Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague and friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 458 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall votes No. 5, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 455, and No. 6, on adoption of H. Res. 455, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on these two votes.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, the bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. I had the privilege of sitting as one of the budget conferees, and it was an interesting process but a productive one. This is the first time in a long time we have had a genuine compromise in this body and, frankly, between this body and the administration and between this body and the other Chamber. I particularly want to praise Chairman Ryan and Chairman Murray, who worked together in good faith and who worked together well, neither one of whom violated their core principles but both of whom came together and did some pretty extraordinary things in what is a modest bill. First of all, they actually added to the deficit reduction over the window. Literally, we will have a somewhat smaller deficit and debt because of what they did than if we keep the current situation. Secondly, they did something we all know needs to be done in that they dealt a little bit with mandatory spending, and they redistributed those savings over to the discretionary side of the budget. It was because they were able to do that that we are probably going to be able to protect our military from what would have been really devastating cuts under the sequester. That is a pretty amazing achievement. The achievement, to me, that is the most impressive of all is that they managed to find a compromise that will restore regular order. We all know, if this legislation passes, the appropriators from the Senate and the appropriators from the House will be working over the holidays. They will probably come back and have an omnibus or some series of minibuses, but we will actually have had a somewhat normal appropriations process. Even more importantly, because they have set a top line number for fiscal year 2015, we can have regular order work in this Chamber all year next year, and we will be spared the prospect of a government shutdown in January or again in October. Those are exceptional achievements. I wish there would have been more and would have been different. I know I would have written it differently. I know my friend would have, and I know my friends on the other side would have; but we ought to take a step back and thank Chairman Ryan and thank Chairman Murray for what they did to restore the institution as much as what they did to try and work on the budget. They did it the right way. They did it together, and it is an example we ought to follow. So I urge the passage of this rule and the support and passage of the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by praising my friend Gregg Harper and my friend Peter Welch, who come to this floor with a very worthy purpose, and that is to redirect government funding toward something that is not particularly important toward something that is very important--medical research for children. The question when you have a worthy goal is always: How do you pay for it? Where will you actually get the resources? For many years, I have brought to this floor legislation that would eliminate public funding for political party conventions and Presidential campaigns. I could go into debate ad infinitum. The President has never used any public funding--didn't feel the need for it--in either of his two campaigns. Neither did Mr. Romney. On the political conventions, both political parties this year actually did take the money. I can tell you as a former chief of staff on the Republican National Committee who put on the convention in 2000, they do not need it. They absolutely do not need it. They can raise all the money they need from private sources, just as their nominees raised money from private sources. That bill has actually passed this House on multiple occasions with a bipartisan vote. I was prepared to do that again and I got a call from Leader Cantor. He said: Tom, I know you have been working on this problem for a long time. I know you are concerned about it. What if we redirected that money towards something that is a better purpose, a better use of public dollars? And he mentioned Gregg's bill. I couldn't agree with him more. So for those of you that are looking for something sinister or trying to link this to something it is not connected to, like the sequester, it is simply a modest step in the right direction. It takes money that we know is wasted and puts it to good use. For those of you that say it can't pass the other body, the other body in the last Congress on amendment voted 95-5 to take away public funding of political conventions. We still have a disagreement on Presidential campaigns. But funding political conventions really is more important than directing this money to a more worthy purpose? We are not even trying to take it out of the Federal budget. I just think that kind of logic defies imagination. This is a good-faith effort to do something that ought to bring us together instead of pull us apart. It is a modest step. I would be the first to admit that. But let's take the modest step in the right direction, take public dollars that we are now wasting on political conventions, give them to researchers, and let them do their work. That is just simply a better use of the public purse in a time of limited means. So I urge support for my friends' bill, H.R. 2019, Mr. Harper and Mr. Welch. I want to thank Leader Cantor. This was his idea of bringing two ideas together. I think it is a good one. I hope this House embraces it in a bipartisan fashion. I want to thank my friend, the chairman of Energy and Commerce, for his effort to bring this forward and advance it. Everylife Foundation for Rare Disease, Novato, CA, June 10, 2013. Hon. Gregg Harper, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Harper: The EveryLife Foundation for Rare Diseases is dedicated to accelerating biotech innovation for rare disease treatments through science-driven public policy. We are writing to support the Kids First Research Act of 2013 (H.R. 2019). This bipartisan bill would eliminate taxpayer financing of presidential campaigns and party conventions and reprogram those savings to provide for a 10- year pediatric research initiative through the Common Fund administered by the National Institutes of Health. During these trying fiscal times, we are pleased to see efforts that would increase funds for pediatric research. Unfortunately, pediatric rare diseases and cancer is terribly underfunded and largely overlooked by drug companies and research institutions. Public funding is essential to help spur the development of treatments for these children. We are pleased to express our strong support for H.R. 2019, and believe this legislation will help to bring increased funding and awareness to pediatric medical research. We look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure this bill is enacted into law. Sincerely, Emil D. Kakkis, M.D., Ph.D., President.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on December 3, 2013, I was unavoidably detained and was not present for Rollcall vote Number 617, (H.R. 1204 The Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act of 2013). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank my friend, the chairman, for yielding me the time and for her gracious remarks. Mr. Speaker, Native Americans have fought against, with, and for the United States more than any other group of people in the history of our country, and it is still true today. Native Americans enlist in the American military at a higher rate than any other race or ethnicity in the United States. That sense of protecting one's place and one's land, which is such an integral part of Native American history, is deep and alive and has benefited this country. As my friend the chairman mentioned, most Americans are certainly aware of the distinguished role of the Navajo code talkers in the Second World War. What many of them are not aware of, though, is how many others served not only in that war, but as far back as the First World War. This ceremony will recognize 33 tribes whose members are considered DOD code talkers. Ten of those tribes are from my home State of Oklahoma, and three of them--the Choctaws, Comanches, and Kiowas-- reside in my district. It is a privilege for me, as a Native American, to support this resolution and urge its adoption. It is right that we recognize the contribution of these Americans-- the first Americans--who were so often discriminated against at the time in which they contributed to the defense of our country and, in some cases in the First World War, still did not have the rights of other American citizens. Most Native Americans did not actually achieve the right to vote until 1924. So the fact that they were willing to go and lay their life on the line to assist this country, I think, speaks volumes about their patriotism and their commitment. So I thank my friends for bringing the resolution to the floor. I look forward to voting in support of it, and I urge its adoption by the House.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, like every Republican in this Chamber, until 10 days ago, every day I served in the House of Representatives I served with Bill Young. It has been noted here that he was a lion and a legend. At the time I was fortunate enough to come to this Chamber in 2003, he was probably at the zenith of his influence. He was chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and he was the confidant of the President, our military leaders, and leaders around the world at a time when the United States was at war. No one cared more about the defense of the United States of America than Bill Young, and no one cared and did more for the people who actually bear the burden, the men and women that wear the uniform of this country--past, present, and future--than Chairman Young. He was also a role model for many of us, a mentor, and a friend. He was somebody who would reach out and help you, take care of you, look after you, and give you the wisdom and advice that only he, with all his years of experience, can give. I remember on one occasion, not too long ago, when the chairman was obviously ill in the last several years of his life and still very active chairing our committee, a pretty busy man, a man dealing with his own problems; and I had tornados that hit my town in Moore, Oklahoma. Two days after those tornados hit, Bill Young was on the phone to tell me that I would be getting a telephone call from representatives of a New York investment bank called Cantor Fitzgerald, which had suffered grievous damage during 9/11, where they had lost 650 of their 950 employees at the World Trade Center. That company made a commitment that it would look after all of its people and all of their families and would reconstitute itself, and it did. Then they built on that commitment and said, We are going to help other people that are in tragedy by devoting all of our revenues earned on 9/ 11 of every year--not just profits, everything we earn--to help people in need. They have kept that commitment. Bill Young had forged a relationship with them because of all they had done to help men and women in uniform and the victims of disaster. He said they will be calling you and they want to help. They did. They helped literally hundreds of families with millions of dollars' worth of personal and directed relief. That probably never would have happened if Bill and Beverly Young had not reached out to me at that point, and I and the people in my community will be forever grateful to them. So we have lost arguably, I think, the greatest Republican Member of this body in the last two generations. We have not seen his like before, and it will be a long time again before we see anyone that rivals his compassion, his character, his civility, his decency, and his absolute devotion and commitment to our country and to the men and women who defend it.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I can agree with parts of what my friends have said, and parts I frankly can't agree with. I have worked in a bipartisan manner across the aisle and with the White House on Native American issues ever since I have gotten here, no matter who was on the other side of the aisle or who was in the White House. And I have to tell you, when you question the commitment of our side on Native American affairs, you clearly haven't looked at the record. Because of this chairman, Indian health expense is up 29 percent in 3 years. Each year for the last 3 years, we have raised above what the administration requested in Native American spending, and that is a fact. And we did it, by the way, working in a bipartisan manner. I want to give my friend, Mr. Moran, and my friend, Betty McCollum, a lot of credit for those achievements, and I want to give our predecessor, Norm Dicks, who operated the same way, a lot of credit for that. This is a good-faith effort to do exactly what my friends suggest--make sure that critical programs in Indian Country are funded right now. I will continue to work in a bipartisan manner with my friends on these and other issues, but to suggest that they are being used as a pawn, no, for the first time they are just not being forgotten about because that is what tends to happen around here; and that has happened under Democrats and Republicans. So with that, I would urge the adoption and support. I want to thank my friend for being the leader in this House on funding Native American programs. He has done more than anybody in this country to improve the quality and the level of Federal services on that. He ought to be given the credit that he deserves. I want to thank my friend, Mr. Moran, for working with him every step of the way to accomplish those things. I saw them do it when their roles were reversed when he was the chairman and he was the ranking member. It is not an effort to divide. It is an effort, actually, to put something out that has united us in a bipartisan sense and to make sure that the first Americans aren't the last Americans anybody around here thinks about.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I have some good news I want to announce here just shortly. But I want to note, for the record, my friends quite often make the point that they don't like a piecemeal approach. The reality is, if you look at actions, sometimes they do. They like it until they don't. I would point out we had, of course, H.R. 3210 here, which funded the military, by our good friend from Colorado (Mr. Coffman). I think, in a very bipartisan way, we voted overwhelmingly on both sides to fund the military and most of the contracting and civilian employees. There is a little disagreement with the administration about that right now, but that's half the discretionary budget taken care of in a ``piecemeal approach.'' Today the administration just announced, and I commend them for doing it, and I commend my friend because she announced she was going to be supportive of this too, and I think we all are. It was very evident in the Rules Committee, H.R. 3223, the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act. The administration's just announced that they're going to support that legislation. The President looks forward to signing it, and that's a bipartisan agreement between both sides and, frankly, a product of the work of our mutual good friends, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who found common ground and, in a piecemeal approach, moved us closer to a solution. So I think that's maybe not the greatest news in the world, but on a day where there's not as much good as we would all like, some good news. And I would hope my friends would look at the individual pieces of legislation that are coming, where we mostly agree, and accept those. We don't have to agree on everything, as the point's been made by several, to agree on some things. Those are areas that we do agree. And if we can fund our military in this fashion, and if we can make sure that our Federal employees are not going to lose any pay, retroactively, certainly, one step at a time, we can walk in the right direction and turn back on critical parts of our government. I hope that's what we're moving toward, Mr. Speaker. So my friend knows, I'm quite prepared to close whenever she wishes to close. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my good friend from New York. She's always a terrific, frankly, counterpoint and debater, and we agree on some things. We both agree that the government shutdown's not a good thing. Frankly, there's a strong bipartisan agreement. It's not something that either side wished to achieve, and it's something we ought to be working together, step by step, to try and undo; and, frankly, we've made a little bit of progress. Again, the idea that it never works to work piecemeal, it certainly did with respect to the United States military, civilian defense force, and contractors. That's exactly what we did. We passed something out of here; and the Senate, which said it wasn't going to agree to anything, magically did. Now we're going to, hopefully, eventually pass H.R. 3223 out of here to guarantee back pay. I think most people on both sides of the aisle will support that. The President's indicated he'll sign it, which suggests to me that the Senate will probably take it up and move on it. So, voila. Once again, just working through the process, we've found something that we can agree on. The differences here should not be so great that they can't be bridged. Just to remind everyone of the history, we have placed multiple offers concerning the Affordable Care Act before the Senate. The last offer seems to me something that we ought to be able to agree on, or certainly be willing to sit down and discuss. It only has two points, and it's basically a question of fairness. Why should Members of Congress and high appointees in the executive branch and our staffs go into the exchange and be able to bring subsidies with us, when no other American can do that? It's just not fair. Now, we could amend the law and let everybody come into the exchanges with subsidies. That would be fair. Or we could say, you know, really, Members of Congress and their staff are at a fundamental level employees of the Federal Government and they ought to be in that, and that would be fair. But let's treat everybody the same. More fundamentally, currently, the President has unilaterally decided to exempt 1,100-plus organizations. He's unilaterally, in a questionable measure, constitutionally, decided to suspend parts of the law for a year and exempt Big Business. We think, gosh, if you're going to do that, shouldn't every single American have the right to decide whether or not they want to participate in this for just 1 year until everybody is actually operating under the same system? That too is a question of fairness. Give every individual American the same relief from a mandate that you're giving Big Business and Big Labor. It just seems to me commonsensical. It doesn't mean you have to stop the exchanges. You don't have to undo the program. Just treat everybody the same. Be fair. That's the Republican proposal in front of the Senate right now, and, frankly, I think they probably don't want to discuss it because it's a hard one to say ``no'' to because it's fundamentally fair. And that's all we've asked, is that the Senate, which has rejected it, at least come to conference and talk about it. The real issue here beyond the questions of policy is whether the Senate is going to be allowed to dictate unilaterally what the House does. Is it just going to say, no, you've to do it our way? We're not going to negotiate. We're not going to go to conference. We're not going to deal with you. You have to do it our way. That's not the way the system was set up. My friend, Chairman Rogers, pointed that out quite succinctly. We've got a way to handle this. It's called go to conference, argue, and work out the differences. And I suspect we're going to see the same thing a little bit down the road from the President, who's told us and told the Speaker this week, I'm not going to negotiate with you on raising the debt ceiling in the United States. You just have to do it unilaterally. You have to put the country further into debt without any discussion of what we can do to change the trajectory of that debt. Now, that's a remarkable change from where he was in August of 2011. A remarkable change. He was in a very different place and position and was willing to sit down and talk. I don't know why he would change that now. So I think we should do something in this bill to build on this piecemeal approach. We should pass these different measures. We agree these parts of government ought to be open; and we should continue to work through, conference with our friends in the Senate and ultimately in negotiation with the President of the United States on the debt ceiling. And so I urge the adoption of this rule. In closing, I'd like to, again, say that one of the basic functions of Congress is to fund government. This rule would allow 10 or more pieces of that government to open again to provide for crucial services that they provide. I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. COLE. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the great State of Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just a quick point. My friend is always quite eloquent, and I know, frankly, very passionate and very well-meaning and very expert when he talks about nutrition programs, where he spent a great deal of time. For the record, it's worth noting that we have increased nutrition programs broadly by 400 percent since George Bush became President. We doubled them, roughly, when Bush was President. Doubled them again since President Obama has been in office. What the Republican program is talking about is a 5 percent cut after a 400 percent increase based on reforms. I think it's maybe not quite so dire. Again, I recognize my friend's good work in this area and hope that we have an opportunity to get to conference, have that discussion. I suspect the bill, if it comes back, may be closer to his liking than the bill that went out.

Mr. COLE. I yield my friend from Florida an additional 1 minute.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 371 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from Rochester, 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. Certainly.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. COLE. If the gentleman will yield, no, Mr. Chairman, I do not. I would just highly recommend to my friends we do, since it seems to be a good way to resolve our differences.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify House Resolution 371 with the correction placed at the desk.