Tom Cole

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and having formerly served on the Rules Committee, I'm both disappointed and disturbed by the manner in which the rule has been reported to the floor. Let's be forthright about this, Madam Speaker. The committee authorized an enormous number of amendments. But numbers alone do not translate into meaningful policy options and good debate on the floor of this body. Let's look at a couple of things that the committee chose not to make in order. The committee did not make in order an amendment by Mr. Akin that addresses important concerns, including the evisceration of the Army's only modernization effort and reducing by $867 million the Future Combat System. The committee did not make in order many of the amendments that were necessary to address the evisceration of our Missile Defense System and that, Madam Speaker, at a time when our intelligence tells us the North Koreans and the Iranians are continuing to develop dangerous missile capability. With respect to the underlying legislation itself, Madam Speaker, Chairman Skelton was given an incredibly difficult job. He was not given enough money, in my opinion, enough authorizing authority to address all the needs that he faced. Nevertheless, he and Ranking Member Hunter and their subcommittee chairmen accomplished some important things that we should not lose sight of. One good thing that was accomplished was the increase in the end strength of both the Army and the Marine Corps, something many of us have long advocated, something the President now agrees to and something I'm glad to see underway. Additionally, the legislation included the Wounded Warriors Act, and also included my language to create a program for pre- and post- deployment neurocognitive assessments of our servicemen. I think that was a very good thing, and I appreciate the chairman for working with us on that. The underlying legislation also addresses depot concerns and maintenance in a way that encourages me, that increased the amount of money in depot accounts. And finally, I was happy to see that the majority continues to recognize, as we do, the importance of developing the non-line-of-sight cannon and remains committed to the new field increase. With that, I still remain disappointed the rule did not allow the options.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1294, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2006. This is a bill that is long overdue and provides an opportunity to right an historical wrong. As clearly outlined in the language of this legislation, these six tribes are of great historical significance. These tribes were some of the first Native Americans to come into contact with European settlers, and save for the active cooperation of these tribes, a number of the first English settlements in America may not have survived. Having clearly impacted the course of our Nation and having endured in a country of drastic change and challenges for four centuries, I am pleased to support a bill that will provide these six tribes federal recognition at long last. Mr. Speaker, the only reservation I have with this bill is the fact that it prohibits every single one of these tribes from gaming. For if indeed this bill passes ``into public law, these tribes should be afforded every right they deserve as a sovereign entity as granted to them under the Constitution of the United States. These tribes should not have to bargain away any one piece of their sovereignty they have sought to preserve in order to receive federal recognition. This diminishes the tribes, and places them at a lesser status than states and other tribes. In the future, I hope that Congress recognizes that it is not fair to blackmail tribes into giving up part of their rights in order to provide them sovereignty. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that these tribes negotiated with the House and the state in which they reside and ultimately agreed to this prohibition on their right to engage in certain forms of lawful economic activities. Therefore, although I fear the precedent this may establish, I honor the settlement reached between the House, the state of Virginia, and the tribes, and urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 1294.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I was inadvertently detained for rollcall No. 278, Mr. Sestak's amendment to H.R. 1429. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor from H.R. 65.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of a great American and great Oklahoman, Billy Walkabout. Mr. Walkabout was the most decorated American Indian soldier in the Vietnam War, and this weekend his family will have the great honor of laying him to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. Walkabout, a Cherokee, joined the Army soon after graduating from U.S. Grant High School in Oklahoma in 1968. On November 20, 1968, Army Ranger Sergeant Walkabout and 12 of his fellow soldiers were on a mission behind enemy lines when they suddenly came under fire. The battle lasted several hours, during which Sergeant Walkabout was seriously injured. Despite these injuries, Walkabout continued to provide life saving measures to his wounded colleagues and help them board evacuation helicopters--all while continuing to return fire. Because of his incredible courage and valor, Billy Walkabout received the Distinguished Service Cross, 5 Silver Stars, 5 Bronze Stars and the Purple Heart. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to be a Member of this House and to serve those great Americans like Billy Walkabout. His service, bravery and patriotism are true testaments of his character. I am proud to stand before this House in recognition of the great life and service of Mr. Billy Walkabout.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote 146 on H. Res. 239, the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 985. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the rule and the underlying bill as it is currently written. Frankly, my concerns are not about the global warming issue. It is about the ethics issue. As a former member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I understand and appreciate the tremendously difficult job that we ask the staff and the members of that committee to face on a daily basis. It is common knowledge in this body that no one wants to serve on the Ethics Committee. It is a responsibility that no one seeks but, frankly, must be handled. I think, frankly, everyone understands that there have been ethical lapses by some of our colleagues in the last few years. That committee has dealt with those lapses as best it could, handling a workload that is unpredictable, and it is by its very nature highly charged and occasionally and unfortunately partisan. To do that job, the last Congress increased the funding for the committee by approximately 40 percent. Even that was probably not enough to handle the job which had been given to us by the House, but it is certainly not enough to deal with the new responsibilities that the majority has chosen to extend to that committee. The majority party ran on a platform of ethics and made it a major issue in the last campaign, and frankly, it passed with strong, bipartisan support an ethics package as the very first act that calls, again, on Members to do more in the committee to supervise and do more. Now the majority party is actually refusing to do what they promised; that is, they are refusing to fund the 41 percent increase in the underlying legislation that their own chairman of the Ethics Committee and the ranking member have jointly requested. We have been able to find millions of dollars to fund the global warming effort, a select committee, a committee, frankly, that has no duties, no responsibilities, no legislative priorities, but it is an important committee, and I recognize the importance of looking at that extremely important issue. At the same time, we will not fund a committee that already has the smallest budget of any standing committee, whose responsibilities we have magnified, compounded and increased greatly. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle again made ethics a major issue in the last campaign, and frankly, they have threatened to make it a major issue in the next campaign. Fair enough. I think everybody should be scrutinized that is privileged to serve in this body, but if you are going to do that, you have to give the committee the financial resources to do the job that it is charged to do, and frankly, you have to provide the Members of this body with the services that they need to avoid inadvertently breaking the rules and becoming the target for political cheap shots, whether they are launched by one side or the other. It is simply irresponsible to the Members of this body. I am not surprised that our friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to yield us some more time to talk about this simply because they are in an indefensible position. Do the right thing: Vote against this hollow rule and give the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the funding it needs to get its job done.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, the Congressional Record lists me as not voting on rollcall vote 115, Ms. Foxx's amendment to H.R. 800. I had intended to vote ``aye.''

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate over the last 2 days, really dozens and dozens of speeches, and, frankly, speeches of exceptionally high quality on both sides of the issue. I have listened particularly to the speakers who were here in 2002 when the momentous decision to go to war was actually made. Those who were opposed, I have admired because in their opposition in October of 2002 they were taking an unpopular position, but clearly one that they believed in, and I think they deserve our respect for that, even if I don't agree with that particular point of view. Second, I have watched those who voted in favor of that tough decision, and I have watched as they have stuck to that decision because they believe the stakes are so important for the United States. They have done so even when public opinion has turned against their position. And I admire that. Frankly, I have watched speakers who have changed their position, who were first for the war and now are opposed to it. It is easy to deride people in that position. But, quite frankly, I have watched them, and they are anguished in their opinions and their conclusions; they are sensitive, obviously, to the easy and cheap criticism of opportunism. And I particularly admire those, frankly, in my own party who have broken with their President and their party over a position that they believe in deeply. I don't agree with them, but I admire them. What I don't admire is the Democratic leadership that has brought us a resolution which is divisive without being decisive. It orders no action. I have spoken on that at length before, and I am not going to go into it now. I want to instead focus on the issues at stake. Like all of those elected in 2002, 2004, 2006, I was not part of the initial decision to go to war, and, frankly, I often think how fortunate I was to have been spared that responsibility. But, of course, none of us on this floor ever truly escapes responsibility. My attitude toward this conflict reflects that of my district and, frankly, that of my father, who was a career noncommissioned officer in the United States Army. I recall once when he was talking about war, he summed it up pretty simply: When you are in it, win it. That is what I have tried to do with my vote, my voice, my energy, since I have been elected to represent my district. I have done so because, frankly, in some areas I have seen progress. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was a good thing and I am proud that that was accomplished, and it would not have been accomplished without the valor and the professionalism of American men and women in arms. I am pleased to have seen a Constitution formed in Iraq that is the envy of the Arab world. I am proud to have seen three elections take place, all of which had increasingly high participation and had, frankly, higher percentages than vote in our own elections. I was hopeful when I saw a coalition government formed that had Kurds, that had Sunnis, that had Shia, that had other elements in the Iraqi population. I have been impressed with Iraqi forces that do stand and fight. And let's make no mistake about it: Most of the fighting and dying militarily is being done by Iraqis and they deserve our respect for that. And, frankly, I think like all Americans, I was enormously relieved when I see actors like the late al-Zarqawi, people who would kill Americans anywhere, anytime, who are not from Iraq, being sought out with the help of Iraqis and killed far away from our shores. That is important, and that is something we should acknowledge. I have also supported the war because I feared the consequences of defeat in Iraq. And, believe me, there are consequences to losing the war. These are real. If we are not successful in Iraq, we will have an emboldened enemy. Not just the terrorists that we deal with, they are bad enough, but also the states that use terrorism as a tool of diplomacy. States like Iran, states like Syria, will draw comfort. We will have demoralized friends in the region and around the world that wonder whether or not they can really count on us once we make a commitment. We will see the death of an infant democracy, never a good thing for the lovers of freedom. We will see a sectarian bloodbath in Iraq that will result in the death of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis. And we will see a destabilized region in which the United States has vital interests and to which our own security is intimately tied. I acknowledge that things have not gone in Iraq as I, certainly, and I think everybody, regardless of their position on the issue, would have hoped. There is no question that we underestimated what was required, not to defeat Saddam, frankly, that was done brilliantly, but to secure Iraq. We have underestimated the persistence of and the difficulty the outside players would create for us. We underestimated how anxious people inside Iraq would be to settle old scores instead of to look ahead. And we have underestimated the impact of the divided loyalties of Iraqis themselves, where so often we see sect against sect, ethnicity against ethnicity, tribe against tribe. But these difficulties and mistakes, regrettable as they are, do not change the consequences of losing in Iraq, for the region, for Iraqis, and, most importantly, for ourselves. At this critical point, the President has offered a plan to avert defeat, and, if the Iraqis are up to the task, to turn the tide. It has an American military component, and that is what this resolution deals with. But contrary to what I have heard on the floor, it is not a major escalation in forces. It is not an effort to allow the Iraqis to avoid the fighting. Nor is it an effort to win militarily. It is an effort to buy the time needed to create an environment in Iraq that will allow Iraqis to succeed politically. It will allow them to begin to push toward the reconciliation process and review the de-Baathification program. It will allow them to share power with one another. It will allow provisional elections to take place. It will allow oil revenue to be distributed more equitably. It will allow Iraqi units the time to train, stand up and continue to fight and fight more professionally and proficiently than they have. The U.S. force is indispensable in achieving these measures, but it will not be and it is not intended to be decisive. What will win or lose in Iraq ultimately are Iraqi politicians: Can they put their differences aside? Iraqi soldiers: Can they fight for their country instead of against one another? And the Iraqi people: Can they put aside the differences and demand better leadership than they have received thus far from their own people. Some will say this is a hopeless task, but our military leaders and our troops in the field don't tell us that. General Petraeus, a man whom all sides acknowledge is not only professional, capable, but is dedicated and a great patriot, tells us he thinks this is an achievable mission if he has the forces he needs to succeed. The average soldiers that I talked to from my district and other units also tell me they believe this is doable. But they want us in Congress and in this country to have the political resolve to match their personal courage. History teaches us that freedom is a powerful force. We should trust it. And it also teaches us sometimes it needs outside help. All of us as Americans are justly proud of the American Revolution. We often forget it took a French fleet, French army and Dutch money to finally finish the job. Mr. Speaker, because I believe the consequences of losing in Iraq are horrible for Iraqis, for Americans, and for the cause of liberty and our friends around the world; because I think that we, the Iraqis and the Americans together, can still win; because I believe that defeat has catastrophic consequences for the United States, I urge the rejection of this resolution and support the cause that our fighting men and women are so nobly advancing in Iraq.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about the challenges we face as a Nation, and to urge the Members of this House to confront those challenges honestly and forthrightly. As I do, I remind my colleagues that this House is not a debating society. It is not a place to merely score political points or rhetorical points. It is a place where we should confront the issues that face our country and then act accordingly. This responsibility rests not just with the Members individually, but with the majority especially. We come to this floor not just to speak, opine, and orate. We come here to set policy, to legislate and, most importantly, to act. This resolution the majority, the Democrats, put before us today presents us with a choice; but after we make that choice, nothing will happen, nothing will change. We will have chosen to state our opinion, but we will refuse to act on that opinion. Some will see this as a tragedy; some, Madam Speaker, will see it as a farce. This resolution is not serious. It is a political ploy rather than a principled position. It is sound and fury that signifies nothing. It is a cruel joke on those who sincerely want to leave Iraq before our mission is finished, and it is an affront to those of us who wish to succeed in Iraq. But while this politically motivated resolution achieves nothing, it does have real and lasting consequences. Passing this resolution will embolden our enemies, it will discourage our friends, and it will disappoint our troops. It will raise questions about our seriousness as a legislative body to anyone who actually pays attention to our proceedings, and it will lead our enemies to question our resolve and it will leave our men and women in uniform wondering why we are sending them on a mission in which we do not believe, but lack the political courage to cancel. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and disappointed that the majority party would bring a resolution to the floor which condemns an action directed by our Commander in Chief and his military advisers yet which neither forbids that action nor offers an alternative course. If the majority party, the Democratic Party, was being honest with their supporters and with the American people, they would have a straight up-or-down vote on whether or not to fund the initiative ordered by the President. This is the way in which we should approach our constitutionally defined responsibility in regard to war and peace. Madam Speaker, I have often voiced my respect for my Democratic colleagues on the floor, and as individuals I do respect and admire them. However, I neither respect nor admire the manner in which their leadership has chosen to frame the issue which they now place before the House. My friends on the other side of the aisle have abdicated the responsibilities of being in the majority. They do not want to legislate. They do not want to act, they just want to state an opinion. But they are stating it in a fashion that will lead many to question our sincerity as Members of this House and to doubt the effectiveness of the institution which we all love, and they are now privileged to lead. Madam Speaker, the majority in this body has the responsibility to do more than just criticize. So, I ask, what is their plan? We don't know. How will they achieve a stable Iraq? They won't say. It is time for Democrats to step up and answer these questions. It is easy to second-guess the decisions of former Congresses and the President. It is easy to reconsider one's support and the support many in this Congress and in their majority have voiced in the past of placing additional troops in Iraq. But, what is easy isn't always right and certainly not in this case. Let there be no mistake. Our soldiers are engaged in combat this very minute. Our military commanders have voiced support for the mission that they have been asked to complete. General Petraeus, our commander in Iraq, supports the surge of forces. Indeed he says he needs these additional troops to succeed. Moreover, the declassified National Intelligence Estimate makes clear the disaster that would result from failure in Iraq. Madam Speaker, let us consider what will happen if the Democrats are successful in undermining the mission and the objectives of the surge. What would it mean? What effect would this have on our forces? What would be the implications for our Nation and the region? Well, Madam Speaker, at a practical level, it would certainly mean that our enemies would know they have weakened the will and resolve of the American people. They would take this as a lesson and a guide for the future. At a tactical level, it would likely increase the level of insurgent activity aimed at destroying our forces. Additionally, it would also mean that, lacking reinforcement, our current forces would be stretched even further. Strategically adopting this resolution would undermine the credibility of the United States. It will make the region more chaotic and dangerous than it is today. I remember many Members of the majority party calling for an increase in the size of our force in Iraq not so long ago. I remember numerous statements by Members from the other side of the aisle that said the alternatives to success were too horrible to contemplate. They were right, but now those concerns seem to be no longer operative. I am under no illusions that we face an easy road ahead in Iraq. Quite frankly, it is the greatest challenge our Nation has faced in a generation. However, the alternative to showing resolve in Iraq is defeat in the central front in the war on terror. That will be disastrous for the Iraqis, threatening for our friends in the region, and dangerous for the security of our own country. That is why this resolution is so disturbing. Democrats want to have it three ways. They want to criticize the President's plan, offer none of their own, and then refuse to let our side of the aisle offer a proposal for consideration by this body. A nonbinding resolution is no plan for the future. It is a plan for the next election. In the next few days, I will continue to engage in this debate and outline what I believe to be the real challenges and choices that we face, and why we must support the surge in forces. I hope that in this debate my side persuades my colleagues to reject this resolution. But if they are not persuaded, then I hope they will have the political courage to act, as opposed to just talk; that they will legislate as opposed to just debate. I hope they will discharge their duties as a majority by laying out and enacting their strategy, as opposed to merely criticizing the President and complicating a dangerous situation faced by our forces in the field

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 6, the so-called CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. I oppose this bill because in it our Democratic friends are putting America's security and economic vitality at risk. This bill is fundamentally a tax-increasing and job-destroying piece of legislation that will result in less energy independence, not more. Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions within this bill that I take exception to. As one of the Representatives from Oklahoma, I would focus on a particularly onerous provision that will assist in the destruction of small American producers in the domestic oil and gas industry. In 2005, the Republicans worked for and passed legislation with substantial Democratic support creating clear incentives for domestic production of oil. That policy contributes directly to our efforts to achieve energy independence in America. Today, the Democratic Party claims the oil and gas industry has become too profitable and believes this industry needs to be reined in by burdening it with increased taxes. This conclusion is wrong, and the end result will be increased reliance on foreign oil production, less energy independence here in America, and higher prices for every American consumer. This legislation is based on the false premise that the oil and gas industry is too profitable. In fact, according to the Census Bureau and the American Petroleum Institute: ``The oil and gas industry earned 8.5 cents on every dollar of sales compared to 7.4 cents for all U.S. manufacturing, mining and wholesale trade.'' The API further states: ``For the last 5 years, the oil and gas industry has earned 5.9 cents compared to an average for all U.S. industry of 5.2 cents for every dollar of sales.'' This is hardly greedy or out of line with other U.S. businesses. Mr. Speaker, the negative ripple effects of this tax on one of the most basic industries in America are dire; and this will affect the whole oil and gas industry, both large and small. Eliminating this tax break is certain to increase the price of gasoline, natural gas and heating oil, as the extra costs will be passed on to consumers. Consumers should oppose it for the same reasons they oppose taxes on imported oil and gas production: it will raise prices. Moreover, it will discourage domestic energy exploration, extraction, production, and refining, thereby making America more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas. And it will harm State and local economies as smaller producers are forced to shut down marginal wells. Oklahoma has roughly 70,000 wells producing less than 10 barrels of oil a day, and these will be among the first wells to close down due to unsustainable costs in this tax increase. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 will have profound and long-lasting harmful effects on our economy and our security. Overall, this bill takes our country in the opposite direction than the one in which we need to go. H.R. 6 is nothing more than a ploy by the Democratic Party to create political sound bites at the expense of sound energy policy. Frankly, I hope my Democratic friends from energy-producing States do not feel compelled out of blind partisan loyalty to vote for this bill.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I rise today to praise a truly good man. With the passing of President Gerald Ford, the House of Representatives lost its most distinguished alumni, and America lost a great patriot who always placed his country's good ahead of his own political interest. Gerald Ford was a man of absolute integrity and profound personal decency. Much has been said about President Ford's distinguished career in the House and as President. Many will rightly recall his absolute integrity and his profound personal decency. To build upon those remarks, I would like to share some of my personal interactions with Gerald Ford. I had the honor of meeting and working with former President Ford on many occasions after he left office. I found him to be the same man in private that he was in public--decent, honorable, and self-deprecating in his humor and observations. He was shrewd without being devious and wise without being complicated. Madam Speaker, President Ford had genuine connections to and affection for Oklahoma and Oklahomans. He told me on several occasions that he became Vice President and ultimately President because of the late Speaker Carl Albert of Oklahoma, who supported his nomination for the Vice Presidency. He always remembered that Oklahoma was one of only two Southern States that he carried in 1976. Indeed, once while making this point to me, he recalled the exact margin of victory--13,266 out of over 1 million cast. Madam Speaker, during a memorable 1976 campaign stop in Oklahoma, President Ford said, ``It's great to be in Oklahoma, the home of Will Rogers, who never met a man he didn't like, and the Oklahoma Sooners, who never played a team they couldn't beat.'' I later told him that single line won Oklahoma for him. ``Well,'' he responded, ``talking college football is pretty good politics in a lot of places. You might try it if you're ever campaigning in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or just about anywhere in the South.'' It is still one of the best pieces of advice I ever got from a practicing politician. President Ford paired his intelligence with empathy and his candor with modesty. He was as politically astute as he was personally decent, something that all too many people forget. He was absolutely loyal to his party while still approaching politics in a pragmatic and bipartisan manner that made genuine political compromise possible. The House was all the better because of his character, and so too was our country. When speaking to the Congress, the President said with his usual humility that he was a Ford, not a Lincoln. Today, only the best among us might be able to call themselves Fords. We will all miss him very much, Madam Speaker, and I strongly urge support of H. Res. 15.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1062 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may care to consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who does so much to make sure that we operate in an orderly and expeditious fashion in this Congress. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a special rule for consideration of H.R. 5122, the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 5122 and the underlying legislation. Today, we are at a critical juncture. The conference report for the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act is before us. This legislative companion to the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill authorizes and provides critical legislative language for full implementation of our defense policies. Let us be clear: This is an excellent piece of legislation, a good bipartisan package that represents the best work of the House Armed Services Committee. Recognizing that, I would like to personally thank both the gentleman from California, Chairman Hunter, and the gentleman from Missouri, Ranking Member Skelton, for delivering a package that I am sure almost all of us can support. Mr. Speaker, having served on the House Armed Services Committee and currently being a member on leave of absence from that committee, I know how closely the members of that committee work together to achieve a bill that is bipartisan, that is good for our servicemen and women and that is good for increasing the security of our country. Mr. Speaker, this year, the Armed Services Committee produced a bill that contains several major legislative initiatives and funding impacts. Among them are an additional $70 billion in supplemental bridge funding to support the war on terror's operations costs; personnel expenses and procurement of new equipment; additional funding for force protection needs in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, including up-armored Humvees, Humvee IED protection kits and gunner protection kits, IED jammers and state-of- the-art body armor; a 2.2 percent pay raise for all members of our Armed Forces; and an increase of 30,000 personnel for the Army and 5,000 personnel for the Marine Corps to help them sustain their required missions. The bill blocks the Department of Defense proposed TRICARE Prime, Standard, and Select Reserve fee increases. The bill authorizes grants and loan guarantees to U.S. shipyards to approve their efficiency, cost effectiveness, and international competitiveness. The bill fully funds the immediate Army and Marine Corps shortfalls for replenishing supplies and replacing equipment in the amount of $17.1 billion for the Army and $5.7 billion for the Marines. Mr. Speaker, more importantly this legislation directly supports our servicemen and -women in the field and on deployment. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are dependent on us passing this legislation that contains so many changes in legislative language. Mr. Speaker, a bumper sticker we often read says: ``I support our troops.'' Today we have that opportunity and responsibility. We could support our troops and improve the security of our Nation in a way that other Americans cannot. We can offer our vote in support of this legislation as 60 of 61 members of the House Armed Services Committee did when they initially passed the bill. This is not a controversial proposition. This is something we should be proud to do, regardless of our perspectives and different positions on the war in Iraq. All of us are proud of our troops. All of us are committed to them and commend them for their courage and their professionalism, and all of us will do everything we can to increase their safety and effectiveness. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not also note that the Afghan and the Iraqi people also deserve to be commended for their efforts in our common struggle. During this war, the citizens of both these countries have held elections, written constitutions, and formed permanent governments. Afghan and Iraqi citizens are watching what we do here today. They require and request our continued support as they move forward in their efforts to build new and better countries. The passage of this rule and underlying legislation is an important sign that this country and Congress will keep its commitments. Afghanistan and Iraq are striving to create a future of hope and promise. We can play an important role in helping them do that here today. Mr. Speaker, many may wish to raise policy issues in this debate. Some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are superfluous to providing for the needs of our men and women in uniform. And I welcome that exchange, if indeed it occurs. Mr. Speaker, I believe we should focus on what should count. We have committed hundreds of thousands of our service men and -women to fight terrorism and advance the cause of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe them our full support in the battles they wage on behalf of the American people and the cause of liberty. This rule and the underlying bill represent the efforts of Congress to keep that solemn commitment to the sons and daughters of America. Mr. Speaker, to that end, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and attach tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), 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 of Oklahoma

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I know we are not at Halloween yet, but we must be getting close, because we have to scare the American people on issue after issue after issue. Frankly, most of the measures that my good friend talked about, if they were brought up, would have to be brought up under the very same closed rules he so often voices his concern about. We are told this Congress somehow operates differently than the others. I simply want to provide for the information of our body some information provided to me by the Congressional Research Service. Same day rules during the last week of session during the final three Democratic Congresses, the Hundred First, the Hundred Second and the Hundred Third, totaled six. Same day rules under the last three Republican Congresses, the Hundred Seventh, the Hundred Eighth and the Hundred Ninth, totaled five. Basically, the body operates about the same way procedurally that it has operated throughout most of its history and certainly throughout its recent history. I also want to remind my friends who talk about the minimum wage that they had the opportunity to vote for a minimum wage increase. I voted for it. I certainly am happy that I did. I wish more of my friends had. A majority of this body did. Indeed, a bipartisan majority. A bipartisan majority of the United States Senate favored it. It was my friends' friends on the other side of the rotunda that decided not to enter in and allow that increase to take place because they wanted a perfect bill from their perspective. They didn't want to compromise. They didn't want to give and take. They didn't want to have some discussion. Frankly, what they wanted is what they got, or what they believe they got, which is a political issue for the November elections. I am hopeful that after the elections are over we can come back here and actually have a discussion and come to a compromise solution, such as was crafted on the floor in this body. Our friends talk to us a lot about education. I think they should. They probably ought to thank President Bush for being the best friend education ever had. It is President Bush who came up with No Child Left Behind, and it was President Bush who has recommended throughout his tenure over a 50 percent increase in Federal funding of education. My friends are concerned about the cost of tuition. So am I. I just had a son who graduated. I am very grateful. But, quite frankly, most of that problem is at the State level, where we have State government after State government running enormous surpluses, yet not passing some of that surplus on to higher education institutions and to their own students. The reality is that after coming in with a recession beginning in 2001, followed by September 11, something that all of us on both sides of the aisle recognize as a dastardly and disastrous event, this administration and this Republican Congress has gotten the economy moving again and has accomplishment after accomplishment to run on. I am not surprised that our friends on the other side see it differently or want to obscure it, but I have profound faith in the good judgment of the American people to understand fiction and understand fact and know the difference between the two. Mr. Speaker, today, in closing, I want to reiterate the importance of passing this rule. This rule allows us to move forward, pass the necessary legislation, and to do the business of the American people. It is interesting how we have heard complaints by the other side of the aisle that this is a do-nothing Congress, yet at the same time the other side wants to slow down the process today to prevent important bipartisan legislation from being passed. It wants, in effect, to do less, not more. Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is no surprise that I intend to vote for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I am prepared to close when the gentleman is.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to just note for the record I am delighted to finally hear something good about Wal-Mart coming from the other side because generally that is not what we hear, but I agree with my good friend. It is a great company and not just a great Arkansas company, but a great American company. I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very proud when I had the opportunity to vote to give tens of millions of seniors drug coverage for the first time in the history, I did. I am very happy and very proud that when I had the opportunity on this floor to vote for an increase in the minimum wage, I did. I am very happy when I had the opportunity to vote for, first, the elimination and then the reform of the death tax so small business people and farmers can keep their properties, I did. I am very glad when the PATRIOT Act came up for reauthorization I had the opportunity to vote to make our country safer and stronger, and I did. I am very glad I had the opportunity to vote for liability reform for medical cases, and when the opportunity came to vote on the floor, I was pleased to do so. Finally, when I have had on a number of occasions the opportunity to vote for measures that would increase the energy independence of this country and hold down the escalation of gasoline prices, I have done that. I am very pleased that I had an opportunity to do so. I think what we are hearing today is unfortunately regret that so many of our friends on the other side of the aisle did not vote for those things when they had the opportunity; and rather than simply express their disagreement, they are simply trying to denigrate the work of the Congress, which has been productive and good for the American people. So I am pleased with the record of Congress and look forward to going home to talk about it and look forward, again, to the balance of the Congress after the election. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to take a moment to respond to my good friend from Massachusetts. We simply, I guess, see the world differently. The reality is most of the legislation that comes to this floor that passes is bipartisan, passes with at least a bipartisan vote. It is my friends on the other side who so often find themselves in lonely partisan isolation, less frequent on this side of the aisle. Again, I could go issue after issue, whether it is tort reform, the PATRIOT Act, bankruptcy reform, the transportation bill, defense bills, there are overwhelming bipartisan votes. Frankly, I think our friends at this point are more interested in problems than solutions. They simply do not want to run on them. They want to create the impression that the Congress has been neither productive and is overly partisan. That is something we are going to have to agree to disagree on. I also want to again remind my friend, on the Medicare bill, it is this side of the aisle that provided tens of millions of seniors with prescription drug coverage for the first time ever, and I think if my friend checked the polling reports or checked the rates of satisfaction he would find that it is very, very high. I personally think our friends are disappointed in themselves for not having participated, not having worked with us. Many times our friends want to negotiate, but they also tell us what is nonnegotiable before we sit down to negotiate. They certainly did that during the Medicare situation. They certainly did that when the administration wanted to discuss Social Security earlier last year: these are the things we will not talk about; now, let us sit down and talk. That is not a negotiation in my opinion. Finally, I want to remind my friends, when they move on education spending, I would be delighted to debate the record of this Congress and frankly this administration in the area of funding education. The largest increase in spending for education at all levels has occurred during the Bush administration, over 50 percent since 2001. It is this party that has delivered time and time and time again when it came to funding. Finally, last point, my friend made the point that the minimum wage would pass quote ``if.'' It did pass. This is the point. It came to this floor and passed. It went to the United States Senate. Over half, 57 of our Senators out of a body of 100 of the other body, were in favor of that legislation. It was a minority that blocked the passage of the minimum wage and a minority in the United States Senate. I regret that. We still have time before the Congress is finished to deal with that, and I hope that we do after the election. I think there are some that would rather have election issues than have a solution. I think when you offer a compromise solution, we had many Members in this body who did not want to raise the minimum wage. We had many Members in this body that did want to raise it. We had also Members that wanted to reform the death tax, those that did not. Most of us on both sides of the aisle were in favor of the extenders. That was actually a very finely crafted compromise that had something for everybody. Our good friends wanted everything for themselves, but nothing for anybody else in terms of the compromise. I think we have put on this floor a fair bill, a bill we can be proud of. I am very proud to be able to go home and say I voted for a minimum wage increase; when it came to the floor of the House, I voted to reform the death tax; and I voted to extend some important economic tax incentives and a reduction. I wish more of the Congress could, but the majority of us actually can go home and say that. The majority in the United States Senate can say it. It is the obstructionist minority in the other body that chose not to participate in the compromise with us, but again, there is still time left in the Congress. We will be back here in all likelihood in November and December. I hope that opportunity on the other side of the election will lead us to be able to pass significant compromise legislation. Frankly, I trust that it will. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) to file a conference report.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to just disagree with my good friend from Massachusetts on his characterization of the accomplishments of this Congress. As a matter of fact, if you start ticking off the record, it is pretty impressive: bankruptcy reform, class action lawsuit reform, a transportation bill that put more money into our infrastructure than any transportation bill in American history, significant energy legislation passed last year, dealing with the entitlement spending problem, an across-the-board budget cut. All of those are genuine accomplishments. Pension reform, bill after bill after bill. Some of them bipartisan, some of them, frankly, passed without the cooperation of our friends. And, frankly, to criticize us for minimum wage, when in this House we have voted on and passed the minimum wage increase and passed, along with it, a reform of the death tax and tax extender bills that are important, I think is somewhat disingenuous. That legislation passed with a majority vote on this floor; and, frankly, a majority of the other body favored that legislation. Our friends on the other side of the aisle used their friends on the other side of the rotunda to routinely block progress. Even when the majority of the United States Senate agrees with the will of this House, as was the case with the minimum wage, with ANWR, and another piece of legislation with the tax extenders, with reform of the death tax, an obstructionist minority of Democrats on the other side keep a bipartisan majority from actually reaching the magic 60 vote level that is required in moving legislation forward. We are not responsible for that. Frankly, I am proud of what we have moved through the floor here. I also want to disagree with my good friend on the Medicare measure that he discussed in his remarks. Quite frankly, it is something that I think our good friends on the other side of the aisle are embarrassed that they did not support. It was the largest expansion of spending for senior citizens and entitlement spending since 1965. Since 1965. Now the argument that the Democrats advanced that night, and I was here, was it is not enough. They were not willing to vote for something that was the largest increase in almost 40 years. It simply was not enough. And I think now that tens of thousands of seniors are getting health care that in the past they were not able to get, and that our friends on the other side had nothing to do with that accomplishment puts them in the position where they feel like they have to take away from the achievement that they could have been part of but rejected the opportunity to participate in. Finally, let me just conclude my observation that there are only two times when we get criticized from the other side of the aisle. That is when we do something and when we do not. Day after day, and particularly morning after morning this week, we have heard demands from the floor or from the well of this body on the floor that we have up or down votes on issue after issue after issue. Now when we are bringing important issues for up or down votes, issues that in many cases have been dealt with for months through the committee process, we are dealing with conference reports or providing an up or down opportunity, we are criticized for that. So I suspect we are going to be criticized regardless of what we do. What I am pleased with is the record of accomplishment that this Congress has to offer to the American people in issue after issue. My only regret is that, frankly, our friends on the other side of the aisle have so often chosen to obstruct rather than participate, in my opinion, constructively in this process. I hope that that changes ahead. Frankly, there have been times when it has been different on this floor. I would hold the pension reform bill out as an example of that. I would also point out on things like the PATRIOT Act, where we had 40 odd of our friends from the other side participating; tort reform, where 70 odd of our friends participated on the other side; there have been many instances of bipartisan reform cooperation. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it has diminished as we have moved forward in the Congress and moved closer to November. I hope on the other side of November that will change. But I, for one, am very proud of this Congress and what it has accomplished; and I look forward to working with our friends on the other side of the aisle so we can accomplish more in the months that remain in this Congress and, frankly, in the next one. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.