Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills that the House will consider for fiscal year 2015: H.R. 4486, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act; and H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. The resolution provides an open rule for consideration of H.R. 4486 so that all Members have the opportunity to come to the floor and offer amendments on this important piece of legislation. The resolution also provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, which is customarily considered in this manner. This structured rule makes in order eight amendments. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to this House the first of what I hope are many appropriations bills for fiscal year 2015. Because of the Ryan-Murray budget agreement late last year, the Appropriations Committee has been able to move expeditiously and report these two bills for consideration by the whole House. In fact, this is the earliest that appropriations bills have been considered in this House since 1974. In addition, Mr. Speaker, both of these bills enjoy strong bipartisan support. Both were reported out of committee by voice vote and take into account updated priorities for the coming fiscal year. I am proud, for example, that we were able to provide additional funding for our veterans, who have given so much in service to our country. I am also proud that these bills maintain the fiscal discipline this country so desperately needs. The MilCon-VA bill actually spends $1.8 billion less than fiscal year 2014, and the Legislative Branch bill provides for level funding. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Rogers for beginning this process in earnest, and look forward to consideration of additional appropriations measures at the appropriate time. I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 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 my friend, 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 557 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Woodall, for yielding me the time. I want to urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation. I would be the first to tell you that this budget is not a perfect budget--no budget is actually perfect--but it is a good budget. There are a couple of issues that do concern me, as I addressed Mr. Ryan last night; and we are worried that we haven't dealt with the wildfire issue to my satisfaction, which disrupts the appropriating process within Interior, but he assured me that he recognized that was a problem, and we are going to continue to work on it. I actually am going to vote for Mr. Woodall's budget when I have the opportunity to do that. It is the most conservative approach on the floor, and I appreciate that. I think we ought to stop and remember that without Paul Ryan, we wouldn't have the choices in front of us today. The United States Senate has chosen not to have a budget once again this year, something that it frequently does. And with all due respect to my friends who do have a budget--and I am pleased that they do--in 2010, when they were actually in the majority, they didn't present a budget to this body, either. It is Paul Ryan that has forced us to confront the fiscal crisis that is facing the country and has actually put something on the table to deal with it. Now, you don't have to agree with everything in it, but it has a lot of virtues to it. The first virtue is it actually focuses on the number one driver of the debt, and that is our unsustainable entitlement programs. We have made a lot of progress in the last few years in this body on a bipartisan basis in reducing discretionary spending. We are actually spending $165 billion less in discretionary accounts than we were in 2008 when George W. Bush was President of the United States. I don't agree with all those reductions, and I suspect my friends on the other side don't either, but that is a tangible contribution to reducing the deficit and moving us toward balance. What we haven't dealt with, what the President has largely refused to deal with, and what I suspect my friends in their budget will not deal with, but Paul Ryan has, are the real drivers of the debt: Medicare and Medicaid, in particular. There is an offer in there to sit down and deal seriously with Social Security, as well. And until we do those things--and Paul Ryan has started us on a path to do them--we will never bring the budget into balance. Now, one of the other things I like about Mr. Ryan's budget is, gosh, it really does balance within 10 years. It makes a lot of tough choices. My friend, Mr. Woodall, actually gets there a little bit faster because he makes even tougher choices, but it balances. My friends on the other side and the administration haven't presented a budget that balances in 10 years or 20 years or 30 years or 40 or 50--or just draw the lines right on out to infinity. I don't think that is what the American people sent us here to do. But until somebody actually has the courage to do what Mr. Ryan has done and what Mr. Woodall has done, that is the situation the country is going to be in. The other thing I like about the Ryan budget, in particular, is that it actually incorporates in it the agreement that he arrived at with Senator Murray in the other body. Now, there was a lot of criticism about that because it probably wasn't what I would have negotiated if I got my way or probably Mr. Woodall or any other Senator, but it was a real agreement--only a 2-year agreement, but a real agreement. And against a lot of criticism, Mr. Ryan incorporated, okay, if that is going to be the settled law of the land, then that should be part of our budget. He put it in there, and I am proud of him for doing that. Finally, again, it reduces not spending, but the growth of spending. We are going to hear a lot of talk about slashes and not investing. If you actually look at the Ryan budget, Federal spending still grows. It grows by about 3\1/2\ percent a year. The difference is the Democratic alternative--well, excuse me--the current course is like 5.2 percent. That is not a great deal of difference. We could really restrain our deficit in the short term and ultimately bring ourselves into balance not by slashing everything, but by simply making some of the simple, commonsense reforms that my friend, Mr. Ryan, to great criticism, has advanced and put on this floor year after year after year. So I want to urge the adoption of this rule, which is a terrific rule, because despite some complaints, the reality is my friend, Mr. Woodall, and the Rules Committee have put a variety of choices before this body. We are going to have a budget from the Progressive Caucus that is very different than I would like, but it is going to get its opportunity. We are going to have a budget from the Congressional Black Caucus--again, different than I would choose, but it certainly deserves to be heard and examined. We are going to have Mr. Woodall's budget. So we are going to have several choices before we get to Mr. Ryan's budget, any one of whom might win, might actually persuade people. At the end of the day, we are going to have multiple choices because of this rule, and so it deserves to be dealt with because it does, indeed, open the process. At the end of the day, I suspect Mr. Ryan's budget will be the one that passes. Again, I am very proud to do that, and I urge its passage. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Ryan for again putting together yet another budget that balances in ten years. I know from the many meetings that we had on this side of the aisle that there was a lot of thought put into how we can maintain our commitment to fiscal balance, given the mounting debt, and the overall deterioration of our economic growth, brought about, in part, by the over 17 trillion debt. Additionally, this budget maintains the Republican focus on dealing with the true drivers of our debt, entitlement programs. It would have been very easy, given that the Bipartisan Budget Act set the 302(a) allocations for Fiscal Year 2015, to not do a budget; however, this budget, this blueprint yet again allows us to share our vision for the future. This budget reflects the discretionary caps which were agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget Act. As a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have seen the devastating cuts in end strength and capabilities we will face if we continue with sequester. And, instead of making discretionary cuts for the fifth year in a row, we have redoubled our efforts in entitlement programs to ensure they are available for all in the future. I was disappointed to see that the President reversed himself in his budget submission, removing Chained CPI from his budget proposal. However, House Republicans are willing to work with the President where possible and find common ground that will move our debt trajectory downward, instead of increasing at an exponential rate. Many have criticized this budget for ``moving the goalposts'' and now transitioning to a Premium Support model for those 56 and below; however, Madam Speaker, we have to face the facts. Every year that we do not act it becomes harder and harder to preserve the current programs for those already at or near retirement. This budget recognizes that hard reality and adjusts itself accordingly. Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to say a little about wildfires suppression costs. When devastating wildfires do occur and the costs exceed the Forest Service's budget, most often, other programs within the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee bear the costs. And that is not right. I am disappointed that this budget fails to consider how we can better budget for the true costs of wildfire suppression activities. My friend from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, has a deficit-neutral bill that would deal with this issue. Much of what we have considered on the floor the past few days has aimed at ensuring the true costs of programs are reflected in the budget. That is what Mr. Simpson's bill does and I hope we can consider it in the coming weeks. I hope this budget serves as a wake-up call that it is time to act. Here in Washington, we can become numbed to the problems facing our country. But they are real, and they must be addressed. This budget reflects the Republican vision for the future, one where we are in control of our destiny, as opposed to turning over control to our creditors.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. If I did not know my friend from Virginia as well as I do, I would have thought I had detected a little sense of sarcasm in his remarks, but, frankly, I know that is not the case. I know it is a sincere proposal. I must say, though, as chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of Appropriations, which has jurisdiction over the CBO, I am pretty familiar with its operations, its resources, and its capabilities, and the simple fact of the matter is that the amendment would create an unsustainable amount of work for the CBO for no benefit in new or additional information to the Congress of the United States. By arbitrarily picking $1 billion as the threshold for the analysis, this amendment would force CBO to conduct analyses on dozens of additional bills. CBO Director Elmendorf wrote to Chairman Ryan yesterday to explain the limits of their capability and capacity. Let me quote from his letter: The CBO would not be able to perform the analyses envisioned by that set of amendments: We do not have the analytical capabilities or the level of staffing that would be needed to undertake and complete the tasks that would be assigned to us, nor would the usual timetable for considering legislation allow the time that would be required to complete such analyses, even if we did not face those analytical and staffing constraints. The time that it would take the CBO to produce these additional estimates showing no discernible impact would delay Congress' legislative work at both the committee level and on the floor. The simple fact is, the amendment is unworkable and ill-conceived, and I urge its rejection.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Chairman Hastings. This important amendment includes a provision protecting the hunting, fishing and related treaty rights of all federally recognized tribes with respect to the provisions of H.R. 3590. Treaties are at the foundation of the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. Throughout the history of this country, tribal governments signed hundreds of treaties with the United States, often ceding significant portions of their homelands. Many of these treaties included provisions in which the United States made solemn promises to secure and protect the important hunting and fishing rights as well as other rights to sustain Indian people. As we pass laws that affect federal lands, it is important that we ensure the continued treaty rights of all federally recognized Indian tribes. Rights emanating from treaties between Indian tribes and the United States apply to all federally recognized tribes, whether they were recognized by treaty, an act of Congress, administratively or through a court settlement. This amendment to H.R. 3590 would make it clear in the legislation that the treaty rights, including treaty hunting and fishing rights, and other rights of all federally recognized tribes are preserved and not affected by the other provisions of this legislation. I urge your support for this amendment.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is a great personal privilege and pleasure for me to come down here on behalf of 14,000 farmers and ranchers in my district and 75,000 farmers and ranchers in the State of Oklahoma, and goodness knows how many tens of thousands of people beyond that in various phases of agriculture and ag industry, and thank my good friend, Chairman Lucas, for what he has accomplished. I think it is easy to be the critic; but I think all of us on this House floor know how long and how arduous this struggle has been to bring all the competing interests together, to bring both sides of the aisle together, to bring both Chambers together, and to bring the administration together in support of this legislation. It is easy to see why you would support it if you actually step back and take a look at what it does. First, it does save $23 billion. Frankly, those cuts largely don't come out of the safety net programs, where actually there is simply relatively modest, but important reforms. They actually come out of the production end of this business. Changes need to be made there, but we ought to recognize those are tough changes in and of themselves. Second, it preserves the capability of this country to continue to produce more food and fiber than anybody else in the world--not just for our people, but for all over the world--and to deliver that at a cheaper price than anybody else in the world. It is worth reflecting that Americans pay a lower percentage of their income for food than any other country in the world. Guess what? With the additional income, they are able to do other things, invest in other things, and go on. Finally, I am particularly pleased that the safety net has been preserved and that important programs are in place. We ought to recognize that wouldn't have been possible without my friend Chairman Lucas, all he has done to bring us together and how hard he has worked. This bill, frankly, deserves the support of every Democrat and every Republican on this floor. I urge my colleagues to be supportive when the time to vote comes.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, in closing, I would again like to thank my friends Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for their efforts to bring an important product to this floor, a product which fulfills our constitutional responsibility of appropriating funds for the government for the fiscal year 2014. While this is not the bill I would have drafted, or I am sure that my friend would have drafted, I believe it strikes an appropriate balance between key Republican and Democratic priorities, and I believe it will attract the majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well as the majority of my friends on my own side of the aisle. I want to thank my friend in the sense that, while we have had a contentious debate, we are actually going to be, on the underlying legislation, voting together. That may have been gotten lost in the debate. I will be voting with the majority of his colleagues and at the urging of the President of the United States. So we ought to recognize that, while we have had some partisan differences here, the legislation itself was crafted in a bipartisan manner. It was brought to this floor. I would agree with my friend, I would have preferred 12 different bills and a lot more time, but we have a limited time frame here. It was brought in a cooperative manner. Both the ranking member and the chairman are urging its passage. It is something that we ought to take, frankly, some pride in and certainly congratulate those who had a hand in it. I want to also point out to my friend on the unemployment issue, here we probably do disagree. But the Speaker has made it apparent, if there are appropriate pay-fors, he is willing to consider that. Without questioning my friends on the other side of the rotunda, so far they simply have not provided that. I think the Speaker's offer has been out since before the end of the year, since before the benefits ended. It is also worth noting that this does not affect regular unemployment benefits. Those are still there for all Americans. This is a program which has been extended 5 years. We are now in a time when the recession is 4 years in the rearview mirror. Unemployment has been coming down. If it still needs to be extended for some people, we ought to find a way, in my view, to pay for it, and I think the Speaker has made it apparent that he would consider any serious proposal in that regard. So far, we haven't had that. Sometimes, Madam Speaker, the smart vote and the easy vote are the wrong vote. I know some of my friends on the other side might decide to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. I never quibble with a rule vote. I respect that process because from their perspective there is a lot to criticize here. Certainly from my side of the aisle, there is a lot to criticize as well. We are going to have some ``no'' votes. But I think there is not much question that the right vote here is to vote for the underlying legislation, assuming that the rule is adopted, and I think it will be. I think it is the right thing for the country. I think it is the right thing for the process itself to actually get back to regular order, to consider the bills in the manner that I know my friend would like them to be considered in, and to have an open amendment process, which we do on appropriations legislation. This is an essential first step to doing that. I think that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey have probably done more in this legislation to restore the process and rebuild. They have given us a foundation for the next fiscal year that will allow us to do precisely the things that my friend would like to do and that I agree, in a normal process, ought to be done. So I would obviously urge support for the rule, but more importantly, after the rule passes, assuming it does, the underlying legislation so that we can work together in a bipartisan fashion; we can make sure that we have no government shutdowns next year. I think that will do more to create jobs and economic certainty than probably any single thing we could do. Our Appropriations Committee, working in a bipartisan fashion under the leadership of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, has done that. I would suggest that this probably is something that all of us should reflect upon, congratulate upon, and then try to spread throughout the institution. If we worked the way they worked in putting this bill together and bringing it to the floor on every other piece of legislation, I think the country would be well served; and, frankly, all of us would have a great deal to be proud of. With that, again, I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation. Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, in a few moments, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment is necessary due to a late request submitted by the administration to ensure that the fix for disabled military retirees works as it was intended. The amendment was fully vetted by the relevant House and Senate committees, majority and minority, and the administration. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the change does not affect the cost of the bill. This amendment will ensure that we properly execute the agreed-upon compromise. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. I thank my friend.

Mr. COLE. In that case, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, could I inquire from my friend if he has any additional speakers.

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that supposedly we are in the 5th year of a recovery and that we have extended these extraordinary benefits for 5 years at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, the Speaker has indicated that if our friends, either the administration, our friends on the other side of the aisle, or our friends in the Senate have an idea how to pay for this extension, he would give it due consideration. So far, it doesn't appear that such an idea has been forthcoming. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to remind my friends--and I have no doubt about my friend's compassion, I genuinely do not. We have had the opportunity to serve together on the Rules Committee. I would argue the compassionate thing to do here would be actually to start creating jobs. This recession ended in 2009. It has been a lot of years. We have 140 pieces of legislation stacked up in the United States Senate waiting for the Senate to act on that we think would generate jobs, everything from Keystone pipeline to enhanced energy production. There is a disagreement, but I think if the Senate would act proactively we would actually do what I know we both want to do and create jobs. The other thing I would suggest, I have some sympathy with my friends on the other side of the rotunda in my party. They have not been allowed to present any of their ideas or any of their amendments on the floor. I think they would probably like to work with our friend in that regard, let's just see. Again, I would suggest today we should concentrate on the thing that we know we can do in a bipartisan fashion: pass an omnibus spending bill that will prevent a government shutdown and will provide a firm foundation for our economy that both sides and the President of the United States have agreed is the right thing to do for the country. You usually make progress one step at a time. It seems to me that is an important step and a step we ought to make today by passing the rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to remind my good friend that this legislation is comparable, and this is actually under consideration in the United States Senate right now. Frankly, my friends on the other side of the aisle control the majority there. I would also like to remind them that when the President first raised this issue about a week before the end of the year, the Speaker said, If you will help us find a way to pay for it, we will consider it. So far I don't recall that that offer has been taken up in any serious way by anybody. The cost of this is extraordinary: $25 billion over a year; a temporary 3-month extension would cost between 7 and 8. We are trying to deal with what have been, really, deficits that have been extraordinary. This program has been extended for 5 years. Again, we would love to continue our dialogue with our friends. We hope something productive happens in the United State Senate. For now I am going to keep the focus where it belongs. That is on this omnibus spending bill, which is a bipartisan accomplishment, which the President has urged that we pass, which I know many of my friends on the other side also favor. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for giving me the opportunity to renew so many acquaintances with my good friends on the other side and make some new ones. So I appreciate that. I want to reiterate my earlier announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and we are not yielding for any other purposes. I would like to make the point that this legislation is genuinely bipartisan. The legislation that my friends have asked for consideration was not within the scope of consideration of this legislation. I have no doubt it is being dealt with in the Senate right now, but it is simply not appropriate, in my opinion, to bring it into this debate, particularly since we are under time constraints. Were we to fail to pass this rule and the underlying legislation in a timely fashion, we would risk a government shutdown, which I know my friends on the other side of the aisle want to avoid as much as we do. So, with that, I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.