Tom Cole

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

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

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Reclaiming my time, I would disagree with the gentleman on a number of points, but on one in particular. It is not easy for anybody in this body to make the decision to send American troops into harm's way. My father was a career military person. My uncle spent 3\1/2\ years in a Japanese prison camp. My brother is a disabled Vietnam-era veteran, although not disabled in Vietnam. I have 15,000 soldiers at Fort Sill that I am privileged to represent. I have got another 8,000 or 9,000 airmen at Tinker Air Force Base that I am privileged to represent. My cousin is a lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force, who spent 6 months in Afghanistan and 6 months in Iraq under very dangerous and difficult circumstances. These are not decisions that anybody makes lightly for or against. Those people who are opposed to the war, as my good friend noted in the Rules Committee yesterday, initially, when it was ``popular,'' did not make an easy decision. It is not popular today. Those of us who are still supportive of that effort are not making an easy decision. We are making what we think is the right decision. I respect my friend's motives in that regard. I think he has always been consistent. His judgment has been consistent, even though we have consistently disagreed. I would ask for the same sentiment in reverse; that those of us who hold a different point of view are equally honorable in our motivation, equally intense about what we are doing, and equally convinced the course we are advocating is the correct one. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Reclaiming my time. I disagree with my friend's characterization of when the mass graves were. There are certainly 35 years' worth of mass graves in Iraq, but a lot of them are from 1991 on, and particularly from the uprising of the Shi'a against Saddam Hussein, when an American Army was sitting on their border and we urged them to rise up and did nothing to help them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Let me just make a quick point on Katrina. Actually, there was good oversight there. Chairman Davis had a very good committee. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle chose largely not to participate in an oversight function.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert 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 New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. Mr. Speaker, on March 14 the Rules Committee met and granted an open rule on House Resolution 725, with 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. The bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule and waives all points of order against the bill. Additionally, when the reading for the amendment reaches title II, such title shall be considered as read. This rule accords priority of recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to be able to manage this rule. The rule provides for an emergency supplemental funding package to sustain our troops in the ongoing war on terror and to assist in providing emergency relief for those affected in the Gulf States by last year's tremendous hurricanes. However, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this bill is being brought to the floor under an open rule should not be overlooked. This means that anyone in the majority or the minority may bring to the floor any amendment that is germane to this legislation. As one of the most important bills that will be brought to the House floor this year, we should all be able to agree that an open rule is the right thing to do and will allow the House to work its will. The supplemental appropriations package is the sixth supplemental since September 11 that focuses on meeting the challenges imposed on us by the global war on terrorism. Specifically, this supplemental provides for replenishing of those accounts that the military has exhausted during sustained operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of the world. Additionally, it provides important funding to assist in our efforts to address the disastrous results of the hurricanes in the gulf coast communities. Finally, these are important measures dedicated to improving the benefits due our soldiers and their families who have often been asked to make the ultimate sacrifice. Among the important provisions in this bill is a $2 billion effort at the suppression of technology for so-called IEDs, improvised explosive devices, in Iraq and other areas. IEDs, rather than direct engagement with enemy combatants, have caused over half the casualties our forces have sustained in Iraq. Additionally, the supplemental fully funds the enhanced $400,000 Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance benefits and the $100,000 death gratuity benefit for combat-related fatalities. Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee also addressed several other issues inside the supplemental that are essential to successfully continue to prosecute our global war on terror. Important obligations are met in the underlying legislation. In particular, this legislation earmarked $850 million over the President's request to ensure that the National Guard receives upgraded Bradleys and Abrams when deploying. Additionally, the bill earmarked another $480 million for new advances in safer up-armoring for Humvees. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4939 takes a number of important steps forward in addressing the needs of our military. Today we are likely to debate several amendments that would have a large impact on the effect of the underlying legislation. I would strongly urge Members to closely examine such amendments and reject any not pertaining to the subject matter at hand. The bill we have before us today is an excellent and timely piece of legislation that deserves strong bipartisan support. The underlying legislation is ultimately really about supporting our troops in the field and moving forward in assisting our own citizens drastically affected by the hurricanes. With respect to Katrina, the underlying legislation provides $9.9 billion to the Department of Homeland Security, primarily intended for FEMA, and major additional funding for flood control and coastal emergencies. Additionally, the Department of Defense would receive $1.8 billion and the Army Corps of Engineers would receive $1.5 billion, mostly for procurement and construction for flood control and coastal emergencies. $1.3 billion would be set aside for loans to home owners and small businesses to be administered through the Small Business Administration. Mr. Speaker, this is the third supplemental appropriations request sent to Congress that addresses the fallout from the hurricanes. I am sure we will deal with this issue in the future as needs are defined. It is truly a testament to this Nation that we are able to break through the political logjam and deal with these issues of an emergency nature when this situation demands. Mr. Speaker, judging from the debate in the Rules Committee yesterday, I suspect Members from both sides of the aisle may mention or attempt to interject into our discussions motions or amendments that are not germane to the underlying legislation. A number of measures are things that I personally support. However, the Rules Committee decided, appropriately in my opinion, that these matters should be dealt with separately and under regular order. My good friends on both sides of the aisle have often expressed their desire to have major legislation dealt with under an open rule. That is precisely what we have today. It is my hope that all Members will appreciate that fact and will see the wisdom of pursuing other issues through regular order. Therefore, 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his point. I thought he had a very interesting amendment yesterday in the Rules Committee. I think it is a topic and amendment that deserves a great deal of study because I think the reform of that process is very much in order. I would prefer that we move through an authorizing committee to do that, as opposed to simply discussing it in the Rules Committee, where we have no background, no staff, and then immediately inject it onto the floor. My disagreement with my friend is largely over process here, and not necessarily over substance. I hope we do look at that process and do take his very thoughtful amendment into consideration through regular order.

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would draw a distinction here. I think there is a big difference between stopping a decision that you disagree with, which I think can be done without a great deal of moving through process, and changing a process itself. I think that is actually a more difficult, time-consuming, complex operation. I think it needs an authorizing committee to look at it. I think it is very appropriate for the Appropriations Committee to say, stop, we have serious concerns, we do not want to go through with this; and hopefully at that point we would proceed by regular order and consider the gentleman's thoughtful amendments that may come along.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I would like to say I believe we have had an excellent debate today. What is clear to me is the importance and the timeliness of this legislation. With that said, I would encourage Members to listen carefully to the following debate and to vote in support of the underlying legislation. Additionally, I would encourage Members to be cautious when considering the amendments. This bill has been carefully crafted and worked in a way to ensure that our servicemen receive the best equipment when they go to war. Equally important, the bill contains important measures to help our fellow citizens in the gulf coast as they continue to deal with the consequences of the worst natural disaster in American history. Finally, I would ask Members to remember this is not a vote about the wisdom of the war in Iraq. The President and the Congress made that decision years ago. This vote is about giving those we have asked to execute our policy in Iraq the tools they need to do their job. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. In good conscience, we should give them nothing less. Similarly, this is not a debate about the nature of the governmental response to Hurricane Katrina. This matter has been dealt with in a detailed report issued by a select committee chaired by the chairman of the Government Reform Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). Finally, this is also not a vote in essence about fiscal discipline. The process that the rule allows would allowed those concerned about spending to strip portions of the bill that concern them and send them back. It would also, of course, allow them at the end to vote against the bill itself if they thought it was too expensive. The rule allows, as I wish to remind my colleagues, for an open rule, that is, any Member of this body, majority or minority, can bring an issue germane to the bill to the floor, have it heard and have it decided. This is a movement toward regular order, and I think it is one we should respect and appreciate by upholding the rule. To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Dewey F. Bartlett Post Office Designation Act and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, Dewey Bartlett served our country in the Marine Corps during World War II and, when he came to Oklahoma after the war, he began to serve the State. He was first a member of the Oklahoma Senate, then Oklahoma's 19th Governor, and finally a United States Senator. It is no exaggeration to say that he is one of the most consequential public figures in Oklahoma history. During his term as Governor, his goal was to meet his campaign promises, the first of which was to strengthen the State's economy. The numbers during the Bartlett administration are impressive. Two years into his term, Oklahomans spent $148 million building new industries or improving existing capital. In 1969, the State had 1 million jobs for the first time in its history. He journeyed widely to bring outside businesses into the State. In 1968 alone, he traveled 100,000 miles on behalf of the State, some of it at his own expense. Bartlett's time in the Senate was equally remarkable. He wrote about NATO and the Soviet Union and collaborated with Senators across the aisle. Whether visiting chambers of commerce or the White House, Oklahoma's military installations or villages in Somalia, Senator Bartlett held the conviction that Oklahomans and Americans were special and could contribute something to the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, Governor Dewey Bartlett was rightfully important to us Oklahomans, and, I believe, his example can say something important to the rest of the country today. Partisanship was strong during the Bartlett administration, not unlike partisanship that develops when the clash of ideas is strong. During his watch in the late 1960s, there were questions about State funding authority and disputes over sex education policy. Some of his actions to address student unrest at the University of Oklahoma were unpopular. And though he was the first Governor of Oklahoma eligible to be reelected, he lost in an election that was so close that the National Guard had to be deployed to protect ballot boxes. Mr. Speaker, despite the acrimony, Bartlett was optimistic. He opened his final State of the State Address with these words: ``Most of you looked for solutions to State problems through a Democratic point of view; I from a Republican viewpoint.'' But, he continued, ``this competitive difference, I believe, brought out the best in each of us.'' Differences of opinion, in short, were not reasons to condemn or deride one another. Rather, they were the building blocks upon which the future of the State depended. Granted, the party meant something to Bartlett, but the State was more important. Even in the end, just a few months before he died, Senator Bartlett retired early so that his successor, David Boren, could have additional seniority to benefit Oklahoma. This country, and this Congress, would do well to build upon Bartlett's legacy in this regard. Mr. Speaker, Dewey Bartlett believed in serving his country and his community, and so it is fitting that we name a post office after him in his hometown, Tulsa. For him, Oklahoma was a great State that could be even better, and his vision inspires those of us who serve Oklahoma today. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge other members to support this resolution and pass the bill under suspension.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on H. Res. 639.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first address my good friend's concern about ANWR and point out a couple of things. ANWR has been voted on repeatedly in both Houses of Congress. Frankly, bipartisan majorities in each House have repeatedly expressed their support for this measure. The President has indicated he would sign it. Minorities in both Houses, particularly in the other body, have frustrated that process. I have no objection to that, because they have done that, frankly, under the rules and traditions of the Senate. They have been shrewd, they have been tough, and they have been wily; but they have represented a minority viewpoint on the issue. I think it is somewhat disingenuous now, when the majority bipartisan proponents of this measure are equally tough and shrewd and wily and find a procedure to pass their measure, that they somehow are engaging in something that is either unprecedented or unfair or untoward in some way. Frankly, this is a matter that has been discussed extensively and debated extensively. People have settled opinions on it, but this is simply a case where the majority of Congress and the President are working their will and passing a very important piece of legislation. As to the avian flu matter that my good friend discusses, I still would point out that wrongful action lawsuits are still permitted under this legislation. A fund has, as he points out, been established. It has not been filled up yet, but it is in being. And, finally, we are only appropriating roughly half of what the President requested. We will be back and review this issue again, and I suspect we will review not only funding mechanisms but liability protections as well. So I do not think this is the last time we are going to discuss it; but it is critical that we begin the process so that if, God forbid, something I know all of us on each side does not want to happen, but something should occur, this country is well down the road for preparation, and we can move quickly to meet the needs of our citizens. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me quickly make a point that oil and gas drilling is something if you are from Oklahoma you know something about. And, frankly, in the history of my State, we have had over half a million wells drilled. The technology today is unbelievably different. I sometimes think when I listen to my friends on the other side or friends from States that are not energy States, they sort of have the picture of the old movie ``Boom Town'' with Spencer Tracy and Clark Gable that all oil wells are wooden derricks about 6 feet apart. That is not what modern energy exploration is all about. Frankly, we do it again and again across this country. As to the fact of this being an unusual method of passing ANWR, I would remind my friends on the other side that ANWR has passed this House repeatedly by large bipartisan majorities. As a matter of fact, I would talk to my good friends on the other side, 30-odd, who have consistently supported them and suggest that a vote against the rule is to vote against ANWR and is to take out your own vote and, frankly, cancel your own interest. So I hope you consider that if you happen to be someone who has previously been in favor of this measure. Finally, I would like to point out that this legislation adds enormous amounts of new money in addition to LIHEAP to deal with the heating challenge that we undoubtedly will have this winter, and I think that is a wise measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the distinguished chairman of the Resources Committee. (Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I have no further requests. I am prepared to close.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate here today. We have talked a lot about ANWR. And I want to point out to my good friends again, this body has repeatedly passed ANWR. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record the last vote we had in this House on this issue, where 231 of our Members favored ANWR and only 200 opposed. Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle asked us, Were we sent here to do this? Frankly, I can only speak for my district and tell Members that is exactly what I was asked to do. When I talk to my constituents at home, they tell me government is too big, taxes are too high. Do something about it. We all know the numbers here, and we are going to hear a lot of sound and fury tonight about how horrific and dramatic this bill is. In reality, it is not. We are talking about a little over $40 billion out of a $14.5 trillion revenue stream over the next 5 years, less than one-half of 1 percent. We will not cut spending. Spending, instead of going up annually at 6.4 percent a year, will go up at 6.3 percent. We will not cut Medicaid. Instead of going up at 7.3 percent, it will go up at a little over 7 percent. This is, though, an important first step, where we begin to deal with nondiscretionary entitlement spending. That is going to be, I think, the big challenge over the next decade. I am very proud that this Congress has begun to grapple with that problem. I look forward to the process as we continue this in the years ahead.