Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I am certainly prepared to close.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my friend. As always, he is always thoughtful, always a good person to hold a debate and a conversation with. On this one, we simply disagree. My friend referenced some of the ``conservative groups'' that are supporting the maintenance of the flaring rule, the BLM. Just for the record, I want to add some that I am actually more familiar with: the Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Prosperity, and Taxpayers Protection Alliance. All of those are in favor of the repeal of this regulation, and all of them think it will actually save businesses money and increase activity as opposed to the regulation which we think actually discourages economic activity. Again, these are regulations--in both cases, they were adopted in the final waning days of the administration. These are things that Congress had serious doubts against, but, obviously, couldn't override an administration when they were in office. The Congressional Review Act itself is done, so we can do this sort of exercise after an administration leaves, and actually go back and undo some of the damage that I think is routinely done by both parties in their waning days, when they would actually be better off to just simply let the new people get into their jobs and actually go about their business. We have appropriate regulatory authority in both of these areas. Again, the Environmental Protection Agency has the power under the Clean Air Act to issue whatever regulations it cares to on methane. And here, frankly, we ought to pat business on the back because, as we have increased production of both oil and natural gas, methane has consistently gone down dramatically and steadily over the years. I suspect that process will continue with or without the regulation of the Federal Government because, quite frankly, it makes good business sense. And, quite frankly, most people in private business want to be good stewards to the environment. They are not out to try and damage our air or our water. The same thing is true in terms of bad actors--and there certainly are some bad actors--that engage in activities that are inappropriate for Federal contractors who violate the law. That is why, under current law, almost 2,000 companies were disbarred in 2015; a similar number in 2014. So, again, what we have in place appears to be working. Why we would create an additional hurdle, hire additional people, and force companies to do additional paperwork is beyond me. I don't think it is the wise thing to do; I don't think it is the necessary thing to do. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. H.J. Res. 36 and H.J. Res. 37 both undo regulations that should never have been made in the first place. By preventing the implementation of these onerous, duplicative regulations, we will relieve the burdens faced by American small business.

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, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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 74 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of two important measures, which would overturn two significant onerous regulations finalized in the waning days of the Obama administration. First, the resolution provides for the consideration of H.J. Res. 36, providing for congressional disapproval of the so-called BLM methane rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee and provides for a motion to recommit. In addition, the resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 37, providing for congressional disapproval of the so-called blacklisting rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and provides for a motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, burdensome regulations are crippling our businesses. The Obama administration finalized 38 major rules between election day and inauguration day. It is estimated those rules will cost our economy $41.2 billion. Sadly, this was just par for the course with the previous administration. In 2016, the Obama administration finalized over 400 regulations at a cost of over $160 billion to the economy. Over the entire Obama Presidency, over 3,000 regulations, at a cost of $873.6 billion, were finalized. I am heartened by President Trump's regulatory freeze, which has been estimated to save over $180 billion in regulatory costs, followed by his executive order which aims to revoke two regulations for every new regulation put forward. Specifically, H.J. Res. 36 overturns the BLM methane rule. The rule is a significant regulatory overreach by the Bureau of Land Management. Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate methane emissions, which it currently does. Instead, the BLM has decided to also assert authority over methane in a way that is both duplicative and unnecessary, yet has significant negative impact on jobs, energy production, and Federal, State, and local revenues. Mr. Speaker, this is a regulation in search of a problem. According to a 2015 EPA study, methane emissions from both natural gas systems and crude oil production have fallen by significant margin, even while oil and natural gas production have exploded. The BLM flaring rule is both costly and unnecessary. The second rule considered by this resolution is similarly a solution in search of a problem. For decades, the Federal Government has had a suspension and debarment process in place to deny Federal contracts to bad actors who violate basic worker protections. However, President Obama signed an executive order directing various agencies to add another layer of bureaucracy onto the Federal procurement system. Prior to awarding a contract, each agency's contracting officer and a newly created labor compliance adviser will be required to review both violations and alleged violations to determine whether an employer should be awarded a Federal contract. Even the courts have agreed this is overreach. In October of 2016, a Federal district judge blocked enforcement of these rules, citing concerns with the violation of due process rights and executive overreach. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we prevent implementation of these rules which are unnecessary and add even more regulatory burdens to our struggling businesses and anemic economy. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make a couple of good points. Remember, my friends, disbarment is already a very common procedure. It was invoked over 2,000 times. So having another regulatory hurdle and hoop to jump through, just simply isn't necessary. Again, these regulations were, frankly, generated in the final waning months of the Obama administration. They haven't been in action, and there is sort of a regulatory fit. It is not, by the way, unusual for just the last administration. All administrations have this tendency near the end, and that is one of the reasons why we have the Congressional Review Act in the first place, so that when administrations, in their waning days, decide they want to leave difficult situations or push through things that they didn't see fit to do over an 8-year period, Congress can expeditiously make sure that those regulations aren't put in place and businesses are forced to begin to comply with them. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the regulations released by the last administration--over 3,000 of them in an 8-year period--cost the economy over $870 billion. The regulations that were issued between election day and Inauguration Day cost the economy over $40 billion. That is real money. That is real investment that could go elsewhere and could hire people. So I would think that these, along with the other Congressional Review Act bills that will be coming forward, and have already come forward, will actually give the economy a much-needed shot in the arm, will help stimulate job creation and movement, and we have a timeframe in which we have to operate. So if we actually followed all of the procedures my friend suggested, many of these regulations, frankly, would never get reviewed before they went on the books. So it is better to act quickly. I think it is better for American business. Again, I urge the support of the rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words and for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. As has been made clear, we are actually talking about two different pieces of legislation here today. The waiver for Secretary-designee James Mattis is, quite frankly, a no-brainer. The Senate voted 81-17 in favor of that waiver. I would suspect there will be similar bipartisan support here. My friend is correct, of course; this is a serious matter whenever we grant exceptions to the law. But General Mattis is just uniformly and universally respected across the lines for his distinguished work in defense of this country, so I hope we move ahead on that. The budget resolution that comes before us is another matter, and there will be a great deal of contention. Frankly, the resolution itself is not, as my good friend from California pointed out, and should not be seen as, a traditional budgetary item. It is, frankly, a projection of what will happen if we do absolutely nothing over the next decade and leave the current set of policies in place. It is a sobering document to read in that regard because it shows rising deficits every single year for a decade, beginning at over $580 billion and then moving well north of $1 trillion. Frankly, in my view, it is something that we ought to look at and come to the realization that we are going to need to do entitlement reform in the next decade, something that people on both sides of the aisle seem to want to ignore. Absent that, we will, indeed, have extraordinary budget deficits, and they will be large enough to undercut and undermine our economy. The budget resolution is also a vehicle, a tool, to begin to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is necessary for, really, one simple reason. The Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare as it is popularly known, is a failing system. It is unpopular. It has never been popular, never hit 50 percent of popularity. Frankly, in my view, it has cost our friends their majority in the House, then cost them their majority in the Senate, and may well have cost them the Presidency of the United States. The American people have spoken pretty emphatically: We don't like this product. And it is collapsing financially right now. This is not a system that is an operation that is really doing well. Let me just talk about my own State. We have about 197,000 people that have gotten insurance under ObamaCare. This year, they will have exactly one choice as to what company they want to choose to provide them, and their rates will go up by 69 percent. Now, nationally, I think the average is over 25 percent. Clearly, this is not a system that is working very well. Politically, the easy thing to do would be what our friends want us to do--let's just leave it alone. It will fall under its own weight, and it will be very clear who is responsible for that collapse: the current administration and my friends on the other side. But that also would be the irresponsible thing to do, and that would be, in itself, an abdication of leadership and, ultimately, unfair to the American people. Instead, we are going to repeal the system and begin to replace it with something that will work better. Now, my friend's point is a fair one. There is not a single plan out there, but there are plenty of plans. I know I cosponsor a couple myself. I think we will be able to work through this relatively easily. There has been a lot of discussion and a lot of diagnosis about what the failures of ObamaCare are, but there has been very little in the way of actual legislative remedy. We have a unique opportunity to do that. Frankly, I am proud of our Speaker, and I am proud of our conference that they are going to seize that and begin this process because I don't think there is anything more important facing us. So I would urge the passage of the rule and then the passage, obviously, of the underlying legislation, particularly the budget resolution that allows us to begin the necessary work in repealing and replacing ObamaCare, and, obviously, the waiver that would allow us to have a distinguished Secretary of Defense, General Mattis.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank my good friend for being so generous in yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both the rule and the underlying legislation. I begin by sharing my friend from Georgia's enthusiasm for the WRDA bill. I think this was an absolutely masterful piece of work by three chairmen. Obviously, primarily, Chairman Shuster is the architect; but I was also working with him on several important Indian issues and with Chairman Bishop from the Committee on Natural Resources and, on the Flint issue in particular, with Chairman Upton from Energy and Commerce. I share my friend's belief that these projects have been worked through in a bipartisan way. Many, many good things, literally, in every part of the country will take place, and our friends on the other side of the aisle were very cooperative in that as well. This is usually a bipartisan effort. It certainly was in this case. I am very pleased about Flint. There was, frankly, failure at every level of government--Federal, State, and local. I am glad that the Congress is following up on the commitment of the Speaker and of our good friend from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who has been the leader, obviously, in this and is doing the right thing there. Again, the water projects, themselves, touch almost every district in the country--certainly, every State in the country. I want to particularly point out the Indian provisions in here, which often get overlooked. We did some really important things in working with Mr. Bishop and Mr. Shuster in common. We settled a number of really important individual Indian water case issues. I think the Pechanga case, for instance, which I know my friend the Speaker is familiar with, has been around for many years. We also changed the definitions in law so Indian tribes can now compete for water projects and water funding, particularly in some of the areas. Again, my friend the Speaker has seen some of these shortages in infrastructure as we traveled to reservations around the country together; so putting these people in a position to make sure they have access to funds to deal with water is important. Finally, for my own State--extremely important--and at no cost to the Federal Government, the Chickasaws, the Choctaws, the city of Oklahoma City, and the State of Oklahoma negotiated a water settlement arrangement inside of Oklahoma for the appropriate distribution of water. That requires Federal approval because there is a trust responsibility. We got the deal done, frankly, relatively late this year. We got tremendous cooperation in Congress and in the Senate. Certainly, Jim Inhofe played a big role over there by getting it in the bill in order to get that memorialized and done in an expeditious fashion. We are very grateful for that. When it comes to the CR, I certainly support the CR, and I certainly appreciate very much the work that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey did to adjust, as much as possible, this short-term funding measure to try and deal with what we call around here ``anomalies'' and try to get the money to where it is supposed to go. There are many good things, again, in this short-term funding bill through April 28, my birthday, so perhaps this will work out in the end. Of course, it is also Saddam Hussein's birthday, so that doesn't always work out too well. At the end of the day, we ought to look at this process. I find myself in agreement with my good friend from New York on many of the things that she had to say. We should be negotiating an omnibus bill. We have the time to do it. We were told, when we passed the short-term CR in late September, that that is what we would do in this timeframe. I can assure you, because they did it last year, that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey could do it again this year. We are pretty close on all of these issues. It is a mistake, in my view, to push this into next year. Next year, we will have to write the FY18 budget and do the appropriations while we are simultaneously doing this, and the temptation will be very great to just do another CR and pass this on. While all of this seems like budget double-talk to the average American, the reality is we have passed a lot of good legislation this year, but the funding isn't matched up with the legislation that we have passed. That is because we are relying on a continuing resolution as opposed to doing the real hard work of appropriations. Last year, when we did that, by the way, it provided us budget stability this year. It got us out of a lot of the fights--and guess what. All of a sudden, you end up with cures. All of a sudden, you end up with WRDA. All of a sudden, you get a national defense authorization done, because we have done the appropriate things. The Appropriations Committee, I am quick to add, has done its work. All 12 bills that fund the Federal Government passed out of Appropriations--5 of them across this floor. I believe, with some of the most contentious, like Interior, our problem partly is our friends in the Senate who blocked up the deal, but we could have still finished an omnibus bill this year. I support this. I don't think we made a wise decision in the manner in which we are proceeding, but, certainly, we don't want to shut down the government. I just want to serve notice to my friends who made the decision that I am going to hold their feet to the fire so that, in April, we actually do what we said we were going to do and that we go back to regular order. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding and those extremely kind and gracious words, and I certainly rise in support of this very important bill. I want to echo the praise that has been offered on this floor by members of both parties for our chairman, who is bringing his last full appropriations bill to the floor as the full committee chairman, and just tell him what a pleasure it has been to work under his leadership and to learn, frankly, at his knee, and usually with a pretty good cigar at the same time. So I have enjoyed that, and I think he has done a great job. I also want to congratulate my friend, the ranking member. This is a chairman and a ranking member that, frankly, have done their jobs the last 2 years. All 12 bills were reported out of the Appropriations Committee most years, and all 12 should have been on this floor and dealt with, and I regret that they were not. There are a lot of good things in this continuing resolution--as has been mentioned earlier, the additional funds for biomedical research, the adjustments and extra funding for defense at a critical time for our country, and certainly the disaster relief funds which certain parts of our country share--but I know this is not the bill that Chairman Rogers wanted to bring to this floor. Frankly, we have got to get out of this. I couldn't agree more with my friend from Indiana who said it pretty well: this is not this committee's fault. It is a failure in this Congress. This is the responsibility of this Congress and this administration to write the bill for next year. This is a failure to meet that responsibility. It is a necessary step, and I certainly will support it, but we have simply got to get back to the point of regular order. Next year, believe me, I will push very hard to make sure we don't have another CR on April 28 and that we actually do the appropriations for FY17--we shouldn't be doing it in FY17, but that would be better than another CR--and then we will push to make sure that we do the FY18. I know the chairman has done everything humanly possible to do that, and I know he has had a willing partner in that in the ranking member. So let's all make a New Year's resolution. Let's pass this bill, but let's get back to regular order. Let's restore things. There is a bipartisan sense of frustration on the Appropriations Committee, and, frankly, the leadership on both sides in this body need to work to achieve that. It is not an Appropriations Committee failure. This is the failure of Congress--the House of Representatives and the Senate-- to do its job. That should not happen again. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the measure.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend for yielding, and I certainly want to thank him for moving this expeditiously through his committee and onto the floor. I want to associate myself with his remarks about the need for reform because this is a fairly routine matter. I rise in support of H.R. 1219, the Arbuckle Project Maintenance Complex and District Office Conveyance Act. This bill is a straightforward land conveyance, which has both Federal and local support. H.R. 1219 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain lands and buildings of the Arbuckle Project, in Murray County, Oklahoma, to the Arbuckle Master Conservancy District. In 1962, Congress authorized the payment of reimbursable costs for construction, operation, and maintenance of the Bureau of Reclamation's Arbuckle Master Conservancy District in south-central Oklahoma. The district completed repayment of the capital costs of the project in September of 2012. In accordance with the Bureau of Reclamation's policy framework for title transfer, in December 2014, the Bureau of Reclamation and the district executed an agreement to transfer, in fee title, certain facilities that could be more efficiently and effectively managed at the local level. The title transfer involves approximately 2.83 acres of land. On this land is a small house, associated structures, and the conservancy district's headquarters office building. The House and property are used to accommodate a district employee who maintains and inspects the dam and the pumping facilities. The headquarters office building is the base of operation for the district. This bill also divests the Federal Government of its responsibility and liability associated with the district's facilities. Reclamation and the district have worked cooperatively and successfully to address all of the elements necessary to bring this legislation forward and make this transfer proceed as smoothly as possible. I am pleased that this bill is an agreement with which both the Federal and local interests are satisfied. I want to urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, I want to thank the chairman for his help in this matter.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding. Frankly, I thank him for the wonderful work he provided as a member of the Armed Services Committee to bring this legislation to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I also want to quickly associate myself with my friend from Massachusetts' remarks about the authorization. I think he is absolutely right on that issue--we have worked together on that--and it is something that ought to happen. It is an institutional question of whether or not we retain our war-making authority, and he has done admirable work in that area. The bill, itself, which I support--and, of course, the rule and the underlying legislation--is a very important piece of legislation. I commend our friends on the Armed Services Committee for working in a bipartisan fashion, first, to make sure they stop the erosion of the end strength of the military. It is an absolutely critical thing to do. It could not have happened had they not worked together and made some tough decisions. Second, I want to point out all of the reforms in this legislation-- procurement reforms, in particular. They have gone well beyond simply appropriating money for the military as they have done some important work to put important tools in our hands that, I think in going forward, will save billions of dollars. I also commend them for fully funding a pay raise for the men and women in uniform. That is an important thing. The amount of money--a 2.1 percent increase--is relatively modest but appropriate. The more important thing is the signal it sends to the men and women who put themselves between us and harm's way, and I thank the gentleman for his role in that. Finally, I want to pick up on one of the points that my friend from Alabama made that I couldn't agree with more. As important and as good as this legislation is, if we do not marry it with the money that it takes to actually implement it, we are making the mistake of a lifetime. In my opinion, we could do that, literally, this year if we were to do an omnibus; but if we fail to do that and if we do a CR, my friend is exactly right in that we should act as rapidly as possible in January to make sure that we actually put the money together with the excellent authorization work that is done here. Otherwise, we simply undercut all of the good work of the Armed Services Committee. This is something that we need to focus on. The authorization is important, but if we don't appropriate the money, a lot of the hard work that was done on the Armed Services Committee will be for naught, and it will be for naught until we actually make that decision. We shouldn't wait until the end of April or the end of May. We ought to get it done as quickly as we can. I would like to get it done before we go home, but if we can't do that, we certainly ought to get it done as quickly as we can when we get back. With all of that aside, again, I congratulate both sides of the aisle. This is a model of bipartisanship. My friend from Massachusetts mentioned some other measures in here with regard to Russia that, I think, are absolutely also appropriate, and I applaud their inclusion. I urge every Member to support the rule and, certainly, to vote for the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of supporting the rule and the underlying legislation. I want to begin by congratulating Chairman Upton and the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee on both sides of the aisle for crafting what is genuinely a bipartisan piece of legislation in a very divisive era and working it for years and bringing it to a successful conclusion. They have given all of us an opportunity to vote for something really, really important to every single American. Now, a lot of focus will be put on the money aspect of this bill. Certainly, $6-plus billion is a nice chunk of change and will be very, very gratefully received. But in that same multiple-year period, in 5 years, if we didn't increase appropriations by a dime, we would spend $160 billion dollars at NIH. And over a 10-year period, if we didn't increase annual appropriations by a dime, we would spend $320 billion. So the real genius of the bill is not the money. It is actually the three things that have been mentioned by multiple speakers before me. First is the regulatory reform that, at the FDA and at the NIH, will literally save billions of dollars and thousands of lives over the next decade. Second is the opioid initiative. We all know the crisis. It touches all of our districts. To direct money there and then to build on that through the appropriations process is extraordinarily important, and I congratulate the Energy and Commerce Committee for taking a lead here. Finally, the mental health legislation that is wound up in this that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) provided is just absolutely spectacular in terms of its long-term importance. We can all disagree about this or that or some technicality in the rule. The reality is this is important legislation. If it doesn't pass now, it won't pass and we will be missing an opportunity. So I want to urge my friends on both sides of the aisle--I don't expect my friends to vote for the rule. They shouldn't. They never do. I wouldn't if I were in the minority. But I hope they will vote for the underlying legislation because that legislation is worthy of passage. It is a bipartisan compromise, and it will improve the life of every single American.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to begin by thanking my good friend for her debate and her cooperation and her hard work in this exercise that has been genuinely valuable and significant. And I want to agree with her basic point. We need to do our business. I wish it would have all been done by this point. It has extended into the period after the election, but that is a place that I hope we finish our business. I know my friend will be working to that end; certainly, I will as well. Mr. Speaker, passage of this legislation is critical to prevent a government shutdown, to provide the necessary funds to address the Zika virus, and to demonstrate to the American people that Congress can actually govern. While I would have much preferred considering 12 individual appropriations bills, I am encouraged that at least one fully conferenced bill is included in the legislation before us today. So I want to urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my friend and thanking her. I know she is committed to the resumption of regular order, and she has worked that way tirelessly. That is a goal that we share with our friends on the other side of the aisle. I think it is worth pointing out that you can't have regular order in the House if you don't have regular order in the Senate. The real reason we are here is because the Senate has refused consistently to take up appropriations bills that have been passed by this House. At some point, you simply quit passing the bills because the Senate isn't going to deal with you. Once we finally have a Senate that will work in regular order--and I hope we do at the beginning of next January--perhaps we can overcome this and get back to the system that I know my friend from New York and I want to see on this floor: passing each individual appropriations bill, doing so in a way that Members can participate, conferences with our friends in the Senate, and then moving forward. As to Zika, I think it is worth pointing out that nothing has not been done for lack of money. The reality is, when the administration made its initial request for Zika funds, they immediately received a letter from Chairman Rogers, from Subcommittee Chairman Granger on State-Foreign Operations, and from myself, saying: Look, we know this is an emergency. We agree with you. You have billions of dollars of funds. Start spending that money--a bowl of money, so-called--and we will replace that money. Frankly, they have done that, to their credit. They set aside $600 million, not all of which has been spent, but that was the responsible thing to do, as Congress studied and look at this problem. Chairman Rogers actually led a codel that went to Brazil, Peru, and some of the areas that have suffered from this disease, and we have continued to work. We have twice put on this floor hundreds of millions of dollars for Zika response that our friends on the other side didn't see fit to vote for. Zika didn't get funded because, frankly, our friends just simply didn't want to pay for it. That has actually been the essence of the dispute, in my opinion. It has not been about Zika. It has been about whether or not you pay for Zika. The original request from the administration was for $1.9 billion over a 2-year period to come out of State-Foreign Operations and Labor- HHS, two committees that, in that same period, have $425 billion to spend. It is not hard to pay for $1.9 billion out of $425 billion. Still, at the end of the day, my friend is absolutely correct: we are here. We have not failed to do anything, but we do need to provide a framework to go forward with guaranteed continuity. I am pleased and proud this does that. Frankly, we reserve the option next fiscal year to look at actually covering other parts of the unfunded spending on Zika. In terms of the Export-Import Bank, I am going to agree with my friend. I don't know that this was the appropriate vehicle, but I think the point she makes is exactly right. We need to restore this particular institution to full functioning. That has been a matter of some partisan debate, but, actually, I agree with my friends. I support the Export-Import Bank, and I think we need to re-establish it. And if we could have done it in this bill, that would have been fine with me. But I trust the people that negotiated the final product, and they did try to remove a lot of issues that were controversial and divisive so that, hopefully, we could get a substantial majority of both parties to vote for continuing the government. I want to end by saying that, again, I want to invite our friends in the Senate to participate in regular order. In some ways they have done that. I want to give them credit for last year and this year passing all 12 appropriations bills at least through the full committee level. But it was a decision by their leadership not to allow those bills to come to the floor that actually gummed up the works. It is not anything that was done in the House. Indeed, we didn't give up on that process until it became abundantly clear that the Senate wasn't going to move. We are now, however, at the last moment. My friend is correct in that. I am pleased that we have negotiated together in good faith, frankly, within this body, across the rotunda with the other body, and with the administration, to arrive at something that will get us through the election and give us the time when we return from the election to sit down. In that period of time, I want to commit to my friend that I will be looking forward to working with her and her colleagues to make sure we fully finish the appropriations process. There are some in this body that don't want to do that. They want to simply CR or do a continuing resolution to some point in the future next year, dumping off the work of this Congress and this administration on the next administration and the next Congress. That would be a big mistake, in my opinion. I know my friend feels exactly the same way, so I commit to her, I will do everything I can on my side of the aisle--I know she will on her side--to make sure that we continue the full appropriations process, and we make sure fiscal year 2017 is funded. The new administration, when it shows up, is going to have a lot to do, whoever that person is. They are going to have to advance their agenda. They are going to have to name the Cabinet members. They are going to have to get them confirmed. They are going to have to write a budget for FY18 by the middle of February. We will have a debt ceiling crisis in March, and we will have, frankly, the sequester to deal with which, like Halley's Comet, will return on schedule on time. That is plenty for a new President and a new Congress to do. I would hope we do our job in the so-called lameduck session and make sure that they don't have the additional task of picking up and doing the work that this Congress and this President should have done on their own. So my friend is right on that point. 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, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 901 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 5325, the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, and Zika Response and Preparedness Act. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 5325, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am always disappointed when we are forced to consider continuing resolutions, especially given the work this House has done in the appropriations process this fiscal year. For 2 years in a row, the House Appropriations Committee was able to complete all 12 appropriations bills--and complete them before the August recess. In addition, this House passed five appropriations bills. Unfortunately, just as in years past, Senate Democrats prevented consideration of many appropriations bills on the floor of that body. This leads us to the unfortunate situation of having to put forward a short-term CR to fund the government through December 9. I hope that in the weeks and months ahead, the House, Senate, and the President can come to an agreement on a path forward which ensures we are not in this same position in December. At the same time, I am pleased that this amendment also includes a fully conferenced MILCON-VA bill. The MILCON-VA portion provides a 4 percent increase for the VA, additional resources to address the disability claims backlog, and contains a number of important oversight provisions to make certain our veterans receive the care that they deserve. The military construction portion provides $7.9 billion for military family housing, Guard and Reserve facilities, and military bases both in the United States and around the world. This ensures that we can sustain quality housing for 1.3 million military families. In addition, the MILCON-VA bill maintains a provision which prohibits the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the construction of any facilities to house detainees in the United States or its territories. Importantly, Mr. Speaker, this amendment also provides a total of $1.1 billion to fight Zika and offsets $400 million of this spending. While I would have preferred offsetting the entire amount--and have supported legislation to do just that--I believe this is a reasonable compromise with both the Senate and the administration, both of whom initially proposed no offsets at all. When combined with funds already preprogramed by the administration for Zika response activities, the total available resources to respond to Zika equals $1.7 billion. This legislation provides the necessary funds for the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the State Department, and USAID to develop vaccines and diagnostic tests for mosquito control and, in addition, provides healthcare resources to those areas experiencing the highest rates of Zika transmission, all while maintaining the Hyde amendment restrictions barring the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion services. I am encouraged by the hard work of Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and, of course, the Speaker, whose leadership has made all of this possible. While a CR is not the ideal vehicle, the alternative of a government shutdown is not what we have been sent here to Washington to do. Additionally, I am encouraged that we are finally returning to regular order and passing full-year appropriations measures by the end of the fiscal year. This is the first time since fiscal year 2006, when we passed two bills by the end of the fiscal year, that we have passed any individual appropriations bills through both Chambers of the United States Congress by the September 30 deadline. While we have a long way to go, this is a good first step that we can hopefully build upon next year. I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 122, the Protection of the Right of Tribes to stop the Export of Cultural and Traditional (PROTECT) Patrimony Resolution. I joined as an original cosponsor of the Resolution, which was introduced by Congressman Pearce, and I am pleased that it has gathered broad bipartisan support. This resolution is an important first step in resolving an issue for all of Indian Country: protecting Native American cultural objects from removal and trafficking and ensuring their repatriation back to their tribal owners. There are many tribes located within my district. They, like other tribes around the country, strive to protect their cultural heritage and traditional ways of life. Possession and protection of their cultural objects, including their sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony, is imperative for tribes' cultural practices and their ability to pass those practices down to future generations. These items or objects are distinct from the many wonderful works of tribal arts and crafts that tribes proudly share with the world. Objects of cultural patrimony have such ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance to a tribe that they are considered communally owned and protected as such. Unfortunately, many seek tribes' cultural objects for their artistic value, not understanding that to tribes they mean so much more. These cultural objects end up being taken from tribes and trafficked domestically and abroad. Once abroad, tribes are forced to fight often- losing battles to regain possession of them. We as an American people have our own cultural objects deemed so necessary to our identity that they are owned by the people jointly, such as the United States Constitution or the flag that inspired the Star Spangled Banner. If these objects were displayed as art in a private home or sold overseas, we would stand together to call for their return. Laws like the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act exist to protect Native American cultural objects. However, through practice it has become clear that they are not sufficient to address the tribal loss of objects of cultural patrimony. As such, the PROTECT Patrimony resolution is a step in the right direction. The PROTECT Patrimony resolution aims to raise awareness of the importance of Native American cultural objects, as well as the proliferation of the removal and trafficking of these objects. It supports Congressional development of explicit restrictions on exportation, and it calls on federal agencies to consult with tribes to address the issue. Further still, this resolution calls on local stakeholders to cooperate with tribes and condemn illegal activity. The PROTECT Patrimony resolution is just the first step to a more comprehensive solution to protect Native American cultural objects from removal and trafficking and to facilitate their repatriation. I urge all my colleagues to stand in strong support of this resolution.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to thank the chairman for his extraordinary work on this legislation. Furthermore, both he and Chairman Bishop of the Committee on Natural Resources have graciously tried to resolve a matter of great significance to Indian Country. Beginning in the late 16th century, the size of so-called Indian Country, in what later became the United States, has steadily diminished. To reverse this trend, in 1934 Congress passed a law which allowed the Federal Government to take land into trust for the benefit of Indian tribes. Interior has done so for the past 82 years. Interior's ability to take land into trust for all tribes was questioned in 2009 following the Supreme Court's opinion in the Carcieri v. Salazar decision. The Carcieri opinion cast doubt on whether Interior has the ability to take land into trust for the benefit of tribes if they were not ``under Federal jurisdiction'' in 1934. Since then, Indian tribes have been threatened by legal challenges to the status of their trust lands. The possibility of litigation chills economic and infrastructure development on trust lands. Together we have worked closely with the House Committee on Natural Resources on a provision that would have settled any dispute as to the status of a trust land up to the Carcieri decision of 2009. I come to the House floor today to express my gratitude for that effort. I would like to stress that this provision had nothing to do with promoting or enhancing the ability of tribes to build and operate a gaming facility away from reservations or existing land, though, of course, they have every right to operate on existing lands as long as they comply with the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. In no way is this provision designed to promote off-reservation gaming. Quite frankly, the overwhelming majority of Indian trust lands are used to provide essential government services, such as education, health care, and housing. Well in advance of the Interior Subcommittee markup, a meeting was held between myself, Chairman Calvert, Chairman Young, and Chairman Bishop of the Natural Resources Committee. We believed an agreement had been reached between the authorizers and the appropriators. However, further staff discussions revealed that differences still remain. For that reason, we have decided to table this matter for the time being and continue working together on a solution amenable to all parties involved. I would like to emphasize that both the authorizers and the appropriators have worked in good faith, and I promise that we will keep doing so. Despite the fact that the so-called Cole provision was stricken from the Interior appropriation bill, I am encouraged with the progress we have made thus far. There is no easy solution for the Carcieri problem. But if we keep working at it, I am convinced that we can reach an agreement that is acceptable to all parties. Again, I thank the chairman for his work.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, H.R. 5293 is key to funding our country's national security programs and provides for the essential needs of our military. Just as our military service members answer the call to defend the United States, so too should Americans always prioritize the funding they need to be successful in whatever mission they are tasked with. I am proud to support this bill and the important funding it provides for our Nation's military, security, and our courageous men and women in uniform. This bill makes difficult budgetary choices but includes funding for safety, security, and the ongoing success of our service members and their families. Our armed forces will stay prepared, safe and trained to fight. The legislation addresses not only current threats but instability in the Middle East, Russian aggression in the Ukraine and Baltic, and changing relationships in the Pacific. Specifically, the bill provides $517.1 billion, an increase of $3 billion above last year's level, and $58.6 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) funding--the level allowed under current law. $219 billion is included for operations and maintenance, which provides for readiness programs that prepare our troops for combat and peacetime missions. An effective military, one that is well equipped and well trained, is indispensable to the common defense of our country and is in the best interest of all Americans. I thank the Chairman for his outstanding leadership, appreciate the Ranking member's common commitment to work in a bipartisan manner and fund our military and intelligence community as they remain engaged in responding to instability abroad. I has perhaps never been more urgent to invest in the future of our military and renew our ability to project power. The funding levels in this bill will ensure our military remains the most capable, prepared, and exceptional armed force anywhere in the world.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying I also have a great deal of respect for the distinguished minority leader. She used in her remarks and made the point that the President had asked for a number of things. Last year, the President asked for a billion dollars more for the NIH. We said: You know, we didn't think you asked for enough, so we are going to give you $2 billion. Somehow, that seems to get lost. Last year, the President sent down his request for the Centers for Disease Control. We said: You know, we don't think you are spending enough on public health, Mr. President. We are going to spend more money than you asked for. This year, when the President submitted his budget, he decided: I am going to take a billion dollars of discretionary spending away from the National Institutes of Health and spend it someplace else. We said: No, Mr. President; we think that is pretty reckless. By the way, my Democratic friends agreed with that, too. We said: We are not going to let you take a billion dollars of discretionary money away from the NIH and spend it someplace else. We are going to keep it right there. And, by the way, we are going to put more money than you asked for in this agency when the bill comes out, and we are probably going to do the same thing for the Centers for Disease Control. So, to suggest that the President hasn't gotten what he has asked for is to, frankly, misstate the facts. We have had a great deal of mention that the President has had the request for 94 days. What we have not had is one shred of evidence that, in those 94 days, he has not had the money to do every single thing he wanted to do. Indeed, the chairman of the committee urged him to start spending money immediately to do that. So there has been no loss of effort, and the bill in front of us now funds it for the rest of the fiscal year. It also funds the research on the vaccine at the NIH into next year. So, again, I am just going to simply disagree with my friend that money has not been available. It has been available; and, frankly, to the appropriate agencies, more money has been available than the President has asked for. More money will be available next year than he asked for. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee and my good friend.