Providing for Consideration of Conference Report on H.R. 644, Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, and Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendments to H.R. 2250, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, and the Senate amendments to H.R. 2250, a continuing resolution which runs through December 16, 2015.

The resolution provides a standard conference report rule for consideration of H.R. 644, with 1 hour of debate divided pursuant to clause 8(d) of rule XXII.

In addition, the rule makes in order a motion from the chair of the Committee on Appropriations to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 2250, with 60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations on the motion. In addition, the rule provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, first, this resolution allows for consideration of the conference report on the Customs bill. I think it is important to put the work of this House in perspective. As Speaker Ryan noted yesterday, in the entirety of the last Congress, only three conference reports became law. However, with the passage of this conference report, this Congress will have passed three conference reports in 10 days. I am pleased that Speaker Ryan's commitment to regular order is already bearing fruit.

This conference report is a good product. One provision especially important to me is the establishment of new tools for Customs and Border Protection, the CBP, to effectively act against the evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties. I was first introduced to this issue in 2009, when the Chinese dumped literally tens of thousands of tires on the U.S. market, leading to devastating job losses at tire factories across America. I helped to lead the charge at that time to ensure that the Department of Commerce would impose antidumping and countervailing duties. The ENFORCE Act language included in the conference report provides a mechanism and incentive for the CBP to properly investigate and apply appropriate duties to ensure that U.S. companies can compete on a level playing field.

In addition, I am encouraged that the conference report includes language which permanently bans States and localities from imposing a tax on Internet access. Initially enacted in 1998, this prohibition has enabled greater access to Internet services and information. It is estimated that if Congress fails to continue the ban on taxes on Internet access, consumers could end up paying more than $16.4 billion annually. This moratorium has been law since 1998 on a temporary basis, and I am pleased this conference report reflects our intention to make it permanent.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Customs measure, this legislation contains a 5-day continuing resolution to allow the Appropriations Committee to continue its work towards an omnibus appropriations measure. It is simple, straightforward, and extends funding for all government agencies through December 16, 2015, at current funding levels.

I urge all Members to support this short-term CR, which will allow the Appropriations Committee the time to conclude negotiations on a full-year funding measure with its Senate counterparts and the White House. I am encouraged by the hard work of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, whose leadership on this cannot be overstated.

One of the preeminent responsibilities we are tasked with, as Members of Congress, is to ensure that government continues to function. While a CR is not the ideal vehicle, the alternative of a government shutdown is not what we have been sent to Washington to accomplish. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to begin by agreeing with my friend on the other side on a number of areas. I, too, have concerns about the process by which we operate, and would have preferred a number of these items to come, as my friend suggests, separately. But the reality is, of course, we are late in the year and late in the session, we have got significant work to do, and this, I think, is the best way to proceed.

It is worth noting that the conference report itself is a compromise. The Democrats and Republicans were involved in putting that together, and, indeed, this entire bill has considerable Democratic support, as we work toward a larger compromise on the omnibus itself.

It is also worth noting why we ended up in this situation. Frankly, the Appropriations Committee in this House accomplished its work--all of its work--for the first time in a long time early this year. All 12 legislative bills passed through the Appropriations Committee, six of them across this floor. To suggest that anything has been done in the dark or in the back room, frankly, ignores that fact.

What happened was the United States Senate chose not to allow any appropriations bills to come to the floor. They didn't do that as a body. My friends on the other side of the aisle in the Senate--the Democrats--chose not to allow any bills to come to the floor. To be fair to them, they also completed every appropriations bill through the full committee. That is the first time that has happened in many, many years in the United States Senate.

But, our friends, until we got this larger agreement, the budget agreement, which I was happy to vote for, and I know my friend on the other side also voted for, until we reached that point, the appropriations process in the other body didn't happen. At some point, that affects what is going on over here. If they are not moving bills, we stop moving bills because it is sort of a waste of time to do that. If you have got complaints, you should talk to your colleagues in the other body on your side of the aisle, and tell them hopefully next year they won't try to keep bills from moving to the floor in a normal way. Again, I am proud that this body moved all 12 bills through the Appropriations Committee.

I also want to make a couple of other points in terms of where we are now in trying to reach an omnibus. This puts me a little bit, again, at odds with my friend. I don't think that is a closed process. Frankly, it is a pretty normal process. There are representatives involved in these negotiations, both Democratic and Republican, and from the administration. They are working very hard, in good faith, to try and do something that is extremely difficult. Writing a $1.1 trillion omnibus bill takes a lot of time, and there are multiple items to be negotiated. I think both sides are negotiating in good faith in this legislative body, and I think the administration is participating in good faith.

My friend and I will also disagree that riders on appropriations bills, as they are called, is somehow unusual. They certainly, when they were in the majority, had lots of riders on appropriations bills. It is just not an unusual thing. There is, obviously, give-and-take on these things. But Congress, exercising the power of the purse, is a perfectly appropriate constitutional tool to use.

In this case, where we end up will, indeed, be a compromise. The omnibus bill cannot pass either Chamber, and certainly has to be signed by the President of the United States. A Republican Congress, our friends with the appropriate tools and votes that they have, the President of the United States, who has the ultimate veto pen, all of these parties will have to be placated. Again, that negotiation is long and complex. We are making good progress. All parties are represented there.

Eventually, a bill will be presented to this body, hopefully, in the next few days. I share my friend's concern. I would prefer not to be here. But if we have to be here next week and have two or three more days to have the process work out, so be it.

The lessons I think we ought to draw from this, and that we have a chance to implement next year, are let's do a normal process. We already have an agreement now for next year's spending numbers. That is a step in the right direction, and, actually, says a lot of good things about all parties and all concerned that they were able to come to this larger agreement earlier this year.

We have no excuse, in my view, not to move all 12 bills across the floor in regular order under an open rule so every Member can come down here and participate. I know that that is certainly the goal of Chairman Rogers, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I know that is the goal of his ranking member, the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

I think the hard work this year has set us up both for a fruitful compromise here in the waning days of the calendar year in the legislative session, and has actually laid the foundation for something we have not seen around here in a long time: regular order, next year. In the course of that regular order, all of us will be forced to compromise.

We still live in a divided government: a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. We still operate in a system of checks and balances that our Constitutional forebearers set up over 230 years ago. That system has served us pretty well over the course of our history. I think it will continue to. And it will continue to demand compromise. We have seen a little bit more of that lately. I know my friend has his concerns, some of which, again, I share.

I am pretty proud of a Congress that has: number one, produced the first unitary budget since 2001, where the Senate and the House agree that, for the first time since 2006, has moved all appropriations bills through the Appropriations Committee of both Chambers; that, actually, in recent days and weeks, passed landmark legislation, as my friend referred to, the Reauthorization of Higher Education Act, where I know he played a role in that; the highway bill that was recently passed; this conference report, which I know my friend has some concerns with, but, in fairness, speaks well of him, and pointed out a lot of things that he liked in this conference report.

If we sit here and wait to pass things where we all get 100 percent of what we want, nothing will ever pass the United States Congress. Certainly, in a bill this large, when we reach the omnibus, that is going to call for many compromises. This bill before us has called for many compromises. But people have found a way to work in good faith.

My friend is perfectly in order to oppose the rule. That is a pretty normal position for each side to take, minority and majority. I never have any problem with that. I think we will pass the rule. I hope he looks at the entire bill: the funding of the government and the Customs Act, where he had some concerns, but also had many things to point to that he thought were appropriate and good; and the Internet tax prevention that we now make permanent, where I know my friend has worked very hard for many years to do that.

And, yes, there will be some things in this bill that he doesn't like. There are some things in this bill that I don't like. But I think if you look at the merits of it, the permanent end of taxes on the Internet, the Customs legislation that my friend very ably pointed out has many good provisions; finally, the essential operation of government for the next few days, so people negotiating in good faith for both my friend's party and my party and from the administration can actually arrive at a deal. I think there is a lot of merit in the underlying legislation.

I would just ask that we be realistic. Again, my friend is perfectly within his rights to oppose both these measures, the rule and the final bill. I certainly understand his concern about the rule. If the roles were reversed, my concerns would probably be similar. I hope he looks to the underlying legislation when that vote comes and says, there are a lot of good things here.

There is a lot of give-and-take by both sides. There is real compromise. We have done a lot of that in the last few weeks under Speaker Ryan. I think we have the opportunity to do more next year. Let's pass the rule, pass the underlying legislation; get to finishing our business in the next few days; hopefully give the American people what they deserve: some peace, quiet, and certainty in the Christmas season; and then come back here next year with an opportunity to build on this and do some tremendous things in a bipartisan way. That is what I intend to work for. I know that is what my friend will be working for.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I want to thank my good friend from Oregon for coming to the floor and for, frankly, more ably explaining the Customs portion of this legislation than I could.

I want to commend him and his colleagues for working in a bipartisan fashion to improve a bill that had passed earlier this year in ways that I think broadly make it more acceptable to a larger percentage in this body. He is to be commended for that. So are his colleagues on that committee on both sides of the aisle. So is the administration, which I know has been heavily involved in these deliberations.

I think my friend makes an excellent argument for the passage of the underlying legislation. When you combine that with a permanent prohibition on Internet taxation--something I assume my friend also supports--and the necessary continuing resolution to give us a few more days to negotiate a bipartisan omnibus spending bill that, frankly, both parties will need to contribute votes toward and that the administration ultimately will have the prerogative of signing, I take these to be hopeful signs.

With some of the things that have happened in the last few weeks on a bipartisan transportation bill and on a bipartisan education bill and with what I am convinced is essentially a bipartisan conference report here today and with what will be a bipartisan omnibus bill, it sounds to me like significant progress.

It is something that leaders on both sides of the aisle can take some pride in as long as we get it done, hopefully, in a timely way next week and then come back here and build on this progress for all of next year, when we can move under regular order.

Again, I thank my friend for his hard work on the Customs portion of this. I also thank him for giving what I thought was a very thoughtful, constitutional lesson in give-and-take.

There are some things that we might all like to achieve, but that are just simply not possible, given the distribution of political power, the checks and balances in our system, and the fact that people do have, indeed, differing opinions and perspectives.

But the fact that we have gotten to this point I think demonstrates we can produce a good product even within a complex constitutional system, with a rather polarized political environment, and given the hard realities of divided government. I am pleased we have made the progress that we have made, and I thank my friend for his participation in that.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, for coming down and raising important issues.

I am not involved in the negotiations where HUD is concerned, but it would be my hope that her concerns would be addressed, quite frankly. I think, with the additional funds that are a product of the bipartisan negotiations of the Budget Act, which I know my friend supported, there is certainly a prospect that that will occur.

The negotiations that are going on now are indeed bipartisan. I have no doubt my friend's point of view is ably represented by her Democratic colleagues in those negotiations and by the administration. So, hopefully, we will arrive at a product in the next few days that will address some of those concerns.

I want to reinforce my friend's remarks about moving in a cooperative way. Again, we are not going to agree on every part of every piece of legislation, but I think the underlying legislation that we present today is a product of bipartisan cooperation and of compromise and of give-and-take. It is my hope that many people on both sides of the aisle will be able to support that.

There are three important elements of the Customs proposals. My friend from Oregon earlier laid out the many virtues with them, and, frankly, my friend from Colorado has extolled many parts of them.

The prohibition of taxation on the Internet I think is something we have routinely passed through this body since 1998. It has usually not been a particularly contentious issue. It is something we agree on on both sides of the aisle. Making it permanent makes a lot of sense, and I am hopeful that many of my colleagues who have worked so hard on that will see that as an advantage.

Finally, I don't think we disagree on a short-term continuing resolution because we know that our Representatives on the Appropriations Committee--certainly Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey--are working really hard to find a bipartisan compromise.

Now, I will remind my friends, we are not going to agree on every part of this bill. There will be elements, so-called riders, that are in them that probably some of my friends don't like. There will be Democratic riders in this bill, not just Republican riders. That is just the process of normal legislation.

Congress has every right to use the power of the purse. I don't know any executive branch, be it Republican or Democrat, that ever likes Congress getting down to the details of this. They just expect us to write a check for whatever they ask for. Well, that is not the way our Constitution is set up.

While the executive branch has a range of powers and authorities that are unique to itself, at the end of the day, we do fund every single activity that they engage in. At the end of the day, we have the right to say: Well, we agree with you here, here, and here, but we disagree here, and we are not funding that activity.

Now, in this case, I would always point out that wherever we end up at the end of the day is, by necessity, going to be a matter of compromise. My friends, frankly, don't have the congressional strength in either the House or the Senate to dictate to us, but we don't have it to dictate to them either.

Obviously, the President of the United States is of my friend's political party, and he has got to sign this legislation. So anything that gets done is going to involve a lot of compromises. Anything that comes to this floor, whether you like or dislike it, will have been approved at some level or, at least, accepted at some level by Members of both parties, as this is what we had to agree to.

So I am optimistic about that, and I am very pleased, frankly, that this process is largely driven by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, and by Mrs. Lowey from New York. I know them to be exceptional legislators. I know that all parties concerned here and their Senate counterparts and their administration counterparts are involved in a good faith effort to give us a good funding bill for next year and to set the stage for what we hope is a normal appropriations process.

If we have that process next year, my friends on both sides of the aisle will have the opportunity to see every bill on the floor, the opportunity to offer any amendment they want, the opportunity to literally educate the committee about some concern that may be unique to their district or something that they understand, frankly, better than the members of the Appropriations Committee. That is the process that we are trying to get back to. I know it will serve the country well if we can actually reach that.

What we have done in the last few months of this year has actually set that up: the budget agreement, which was proceeded by a temporary CR and the budget agreement that came out of that, the omnibus we are working on now, and the legislation that has passed in the last few weeks in a very bipartisan fashion on education and highways. All of those things create a foundation for what can be an exceptionally productive year next year and one where we move through regular order.

Again, I thank my friend from Texas for bringing her concerns to the floor. I look forward to working with her on the underlying legislation, which I hope has enough items in it to attract significant bipartisan support.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to quickly respond to my friend's point and, number one, thank him for his hard work in getting us to this position on this very important Customs legislation. I appreciate the bipartisan manner in which the work product was clearly achieved. I take a lot of hope from the fact that our current Speaker was actually the chairman of the committee in much of that process, and obviously Mr. Brady from Texas continues in that tradition. So I am pretty hopeful that we are seeing a good, open process that is producing products that Members on both sides of this Chamber are happy to support and participate in. So this is a good and hopeful thing. Again, I thank my friend for coming back and educating us about an area he knows a great deal more about than I do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First, before I close, I want to thank my friend for the debate and for his thoughtful remarks.

Not surprisingly, there will be a couple of areas in my close where I disagree with my good friend. One of them is the process itself. I share, actually, his frustration and the need for us to move under regular order. I share the frustration I think both sides share in this that we are doing an omnibus, but I remind my friends, we moved six bills across the floor here. Every bill has moved through the full Committee on Appropriations.

Frankly, our friends on the other side of the rotunda need to take a considerable responsibility for the delay in the appropriations, since they prevented the Senate from actually picking up and acting on individual bills. I think, frankly, had they done so, we would have had a more orderly process and been out of here in an easier way. My hope is next year they will do that, because I think in the bipartisan budget compromise, we set a framework up by deciding early on what the top line numbers are for next year, where that process can, indeed, occur. I certainly promise to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle to see that we restore regular order, bring each appropriations bill down here.

I am going to disagree with my friend, too, on this terrorist watch list idea. This is a very interesting point. I think Members on both sides are equally committed to making sure all of our citizens are safe, but the terrorist watch list that my friend has talked about is one of the more mysterious lists in the United States.

As I read the press, I find one article that tells me there are 47,000 people on it; another one that tells me, no, there is 470,000 people; yet another that tells me there are 1 million people on it or more. I do know that the American Civil Liberties Union has called the terrorist watch list a ``massive, virtually standardless, government watch list scheme that ensnares innocent people and encourages racial and religious profiling.'' Now, that is not from a conservative group. That is the American Civil Liberties Union.

I also know in this Chamber, one of our distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who, when he was a State senator, found out accidentally going to the airport he was on the terrorist watch list. He found out another Democratic colleague, another State senator, was also on the terrorist watch list. They inquired as to why, and they were told: Well, we can't tell you.

Eventually, working with the Sergeant at Arms of the California Senate, they were able to determine Mr. McClintock had been confused with an IRA--Irish Republican Army--terrorist, and the other gentleman had been confused with somebody else. We know that the late Senator Kennedy was, at one time, on the terrorist watch list. So I think this is a very imperfect tool that will ensnare lots of innocent Americans in it.

It is also worth noting--and this was a fact that was made acquainted to me by our good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) who, along with his distinguished record of service for over 21 years in the United States Army, is an arms manufacturer and an arms seller--he pointed out actually the terrorist watch list is one of the lists that is used by the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms group to decide whether or not to issue a permit. So it is a factor in now. It is not exclusive. You wouldn't exclude somebody simply because they were there, but it is a factor taken into consideration.

I say this just to suggest that perhaps we shouldn't seize on this as a be-all and a political talking point. This is worth a real serious look as to whether or not this particular list, how it is compiled, who is on it, what is the appropriate way to use it?

I think the last thing we should do is attach it to legislation without the appropriate hearing and discussion of it, which actually I think my friend on the other side would generally be in favor of.

There are plenty of reasons, anecdotal and serious studies, when, again, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union look at this as a very imperfect tool that will violate the civil liberties of the average American. Again, I caution my friends on the other side. It is a great political talking point, but I think it is a pretty imperfect tool, and I think they would find themselves embarrassed, frankly, were it used in the manner that they suggest here.

Mr. Speaker, let me move to my close. Passage of the continuing resolution, as we both agree, is critical to prevent a government shutdown and, frankly, to allow both sides and the administration to continue to negotiate. A CR passed the Senate yesterday by voice vote. We should pass this rule, and we should support the underlying legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source