Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).

Mr. COLE. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, first let me yield myself 30 seconds. This is legislation, obviously, that I support, but I want my friend to be aware, the House did not sit on this for 90 days. The administration of the States concerned took over a month, appropriately, in my opinion, to assess the damage. The administration sat on it. We didn't get this bill until just before Christmas. We're actually acting on it with a deadline of Congress and proceeding more rapidly than anybody else has. So we've not been part of the delay. Actually, we've been trying to expedite things. With that, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the distinguished Member from the affected area.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the most consistent and distinguished defenders of human rights in Congress.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from California, one of the most consistent and thoughtful conservatives in the House, Mr. McClintock.

Mr. COLE. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from New York, the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and one of the most distinguished Members of this body, Mr. King.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the 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 23 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 3 p.m. on Friday, January 18, 2013.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I had a long oration I was going to make, but I want to be quite honest. My good friend Chairman Smith and my good friend Ranking Member Lofgren have actually covered the case as well or better than I can. They're both distinguished attorneys. They understand the intricacies involved here, so there's no need for me to go through and literally repeat point by point what they have already made. I do want to make one central point, or two points. First, I want to thank both of them. This is a matter of justice. This is a bipartisan effort to try and make sure that an Indian nation that has a legitimate claim against the United States of America has an opportunity to go to court and make its case; no predetermination of the outcome, no settlement without coming back through Congress again, just simply an opportunity to make a case of an injustice that all sides admit occurred, and establish what's fair compensation. I want to commend, again, both my colleagues, and particularly Chairman Smith. This simply could not have happened without his cooperation, his help, and the diligent work of his staff. I urge passage of the legislation. Introduction Several hundred years ago, the Quapaw (``the Downstream People'') were part of a larger group known as the Dhegiha Sioux, which split into the modern tribes known as the Quapaw, Osage, Ponca, Kansa, and Omaha. The Quapaw's ancestral lands are located at the confluence of the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers in what is present day Arkansas. When first encountered by the Europeans in the 1670's, there were some 20,000 Quapaws living in four villages in this area. A series of treaties with the U.S. Government resulted in most of the Quapaw land being ceded to the United States, and the Tribe acquiesced to relocation to the far northeastern corner of present day Oklahoma. In the process, the tribal land base was whittled down to its current acreage. After Quapaw lands in Oklahoma were found to contain rich deposits of zinc and lead in 1905, the Government allowed mining activities to be carried out largely unfettered, and not for the benefit of the Quapaws. For years the value of the Quapaw mineral estate was exported from their land with the Government failing to ensure that royalties, bonuses and other payments were properly made and managed. Why H. Res. 668 is Necessary The Office of Historical Trust Accounting (OHTA) was established by Secretary of the Interior Secretarial Order No. 3231 on July 10, 2001; OHTA is charged with planning, organizing, directing and executing the historical accounting of tribal trust accounts and non-monetary assets. In 2002, the Tribe filed a lawsuit for an accounting and for asset mismanagement in the Federal District Court in Oklahoma alleging the U.S. Government owed them an accounting and had mismanaged their funds and non-monetary assets. During this time, there were over 104 tribal lawsuits pending and the Department of the Interior--Office of Historic Trust Accounting's ability to fund the accountings and determine whether assets were mismanaged was severely limited. At the same time, the Department of Justice had similar concerns about its ability to respond to the myriad of tribal lawsuits In July 2004, the U.S. Government and the Tribe negotiated and agreed to settle the pending lawsuit, and enter into an agreement under which the Department of the Interior would enter into a contract with Quapaw Information Services as contractor, to ``identify, select, and analyze documents, and prepare an analysis (the Quapaw Analysis), of Interior's management'' of the Tribe's Tribal Trust Fund Account, along with certain non-monetary land and natural resources assets held in trust on behalf of the Tribe, and eight individual members of the Tribe. In 2010--after six years of work, Quapaw Information Systems gave its report to the U.S. Government. In turn, the U.S. Government accepted the accounting as being in conformity with the Federal standards, but refused to do anything with the accounting. The Tribe fulfilled its end of the bargain. The U.S. Government did not. By 2011, the Tribe was left with no choice but to seek relief in court from the Government's failure--not only its failure to fulfill its trust obligations, but its agreement to mediate and settle the matter once the accounting was completed. Accordingly, eight Quapaw tribal members filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated tribal members. This case, Goodeagle v. United States, seeks damages for the Government's breach of trust in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In May 2011, the Tribe submitted a formal settlement demand to the Government, to which the Government has never responded. Instead, the Government has filed repeated Motions to Dismiss the Goodeagle case. With the settlement demand ignored, and the Government's ongoing refusal to resolve these claims through settlement, in September 2012, the Tribe filed a complaint for damages in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In November 2012, the Government filed yet another motion to dismiss the Tribe's case. The Mechanics of H. Res. 668 To ensure that the Tribe and its members can pursue their trust- related claims in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Rep. Tom Cole and Rep. Dan Boren introduced H. Res. 668. Notably, this resolution does not pre-determine the outcome of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims review of the Tribe's lawsuit. It simply allows the Tribe and its members to plead their case to a neutral decision-maker in a judicial proceeding. Some may assume that the sending of a congressional reference to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has already predetermined liability in favor of a claimant. As observed by former House Member (Rep. Marion T. Bennett (R-MO)), who became a Claims Court judge, ``nothing could be further from the truth or the intent of Congress . . . Congress intends only to afford an impartial and independent forum for determination of the merits of a complex claim by judicial methods.'' Bennett, Private Claims Acts and Congressional References, 9 JAG L. Rev. 9 (1967). H. Res. 668, as amended, simply affords the Tribe and its members the chance to present their case about the nature, extent, and character of the Indian trust related claims of the Quapaw Tribe and its tribal members for compensation as legal or equitable claims against the United States other than the legal claims that are pending in the Court of Federal Claims on the date of House approval of this to a neutral decision-maker in a judicial proceeding.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall votes No. 624, on the motion to instruct conferees regarding H.R. 4310, No. 625, on the motion to permit closed conference meetings for H.R. 4310, and No. 626, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4053, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all three votes.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank my friend for yielding. H.R. 5912 is a bipartisan bill to end public financing for political conventions. And that's all it is. I want to begin by thanking my friend, Mr. Loebsack from Iowa. We belong to different parties. I have no doubt we'll be voting for different Presidential candidates. But we both agree that it's wrong to use taxpayer dollars to finance partisan political events. And I appreciate his support in helping push this legislation. Let me make it clear to everybody. I'm not opposed to political party conventions. I've gone to 10 of them. I actually had the privilege of helping stage one in 2000, when I was chief of staff of the Republican National Committee. And I can assure you that experience taught me that the parties are more than capable of putting on their conventions. They essentially do that now. The Federal component of the cost to the convention is about 23 percent of the total cost. So the idea that they can't find the resources to do this for themselves I think simply falls flat on its face. This year, at a time when we're going to be running trillion-dollar deficits for the fourth year in a row, we wrote checks to the Democratic Party and to the Republican Party, as my friend Mr. Lungren mentioned, for almost $18 million each. For what? Was it really necessary? Does anybody really believe that was the best use of public money? Is there no program that's more important? I can give you a list of better places for that money to go that we would probably agree on on both sides of the aisle. It's remarkable to me that we've reached a point in this body that this becomes an issue of some degree of partisan contention. The United States Senate passed, essentially, this legislation by 95-5 in an amendment by my friend, Mr. Coburn, to a larger piece of legislation. So there's broad agreement in the Senate, which Democrats control, that this is a Federal expense that we no longer need to incur. This bill is a small step, but it's a stall step in the right direction. It's a step to save taxpayer dollars for things that people need as opposed to things that politicians and political parties want. We ought to take this opportunity, work together, save the money, reduce the deficit by at least a modest amount, spend money in places where it's necessary, and pass this bill. It's a quite simple piece of legislation. Those folks that have a different point of view, bring your legislation to the floor, we'll deal with that. But there's no reason to pay for the Democratic and the Republican national conventions with taxpayer funds. One last point, if I may, Mr. Speaker. We don't do this for anybody else. There are other political groups and parties in America that I'm sure would like to have their conventions paid for. We don't give them a single dime. So this actually perpetuates a bipartisan monopoly, if you will. There's no public purpose in spending this money. So I urge the passage. I urge some bipartisan cooperation.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for participating in the debate. I understand the passions here are high, and I actually respect that a great deal even when I disagree with the policy conclusions that may have led some of my colleagues to. I do ask you to stop and think, there is a sort of a contradiction in your argument: It's both redundant and yet gives special preferences. Both those things can't be true. It suggests to me the real argument is fundamentally different from those two points. The reality is it gives no one special preferences. We tried to listen to that point. I wish other countries were beating down my door to want to go do work on Indian reservations and to want to partner with Indians. They aren't. I know of one country that has really cared enough to do this. Now, there are a range of disputes in other areas. Those are legitimate disputes, and those are matters that ought to be the subject of serious discussion and debate on the floor, but have nothing to do with this bill. They have nothing to do with this bill. They're about ancient and current acrimonies and differences that ought to be settled in other forums on other issues but not on this bill, and certainly not at the expense of the least advantaged, frankly, the most disadvantaged part of our own population. I wish I could get more American companies that wanted to go on reservations and sit down and work with people about creating jobs. That's all this bill is about. To those of you that have other concerns, I recognize the legitimacy of those concerns. But I just ask you to focus on the nature of the legislation. The New World is supposed to be able to put some of the Old World's controversies behind us, and certainly on a topic like this. So for those of you, again, that have a different opinion, I respect it. But I also point out that Turkey is an ally of the United States. It has been for decades and decades. It's an important regional partner for the United States. This strengthens that relationship, as well, and the interest and the commitment in this area is genuine.

Mr. COLE. The interest in this area is genuine and real. Shouldn't that be something we should take and build on and try and add to and encourage? There needs to be a competition here. Let's build a competition to help Indian Country. Other countries can step up. Foreign companies can step up. Let's get a blueprint on how to do it. It is more complex than we would like to admit or acknowledge. That's one of the reasons why there's not American investments in these places. I can take you to some of the Indian reservations in North and South Dakota where the unemployment rate is 80 percent and the State unemployment is under 5. Should that tell you how serious the problem is? I'd like to get anybody interested in helping and doing it legitimately. We now have a level playing field for everybody. There are no preferences in this bill. Let's encourage other people to join the competition. Have them come in, and maybe they've got a better idea and a better way. But in the meantime, we should pass this bill, we should get about the business of putting Americans to work--the first Americans--and certainly Americans on Indian reservations that have every obstacle in the world against them. This bill will give one more tool in the toolbox. It's not a panacea, but it's a tool they ought to have.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. H.R. 2362 is simply a bill to facilitate economic development in Indian Country and to expand the range of options open to some of the poorest and most disadvantaged of Americans, the first Americans. Currently, as my friend Mr. Hastings pointed out, economic development is often hampered in Indian Country by restrictive leasing practices on Indian reservations. H.R. 2362 directs the Secretary of the Interior to create a demonstration project for up to six tribes engaged in economic development with foreign companies and foreign countries. Tribes will develop the guidelines for their own economic activity with these entities, the Secretary will approve them, and we will over time learn how to do business between Indian tribes and foreign countries. Frankly, that is something we know comparatively little about. One of the things that comes out of this is a development by the Secretary of the Interior of recommendations and best practices, something which needs to be done in this area. We have tried in the course of this legislation to recognize the concerns raised by some people about it. There's no question that I was approached by the Turkish American Coalition, who have a deep interest in Turkey and American Indians. It has been for many hundreds of years. This goes back a long way. They're the only country that has actually sent a national delegation to an Indian economic development conference. There are scholarships for Native American students at the Istanbul Technical Institute. There's a constant movement of tribal citizens going back and forth. This interest, apart from these other disputes, is real and genuine and deep. We've accepted some of the concerns that were voiced in subcommittee. There is no preferential status for Turkey in this bill. All 155 World Trade Organization countries will have exactly the same opportunity. It's important to note, I think, that this bill is strongly supported in Indian Country. Maybe we should listen to Indians about what's best for their own economic development. The National Congress of American Indians supports this bill, the National American Indian Housing Council supports this bill, the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development supports this bill. Numerous tribes support this bill. Perhaps they are the real experts here that we should be listening to. Passage of this bill would normally be a routine matter in this House. Frankly, due to the strong Turkish interest and support for the bill, we have a number of ethnic communities in the United States that have voiced objections. I think that's always legitimate and always appropriate. But sadly, as I pointed out, some of these objections don't have much merit. Again, this is not special legislation for Turkey. All 155 World Trade Organizations can participate. That includes the folks that are so concerned about this. Second, the idea that passing the HEARTH bill--which, by the way, I strongly supported, cosponsored, came down here and argued for. I think it's a wonderful piece of legislation. It's largely silent, save for one phrase. On foreign investment, we do not have a lot of experience here. It would be helpful to have demonstration projects. It would be good to have the Secretary of the Interior involved more deeply. And third--and I hope this isn't the case. I have heard recently that there is even a sheet going around--perhaps not true; I hope not--that suggests this legislation will cost domestic manufacturing jobs. You've got to be kidding. Putting jobs on Indian reservations is going to take American jobs away? Who were the first Americans? So again, the arguments, I think, largely do not address the legislation. I understand something about historical grievances and controversies. I'm the only Native American in this House right now. My great-great- grandfather, when he was 13 years old, was forced to move from Mississippi, where his people had lived for 500 years, to avoid being placed under State restriction. His lands were confiscated. They were guaranteed new land in Indian territory in the West. He arrived-- nothing. Started it up being, actually, the clerk of the Chickasaw supreme court. His son, my great-grandfather, was treasurer at the time of the Dawes Commission when--guess what--those treaties that were going to last forever were revoked again by the United States Government. Indian territory was opened up, over the objection of the tribes, to white settlement, and Indian governments were ground down. My family has spent much of the time since that time working with other Chickasaws and other Native Americans to see tribal sovereignty restored and those rights given back. That's why I cochair the Native American Caucus. That's why, when the tribal law and order bill came to this floor, where there were concerns on our side about process, I got the Republican votes that were necessary to pass it. That is why I was the Republican lead sponsor of the Cobell settlement. That's why I've worked with this administration--which, by the way, has a great record on Native American affairs--on the Carcieri bill. So I understand grievances, and I understand the legitimacy of expressing them.

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman. But legislation must be relevant to the historical experience that we're talking about, and we ought to look for opportunities to turn old enemies into new friends. I try to do that on this floor every day. This legislation has nothing to do with ancient or current disputes between Turkey and Armenia or Greece. This bill is about helping American Indians. We ought to put aside the disputes of the Old World and focus on helping the original inhabitants of the New World, which is exactly what this legislation will do.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for including me on his committee. H.R. 5872 is a bipartisan bill. As has been mentioned several times, it did pass out of the Budget Committee unanimously, and that's a very good thing. I think, honestly, we have a very strong bipartisan agreement that sequester is a very bad policy, something that really shouldn't be allowed to happen. Obviously, I also sit on the Defense Appropriation Subcommittee. So I focused on that area. If we don't arrive at agreement before the end of the year, we'll have $110 billion worth of cuts across the entire budget, but about a 10 percent cut on top of a half a billion dollars we've already taken out of defense that will begin that will have tremendous consequences in my State, potentially 16,000 jobs, $620 million or $630 million to the State economy. We all hope this doesn't occur, but we all know that the administration does have a responsibility to plan for it and to inform us of those plans. So far it has failed to do that. Mr. Speaker, it's worth noting for the record that we have dealt with sequestration in this House. We passed a measure to avoid it. It's the Senate that has failed to act. We may not have acted in a manner in which our friends on the other side would like, but the responsibility now is with the United States Senate to at least pass something and put us in a position to go to conference. It would be irresponsible to allow sequester to occur, and it would be responsible for the Senate to actually act. I hope today, by giving the Senate additional information, by encouraging the administration to plan for something we hope doesn't happen, that we will actually bring ourselves a little bit closer to a solution, and we'll come to a bipartisan compromise by the end of this year. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, as I am the most junior member of this subcommittee. But I would be remiss not to echo the praise of my colleagues, both for the chairman and the ranking member. They have worked together extraordinarily well in a way that makes us all proud. Frankly, Mr. Dicks, I am going to miss you greatly from this committee. You have been a mentor and a friend. Thank goodness Mr. Young will be here, and I will have somebody's knee to learn at. This is a good bill. It does, as has been mentioned earlier, add roughly a billion dollars from roughly $519 billion in the base defense bill. What hasn't been mentioned, though, is that our overseas contingency fund, 8, $8.5 billion, is actually down $27 billion, so we are actually spending less overall on defense this year. We reduced the number of personnel by over 21,000. We ought to recognize, for those of our friends who think we're spending too much, we are actually at the beginning of a long drawdown. If you look over the next 5 years, sadly, we're going to reduce defense spending by $500 billion. That means less capability. That means 70,000 fewer soldiers, 20,000 fewer marines. That means 25 fewer combat vessels--288 instead of 313. Seven fewer aircraft fighter wings. Real reduction in capability. A lot of our friends think we spend too much on defense. The reality is we spend less and less as a percentage of our Federal budget and our overall wealth every year. In the 1970s we were spending 40 percent plus of the Federal budget. This year, it's less than 20. We were spending 9 percent of GDP at the height of the Cold War, this year barely 4. For those of us that think that this investment hasn't made a difference, I would just recommend in closing, please read Robert Kagen's splendid book, ``The World America Made,'' and think how much freedom and security we have enjoyed for a relatively small price and think about the risk we have run as we go forward if we reduce too far too fast. I want to thank again the chairman, the ranking member, for making sure that didn't happen. I look forward to working with him to make sure sequestration does not occur. As he rightly points out, it would be devastating. We should pass this bill, and we then should get about the longer term challenge of making sure sequestration does not occur.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare is unpopular, unworkable, and unaffordable. It's unpopular because it limits individual freedom and personal choice. It's unworkable because it relies on thousands of regulations, dozens of boards and commissions, and an unelected group of bureaucrats to distribute and ration care. We have the opportunity today to end a bill that's also unaffordable. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of taxes, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of raids on the Medicare fund. We can only take the first step here today. But in November, the American people can take the next step by electing a President and a Senate that will work with this House instead of against them to repeal what is a legislative monstrosity that should have never passed in the first place.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5883) to make a technical correction in Public Law 112 108, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.