Tom Cole

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I actually came here to debate the defense budget, but I am happy to respond to a number of points that my good friend from Maryland made. Let me first say I appreciate his recognition for the outstanding work the Republican Congress did in the final 4 years of the Clinton administration balancing the budget and dragging our friends across the aisle kicking and screaming to that laudable thing.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. Well, again I want to thank my friend, in a very back-handed, but I think very obvious fashion thanking that Republican Congress which was actually in control of the purse strings. And I will leave it to the American people to decide who they want as the next President of the United States. But you have made a very eloquent case, in my opinion, for the continuance of a Republican majority in Congress, because that is when spending control was actually achieved. I thank my friend. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt my friend. I would like to finish my remarks if I may. Not only did I appreciate the recognition that the budget was balanced with a Republican Congress, I also would ask my good friend simply to recall the situation this administration inherited, a recession that began literally within weeks after the President took office, followed by the shock of 9/11, which sent this economy, we think, into a tailspin. We had 3 consecutive years of reduced revenue by the Federal Government, the first time since the 1930s that that would happen, and frankly something that I would not blame on any party. I simply think it was an incredibly unfortunate confluence of events with a growth era that had run its course, and was coming down, hit by a dastardly attack that I know we all agree was a great tragedy in American history. Given that, I think the policies that the President pursued and this Congress supported of cutting taxes, reviving the economy, beginning to create jobs and now increasing the amount of revenue available to us were indeed the right course. And indeed the budget deficit has gotten progressively smaller as those policies have kicked in and been allowed to work. The challenge in front of us now is coming again to the spending restraint that we found in the bipartisan fashion during the 1990s. I would just point out to my good friend that I very seldom see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle come here and tell us we need to spend less money. They usually propose more money on almost every piece of legislation than we propose. Ergo, I suspect that means taxes need to go up, because they not only want to cover the current deficit, they want to spend beyond the current spending levels or higher than current spending levels. So on that we are simply going to have a debate and disagree. I am happy about this legislation. As my good friend from California mentioned, we had wonderful bipartisanship in the conference. We have a product that we can both be proud of. I think both parties and all Members are doing the appropriate thing for the men and women that are serving us in uniform. I look forward to continuing the discussion.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate my friend's observation, and I would be happy to deal with it, but I think that comment can be handled on your side and I look forward to the discussion. 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, today, in closing, I again want to draw the attention of the Members to the strength of the underlying legislation, H.R. 5631. We have had a vigorous and good debate on the rule and the underlying legislation today, which I believe will help convince the House to support this vital appropriations measure. Much of our discussion today, frankly, is not centered on the legislation or the rule; it is focused on the conflict in Iraq. I, for one, simply want to state for the record that I think the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, and I think most of the positions that my friends on the other side of the aisle take sort of ignore the question, is the world better or worse off without him. I think it is better, and it took American action to do that. I think it is better that there is a democracy in Baghdad; that people have gone in much higher percentages in their population to the polls on three occasions, under difficult situations, than frankly our citizens will go to the polls this November. I think it is better that that government is actually pluralistic, that represents all the different elements in the country. And I think long term there is more hope in Iraq, and it is a better model for the future in the Middle East than Iran, which simply is neither democratic nor peaceful in terms of its neighbors. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation takes critical and incremental steps in funding not only the warfighters' needs of today but the future needs of our warfighters as well. Today, our Nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines require and rely on the passage of this legislation. And despite the vigorous debate we have had today over Iraq, I have no doubt that that legislation and this funding measure will receive strong bipartisan support in this House. I am very confident that this House will not let them down. 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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1037 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert tabular and extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 5631, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007. Mr. Speaker, when the Rules Committee met on Monday night, it reported a rule that waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. Additionally, it provides that the conference report be considered as read. Today, I rise to support the rule for H.R. 5631 and the underlying legislation. This piece of legislation is a hard-fought compromise between the House and the Senate. The required give and take in this case is a tremendous example of the dedication that Members of both bodies of Congress and both political parties have when it comes to supporting our troops in the field. Mr. Speaker, many said we could not be at this point today. Many expected compromise could not be reached. I am pleased to say this has not been the case. Furthermore, the underlying legislation also provides the continuing resolution for the government to remain in operation until November 17. This represents a great compromise and maintains the lower funding levels from either the House or Senate from the previous year or the fiscal year 2006 current rates. H.R. 5631, in short, represents good, bipartisan, bicameral work. Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of the underlying legislation is to secure and improve the defense of our country. To that end, the underlying legislation provides for several critical needs for our forces. First, its overall level of funding provides $377.6 billion plus $70 billion in the fiscal year 2007 bridge for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, a full $17.1 billion is provided for the Army for the purpose of resetting and refurbishing the force. This is particularly critical at a time when the Army clearly requires and deserves additional funds to fulfill the many complex and dangerous missions it has been called upon to undertake. Other critical expenditures in this legislation includes significant dollars for the Army's future combat systems, the Navy's shipbuilding program, and aircraft research and development and procurement by the Air Force. Rather than focusing on the specific numbers, however, I want to address the fundamental reasons for the underlying legislation and the challenges that it attempts to address. Mr. Speaker, today we are at war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and are embarked upon the greatest military rebuilding effort in a generation. While our forces are stretched, they are doing a magnificent job. There is no doubt of their dedication, professionalism, and commitment to the missions we have asked them to fulfill. Frankly, we ask more of them than anyone should have to give; yet when we do, they always exceed our expectations. Mr. Speaker, our combatant commanders and the administration have been very open during the multiple oversight hearings about the challenges they foresee in what they refer to as the long war. It is not a war that can be fought and won by force alone. It is one that requires military action, but also reconstruction, stabilization, and the fostering of democratic concepts and structures of government in areas and among peoples who have been subjected to dictators and totalitarian regimes for decades. This task is neither simple nor easy. However, it is necessary for the security of our country. When the American people are asked to support our troops in the field, they always respond with the generosity and commitment required of them. Historically, however, Congress and the President have not always funded the military in peacetime at levels necessary to adequately protect us from future threats. I believe that many of the challenges we face today come from underfunding our military during the 1990s. Mr. Speaker, today we may hear that the force is stressed. We may hear that we don't have enough troops. We may hear about excessive deployment rates. We may hear about increasing levels of stress on military personnel and their families. In large measure, I accept these assertions as true, but they are issues that have grown out of an historical reluctance to see the world for what it is, a very dangerous place. At the end of the first Bush administration in 1992, we were left with a military that was much larger and could have sustained operations in the current environment for a much longer period of time. During the 1990s, many of the forces we wish we had today were RIF'ed, disassembled, retired and transferred in pursuit of the so-called ``peace dividend.'' If there is one thing we should learn from this experience, it is that the military is like life insurance: it is expensive, and no one wants to pay for it, but it is there for a specific purpose and to be used when the situation requires. We have clearly seen what the misguided decision to reduce our forces from 15 divisions and then down to 10 divisions has meant for the Army. It has resulted in a force that is burdened, strained and stretched by our historically naive decisions. Mr. Speaker, the road out of this situation is not easily traveled. It is one that will require the sustained commitment and support of the administration and both Houses and both parties in Congress. This bill is a step in that direction. It is a step toward achieving our objective in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a step toward building a future for us that can meet America's changing security needs. This is an ongoing process. However, Mr. Speaker, some today may try to make the underlying legislation out to be more comprehensive than any bill can possibly be. They will argue it should be the final answer, a cure for all problems. This is not, and, indeed, this can never be. The defense of our country requires a constant vigilance born of necessity. And the funding, sizing and transformation of our military forces is by necessity an evolutionary process. One appropriations bill will not meet all of the challenges or solve all of the security needs of our country. However, this bill is a real substantive and incremental step in securing our future. Mr. Speaker, the appropriators have forwarded us a bill that is substantial, sound, and needed. It is a robust vote of confidence in our servicemen and prioritizes the funding on ongoing operations. It is one that I believe we should support. And after all is said and done here today, I am convinced that this bill will indeed receive an overwhelming bipartisan vote of support in this House. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during three votes. Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 455, on ordering the previous question, I would have voted ``aye''; Rollcall vote No. 456, on agreeing to H. Res. 1015, I would have voted ``aye''; and rollcall vote No. 457, on agreeing to H. Res. 942, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of September 18 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment, and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment, to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 12 noon on Tuesday, September 19, 2006. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services, which is expected to be filed tomorrow, Friday, September 15. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format, and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4893, a bill amending section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Mr. Speaker, I know this bill has been forged in the cauldron of Indian country, and speaking from experience, I know Native American passion can be as powerful as any constituency in America. That is why I rise, first and foremost, to voice my utmost respect for the chairman of the Resources Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who has attempted to address casino-style gaming outside tribal reservations in a fair and balanced fashion. I particularly want to thank him for working to accommodate many of my concerns in particular areas of this bill. Frankly, I wish we had had the opportunity to continue our discussions on the bill. Mr. Speaker, the chairman is a tremendous ally of Indian country and anyone who doubts this to any degree need only to look to his record and to his committee's priorities. He has always had nothing but the best interest of tribes in mind from a policy perspective, and he understands their issues as well as anyone in Congress. Unfortunately, on this issue we simply disagree. The Resources Committee has crafted this bill with the best of intentions. I recognize its members are trying to address a complex challenge. However, as the only enrolled member of a tribe in Congress, the Chickasaw Nation, I take my obligation to defend the concept of tribal sovereignty very seriously. This bill, however well-intentioned, in my opinion violates and erodes the sovereignty of all American Indian tribes. As a result, tribal governments in my State and all across the country have urged me to oppose this legislation. And most tribal organizations, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has pointed out, also oppose the legislation. Our Constitution recognizes three types of sovereign entities beyond our own country: First, foreign governments; second, the States; and third, Indian tribes. Existing law requires that to enter into gaming activities, tribes must negotiate agreements with the Federal Government and the State government. Under this bill, for the first time in United States history, Indian tribes would be required to negotiate directly with local governments in order to engage in lawful activity. That diminishes the power of tribes and raises local governments to the level of sovereign entities. This is wrong for two reasons. First, local governments are not sovereign units. They are the creation of State governments and it is the responsibility of State governments to look after their interests. Second, it is the responsibility of State governments to negotiate for and represent the interests of local governments in their dealings with tribes. To shift this burden from the States to the tribes is both wrong and irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, as currently written, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act works. It has provided tribes the opportunity to recapitalize, diversify their economies, and raise their voices in national politics. It reinforces the tribes' constitutional right to negotiate as a sovereign entity with the Federal Government and with State governments, and it protects the interest of local governments by ensuring they work with their State governor and legislature in the State compacting process. Mr. Speaker, all things considered, I see no upside in subjecting tribes to local governments. Therefore, I see it as Congress' responsibility to continue the tradition enshrined in the Constitution, embedded in our laws, and reinforced by countless judicial decisions, and that is to preserve and protect Indian sovereignty. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4893

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of July 24 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 5682, the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, July 25. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on International Relations, which was ordered reported on June 27, 2006, and is expected to be filed tomorrow, Friday, July 21. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to an article written by my good friend and colleague Les Francis that pays tribute to Norman Mineta, the longest serving Secretary of Transportation in U.S. history. Mr. Francis has rightly drawn attention to the bipartisan nature of Mr. Mineta's political style and his efforts to work across party lines to achieve common goals. I have known Les Francis for almost 20 years, dating from the early 1990s when we both ran the House Republican and Democratic congressional campaign committees. Les is not only a highly skilled and effective campaigner for the Democratic Party, he is also a man who is devoted to Congress as an institution and to our Nation. He learned those values and beliefs working for Secretary Mineta early in his career. Mineta Is Able To Rise Well Above Political Affiliation [From the Mercury News, San Jose, CA] (By Les Francis) Tonight, when U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta leaves office, it will mark the end of one chapter in a remarkable career, and no doubt the advent of another. Mineta's dedication to public service was forged by a searing childhood experience: In the spring of 1942, as a 10- year-old American boy of Japanese ancestry, Norm was hauled off and locked up in an American internment camp. Thirty years later, while vacationing in the Grand Tetons and Yellowstone, the Minetas and Francises made a pilgrimage to nearby Heart Mountain, WY, and we visited the site where the Mineta family had been incarcerated. Norm told us of that experience, how it shaped his life, and how it led to his deeply held views on civil rights and civil liberties. Once, as mayor of San Jose, Norm presided over a city council meeting where a crowd protested an exhibit at San Jose's art museum that included one photograph protesting the Vietnam War, and which some thought to be in poor taste. The protesters wanted the offending item removed or the exhibit closed. After listening patiently and without emotion, Norm said, ``I understand what you are saying, but it is that kind of thinking that got me and my family put in camp in 1942.'' His remark ended the debate. And I knew Norm was speaking from the very pit of his soul when he said it. A Democrat, Mineta was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974 largely because of two factors: the public's anger at President Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon after his role in Watergate hurt Republican candidates, and Norm's record as a nonpartisan, pragmatic municipal leader, which appealed to many independent, ``ticket splitter'' voters. Although his district was always competitive, based on party registration, Norm never received less than 60 percent of the vote in every subsequent re-election, and he was actively supported by Democrats and Republicans throughout his career in Congress. Eventually, Mineta was appointed secretary of commerce by President Bill Clinton, thus becoming the first Asian- American to ever serve in a Cabinet position. After the bitterly contested presidential election of November 2000, when he learned that he was being considered for the top spot at the Department of Transportation in the incoming Bush administration, Norm pulled together a group of friends and advisers to discuss--and debate--the upsides and downsides of such an appointment. As the conversation developed, I knew that the only thing that mattered was Norm's belief that, if the president asks for your help, unless it's a request for something illegal or immoral, the only answer is, ``Yes, Mr. President.'' That belief helps explain the relationship between Norm Mineta and George Bush, two individuals with profoundly different political ideologies. When they first met, on Jan. 2, 2001, the then president-elect wasted no time getting down to business by saying, ``Dick [Cheney], Andy [Card] and my dad all tell me that you are the best man for the job.'' As he recounted the conversation to me later that evening, Norm then reminded the president-elect that he had campaigned extensively on behalf of his opponent, Al Gore, throughout the fall. Norm wanted to know if Bush was troubled by that, to which the president-elect replied, ``No, I know all about that, Norm, but you never made it personal.'' The bond between the president and his secretary of transportation was assured in the terrible early hours of the Sept. 11 tragedy, when to prevent any further attacks Norm commanded the immediate and safe landing of thousands of commercial flights. In the days after Sept. 11, as a volunteer ``utility infielder'' of sorts, I had a ringside seat at the Transportation Department, from which I watched Norm, under enormous pressure, perform steadily and ably, leading the department in a way that quickly restored its operational and emotional balance. Norm Mineta has served the president and his country well and honorably for the past 5\1/2\ years, and in so doing has validated the president's early and continued confidence in him. Even so, Norm's tenure in the Bush administration has frustrated and angered some Democrats, who oppose any such collaboration. Those critics would be well-advised to contemplate what Norm wrote in his letter of resignation to President Bush, which became effective today: ``There is much talk these days about a lack of civility in our political discourse and of deep ideological and partisan divisions at every level of government, most especially here in Washington, D.C.--I like to think that you and I have demonstrated, even in a small way, that different political affiliations do not have to translate into opposing views on the value of public-policy issues and the nobility of public service.'' Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for a job well done.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, during consideration of H. Res. 877, the rule for consideration of the House report for H.R. 5631, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2007, on June 20, 2006, I improperly referred to the Ranking Member of the Department of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee as Mr. Sabo of Minnesota. I would like the record to show that I meant to refer to the Ranking Member of the Department of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee as Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on June 27, 2006 I inadvertently missed rollcall vote 320. If I had been present, on rollcall vote No. 320, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I too have no additional speakers. I am prepared to close.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 877 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just briefly to offer a different perspective, if I may. I would argue that we don't spend too much on defense, we spend far too little. Frankly, by historical measures, we spend less now than at any time since 1940. In 1960, at the height of the Cold War, we were spending roughly 50 percent of the entire Federal budget, roughly 9 percent of our gross national product on defense. By 1980, that was down to 33 percent of the Federal budget and 6 percent of the gross national product. Today, it is about 17 or 18 percent of the total budget, only about 4 percent, actually slightly less than that, of the gross national product. I would argue we steadily decreased our expenditure even in a time of danger, and frankly that is a tribute to the professionalism and the skill of our military and the focus on trying to deliver the best service as reasonably priced as possible. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today in closing I again want to draw attention of the Members to the strength of the underlying legislation, H.R. 5631. This legislation accomplishes much in terms of funding our current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror, while setting the military on the path of further transformation to meet the new challenges of the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, it must also be noted that this legislation would not have been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Ranking Member Murtha), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and all the members on both sides of the aisle of the defense appropriations subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee. The appropriators have given us a genuinely excellent and bipartisan bill. It does not shrink from making the hard decisions regarding the funding of the current and the future force. This is never an easy task, and it is even harder during a time of war. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Members to vote on the rule and the underlying legislation. I readily admit that no bill, including this legislation, is perfect. That is the reason why we reauthorize and appropriate for the Department of Defense on an annual basis. Moreover, we deal with ongoing contingencies through emergency supplemental appropriations when and as required. This legislation takes critical steps toward fulfilling the current and future needs. It is a building block toward creating a stronger military tomorrow and an essential element in funding our troops in the field today. Therefore, I once again urge my colleagues to support the rule and underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).