Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, 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. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 680 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, Friday, July 25, marks the 40th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). In 1974, Congress--with bipartisan support, including that of President Nixon--established LSC to be a major source of funding for civil legal aid in this country. LSC is a private, nonprofit corporation, funded by Congress, with the mission to ensure equal access to justice under law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it. LSC distributes nearly 94 percent of its annual Federal appropriations to 134 local legal aid programs, with nearly 800 offices serving every congressional district and U.S. territories. LSC-funded legal aid programs make a crucial difference to millions of Americans by assisting with the most basic civil legal needs, such as addressing matters involving safety, subsistence, and family stability. These low-income Americans are women seeking protection from abuse, mothers trying to obtain child support, families facing unlawful evictions or foreclosures that could leave them homeless, veterans seeking benefits duly earned, seniors defending against consumer scams, and individuals who have lost their jobs and need help in applying for unemployment compensation and other benefits. It is LSC-funded attorneys who help parents obtain and keep custody of their children, assist parents in enforcing child support payments and help women who are victims of domestic violence. In fact, three out of four legal aid clients are women, and legal aid programs identify domestic violence as one of their top priorities. Given the vital role played by LSC-funded attorneys, we need to do better than turn away more than 50 percent of eligible clients who seek assistance because of lack of LSC program resources. With the growing number of Americans eligible for services and increased demand for legal services, the need for legal aid attorneys has never been greater. On this anniversary, I salute the Legal Services Corporation and LSC-funded attorneys for the vital work they do every day on behalf of Americans who need qualified counsel. Every day that a legal aid attorney protects the safety, security and health of our most vulnerable citizens, they bring this nation closer to living up to its commitment to equal justice for all.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with the last two speakers, in terms of the substance of their argument. I happen to be a cosponsor of that legislation, which is proposed by my good friend, Mr. Simpson, and I think they are discussing a very real and very important issue, and this is an issue where there is considerable bipartisan agreement. Mr. Speaker, I probably will end up opposing the manner in which you are going to try and bring this to the floor, but I do think it needs to come to the floor. There is an orderly process to do that. There are discussions underway to continue to work on it; but, again, my friend makes a very good point. I have tried consistently during my tenure here, no matter who is in control, to recognize that, when we have disasters, that people who are dealing with them need immediate help, and you need to vote accordingly and try and make that occur. I sit on the Interior Subcommittee where we wrestle with this funding issue that both of my friends brought up, and they are precisely right. Since you can't predict a fire, you can't produce the amount, we end up treating fires differently than every other kind of disaster and we savage the normal budget process and actually drain a lot of accounts, accounts that in some cases would help us prevent future fires by helping us get rid of hazard fuel buildup in forests and things of that nature. Again, I think my friends make a good point. I think we are going to continue to work on this in a bipartisan manner. I hope we will get there. I will note for the Record that when we were actually considering the Republican budget, we were engaged on that committee, which I sit on as a representative from Appropriations, in discussions with one of our Democratic friends on the other side of the aisle about bringing an amendment and actually writing it in the budget. We had Republicans prepared at that point to vote for that amendment in sufficient numbers. The White House, I was told, was actually in favor of doing that. For whatever reason, the decision was made not to do that. Again, I cast no aspersions here, but I think we probably missed a more appropriate opportunity of actually cementing it down. But I will say this: both of my friends have my commitment to continue to try and work with them and find an appropriate vehicle and appropriate time to get this done. I appreciate very, very much the fact that you came to the floor and brought it up and reminded us of how significant an issue this is. This is something we should be able to work across the aisle and accomplish. I thank my friend. 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, on Wednesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration on two measures: H.R. 5016, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, and H.R. 4718, that would permanently extend the bonus depreciation. The resolution provides a modified open rule for consideration of H.R. 5016 so that all Members have the opportunity to come to the floor and offer any amendment to the bill that complies with House rules on this important piece of legislation. The resolution also provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 4718, and provides for 60 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. In addition, the rule provides for a motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, a little over 2 months ago, I was pleased to present the House the rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills. This rule will provide for the consideration of the eighth appropriations bill by the House. In the Appropriations Committee, we have already reported out 10 of the 12 required appropriations bills and are moving closer to finishing the two remaining bills. Contrast this with the other body, where they have yet to pass even a single appropriations measure. Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services Appropriations bill maintains the fiscal discipline agreed to as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 that this country desperately needs. While the President requested an additional $1.7 billion over fiscal year 2014-enacted levels, this bill actually funds these programs at $566 million less than last year's level. In addition, this bill maintains a number of important funding restrictions over the IRS. Given their unconscionable targeting of conservative organizations and their deliberate stonewalling of legitimate inquiries by the Ways and Means and Oversight and Government Reform Committees, these funding prohibitions are necessary and appropriate. In addition, Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4718, which permanently extends bonus depreciation. During this extended time of sluggish economic growth, it is important for the Congress to pass legislation that will encourage our job creators to do just that--create jobs. An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that permanent bonus depreciation would actually grow the economy by 1 percent, adding $182 billion to the economy; increase the capital stock by over 3 percent; increase wages by about 1 percent; and create 212,000 new jobs. Since its creation in 2002, this credit has routinely been extended on a bipartisan basis. It is important that we do so again today. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Rogers for making good on his commitment to ensure orderly and timely consideration of appropriations bills. I also want to commend Chairman Camp for examining the Tax Code, ensuring we can provide the tax certainty that so many businesses need in order to make investment decisions that benefit us all. I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As usual, my friend is a sharp and acute debater and makes points over a broad number of issues. I do want to say, for the record, I am not such a great businessman, but I have a great business partner who has been my partner for 25 years. She is the managing partner. She made the call. And I have been very fortunate to be friends and partners with her for many, many years. I think she probably moved as quickly as she did because she didn't think the government would have the good sense to keep this open. But the fact is, under both Republicans and Democrats, we have done bonus depreciation. When my friends were in the majority, they continued to routinely extend it themselves. And after more than a decade, it has become, frankly, pretty much a permanent feature of our Tax Code. Now it is not so permanent that you can absolutely rely on it in the business sense. But I still accept the argument, after something that has been repeatedly confirmed by both sides, and both sides have repeatedly extended it and made it effectively permanent, we ought to go ahead and provide business with that certainty. Again, we will have a debate on that, and that is appropriate. The second point I want to discuss, where I do differ with my friend a little bit: look, we always quibble no matter who is in the majority over how open the process is and how much the minority is allowed to participate in it. When we do that, we usually need to remember, if we are in the minority, what our record was when we were in the majority. I want to remind my friends on the other side that throughout the 111th Congress, the final 2 years of their time in the majority, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule. That is the definition of a closed process. On the contrary, under Republican control, the House has returned to the consideration of appropriations bills under an open process, with 22 open rules. Again, I was on the Appropriations Committee when my friends took the opportunity that every Member enjoys, to come down and participate in the appropriations process, away from everyone--their side and our side alike. Additionally, the Congress has allowed under our control more than 1,000 amendments to be offered on the House floor, including a total of 488 amendments offered by Democrats and another 137 bipartisan amendments. Forty percent of all submitted amendments have been made in order. Compare that to our friends, who made only 17 percent in order under their majority regime in the 111th Congress. So when you actually compare the record of the Republican majority to the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis would show that Republicans are running a far more open and transparent House. I think that is something that my friends need to recall when they raise this particular critique. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. I am prepared to close.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my friend from the District of Columbia. She does a tremendous job representing her community, and she is an articulate and able Member of this body. It is true. We do have an unusual degree of authority as Congress over the Capital of the United States. That is a constitutional issue and an article I, section 8 issue. Being the Capital brings great privileges and benefits to Washington, but it also, unquestionably, at times, brings some difficulties and some strains as well; so we all--whoever is in the majority--try to manage that as best they can. In terms of the abortion issue, the language in this bill that applies to D.C., as I understand it, has been pretty routine under both Democrats and Republicans over the years, and so that is my understanding of that issue. On the marijuana issue, the Federal prohibition here has existed for many years and was actually proposed in the President's budget. The amendment that was offered and adopted in the committee--and there was a very spirited debate about this by Dr. Harris--does add new language to prohibit local funds for recreational use of marijuana. The intent is to prevent D.C. from legalizing marijuana for recreational use. D.C. has enacted a law which makes possession of small amounts of marijuana a civil offense, carrying a $25 fine, and that goes into effect later this month. In November, D.C. may have a ballot initiative to legalize possession of small amounts. I suspect this will be an ongoing discussion and concern between the Congress and the community.

Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. COLE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for the points that she made. I would just say that, again, this is going to be an ongoing source of tension--it has been. To clarify, when I said the Capital benefits, I meant to imply in no way that citizens here don't have the same obligations, same responsibilities, and bear the same burdens. I happen to have two wonderful military bases in my facility. We think we are privileged to host them. We derive considerable benefit and employment from their presence. I will note, just as the gentlewoman suggests, we pay taxes, too. We are American citizens, and those weren't put there for our benefit. They were put there for the purposes of defending the country, but we are happy to have them. I suggest there is probably a lot of that same pride in this community for hosting the Capital of the United States, so that was my intent in that remark. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. I do not.

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 the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that one of the basic functions of Congress is to actually fund the government. This rule would continue that process for consideration of appropriations bills for fiscal year 2015. In addition, it would allow for consideration of legislation that makes bonuses depreciation permanent, a provision that has existed as part of our Tax Code under both Democrats and Republicans since 2002. I have enjoyed the debate. As always, I appreciate exchanging views with my good friend from New York, by way of Kentucky, two States blessed, and I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 661 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, 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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize a new interactive exhibition, Native Voices: Native Peoples' Concepts of Health and Illness. This new exhibition, which examines concepts of health and medicine among contemporary American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians, will start to travel on August 26, 2014, throughout the United States and is scheduled to open in Oklahoma, a state with a rich Native American heritage that I have the privilege to represent. Native Voices, developed by the National Library of Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Health, explores the connection between wellness, illness, and cultural life through a combination of interviews with Native people, artwork, objects, and interactive media. The National Library of Medicine has a history of working with Native communities as part of the library's commitment to make health information resources accessible to people no matter where they live or work. The Native Voices exhibition concept grew out of meetings with Native leaders across the country. According to the Library's Director, Donald A.B. Lindberg, MD, the exhibition honors the Native tradition of oral history and establishes a unique collection of information that visitors will find both educational and inspirational. Topics featured in the exhibition include: Native views of land, food, community, earth/nature, and spirituality as they relate to Native health. It also highlights the relationship between traditional healing and Western medicine in Native communities as well as economic and cultural issues that affect the health of Native communities. Other efforts by Native communities to improve health conditions is included as well. The exhibition also touches on the role of Native Americans in military service and healing support for returning Native veterans. To make the Native Voices exhibition accessible to people even if they cannot visit it when it comes to a nearby community, there is an online version of the exhibition at www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices and a free iPad App available through iTunes.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was not present for rollcall vote No. 368. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on final passage of H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I respect my friend from Indiana pressing the point of order. I suspect he will prevail, and I am prepared to withdraw. I want to serve notice that I am going to eventually find the appropriate vehicle, so that we can address this. I think it is a real issue, but I respect my friend's concerns that this may not be the appropriate vehicle.

Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to be the first to acknowledge that this legislation may not indeed be the appropriate place in which to address the issue raised in the amendment. But I do believe the amendment is an appropriate way to highlight a problem that simply must be addressed by the President and by the Congress. In recent weeks, there have been many news accounts reporting that we have had an explosion of unaccompanied juveniles coming and crossing our borders, largely from Central America, from the countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. This population has overwhelmed facilities that we normally use to house people that have entered our country illegally, and military facilities have now been used, pressed into service, to deal with this population. In full disclosure, one of those facilities happens to be in my district, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, the home of the Field Artillery School. But other facilities have also been used, at Ventura, at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, and the State of Washington, and still others are being considered. I am concerned about this for three reasons. First, these military facilities are absolutely inappropriate places to house this particular population. They are not designed for that purpose. They are not equipped for it. They have gotten very little notification of it. It is simply the wrong place to put folks. You don't bring outsiders onto a military installation who have no business being there and, in addition, also their caretakers. Second, while much of the expense will be picked up by other various departments of government, it will inevitably cause some expense and some inconvenience to the Department of Defense at a time when we have a very strained military budget. Lastly, while we are told that these facilities are going to be used only on a temporary emergency basis, there is, indeed, the risk that they could become permanent, something I think that would create a confusion of missions on military bases, not to be avoided. We need to address the cause of the flow, not simply manage the flow better, and we shouldn't use military facilities in that process. The administration says that this flow of unaccompanied juveniles-- which, by the way, was 6,000 2 years ago, is 66,000 now, and is projected to reach 120,000 to 150,000 within the next couple of years-- is the result of a humanitarian crisis. I would submit it is actually the result of a policy failure. We are essentially incentivizing the flow of this population by not returning the unaccompanied juveniles to their countries of origins quickly. Indeed, once they arrive in the United States, we try to find sponsors for them in this country, and they effectively stay here permanently. That is not what we do, by the way, with Mexican juveniles. If you are a 16-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico, we return you immediately, and we have had no similar spike in that particular population coming across the border. What we are doing may appear to be humane to the juveniles in question. It is actually not. First, we are disrupting the countries from which they come. We are destabilizing those countries by incentivizing this flow. Second, these young people don't just walk across Mexico. They are transported by cartels, by criminals. It is the same people who bring drugs into our country, and they are making an enormous amount of money, and we are strengthening them by incentivizing this flow. Finally, the young people themselves are at an enormous risk during the process of transportation. They are being brought across the length of a country--Mexico--in the company of criminal elements, very unsavory elements, and they are very much at risk. I think we need to stop using military facilities for this purpose and to, frankly, begin to return people to their countries of origin. In my view, that would actually stop the flow and remove the incentive to come.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I appreciate what my colleagues had to say, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.