So my friends that would oppose the use of force, for instance, in Afghanistan, that voice ought to be heard and that case ought to be made. Frankly, those of us who are supportive of what we are trying to accomplish against ISIS need to make our case and persuade the majority of this House and of the United States Senate to move forward. So I take this as the first step on a road. Like my friend, it is a baby step. I would agree with his characterization, but at least it is a step. This couldn't have happened without the cooperation of our leadership in the House and certainly without the help of the chairman and the ranking member of the committee. But, also, it couldn't have happened without the persistence of my friend from Massachusetts. We have worked together, and, believe me, that is unusual. We don't agree on a lot of issues, but we respect one another. This is also a question of congressional authority. I think it is a profoundly important constitutional issue, and I do believe we have inadvertently--because of the difficulty of the task--allowed war- making power to slip away from us. That needs to stop. We are responsible to the American people. The Constitution is very clear about where war-making power lies. Frankly, it ought to be difficult to go to war. It ought to demand a lot of cooperation. It ought to be something that we think is worth setting aside our differences, working together, because we are asking men and women to risk their lives. We are putting them in harm's way, and they deserve to know that we are 100 percent supporting them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have been having such a wonderful bipartisan moment here. My good friend from Oregon, and appropriately, wants to change the tenor a little bit. Let me begin by actually congratulating my good friend from Oregon because he is a serious legislator and does serious things, and I am probably going to find myself on the same side with him on the issue of air traffic controllers where I think his points have been very well made. On this particular piece of legislation, I must admit, I have not had the opportunity. I don't sit on my friend's committee to actually read it, but I suspect the committee hasn't picked it up and dealt with it either. And just from a process standpoint, I think the appropriate thing to do would be for the committee to actually review it. It could be amended in committee, as indeed this bill was, and then we would have the opportunity to consider it on the floor. But to bring it to the floor immediately, to me, is premature, legislatively. I also want to take issue, on the record, with my friends of the President of the United States in terms of job creation. I suspect President Trump, in his private life, has created more jobs than just about anybody in the Congress of the United States, and I think he has laid forward some incredibly important proposals to continue and build on his personal record, now that he is President of the United States. One of those proposals, as my friends are surely aware, because I think they largely agree with it, is to enhance the apprenticeship program announcement he made recently. Another one that my friends may not be quite so much in agreement with, he has laid out his principles for tax reform. The greatest engine for job growth is never going to be the Federal Government. It is going to always be the private sector. And if we could, as the President has suggested, cut corporate tax rates, incentivize the return of profit, something where perhaps we can work together, that are stranded overseas, bring them back here and invest in America, I think we would create a lot more jobs a lot more quickly and in a lot more sustainable fashion than we would do through additional public spending. Finally, I think we ought to give the President a little bit of credit for emphasizing and bringing home American jobs, something that actually began once he was President-elect. We saw it in Indiana with Carrier air-conditioning. We have seen it in other cases where he has promoted the sale of American arms in the Middle East where we have got substantial things. So I think this is a President who actually gets up each and every day and thinks profoundly about what can we do to create an overall ecosystem, an environment, if you will, that will incentivize private investment, private employment, American jobs, and bringing American companies back to this country. I think he is actually off to an exceptionally good start in those areas, and I look forward to working with him on that. I suspect we will see a tax proposal on this floor in the not-too-distant future-- our friends on Ways and Means are working on it now--that will mirror many of the principles that the President laid out in his initial draft discussion of what he thinks we ought to do. And that one change, changing the Tax Code, I think, will do more than all the programs that we would work on, many of them worthy programs, many of them things, I think, where the Federal Government does have a role. I will agree with my friend from Florida, I am disturbed about some of the cuts in training programs. I have seen those programs work and work well, and I suspect the President will find out, as other Presidents have found out--we used to routinely praise President Obama's budget on the floor. It never got very many votes. I don't think it ever got any Democratic votes--that, you know, Presidents propose, as they should, that is their prerogative, they run the executive branch, but, at the end of the day, it is Congress that makes the final funding decisions. I happen to know a little bit about those programs because they come through my subcommittee on appropriations, and I want to assure my friends they are not going to disappear. And we may have to make some tough choices, as you always have to do, in appropriated dollars, but on many of the programs that I know my friend cares about and has championed in his distinguished career, they are going to be protected, and we are going to try and work in a bipartisan fashion in those areas and keep those things going. But, at the end of the day, I think the President's record on job creation will be outstanding, and I think the actions that he has taken in the opening part of his administration are a testament to how seriously he takes the challenge of making sure that every American has a decent job, a job that pays a good wage, a job that will provide for his or her family, and a job that will give them an opportunity to live a life of dignity and prosperity, something we want every American to have a chance at. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with my good friend on many of the points that he made. I was particularly struck by the point he made about the low participation rate in the labor force. That has been a problem that has been with us, quite frankly, for, as he pointed out, several decades, and it is one that has gotten worse. That is attributable in large part to another point that my friend made, effectively the thing around here we call the skills gap. We have literally millions of jobs available in this country, and employers are ready to hire people but they simply don't have the training. I couldn't agree more with my good friend that on-the-job training is sometimes the best training. You actually acquire the skill that you need to be successful, and the situation of this legislation will actually, again, offset the cost of that to the employer and, by the way, not add any cost to the taxpayer. That is something we ought to talk about as well. We are just taking money that we would have been spending anyway, and we are spending it a lot more productively. Now, my friend is right. This is a new program. This is a new approach. So trying it out for a year, spending $100 million--a lot of money--but obviously we would spend more this way if we would know this would be successful. But I can't help but think it will be successful. It is important to note that this bill is actually, again, exceptionally bipartisan. I was struck, as I hope my friend was, yesterday when we were in Rules Committee considering this legislation. We are used to seeing the members of the Ways and Means Committee come up and sort of fight in front of us. Instead, they actually came up arm in arm with a bipartisan proposal that they had agreed to that, again, is an excellent, excellent work. It is exactly the way that Congress should work, quite frankly: find common ground and advance commonsense solutions that make life better for the American people. In this case, at least, I think we have succeeded in doing that. It is also important to note that the rule authorizes the consideration of H.R. 2353, the so-called Perkins grant program. The Perkins grant is something we are pretty familiar with in Oklahoma. This is Federal money that moves into career tech systems that helps actually, again, workers acquire the necessary skills to be productive, quite often, again, working with the employer who has already got the jobs available. We then train the worker at a career tech system partly funded with Federal dollars, and that person is assured the job the day they walk out. I suspect that bill, like this bill, when it finally reaches the floor will also have substantial bipartisan support. I want to pledge to my good friend that we are going to continue to work together on things like this. I don't think anybody disagrees about putting Americans back to work. Workers would rather be at work than, frankly, just receiving government assistance and not able to go work. So this bill does that. I want to urge support of the rule and, again, the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Decades of experience tell us that the most effective antipoverty program is a job, and this bill helps low-income Americans earn success through the dignity of work. States actually, as my good friends on the other side know, spend very little of their TANF funding on moving people into jobs. Today, half of all TANF recipients are neither working nor preparing for work. This bill ensures that money only goes to those who are working, providing individuals with paychecks in lieu of benefit checks, a key tenet in welfare reform. This pilot only provides funding for one fiscal year, repurposing money that has already been appropriated and, frankly, using it in a better way than it was originally appropriated to achieve. The bill requires that States report on outcome measures and provide high-quality evaluations so that Congress can make appropriate decisions after we have actually seen the results yielded by the program. And finally, as we have been pointing out, but I think around here it is always worth pointing out multiple times, where actually CBO estimates the bill has no cost. So we are actually doing something good without increasing expenditures for the taxpayers, and, indeed, we are probably in the process of creating new taxpayers, people who can contribute to the wealth and the activity and the prosperity of the country; and people, honestly, who want to contribute to the wealth and the activity; and employers who want to provide people with an opportunity to improve themselves and become more productive. So it is a good bill all the way around, and, again, I will be urging the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of a very important measure. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2842, Accelerating Individuals into the Workforce Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2842 is a commonsense proposal to help transition welfare recipients into steady, paying jobs. Moving welfare recipients into work is a central goal of TANF, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. This bipartisan bill would incentivize employers to hire TANF recipients and help subsidize these new employees' salaries for up to a year to allow them to transition into the workforce. The policy idea behind H.R. 2842 is simple: under this bill, States can establish partnerships with employers to hire recipients of TANF dollars. Through these partnerships, employers would receive a subsidy of up to 50 percent of the wage for a TANF recipient while the other 50 percent would be paid by the employer. Beneficiaries would have to meet three requirements: they must be a TANF recipient, they must be unemployed, and they must have an income of 20 percent or less of the Federal poverty level. H.R. 2842 will direct our resources to the neediest individuals and families to help them accelerate these welfare recipients back into the workforce. Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan once noted: ``We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many people are added.'' The legislation under consideration in today's rule is a fulfillment of that promise. Under H.R. 2842, State and local governments will be able to better utilize their TANF dollars to help move individuals into paying work and eventually help them transition out of the welfare system altogether. Helping people get back to work is a great deal for the individuals who will be helped under this program, for the employers, for the economy, and for the American people. This bill is, at its core, about helping unemployed Americans get back to work. Mr. Speaker, we are a nation filled with hardworking people, and I have seen over and over again how badly many of the unemployed want to return to work. Many, if not most, recipients of TANF are in the program not because they want to be, but because they have been forced to be by circumstance. These unemployed Americans want nothing more than to return to the dignity of the workforce as quickly as they are able to do so. This bill will help remove barriers to employment and will incentivize employers to hire current TANF recipients. Workers re-entering the workforce is a good thing for society. Not only will workers who receive jobs under this program be taken off of welfare rolls, thus ensuring the continued success of that program, but these new workers will be better able to contribute to better lives for themselves, for their families, and for their communities. Here in Washington, we too often describe policy solutions as being ``commonsense'' or ``win-win,'' but in this case it is absolutely true. H.R. 2842 is a commonsense solution and is a win-win for everyone involved: the workers, the employers, the community, and the country. That is why this legislation will receive a substantial bipartisan vote tomorrow. Whatever their differences, Republicans and Democrats alike want to put unemployed people back to work. This bill will actually succeed in doing that. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by addressing a couple of points that my friend made. There will be places we agree; there will be places we disagree. I think too often around here we talk about how nothing gets done when this has actually been an extraordinarily productive period in terms of passing legislation. We are going to have differences on some of that legislation, there is no question. There is a reason why God created a Democratic Party and a Republican Party, and it probably wasn't to always agree all the time, but it was to challenge one another and try to work together when they could or define alternative paths when they felt they must, and let the American people make the decision. Fortunately, we are blessed to live in a country where they get to make that decision on a regular basis like clockwork. They have been making some decisions recently. I think the President has had a pretty good run in special elections. We are pretty pleased with the decisions they have been making. But at some point they will change their mind-- they always do--and they will decide somebody else has a better way. I think in the interim we ought to stress occasionally so the American people know when we do work together. I actually was home after we managed to pass healthcare through this particular body, and that bill moved through multiple committees, had multiple amendments, lots of negotiation. Obviously it is in the Senate now. I think that process will start over there. But the day before we passed it, actually, we came together in a really quite remarkable way. We passed an omnibus spending bill of over $1 trillion. That bill had worked through the Appropriations Committee of each House, 12 different bills put together to fund the Federal Government. That particular bill gave us the largest increase in defense spending in about a decade, the largest increase in border security money in about a decade. It gave us a substantial increase in money at the National Institutes of Health and at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, areas that Democrats and Republicans alike have been working together on and feel very strongly about. That bill also broke the one-to-one relationship--pretty artificial relationship, in my view--that President Obama had laid down that, if you increase defense spending, you have to automatically increase domestic spending whether you need to or not or whether you can afford to or not. Frankly, that bill actually passed with a majority of my friends on the Democratic side in both the House and the Senate and a majority of Republicans in the House and the Senate voting for the same bill and Donald Trump signing the bill. Now, when I go home and I explain that to people, they look at me with a blank stare. It is like: What? That really happened? One trillion dollars with all those different elements in there and a majority of Democrats voted for it and a majority of Republicans voted for it and Donald Trump signed it? I say: Yeah. They are amazed. They have never heard about it. They have never seen it. I think that is because sometimes we present a false narrative of constant conflict. There is certainly plenty of conflict here. Look, I have some sympathy with the minority. Having been in the minority myself, you always feel shut out. But this is an occasion--this legislation, and, frankly, that spending bill--when my friends certainly weren't shut out. They participated, and they participated vigorously, and they contributed in the process. I am with my friend. We need to do more of that. As a matter of fact, I think you will see it is happening right now. If you go to the Defense Committee, they are working on their authorization bill. That committee is the most bipartisan committee probably in Congress. Every time they report something out on an authorization--I think they have 63 or 64 members, something like that--the vote is always like 60 to 3. They have clearly put aside their partisan differences to work together. In this bill, we have done exactly the same thing. So while we are going to have some points where we disagree, we are going to have some opportunities to agree and come together. And I pledge to my friend I will continue to work with him to try and see that we find more of them. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all of the Members, obviously, to support the rule, but I am sure my good friends on the other side probably won't accept the invitation. That is okay. This is a process vote and they have got other matters they want on the floor, and I certainly understand that they will be opposing our rule and trying to offer an alternative. But when the matter counts, when the actual legislation reaches the floor, I think H.R. 2842 will draw broad bipartisan support. This House is taking steps to help workers leave welfare rolls and return to the workforce. Under this bill, employers will be incentivized to hire TANF recipients and will help bring the unemployed up into the workforce and the economy. This bill is a commonsense bipartisan solution that will benefit everyone: the workers, the employers, the community, the economy, and the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their work on this important piece of legislation. I think if we can get it through this House and we get it through the Senate, I am sure that Mr. Trump will be more than happy to sign it.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 396 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 Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. However, had I been present, I would have voted yea on Roll Call No. 308.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 296. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Faso

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, circumstances have arisen, which caused me to return home to Oklahoma early; however, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 267 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 268. personal explanation

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, circumstances have arisen which caused me to return home to Oklahoma early. However, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 263, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 264, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 265, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 266. personal explanation

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, circumstances have arisen which have caused me to return home to my district early this week. However, had I been present, I would have voted: yea on Roll Call No. 258; yea on Roll Call No. 259; yea on Roll Call No. 260; yea on Roll Call No. 261; and yea on Roll Call No. 262.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of two very important measures. First, the resolution provides for consideration of Senate amendments to H.R. 244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. In addition, the resolution provides for consideration of the FY 2017 Intelligence Authorization Act as an amendment to the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us is the first successful bicameral, bipartisan negotiation of the Trump administration. It has broad bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. All Members can feel good about the work of the Appropriations Committee, especially our chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, and our Ranking Member, Mrs. Lowey of New York. In the House, the work must continue today but, hopefully, will be concluded today. The package in front of us not only keeps the government open and operating through the end of the fiscal year, but it also represents a successful completion of key member priorities on both sides of the aisle. This bill provides for a $25.7 billion increase in defense spending, notably including an additional $7.3 billion for Department of Defense readiness and training, as well as the largest pay raise our troops have received in 6 years. These funds will help us enhance our military readiness and marks an end to the erosion of our national military strength. Importantly, we accomplished this without a dollar-for-dollar increase in nondefense discretionary spending, a practice which was imposed upon us by the previous administration. That practice threatened to drive our national deficit even higher. I am pleased that we broke that connection, for we should never operate under such a formula in the future. This measure also provides for an increase of $1.5 billion in funding for border security. $772 million is available for key administration priorities like border security technology enhancements and infrastructure improvements. It also increases funding for Customs and Border Patrol to improve operational effectiveness. And, I note, the President has wide authority and latitude to deploy these dollars where they should do the most good. This is the largest increase in border security funding in almost a decade. Domestically, this bill funds hundreds, if not thousands, of Member priorities. We reached a bipartisan agreement on opioid funding, redirecting over $500 million to combat this epidemic affecting every district in the Nation. We funded health care for miners, a key priority for many of our Members. We secured the second consecutive $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health, the Nation's lead biomedical research organization and a key driver of the hope of treating new diseases, saving countless lives, and, incidentally, driving down healthcare costs. We also secured an increase for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which will help enhance our readiness to combat pandemics and respond to public health crises. We increased funding for GEAR UP and TRIO, two essential programs that help first-generation college students actually go to college, and increased funding for Head Start by $90 million. Every Member of this House has a victory someplace in this bill, and this was done, Mr. Speaker, by cutting spending in other less essential areas and making tough choices. In the Labor-H provisions of this bill, for instance, we actually spend $2.8 billion less than President Obama requested, and $1 billion less than we actually spent last year. Finally, and most importantly, this bill is the product of a successful bipartisan, bicameral negotiation. This shows all of us that we have the ability for the President, the Republicans in the House and the Senate, and the Democrats in the House and the Senate to sit down and work together on important issues. I am heartened by this success, and I believe it suggests our ability to work together in the future on other crucially important pieces of legislation like tax reform and infrastructure improvements. 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 myself such time as I may consume. To respond to a few of my friend's points, Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with my friend, actually. As he knows, I agree with his point that this should have been done many months ago, and could have been done, in my view, many months ago. We should have done this in December. I don't think we did the country or ourselves or the President any favors by delaying that. So my friend is right about that decision, and I hope we all learn a lesson from it. I also agree with my friend that, because we delayed, the 2018 appropriations process will be extremely difficult and truncated. It will make work harder. We may find ourselves back here in a number of months asking for some brief extension as we continue to work through our problems. I hope not, but my friend's observation on that point I agree with. I want to disagree with my friend pretty strongly about his observation about the 160 riders that we decided in the negotiation not to press, and I want to explain why we decided not to press them. Frankly, we don't need to press them anymore. Almost 160 of those were designed to limit or reverse rulings of the last administration-- either rules or executive decisions. Well, Mr. Trump is now the President of the United States and he is going to have the ability to do almost all of those things on his own. He doesn't need legislative instruction from us. He will certainly get support as he works through that list with the executive branch, which he runs. I also want to add, just to clarify, it is important to note that there is nothing in this bill that funds Planned Parenthood in any way, shape, or form. As a matter of fact, there is a family planning title and grants are awarded out of that title by the Department of Health and Human Services. Sometimes in the past, Planned Parenthood has received money in those grants. Now there is new management at the Department of Health and Human Services, so we will see how this goes. This Congress has never appropriated money directly to Planned Parenthood and, frankly, I suspect never will. Finally, in defense of the President, I want to point out that we are adding billions of dollars to defense of this country, which is desperately needed because, frankly, his predecessor had allowed it to erode. That is because of the President's leadership. We are making the most substantial investments in border security in a decade. That is because of the President's leadership. Finally, we have broken this terrible one-for-one formula that the last administration imposed on us. In other words, to defend the United States of America, we had to spend more money domestically, whether we needed to or not, whether we could afford it or not. If it weren't for President Trump, that formula would still be in existence and we would be frittering away money in places where we don't need it and denying support to our troops and our forces in the field when they desperately need it. I am very grateful to the President for making that possible. Again, with his leadership, it could not have occurred. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), my good friend, a fellow Rules Committee member, and also a distinguished member of the House Armed Services Committee.