Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of response. First, I appreciate my good friend, whom I have worked with on a number of things, most recently the Violence Against Women Act, where she certainly ably represented the bill in the Rules Committee and on the floor, and I appreciate that very much. I'm going to gently correct in return. When we talk about cuts that were previously agreed to, with all due respect to my friends, most of those cuts still haven't even taken place. If you look at them, they are far in the future, in the 10-year window. These were not cuts, by the way, that the two sides found contentious. This was the easy stuff that they all agreed to right up front. It wasn't as if there was some concession. The real discussion was in the next round of cuts, where the supercommittee wasn't able to come to an agreement. Even there, there were $600 or $700 million in agreed-upon ``cuts'' that both sides acknowledge. There just wasn't agreement about revenue, and so the cuts didn't occur. Well, we're here today, and just as the tax increases were written into law effectively when the Bush tax cuts sunsetted in January, these cuts are also written into law. Again, since they're written into law, they're going to occur. Now, we're willing, again, to sit down with our friends and redistribute where they come from. We think that would be the prudent thing to do. We tried to do it twice last year. It didn't work out. Nobody was interested in talking to us last year. The President wasn't interested in putting a proposal on until, if anything, recent days, and I really couldn't still tell you what it truly is.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just, again, to get back to the big picture for a moment, as my friends know, we're going to spend about $3.5 trillion this year in the Federal budget. These dreaded cuts, in terms of the total budget, amount to 2.4 percent of all spending--2.4 percent of $3.5 trillion. I suspect the American people think: You could find a better way to distribute those cuts than closing our towers. I agree, actually, with my friend, Mr. McGovern. One of those towers, by the way, is in my district, so I certainly understand it. I have 20,000 Federal defense employees in my district, so I'm quite aware of the problems with the distribution of the cuts. Now, I'll leave it to my friends on the other side of the aisle and Mr. Woodward to argue whose idea this was and what purpose and how it was constructed, but it's hardly as if the President of the United States or our friends in the Senate were innocent bystanders in all of this. We tried twice last year to sit down and renegotiate. We moved something through. We've said repeatedly this year we're willing to sit down and renegotiate the cuts. To me, that's compromise. The President talks a lot about a balanced approach. Two months ago, he got a lot of revenue. That's his side of the equation. This time it should be cuts. That's an appropriate balance. We'll sit down and renegotiate where they should come from--we think we've got some great ideas on that--but they are going to occur. They're the first and appropriate step toward getting our fiscal house back in order. So when my friends want to work with us about the distribution, I know they'll find a willing negotiating partner in the Speaker. Until such time, we will follow the course that the President laid out, advocated for, and signed into law. If he wants to revisit that, we agree with him, let's revisit it and redistribute it, but the cuts are going to occur. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Listening to my colleagues, I'm reminded of that old saying that Washington, D.C., is 10 square miles surrounded by reality. Let's talk a little bit about the definitions we use for cuts. First of all, the Government will spend more money this year than it did last year, just as last year it spent more money than it did the year before. We're not cutting anything. We're slowing down the rate of growth. In parts of the budget there are real cuts. But in terms of overall spending, it's ever and ever higher. According to the much quoted, much loved Congressional Budget Office, this year we will have the highest level of income for the Federal Government in history. In the history of the United States, we will have more money to spend than we have ever spent before. And yet that same CBO estimates it will run a budget deficit if we keep sequester, if we allow the revenue that occurred in January of over $850 billion. Now at some point you have to reconcile the highest level of income and an $850 billion deficit. We don't have a revenue problem here; we have a spending problem of historic and massive proportions. This is one small step in the right direction to try and get that under control. We look forward to what our friends in the Senate do. We look forward to what the administration does. And we look forward to having a conversation over not just this bill but in the next several months we're going to have that opportunity when the Senate finally presents a budget. We'll present a budget. The administration for the fourth time in 5 years will be late but surely will at some point present a budget. The American people can look at all of those. We're going to have an opportunity for a great debate, and I suspect we'll continue to try and adjust things as we move forward to get ourselves more in balance. But let's recognize the reality. We've had four trillion-dollar deficits in a row. We have, with these cuts and with additional revenue, an $850 billion deficit, at the minimum, in front of us. Maybe that ought to be the focus. I can assure my friends--we all talk a lot about polling and what the American people think. I can assure you, I've done a lot of polling in my lifetime. They think the Federal Government is too big; they think it spends too much; and they would like to see us take less of their money, not more. So if we get into a real debate here, I suspect the American people will say: Figure out a way to live within the highest level of income in American history as opposed to coming to us and asking us for more. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Just for the purpose of response, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate my good friend's offer on staying in session last week. It would have been nice if we'd have dealt with this 18 months ago. We've known it's been coming. We tried to do that twice. I'm not sure the President would have been around last week. Frankly, he spent the last 6 weeks crisscrossing the country, campaigning and bludgeoning people, as opposed to having a dialogue. He did not bother to invite the Speaker, the Majority Leader, or the leader of the Senate or the minority leader of this House to a meeting until the very last day--the very last day. Now, that suggests to us there wasn't a great deal of interest in serious negotiations. So, again, this process is going to allow that to occur. We're going to advance our bill through this Chamber. It's going to have incorporated some of the work in the appropriations process. It's going to help the Defense Department a great deal. We're waiting for our friends in the Senate to do the same thing. They're going to, undoubtedly, add some things. I think there will be a negotiation. I think we will end up in a good place. But we will preserve the spending reductions of the sequester in the final product of the bill. With all due respect to my friend, revenue's off the table. You had revenue about 6, 8 weeks ago with no cuts. This time I suspect you're going to get cuts and no revenue. With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Burgess), my distinguished colleague, classmate, and a distinguished physician.

Mr. COLE. I'm certainly prepared to close whenever my friend is.

Mr. COLE. I will finish my point, and I will be happy to yield to my friend briefly. I think that the reality is we ought to recognize--just as I urge my friends on my side of the aisle to recognize--as we approach the end of the Bush tax cuts, that they're going to end. We ought to sit down and negotiate with our friends some better and more proper distribution, whether we like it or not. That's just the case. It's going to be that way. That's what's going to happen here. Now, we would rather renegotiate, minimize the harm and spread that 2.4 percent over the entire $3.5 trillion budget. I suspect our friends would like to do that, too, over time, and hopefully we can arrive at that. So I look forward to continuing the dialogue, but the cuts are going to be secured. This legislation will move through the House, and then I'm sure something will move through the Senate and we'll sit down and negotiate in a bipartisan, bicameral manner. With that, I yield to my good friend from Texas.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make a few quick comments in reference to my good friend's remarks. You referred to an interesting phrase, ``selective bipartisanship.'' I would suggest to my friend that we've probably practiced that more in 2 months than they did in 2 years when they were in the majority. These were major pieces of legislation that we did move in a bipartisan fashion. As my good friend knows, I helped on all three of those occasions, was happy to do so, and I'm sure the Speaker will continue to try and work across the aisle whenever he can. My friend also referred to the nature of the cuts. Let me assure him of this: these are cuts, and they are going to occur; but we've repeatedly told our friends and the President and the Senate that we would be more than happy to redistribute where the cuts are going to occur. We did that twice: in May of last year and in December of last year, after the election, in good faith. In neither case did the Senate pick that up or the White House respond with a serious offer. Now my friend is asking us to do it for a third time in the hopes it will be different. Perhaps this time you should go first. Perhaps the Senate should actually pass a plan or the President actually lay one out. I don't think we've really seen that. But again, if we see that, we'll be willing to work with our friends and try and redistribute the cuts. But don't have any illusion that we're going to eliminate them. We're not, any more than our friends eliminated the idea of tax cuts when the Bush tax cuts ran out. This is something we feel is a first step in getting our fiscal house in order. And let me remind my friend, as I know he knows, this bill, in itself, is an effort to work with the President and the administration. The President has said, and I think quite correctly, that we need to avoid a government shutdown. Mr. Rogers and the Appropriations Committee are acting early and acting, I think, in a very responsible manner to put a vehicle out there and begin to move it through the process. We are more than willing for the Senate to do the same thing, would expect that they will. They may well add other departments. Frankly, speaking only for myself, I would hope that they do. I would like to recapture a lot of the appropriations work that was done for the fiscal year 2013 and lost during the CR process, and we can have, I think, a good negotiation going back and forth between the two parties. So this is the beginning of a process. It's the beginning of a return to regular order, and it's an opportunity to work, I think, in a bipartisan fashion. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for the consideration of H.R. 933, the Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013. The rule is a closed rule, which provides for the consideration of fully conferenced Department of Defense and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bills and a continuing resolution for other government programs at the FY 2012 levels. This rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. In addition, the rule incorporates a purely technical amendment to the bill by Chairman Rogers. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 933 accomplishes several key objectives. First, it preserves military readiness and national security capability, while maintaining core commitments to our troops and our veterans. Second, it ends the current uncertainty of the fiscal year 2013 budget. It seems that over the past year, we have moved from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Rogers and Chairman Sessions, we are able to consider funding the Federal Government through the end of the fiscal year at this point, avoiding the threat of a government shutdown. Additionally, by considering full-year DOD and MilCon-VA bills, we are able to establish a stable baseline for the Department to act upon, as opposed to having them rely on fiscal year 2012 priorities. This bill realigns the appropriation accounts for Department of Defense and MilCon-VA to better reflect the fiscal year 2013 execution, rather than the fiscal year 2012 levels carried forward in a CR. Mr. Speaker, this legislation operates under the caps of the Budget Control Act of 2011 as modified by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. There are across-the-board reductions in security and nonsecurity spending to reach the caps of $1.043 trillion. Additionally, there is a provision which ensures that the funding will be reduced to the post- sequester level of $982 billion in total spending, a reduction of $85 billion in overall Federal spending for fiscal year 2013. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a moment discussing the anomalies in this bill. Let me assure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that none of the anomalies in this legislation, on net, do anything that raise the cost of the bill above the statutory Budget Control Act caps. Some of the anomalies in the bill are things like turning off the $100 million in convention funding for Charlotte and Tampa, and turning off $31 million in funding for the Eisenhower Commission, where funding has been delayed indefinitely and no funds have yet been expended. These anomalies are limited. There are only approximately 80 in the entire bill. For reference, in the last full-year continuing resolution, there were over 600 anomalies. The Appropriations Committee has been judicious in its use of anomalies, only providing them in cases where mission-critical operations might be impacted. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill, and 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 my good friend, the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. Reclaiming my time, we'll have an opportunity in the sense of the previous question. We'll see how the majority shakes out on that issue. I'm sure my friends will regard that as effectively a vote on their proposal. With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying legislation. This rule brings the Senate-passed version of VAWA to the floor and allows us to vote on House language to replace that version. I want to particularly thank my good friend, Chairman Sessions of the Rules Committee, for devising a rule that will help the House work its will on this important issue--and do so smoothly, fairly, and quickly. I want to particularly thank Leader Cantor for his hard work and effort to truly understand and deal with the problems that Native American women face. That part of our population, as many of my colleagues have learned during the course of this debate, is in many ways the most at-risk part of our population. One in three Native American women will be sexually assaulted in the course of her lifetime. The statistics on the failure to prosecute and hold accountable the perpetrators of those crimes are simply stunning. I'm very proud that both the Senate and the House have turned their attention to this issue and finally begun to give it the consideration that it merits. Again, I particularly want to thank Leader Cantor. The House version has improved tremendously over what this body passed in the last Congress; and that's due, in large measure, to his hard work. That being said, I cannot support the House version of VAWA. While it's made great strides in recognizing the jurisdictions of tribal courts over non-Indian offenders, it falls short of giving tribes what they need to keep their citizens protected from the scourge of domestic violence. Unlike the Senate version, the House version fails to recognize existing tribal sovereignty that's enshrined in the Constitution and has been recognized throughout the history of our country. The House version requires tribes to seek Department of Justice certification before exercising jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders. I cannot think of any example where one sovereign has to seek permission to exercise their rights as a sovereign. It doesn't make sense to ask tribes to willingly abdicate part of their sovereignty to exercise another part of their sovereignty. In the same vein, the House bill waives sovereign immunity on behalf of the tribes. As sovereigns, tribes should make that decision on whether or not to waive sovereign immunity. In the final analysis, Indian tribes and Indian women need help--and I don't think there's much debate about this in this body. And they prefer the Senate bill to the House bill. That settles the issue for me. I support this rule. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the House amendment to the underlying bill, and I support the underlying bill that's been passed by the Senate.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 152, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013. The rule is a structured rule that allows the House to work its will and decide the appropriate amount of aid for the devastation as a result of Hurricane Sandy. It allows for an up-or-down vote on the first $17 billion in aid, along with an amendment by Mr. Mulvaney which would offset the cost. Additionally, the rule allows the House to consider Mr. Frelinghuysen's amendment for an additional $33 billion. The rule also makes in order 11 other amendments. Additionally, this rule directs the Clerk of the House to add H.R. 219, a bill to improve and streamline disaster assistance for Hurricane Sandy, which passed the House yesterday by a vote of 403-0, as a new matter at the end of H.R. 152. Mr. Speaker, as I review the rule and the underlying legislation, my own opinion is shaped by a variety facts: First, there's no question that an enormous disaster has taken place and hit the northeastern portion of the United States and that the dimensions of that disaster are truly extraordinary. There's a lot of different estimates that are floating around about how much, but one is as high as $85 billion, and that doesn't begin to calculate the human suffering in addition to the enormous financial cost. Second, there's clearly a Federal responsibility to act in this case. We've always acted after disasters. We acted quickly after Hurricane Katrina, after the Oklahoma City bombing, and after the horror of 9/11. In countless other instances where a Federal response was in order, we've quickly moved to that responsibility, and we need to do so again in this case. Third, frankly, and I think this is too often overlooked in this discussion, we have a national interest in getting this region on its feet as quickly as possible, not only because it's the right thing to do, and it certainly is that, but because it's the smart thing to do. Over 13 percent of our citizens lived in the four most affected States that were damaged by Hurricane Sandy, and collectively, they produce over 17 percent of the wealth of this country. Having that area up, operational, and prosperous is critical to the prosperity of the entire country. As an American and as an Oklahoman, I know that my State has often benefited from Federal disaster relief in the past. I think of the Oklahoma City bombing in particular, where I served as Secretary of State and chief liaison to the Federal Government, and know firsthand how critical it is and how helpful it is to have the resources of the Federal Government at hand when you're dealing with an unanticipated disaster. Again, it's pretty unusual in my State to go through a year without a tornado disaster, and it's pretty unusual to go through a year without a drought disaster. Each time, we've come and asked for help from the Federal Government; each time, we received that help. Undoubtedly, we'll be doing that again in the near future. It would be hypocritical, in my view, to fail to do for people in the affected region what I and, I know, many others have routinely asked for our own regions. I do think, as I look forward, we should do a better job in budgeting for disasters, and frankly, we've taken steps in that direction. To the credit of this body and the executive branch, under the Budget Control Act, we actually set aside money for disaster relief; and had we not had the disaster of Hurricane Sandy, we would have actually finished the year with a surplus in that account. This disaster, though, was so large and so sweeping that it used all that surplus and still demands more. So going forward, I hope we can look at different mechanisms to budget in a more responsible and consistent manner. However, to not allow whatever shortcomings are in the mechanisms of disaster relief, to stand by and allow Americans to suffer while we sort all that through, we have never done that in the past during a disaster, we certainly shouldn't do so now. In closing, I want to admit a personal debt to the Frelinghuysen family. I owe them a great deal. Almost 183 years ago today, in April, actually, of 1830, one of Rodney Frelinghuysen's distinguished forebears, Theodore Frelinghuysen, rose on the floor of the Senate to protest Indian removal, removal of my tribe from Mississippi and many other tribes to what's now Oklahoma. And he held the floor for 3 days defending a people that had no right to vote, had no ability to defend themselves, and tried valiantly to make sure that they were allowed to retain their homeland, retain their identity and their rights. He wasn't successful in that fight, but he fought it nonetheless. And, frankly, it would be incredibly ungrateful for me now not to, at the time of his people's greatest need, return the favor. So I urge the passage of the rule, I urge the passage of the Rogers bill, and I urge the passage of the Frelinghuysen amendment to that bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I'd like to say that I believe we've had a good debate on the rule. I believe the importance and timeliness of this legislation couldn't be more self-evident. This bill has been carefully crafted and worked in a way to ensure that those Americans in need can access the resources necessary to begin the rebuilding process. This rule has brought this issue in a manner which allows this body to consider it responsibly and thoughtfully, but quickly. Personally, I want to add that I hope every Member reflects on the situation of our fellow Americans in the Northeast. There's no question they've been overtaken by a disaster of historic importance. They've been there for us in the past; we certainly need to be there for them today. Each Member ought to recognize at some point his or her area will be hit by some disaster, and they will be here seeking support. So I would ask that they consider this request from our fellow Americans in the Northeast in the same way they would want their requests considered at the appropriate and necessary time for them. To close, I would 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.

Mr. COLE. I am prepared to close as well.

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

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Again, I associate myself very much with the substance of the gentlelady from New York's remarks. There's no question there's a disaster here. There's no question there needs to be aid. I do differ with the speed with which the House has dealt with this. Let's remember, it took 30 days for the affected areas to assess the damage themselves. It then took the administration an additional couple of weeks to assess that--appropriately so, in my opinion. It then took the United States Senate a considerable period of time to deliver us something--essentially on Christmas Eve, with a deadline coming. The House has actually moved expeditiously here. We have the issue before us now, certainly no intention to delay. Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, the former chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Mica.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, my friend, Pete Sessions, and the person who crafted the rule that allowed us to move this expeditiously through a difficult process and bring this important matter to the floor.

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

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