Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendment to H.R. Affordable Insulin Now Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Fairness for Families Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, my very good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by associating myself with the chairman's very appropriate remarks about the unfolding disaster in Florida and the southeast. It is something that moves all Americans. Florida, and frankly all of the region, is in our prayers and in our thoughts as they deal with an unprecedented natural disaster.
Madam Speaker, today's rule covers two items. The first I will discuss is H.R. 8987, the Fairness for 9/11 Families Act. This bill would shift just under $3 billion from the CARES Act small business loan fund to the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund to compensate victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.
Last night at the Rules Committee we heard testimony on this bill, which unfortunately, is the only hearing this bill will receive this Congress. My Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee testified at length about the efforts they have gone to in order to work with the majority on this matter. But instead of working together in a bipartisan manner, the majority instead chose to move ahead on this bill with no hearing or markup held in the committee of jurisdiction.
This represents a complete failure of regular order. Madam Speaker, it results in a lack of process that is unfair to everyone. It is especially unfair to the victims of 9/11 who deserve both a bipartisan process and a bipartisan bill that everyone can support. It did not have to be this way, and it is unfortunate that the majority decided to treat this issue with less than the gravity it deserved.
Despite these procedural failures, however, I intend to support this legislation, but we could have and should have done much better.
Our second bill is the Senate amendment to H.R. 6833, a continuing resolution funding the government through December 16 of 2022.
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that Congress has waited until the last minute to take up the serious work of funding the government and keeping it open. It is equally unfortunate that our only option for doing so is the flawed, inadequate bill that does not meet the needs of the American people.
Despite this bill's flaws, there is much to like in it and much that I do support. I voted in favor of the omnibus spending bill back in March, and this bill would maintain those spending levels through the middle of December. I support additional funding for Ukraine as they seek to defend themselves against Vladimir Putin's unjust and illegal invasion, and I support additional funds for disaster relief.
But just as important as what is included in this bill is what is not included in this bill and should have been.
It is undeniable that we are facing a humanitarian crisis on our southern border, caused in large part by the Biden administration's unwillingness to confront what is staring them in the face. The administration asked for $1.8 billion to assist migrants, which they have received in this legislation, but they did not ask for a single penny to secure the border.
The Biden administration has sought to add workers elsewhere in the government, like 87,000 new employees at the IRS, but they did not ask for money to add any new Border Patrol agents to help address this Biden-made crisis on the southern border. This could and should have been addressed in this bill, but it is not.
Similarly, the bill does nothing to address the high price of energy or provide new sources of energy. We should be doing everything we can to provide secure, reliable, and inexpensive energy to the American people. Instead, the President is spending his time chastising energy companies. We should have addressed this issue in this bill, too, but we did not.
Nor does this bill address other crises affecting the American people, including inflation and the economic recession, both caused by the reckless and profligate spending policies of the Biden administration and this majority. I could go on and on, but the point remains: so much should have been in this bill but is not.
I hope that if my friends in the majority take anything from today's discussion, it is this: it is high time for them to get serious about appropriations and about holding bipartisan discussions with Republicans on full-year spending bills.
Consider where we are: the House Appropriations Committee, I am proud to say, passed all 12 bills out of committee this summer, yet, as of today, only six have passed the floor. It is the majority's responsibility to bring those bills to the floor.
In the Senate, which Democrats also control, the record is even worse. Not a single bill has been passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. In addition, no serious negotiations have taken place between Republicans and Democrats and between the House and the Senate. These negotiations have been postponed all summer and into the fall while the House takes up one political messaging bill after another.
Madam Speaker, we need to focus on the serious business of funding government. In order to accomplish that goal and achieve a bipartisan agreement, four conditions will have to be met.
First, defense spending will have to go up to meet the level authorized in the fiscal year 2023 NDAA. The level included in the House defense appropriations bill is wholly inadequate to meet America's defense needs and must go up to reach a final deal.
Second, non-defense discretionary spending will have to come down. The House non-defense appropriations bills were all marked up at a bloated level of spending which cannot be justified. These numbers must be reduced for an agreement to be had.
Third, longstanding bipartisan pro-life policies that have historically been carried in appropriations bills must be restored. The majority stripped these out in the Appropriations Committee this year, but they must go back in. I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough, Madam Speaker. No Republicans--and I mean no Republicans--will vote for these bills unless these bipartisan pro-life riders are restored.
Fourth, the 12 House Appropriations Committee bills include countless poison pills that have to come out. These are liberal policy riders on all matters of topics, ranging from climate change to abortion to labor law. They have to come out to reach a bipartisan deal. The appropriations bills cannot pass this House and pass the Senate unless there is a bipartisan deal.
Madam Speaker, we can reach a bipartisan, bicameral, full-year spending deal if my friends in the majority get serious about negotiating. At the end of the day, Republicans must be included in these negotiations. If the majority continues to dither, we are headed for a year-long continuing resolution. That is a bad outcome for the institution, a bad outcome for the government, and a bad outcome for the American people.
When the majority begins to seriously negotiate on a bipartisan appropriations package, I will certainly be there to help. But neither I, nor many of my colleagues, will participate in kicking the can down the road so my Democratic friends can ignore their responsibility to govern until after the upcoming election.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend and my fellow member of both the Appropriations Committee and the Rules Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my good friend.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7967, the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act, for immediate consideration. The bill will ensure that the perpetrators of violent crimes are held accountable for their actions and that victims of violent crimes receive the justice that they deserve.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, America's largest cities are in the midst of a wave of violent crime, making some of them nearly unlivable. This spike in violent crime has many causes, but one factor is undeniably making the problem worse: That is the fuzzy-headed ideology followed by woke prosecutors who are refusing to do their jobs and prosecute violent offenders.
As part of the Commitment to America, Republicans have made it clear that we will fund the police; that we will take clear steps to stop the scourge of fentanyl coming over the southern border into our Nation; and that we will crack down on prosecutors and district attorneys who refuse to prosecute violent criminals.
H.R. 7967 fulfills that commitment. It would require the same prosecutors to report annually on the cases they receive and their decisions to prosecute or not prosecute. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.''
This reporting would allow the citizens of our great cities to see, once and for all, just what this wave of progressive woke prosecutors is actually up to, and just how many violent crime cases they are refusing to prosecute out of ideology.
To further explain the amendment, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my good friend, the author of the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to quickly respond to my friend.
Crime is also a problem all across the country, and we will work with you on the 9/11 survivors bill, which I point out, again, was originally my colleague from New York's bill as opposed to a Democratic proposal. But I will give you credit for picking up a good idea that my friend originated.
Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my friend, to respond.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, it has become all too common in recent years to learn about the perpetrators of violent crime who should have been locked up for earlier incidents. All too often, we hear that a woke prosecutor decided not to pursue charges against a criminal for an earlier violent act, only for that same criminal to then offend again and again. As part of our Commitment to America, House Republicans will take action to end this practice.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany) to speak more about this issue and the solution contained in H.R. 7967.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.
Madam Speaker, it is deeply unfortunate that we have once again waited until the last minute to fund the government. With no time left for negotiations, the majority is putting forward a bill to fund the government that was not subject to bipartisan negotiations in the House. It is no surprise, then, that this bill fails to accomplish so many things that are necessary to address the crises currently confronting the Nation.
I am an appropriator, and I would advise my friend that the Appropriations Committee--and I give great credit to my friend, the chairwoman of that committee, Ms. DeLauro from Connecticut, and the ranking member, Ms. Granger from Texas--actually got all 12 bills done by the end of July and out of committee.
Six of those have come across the floor. That is a good thing. Six others have not. That includes, by the way, the bills to defend the United States of America, the largest spending bill. It includes the bill to defend our southern border.
The reality is, they haven't come to the floor because my friends don't have the votes to pass them. Many of their own Members want to reduce the size of defense as opposed to increase it in a dangerous world. Many of their friends simply don't want to do anything to secure the southern border.
Now, the reality is, in the end, I think we will get both those things done, and there will have to be a bipartisan negotiation to do it. There has been absolutely no negotiation since July in the House.
I also point to the United States Senate, which is not the responsibility of my friends, but their party controls it. That body has not moved a single bill out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Not one.
Now we are asked, because we are in an emergency, to kick the can down the road. My friends have had months to deal with this issue and to engage in serious bipartisanship. They have chosen not to do that. They would rather do messaging bill after messaging bill after messaging bill. That is what we have been dealing with.
Frankly, the Rules Committee, unusually, has become a committee of original jurisdiction in bill after bill after bill because those bills have not gone through the committee. They are raced through the Rules Committee to come to the floor to make a political point on the eve of an election. That is a bad way to govern.
Now, I am hopeful once we get to the other side of the election, my friends will sit down, and we will arrive at a bipartisan agreement on funding the government, which is the primary responsibility of Congress, in my view. But so far those negotiations have not taken place. We don't have agreed-upon top lines.
My friends can't pass important bills, so they are left to linger. And then they come to us at the very last minute and say, gosh, you have to help us here in this emergency.
We are going to pass the bills. The government is not going to shut down. Nobody here has the illusion that it will. But we should not be in this situation. Both sides have done this, I will grant my friend that. But this is a particularly egregious process of no negotiations on things like defense and securing the southern border.
We live in a dangerous world. We don't need a CR in defense; we need a bill. Actually, the Democratic-controlled House Armed Services Committee produced a bill. It is just $30 billion more than the President asked for because that is what that committee felt we needed. It passed on a bipartisan basis.
Why can't we move the appropriations level up to do what a Democratic-controlled House Armed Services Committee asked us to do?
Our friends have not wanted to deal with that issue.
We know we have a crisis on the southern border. You can turn on the television and see it every night. You can look at the fentanyl pouring into the country. You can see the tragedy of human trafficking.
Is there anything in this bill that asked us to do anything different, anything new?
Has any legislation come to the floor to do that?
No. We are just asked, please allow us to continue the current state of affairs to exist on the southern border. That is a travesty.
When you say, well, we are bringing irrelevant issues, the reality is you won't bring the relevant issues to the floor. You won't bring the relevant appropriations bills to the floor.
But make no mistake, Republicans have put forward a Commitment to America to address the concerns of our citizens:
We will fund the police and uphold law and order.
We will add needed security infrastructure at the southern border.
We will achieve longer and healthier lives for our citizens.
We will ensure that America has an all-of-the-above energy policy that provides consistent, low-cost energy to keep our economy strong. That is something my friends don't want to deal with.
We will end the majority and the Biden administration's reckless spending policies that have led to record inflation and stifling economic recession.
This administration inherited a V-shaped recovery, and a 1.4 percent inflation rate. Now we are in a recession with a 40-year-high, 8.3 percent inflation rate. That is a record of disaster. We ought to be talking about those issues, not maintaining the status quo.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source