Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, Wilma Mankiller led a remarkable life. As my friend Congressman Boren so eloquently stated, her beginnings were awfully humble. Frankly, they didn't get much better for a long time. She traveled to California, and unlike a lot of Oklahomans, did not find the prosperity that so many had found, so she returned home and went to work for the Cherokee Nation. For over a decade, she worked through a succession of posts of increasing responsibility. Eventually, she became, of course, the principal chief of the second largest Indian tribe in America, the first woman to do so and arguably the best leader the tribe has had since its removal from North Carolina to Oklahoma. During her tenure as chief, she more than tripled the number of Cherokees. She doubled tribal employment. She added dozens of programs in nutrition, social services, education, and cultural awareness. Frankly, she made the Cherokee Nation even more than it was--a force to be reckoned with, but a beneficent force, not only in northeast Oklahoma, not only within the lives of its citizens, but, quite frankly, in Indian Country and in American politics. She was recognized for her extraordinary achievements over a lifetime--honorary degrees, boards and foundations and, of course, again, as my colleague and friend Mr. Boren mentioned, the highest civilian award that any American can receive, the Medal of Freedom. I knew Wilma Mankiller very well. She led a life based on principles. The first one was just absolute personal integrity. She was one of the most honest and honorable people I had ever met in my life. The second was humility. She was the most approachable person you would ever want to know. She had a total lack of pretension, and she believed very profoundly in service to others--in service, yes, to her tribe; in service, yes, to Native Americans; but in service beyond, as a creed and as a value, that she lived and acted on every single day of her life. She was a remarkable person to talk to because she was completely candid in her conversations, which is very unusual, particularly for a political figure. If you are chief of the Cherokee Nation, I can assure you, you are a considerable and skillful politician in your own right. On many occasions, I remember getting advice, and I remember her speaking in a very unvarnished way. I can't count the number of times that I heard her say in speeches when she got up--she loved to speak truth to power--that she identified herself: either I am or have been the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation. If the United States Government had had its way, I would never have been a chief; there would never have been a Cherokee Nation or it would have ended, and also tribes would have been eliminated. That is where she began her conversation. She was a role model, of course, to women and to Native Americans everywhere, particularly to my mother, who was the first Native American elected to the State Senate in Oklahoma. She was a close friend of Chief Mankiller's. Like me, my mother admired her quite profoundly. As a leader, she was always principled; she was determined; she was visionary, but she was supremely practical in her political pursuits. She was tough; she was shrewd; she was dedicated to the Cherokee people, and she was dedicated to Native Americans. She was an extraordinarily fierce defender of the concept of tribal sovereignty. She understood it in her bones; she advocated it and, frankly, enhanced it, not only for her own people but for Native Americans everywhere. Having said that, she was always willing to partner with anyone. It didn't matter what your point of view was. It didn't matter what your values were. She was a very devoted Democrat. My mother was a very fierce Republican. They found common ground again and again on issue after issue. In closing, I want to join my friend Mr. Boren in expressing my profound sympathy to her family, obviously to the great Cherokee Nation and to Native Americans everywhere. I mean this with all sincerity that I have not seen her like before in my life. I don't think any of us will see her like again.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I share my colleagues' concerns about what's in the bill, but I'm also concerned by what's not in the bill and, frankly, that's money to fund the settlement of the so-called Cobell lawsuit. As my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know, this lawsuit against the Federal Government stems from the mismanagement of Indian trust accounts and trust land since 1887. It involves over half a million claimants; it has drug on for 14 years through three different administrations involving both parties. Finally, in December of last year, a settlement was reached, $3.4 billion: $1.4 billion to individual claimants, $2 billion to allow for the repurchase of fractionated lands, and some money set aside for an Indian scholarship fund. I want to particularly, frankly, commend Secretary Salazar, who did a wonderful job in bringing this issue to closure. But it's now squarely in our court in the Congress of the United States. The President has asked us to solve this problem or to fund the settlement that he's negotiated. For the record, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to enter the President's letter to the Speaker asking action on this particular item. So it's now squarely in our court. When the settlement was negotiated, there was a deadline that we would act in Congress by December 31 of last year. Obviously, we missed that. There's a second deadline of February 28. We missed that. The last deadline is April 15. I know that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle sincerely want to settle this issue, and I look forward to working with them as we try to move toward that; but I find it very difficult to keep people that have been waiting over 100 years waiting a while longer while we do things in a more immediate framework. So I urge the Congress to act, and I urge us to, frankly, support the administration's negotiated settlement. When we do that I'll be there to help my friends on the other side of the aisle. The White House, Washington, DC, February 12, 2010. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: I ask the Congress to consider the enclosed amendments to Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 proposals in my FY 2011 Budget. Included is an amendment for the Department of Homeland Security, Disaster Relief, for the continued response and recovery efforts associated with prior large events, such as Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest Floods. The proposed total for FY 2010 in my FY 2011 Budget would increase by $1.5 billion as a result of this amendment. Also included are amendments to general provisions that would provide authorization and funding for FY 2010 to implement the settlement of a case involving the management of individual Indian trust accounts related to Indian lands and to settle claims of prior discrimination brought by black farmers against the Department of Agriculture. The details of these requests are set forth in the enclosed letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Sincerely, Barack Obama. Enclosure. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, February 12, 2010. The President, The White House. Submitted for your consideration are amendments to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 proposals in your FY 2011 Budget. Included is an amendment for the Department of Homeland Security, Disaster Relief. Also included are amendments to general provisions that would provide authorization and funding for FY 2010 to implement the settlement of a case involving the management of individual Indian trust accounts related to Indian lands and to settle claims of prior discrimination brought by black farmers against the Department of Agriculture. These amendments are described below and in more detail in the enclosures. The proposed Budget totals for FY 2010 would increase by $1.5 billion as a result of the following amendment: Department of Homeland Security, Disaster Relief. This amendment would provide an additional $1.5 billion and would increase the pending $3.6 billion FY 2010 supplemental request included in the FY 2011 Budget to $5.1 billion. These supplemental funds are needed before March 2010 for the continued response and recovery efforts associated with prior large events, such as Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest Floods. This supplemental request is also being re- transmitted to underscore the importance of acting in a timely fashion. Two FY 2010 proposals were included as mandatory requests in the FY 2011 Budget, with an expectation that authorization language would be transmitted at a later date. However, at this time there are no other appropriate legislative vehicles available to allow for expeditious consideration of these proposals. Therefore, they are now being requested as changes in mandatory programs and as such, are being transmitted to the Appropriations Committee for their disposition. General Provision, Sec. 1: Cobell v. Salazar. This amendment would provide authorization and funding to implement the settlement of Cobell v. Salazar, a case involving the management of individual Indian trust accounts related to Indian lands. Pending congressional action and final approval by the Court, $3.412 billion will be expended from the Department of the Treasury's Claims, Judgments, and Relief Acts account in FY 2010. Within this total, the settlement agreement provides that $2.0 billion from the appropriation to this account will be transferred to a new Trust Land Consolidation Fund in the Department of the Interior for the buy-back and consolidation of fractionated land interests and other activities. General Provision, Sec. 2: Discrimination Claims Settlement. This amendment would provide authorization and FY 2010 funding of $1.150 billion to settle claims of prior discrimination brought by black farmers against the Department of Agriculture that were previously addressed by section 14012 of Public Law 110-246, the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. Recommendation I have carefully reviewed these requests and am satisfied that they are necessary at this time. Therefore, I join the heads of the affected agencies in recommending you transmit these proposals to the Congress. Sincerely, Peter R. Orszag, Director. Enclosures. FY 2010 Supplemental Proposal in the FY 2011 Budget Agency: Department of Homeland Security. Bureau: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Heading: Disaster Relief. FY 2011 Budget Appendix Page: 1362. FY 2010 Pending Supplemental Request: $3,600,000,000. Proposed Amendment: $1,500,000,000. FY 2010 Revised Supplemental Request: $5,100,000,000. (In the appropriations language under the above heading, delete ``$3,600,000,000'' and substitute $5,100,000,000.) This amendment would provide an additional $1.5 billion for the Disaster Relief account and would increase the pending $3.6 billion FY 2010 supplemental request included in the FY 2011 Budget to $5.1 billion. This request is submitted to: (1) reiterate the need to provide the proposed funding before March 2010, and underscore the Administration's support for this proposal; and (2) request an additional $1.5 billion in anticipation of arbitration panel decisions likely to impact the Disaster Relief Fund in a previously unexpected manner. This proposal provides additional funding for the continued response and recovery efforts associated with prior large events, such as Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest Floods. Through the Disaster Relief Fund, the Federal Emergency Management Agency provides a significant portion of the total Federal response to Presidentially-declared major disasters and emergencies. Primary assistance programs include Federal assistance to individuals and households, public assistance, and hazard mitigation assistance, which includes the repair and reconstruction of State, local, and nonprofit infrastructure. FY 2010 Change in a Mandatory Program Heading: General Provisions--This Act. FY 2011 Budget Appendix Page: 1366. FY 2010 Pending Request: $3,412,000,000. Proposed Amendment:--. Revised Request: $3,412,000,000. (In the appropriations language, insert the above new heading and the following new language directly following section 2 of the ``General Provisions'' that appear on page 1365:)

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation. Frankly, this rule sets a deplorable precedent, deplorable in terms of limiting Member participation and silencing millions of voters whom they represent. This bill cuts $523 billion out of Medicare and diverts it to an entirely new entitlement. Sixty-five Members filed amendments offering new ideas and better approaches. None of those amendments were made in order. My amendment, Mr. Speaker, would have prohibited cuts in Medicare, would have kept the money saved in Medicare in that program. Democrats are turning a blind eye to the future unfunded obligations of that program just as the baby boomers are retiring by the millions upon millions. This rule is flawed. This bill is fiscally irresponsible. We should vote ``no.'' I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman very much, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Again, this is a simple modification that will allow Native American tribes to enter into agreements to house the employees of the Public Lands Service Corps just like Federal agencies, States, localities, and private organizations. This designation will give the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior more housing options for these workers and will allow the tribes to be more fully engaged in the program. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment made in order under the rule at the desk.

Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer what I believe is a noncontroversial amendment that would amend the Public Lands Service Corps Act to allow the Secretaries to enter into arrangements with tribal governments in order to provide temporary housing for Corps workers. This would be in addition to other Federal agencies, States, local governments, or private organizations. Because tribal governments are not included under the umbrella of any of the bill's other categories, it is necessary to modify the bill's language to include them. Tribal governments enjoy a unique government-to-government sovereign relationship with the United States. Tribal governments regularly enter into similar agreements with a variety of Federal agencies and have done so for over 200 years, so this change would not disturb precedent. Throughout this bill, tribal lands are designated as a place for young adults employed in this program to expend their efforts. It makes sense, then, that these tribes would be able to house some of the participants, thereby enhancing the experience of these workers. Not only would this program connect participants to the land, but housing in the tribal areas could enhance their cultural understanding and awareness. Indian Country is as diverse as America itself, so obviously housing these individuals would not be ideal on some reservations. It is important, though, to include willing tribal governments in this program, as Native Americans are historically some of the best stewards of the environment and because the potential for cultural interchange in this program would certainly have great benefit for both the national lands conservation workers and the tribes. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, my Dad always told me, ``Your friends are the people who tell you what you need to know, not what you want to hear.'' In August, the American people flooded town hall meetings and told their representatives to vote ``no'' on Obama care. The Speaker called them extremists. In November, voters in Virginia and New Jersey elected Republican governors in States President Obama had carried one year earlier. The White House said it was due to local issues. And in January, the voters of Massachusetts elected a Republican to the United States Senate for the first time in 38 years. Senate Democrats said it was because they had nominated a poor candidate. As we approach the vote on Obama care, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to ignore the Speaker, ignore the President, and ignore the Democrats in the Senate. Just listen to your friends, the voters of America, who oppose this $1 trillion, 2,700 page health care monstrosity, and then vote ``no.'' In November, you will be glad you did.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on Friday, February 26, 2010, I missed the last vote in a series of six votes. I missed rollcall vote No. 74. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote No. 74: ``yea'' (On agreeing to H. Con. Res. 238).

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend Mr. Abercrombie for his distinguished career and our good friendship. And the fact that I am rising in support of this bill and my good friend Mr. Young has risen in support of this bill is certainly an indication it is not a partisan measure. Frankly, our side did not decide to whip this. So this really is a nonpartisan question before the Congress. It is not an issue of race, as some would argue. It is not an issue of States' rights, as some would argue. It is actually, in the end, a question of Federal authority and how the Federal Government chooses to treat indigenous peoples. And frankly, if we want to look at that, we ought to be guided by our own Constitution, our own legal traditions, and our own actions as a Congress. Over 200 years of American history has taught us from the very beginning, from the foundation of the Constitution, that we had decided we will treat native peoples as individual subordinate sovereign units, and we will negotiate our relationships with them. Now, we haven't always lived up to that idea, no question about it. Over the course of our history there has been efforts to destroy native nations. There has been efforts to remove them from their homeland. There has been efforts at forced assimilation. But when we have adhered to our constitutional traditions, and negotiated and dealt with native peoples on a government to government basis, the relationship has been a good and productive one. The facts of this case are very clear. From the very beginning, we recognized Native Hawaiians as a distinct and separate group. We have passed over 160 statutes in the Congress of the United States. And frankly, this measure before us is not going to reshape Hawaii. It will regularize the relationship between Native Hawaiians and their State and Federal Government and allow a negotiation to take place. Now, I make no bones about the fact that I favored the original 2007 bill. I did that not because it was necessarily a superior bill, but because it allowed a negotiated process that I thought would actually ease this transition. But at the end of the day, the question is one of constitutional propriety and sovereign rights and appropriate procedure. And this bill meets all of those tests. So I look forward to its passage, and I look forward to the fact that it will have broad bipartisanship support, and I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to once again reflecting on our own remarkable traditions as a country and as a people. We don't always do the right thing, but eventually we do the just thing. And in this situation, recognizing Native Hawaiians is the just thing to do. I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, as per the requirements of the Republican Conference Rules on earmarks, I secured the following earmark in H.R. 3288. Requesting Member: Rep. Tom Cole (OK-4) Bill Number: H.R. 3288 Account: Air Force, Military Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Vance AFB Address of Requesting Entity: Vance, AFB, OK Description of Request: Construct an air traffic control tower for $10.4 million. The current control tower at Vance AFB was constructed in 1972. The tower is in need of critical upgrades to remain effectively operational and to comply with base architectural standards. New upgrades will allow Vance AFB to continue safe and efficient aerial military operations. The current control tower at Vance AFB was constructed in 1972. The tower is in need of critical upgrades to remain effectively operational and to comply with base architectural standards. New upgrades will allow Vance AFB to continue safe and efficient aerial military operations.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on Monday, November 16, 2009, I missed the last vote in a series of three votes. I missed rollcall vote No. 891. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: rollcall vote No. 891: ``aye'' (On agreeing to H.R. 3767).

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 3962 will bankrupt State governments across America through the imposition of unfunded mandates, I rise in opposition to the rule and its underlying legislation. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 30, 2009. Hon. Glenn Coffee, President Pro Tempore, State Capitol, Oklahoma City, OK. Dear Senator Coffee: As you know, yesterday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Representative John Dingell introduced H.R. 3962, the ``Affordable Health Care for America Act''. This 1990 page bill is an attempt to reorganize the entire health care system in the United States to cover more Americans. Unfortunately this comes with a price for state governments. As your representative in the Fourth District of Oklahoma, I take very seriously your input when it comes to matters involving unfunded mandates and other policy shifts. Before I vote on this legislation, I would appreciate your insight on some important issues. It would seem from the text of this bill and the CBO report that it creates an unfunded mandate in the amount of $34 billion from 2015-2019 by increasing Medicaid costs to the States. I am concerned that this might present some budgetary challenges for the State of Oklahoma, and I am therefore turning to you to ask your assistance in answering the following questions: Can Oklahoma afford these unfunded mandates in the current fiscally constrained environment? Should the House version of health care reform pass, what are your plans for fully funding the unfunded mandate that will be transferred to Oklahoma? Would new taxes on the citizens of Oklahoma be necessary to cover the increased costs of Medicaid? What do you believe the actual cost would be to Oklahoma? Before we begin final consideration of this legislation, your thoughts on these matters would be extremely helpful to me. Unfortunately, the scheduling of this legislation is dynamic, and a vote on it could come as early as Thursday. All indications lead me to believe that we will have no opportunity to offer amendments to this legislation. Therefore, before I vote on this legislation, I would ask for your insight on these matters. Sincerely, Tom Cole, Member of Congress.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I respect, like all Members do, everybody in this House, from the Speaker and the minority leader right down to the most junior Member. But the reality is, this isn't our House; this is the people's House. As I have listened to my friends on the other side, I have wondered, frankly, did you listen to what the people had to say in August in meeting after meeting after meeting? Have you taken the time to look at what they say in poll after poll after poll? This is not an issue that has come on us suddenly. It is not a crisis. The American people have had a chance to study the issue, read the bill, and listen to the debate, and quite frankly, register an opinion. If we listen to them today, Mr. Speaker, we will follow their loud and insistent voice and vote ``no.''

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the Oklahomans I represent oppose this bill because they know what it does and what it does not do. They know that this bill will raise taxes, not lower them. They know that this bill will grow government, not shrink it. They know that this bill weakens Medicare, not strengthens it. They know that this bill destroys jobs, that it doesn't create any. They know that this bill will force State governments to cut services and raise taxes, and it will put government bureaucrats rather than health care professionals in charge of their health care system. Oklahomans know this bill does nothing to reform our tort system. They know it does nothing to give individual purchasers individual tax deductions. They know it does nothing to establish national insurance markets and association health plans that would allow small business to provide affordable insurance to their employees. Oklahomans know the Pelosi health care bill is a giant step backward. And every Oklahoman in Congress will vote against this bill.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, one of the impacts of the proposed health care legislation that has not received the attention it deserves is the huge unfunded mandate that it will place on our respective State governments. As every Member of this body knows, each State in America is struggling to balance its budget, often cutting services to the bone. I asked my own State legislative leaders how the State of Oklahoma would be impacted by Speaker Pelosi's health care bill. They reported that in Oklahoma this legislation will result in at least $128 million of additional annual cost to State government. That will require either draconian cuts to existing State services, such as education, transportation, and public safety, or substantial increases in State taxes. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic effort to mask the true cost of this legislation is a scandal. If passed, the Pelosi health care bill will bankrupt State governments, destroy jobs, and further cripple the economy. Our State governments can't afford this bill, and neither can the American taxpayer.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on today, Thursday, November 5, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and I missed a series of three votes. I missed rollcall Nos. 859, 860, and 861. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote No. 859 ``yea'' (On Senate Amendments to H.R. 3548). Rollcall vote No. 860 ``yea'' (On agreeing to H. Con. Res. 139). Rollcall vote No. 861 ``aye'' (On agreeing to H. Res. 880).

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, today, November 3, 2009, I missed a series of three votes. I missed rollcall votes Nos. 835, 836, and 837. I request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote No. 835: ``yea'' (On agreeing to H.R. 3949). Rollcall vote No. 836: ``yea'' (On agreeing to H. Res. 398). Rollcall vote No. 837: ``yea'' (On agreeing to H. Res. 866).

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to speak against the Democrats' proposed health care plan. Frankly, it's hard to understand who my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are listening to. Certainly, it's not my constituents. Their concerns, like those of millions of Americans, have been ignored as this bill has been written. The same provisions that caused the concerns and the fears that I heard in August town hall meetings are still in the ``new bill.'' Overwhelmingly, the American people have said ``no'' to government- run health insurance, but it's still in the bill. Also in the ``new bill'' are the same higher taxes for employers and individuals, taxes which will kill jobs. These are the very employers and individuals suffering from double-digit unemployment in many States today. Maybe after several months, Mr. Speaker, some have found it easy to forget what they heard in August, but I haven't. This new bill is just more of the same, more backroom-brokered deals deciding the fate of millions of Americans. The only noticeable change in this bill is the addition of an extra 1,000 pages or so. Americans deserve health care reform. Hopefully, they will get it.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, former President Woodrow Wilson, who was, of course, a considerable scholar of this institution, used to reflect that Congress on the floor is Congress' theater, but Congress in committee is Congress at work. I want to particularly commend Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Simpson for the manner in which they worked and, more importantly, for how they worked together throughout the process. We hear a great deal--and there is sometimes considerable truth in it--about the absence of bipartisanship. I just want to make a point as a freshman member of this subcommittee as to how much bipartisanship there was on the subcommittee and as to how well we worked together. Of course, that couldn't happen without the chairman and ranking member setting the example and taking the lead. You know, like all Members, I look at this appropriations bill, and I come to an undebatable conclusion that it spends too much money on things that I don't care about but not nearly enough on things that I do. Unfortunately, every other Member seems to have a somewhat different opinion about what is important and about what is not, and it has been left to the chairman and ranking member, as best they can, to work through that. Yet where I think there can't be much debate is that this is truly an excellent piece of legislation and funding from a Native American perspective and from the perspective of Indian country. Madam Speaker, it's a trite but true observation that the First Americans are often the last Americans. They live shorter lives; they are poorer on average; they are less educated; they have less opportunity. This bill makes major steps to try and correct those inequities. It does really revolutionary things, in my opinion, in terms of health care, in terms of law enforcement, and in terms of education. I want to particularly thank again Ranking Member Simpson and Chairman Dicks for taking that into consideration. I want to thank, frankly, every other member of the committee who I found really focused on this issue, and I want to thank the staff, which really did a superb job as well. We had a series of absolutely first-rate hearings, and I think we made good and wise decisions that the American people can be proud of. It was a privilege to be able to participate on this committee.

Mr. COLE. I yield.

Mr. COLE. Well, the gentleman, as always, is very kind. Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank the committee, and I want to thank the leadership of the committee. I look forward to the passage of this very important legislation.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to reflect just a moment, as we all have, on our mutual friend John McHugh. Obviously, I didn't have the opportunity to know him in New York. I first got to know him as a politician in 1992, about the same time I got to know you, Mr. King. I was the executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee. John was running in what was a tumultuous year, a very challenging year for incumbents in both parties, an era of very low trust in the institution of Congress and in the politicians who engage in civic activities. And what I remembered was how effortless John McHugh made his victory appear. He was able to do that simply because the people in his district knew him from long years of public service, and they recognized the quality, the integrity, and the character of the man. The fact that he's been reelected eight times since that first election without ever having a serious contest in a very competitive district is a testament, frankly, to the excellence with which he represented his constituents and the high esteem in which he was held, frankly, not only by the people he represented, but by the people here in this institution. We all know John as a Member's Member, somebody who is incredibly thoughtful, incredibly thorough, incredibly bipartisan, and incredibly gracious while still being amazingly effective in presenting an argument and a point of view. I had the privilege of getting to know John not as a candidate but as a public official when I arrived in Congress in 2003. I went to the Armed Services Committee and found myself--because I, too, represent a military district--his vice chairman on the Personnel Subcommittee. What impressed me about John's performance as the chairman of that subcommittee was his incredible depth of knowledge about all military issues but, particularly, his commitment to military families. I remember, John taught me what is a very common saying on the Armed Services Committee, ``You recruit a soldier, but you retain a family.'' He thought about those soldiers very deeply. He understood the sacrifices they made. His intimate acquaintance with the great 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum and his wide travels and interaction with military personnel made him understand that it was a social unit as well as a fighting unit, and how you retained the quality of life in an era of an all-volunteer army was really crucial to attracting and retaining soldiers and their families. I grew up in a military family, and I remember my father leaving the military after 20 years, largely because it was the right thing to do for his family. He didn't want to, but there simply weren't the benefits available to the families that we now provide. John was a big part of moving us toward the kind of support systems for families that make it possible for our soldiers to perform so effectively in the field. I, too, have had the opportunity travel with John abroad, and I just have to say this as an American, not just as his colleague--I can't think of anybody that I would rather have representing us in a foreign locale and in front of other nations than John McHugh. He exemplifies the very best traditions of public service in this country, and he always handles himself with such incredible grace and incredible wit, and he is so remarkably articulate when he's expressing his points of view. I think the fact that he was chosen by President Obama to be Secretary of the Army speaks incredibly well of both of them. It tells you the manner in which John is regarded by members not only of his own party but the other party, and it tells you, frankly, that the President has thought profoundly, in a bipartisan sense, about foreign policy and certainly about the military, where he's tried to recruit the best people he could find to provide the civilian leadership for our forces at a time of war. I can't think of anybody better to fulfill that task than John. Now, I have to say, there are a lot of reasons I will miss John McHugh, but probably, selfishly, the best is he smokes a mean cigar. Not only that, but he always looked like I always thought I would like to look as a Congressman. John looks the part. He could be a movie Congressman. You know, he is a handsome guy. He is extraordinarily well dressed, and when he smokes that cigar, he is so amazingly sophisticated. And by the way, he knows a lot about them. I just want to close by saying that it's been a great personal privilege and an honor to serve with somebody like John McHugh, and I wish every American had the opportunity to know that Congress is, indeed, populated by people like John, that they come here, they're not flamboyant. He is not the sort of person that, you know, is ever going to lose his temper or create a scene. He just does his job with excellence, professionalism, decency, and courtesy every day, and I can't think of an individual who is as knowledgeable or as suited to lead the United States Army as a civilian Secretary in a time of war than John McHugh. So I want to thank my friend for his years of splendid service in this House and to, frankly, thank him a little bit early for his service to our country, because I have no doubt he will discharge his duties as the Secretary of the Army. I also want to express my appreciation to the President of the United States for making such a wise and bipartisan choice. With that, I yield back to my friend.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic health care bill now being drafted behind closed doors is bad for seniors, bad for taxpayers, and bad for the quality of America's health care system. It will cut Medicare spending on seniors. It will cost taxpayers $1 trillion, and it will push the American medical system toward an underfunded, overregulated, government-run health care system. We can do better than that. Republicans have offered in good faith positive proposals putting patients first, reforms that protect the doctor-patient relationship, increase accessibility, and truly make health care more affordable. However, these ideas have never been heard in the back rooms of the Capitol where the Democrats are crafting their own partisan proposals. Mr. Speaker, the majority's proposals continue to ignore medical liability reform, something the President himself said would be addressed. Tort reform has yet to be raised in the deliberations of our Democratic majority. Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the government to stand between patients and health care. Americans are smart enough to know the difference between no choice and a real choice.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, for FY2010 Requesting Member: Congressman Tom Cole Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Provision: Title III Account: DOE--Science Legal Name of Requesting Entity: ``The University of Oklahoma'' Address of Requesting Entity: 660 Parrington Oval, Norman OK 73019 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of 1,000,000.00 to The University of Oklahoma (OU) for its technological advantage in the production of carbon nanotubes, via the use of a proprietary catalyst and a truly scalable production process, commercialized by an OU startup company (South-West Nanotechnologies, SWeNT). The Center for Applications of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes (CANTEC) investigates the applications of the SWNT produced in the CoMoCAT process in several important areas: biomedical applications (biosensors, cancer cell targets, and cancer therapeutics), polymer composites of unique electrical and mechanical properties, metal-nanotube composites, thermally conducting composites, transparent electrodes, solar cells, field emission devices, and thin film transistors.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, October 14, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and I missed the first vote in a series of five votes. I missed rollcall vote No. 775. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote No. 775: ``yea'' (on agreeing to H. Res. 768).