Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 13: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following:

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following:

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following:

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following:

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, in April, a draft executive order was circulated

that would force companies as a condition of applying for a Federal contract to disclose all Federal campaign contributions. In my view, if implemented, this executive order would lead to a significant politicalization of the Federal procurement process. Instead of a company being evaluated and judged on its merits, their past work experience, their ability to complete the government contract in question, this executive order would introduce the potential that they would be evaluated politically as opposed to professionally.

It's never a good idea, Mr. Chairman, in my view, to mix politics with contracting. My amendment would prevent the President from implementing the proposed disclosure requirements.

Congress actually considered something similar to what the President is proposing in the 111th Congress, the so-called DISCLOSE Act. It's instructive to me that that Congress--the majority of which in both Houses was controlled by our friends on the other side--decided not to implement such a requirement. Frankly, I think doing so now by executive order is effectively legislating through the executive branch.

The executive order in question that's being considered would not in fact lead to more objectivity in the bidding process, and it could potentially chill the constitutionally protected right of people to donate politically to whatever candidate, political party, or cause that they chose to do so.

It's worth noting that nothing in this amendment would affect the current Federal disclosures under the law. We're not trying to change things; we're not trying to let people do something they can't do now. We're simply trying to make sure that political contributions and political activities never move into the contracting process. Pay-to- play has no place in the Federal contracting process, and requiring the disclosure of campaign contributions for government contracts does just that.

Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully urge that the amendment be adopted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 42: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 42: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, last month a draft Executive order was circulated that would require companies to disclose all Federal campaign contributions as a condition for submitting a bid on a Federal contract. If implemented, this Executive order would effectively politicize the Federal procurement process. Companies and their bids would run the risk of being judged on the basis of politics as opposed to their professional capabilities. The danger of that is obvious. It's never a good idea to mix politics and contracting. My amendment would prevent the President from implementing his proposed disclosure requirements.

And it's worth noting for the record, Congress actually considered something similar in the 111th Congress, the so-called DISCLOSE Act, and chose not to pass that particular legislation. This is, in effect, a backdoor effort to implement something that Congress has previously decided not to legislate on.

It's worth also noting that all current Federal campaign requirements and disclosure requirements would remain effective. There is nothing in this amendment that affects current law. However, we do prevent the administration from taking that extra step and chilling the First Amendment rights of companies and corporate executives.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with my friend from Maryland.

Quite frankly, the information that this proposed executive order would extract and require from companies is not necessary to evaluate any bid that they've made. It's a political quest, not a quest for more information, for a better product or a better bid, and it legitimately raises political fear of retaliation. We've seen time and time and time again in history where politics have been linked to contracts. This is yet another effort to do it.

I also dispute my friend about whether or not it is appropriate for the executive branch to even consider this in the first place. It is not the job of the executive branch to legislate. That's actually our job in this body. If we want to add additional requirements, we can do so. We looked at requirements very much like this last year in a Congress which was controlled at both ends of the building by my friends on the other side, and it did not enact such legislation. I think to do so now actually through executive fiat raises even more concerning fears.

All I am asking is that we leave the law as it is, the disclosure requirements as they are, and, frankly, keep the executive branch from engaging in fishing expeditions and from potentially imputative political activity against companies and individuals who are simply exercising their First Amendment rights.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if the information isn't necessary for the bid or for the evaluation of the bid, then it's not necessary for the executive branch to have it or for us to run the risk that it might be misused, so I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1423, a bill I sponsored, to designate the post office in Ardmore, Oklahoma, as the Specialist Micheal E. Phillips Post Office.

Micheal was driven by a personal sense of duty and honor. He joined the Army because he recognized injustice and terror in our world and sought to make a difference. Specialist Micheal Phillips lived out that sense of duty through military service and made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure our Nation remained secure and free.

Mr. Speaker, Micheal turned down an opportunity to attend the San Francisco Art Institute to volunteer for the United States Army. When asked why he wanted to join the Army, Micheal simply stated, ``I want a career and we are at war.'' Specialist Phillips saw terrorists as thugs, often referring to them as the ``ultimate bullies in the world.'' A fervent student of history, Micheal knew that his service would be against a tough and formidable enemy, still he enthusiastically embraced what he believed was the right decision and enlisted in the United States Army.

Mr. Speaker, Micheal Phillips was only 17 years of age when he joined the military via the delayed entry program. He left for boot camp on June 24, 2006. Upon finishing advanced infantry training, Micheal was assigned to Bravo Company 1 of the 502nd Strike Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division, one of the most storied divisions in the United States Army. On October 13, 2007, Micheal and his brothers in arms were deployed to Iraq for combat operations.

Micheal's enthusiasm for his work inspired members of his platoon. In addition to his enthusiasm, Specialist Phillips also endeavored to foster real camaraderie amongst his fellow soldiers. Even in the middle of a war, it was said that Micheal made bad times good and good times better. Micheal's team leader, Sergeant Matthew Whalen praised his abilities in terrain association, map reading, and his tremendous bravery in combat. Sergeant Whalen reflected on Specialist Phillips' leadership skills, noting, ``I know that soldiers that did serve with him have taken away with them, as I have, the undoubted and unmistaken values that he always possessed and always portrayed.''

Mr. Speaker, Specialist Micheal E. Phillips was killed in action on February 24, 2008, in Shula, Iraq, just outside of Baghdad. An explosively formed penetrator, a so-called EFP, hit the driver's side of the door on the vehicle that he was driving. Despite the severity of his injuries, he continued to smile and reassure those taking care of him. Even in the most grim and serious times, Micheal still fought and lifted up those around him.

For his service, Specialist Micheal Phillips was awarded a Bronze Star. He was also designated as a Distinguished Member of the 502nd Infantry Regiment. The Distinguished Member award is for those who display honorable service, loyalty on active duty in peace or war. These are qualities Micheal Phillips lived with each and every day of his service career.

Mr. Speaker, Micheal always gave more than his share back to his community. When he did have time away from his duty, he would often visit his high school to speak with students and encourage them to pursue their goals.

Never without a smile, Micheal fought for his country, his community, and his family with valor and with honor. He wanted others in the world to have the freedoms and opportunities that we enjoy here in the United States, and he risked his life to achieve that end.

Like many who have made the ultimate sacrifice, Specialist Micheal Phillips leaves behind loved ones, friends, and comrades in arms who treasure his memory and honor his service. Micheal is survived by his parents, Steven and Angelia Phillips; his brothers, David and Anthony; and his sister, Barbara--all of Ardmore, Oklahoma. He also leaves behind a Nation and a community that will never forget his courage, his sacrifice, and his devotion to duty.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, we've heard it all before. In the 1990s, when Republicans proposed welfare reform, we were told that it was going to lead to poverty and starvation. Instead, it was the most successful poverty reduction program in modern American history. And when we pushed through Medicare part D over the opposition of our opponents, we were told that drug prices would go up and it was an unsustainable program. The reality is it came in 40 percent under cost for both the individual and for the government, something no other health care program has done. The reason why those two programs were successful were flexibility for States, choice, and competition for individuals.

I am proud to support the Ryan budget, the only serious budget proposal that either party has offered. Frankly, it's quite a contrast to what we heard yesterday, which was long on political

rhetoric and partisanship by the President and very short on specifics and solutions.

In Medicare, my friends won't tell you that nobody on Medicare is going to have anything other than the programs that they already enjoy, that there is no reduction for seniors in the near term, and that we actually make the changes that are necessary to protect and save the program for the long term. If we stay on the course that they currently advocate, there will be no Medicare for people in their twenties and thirties and forties.

The same thing's true with Medicaid. My friends on the other side of the aisle, frankly, forget that we are not the laboratories for innovation; the States are. We'll provide them with block grants, more flexibilities, more opportunity for change and innovation. We'll end up with a better program that actually protects more people.

So I urge my colleagues to support this budget. We know we're on an unsustainable path. Mr. Ryan has offered us an alternative. Sadly, my friends on the other side of the aisle and the President of the United States have not.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 243 on agreeing to the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1363, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes; and waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, I had briefly stepped off the floor and was unintentionally delayed and missed the vote on the Rule. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the adoption of H.J. Res. 48 for the continuing appropriations for this fiscal year. It seems to me that we've got three questions we ought to address in the course of this debate. First, and very elementally, why are we here? Second, what does the bill do? And third, what are the consequences if the bill isn't passed?

We're here for the simple reason that the last Congress, that my good friends on the other side ran, never passed a budget and never passed a single appropriations bill. We're here because the Democratic majority failed to do its work. We're also here because the current Democratic majority in the other body has so far failed to do its work.

I remind my colleagues, we actually passed legislation and sent it over. I also remind my colleagues that the one proposal in the Senate that actually got the most votes was actually the Republican H.R. 1. But nevertheless, they failed to give us something to negotiate against. It's their obligation in the Senate at some point to have a common negotiating position. I don't know how we can sit down and negotiate otherwise.

So we're here, I think, because of a Democratic failure both in the last Congress and this one.

Second, what does this bill do? Well, it's pretty commonsensical. It cuts and reduces 25 programs, saving $3.5 billion. Most of those programs the President and the majority say they don't want to continue. It eliminates $2.6 billion in earmarks and, by itself, is one of the largest cuts any CR has ever administered. As has been pointed out earlier, if you combine it with the previous CR, it is a very substantial cut indeed. It buys time, but it also keeps the government running and it keeps us on course to reduce spending at $2 billion a week, something that my colleagues and I are committed to.

Finally, what happens if we don't pass this bill? I know there's some that want to spend more, some that want to spend less. The first thing that happens is we shut down the government, something all of us know is not a wise thing to do. The second thing that happens is that we probably create financial panic in the country and harm a fragile economy. Finally, the last thing that happens, and I think actually the most important, is we raise fundamental doubts amongst the American people as to whether or not this institution and we, as elected officials, have the capacity to actually address and solve our problems.

So I think we need to pass this bill. We need to give our friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly in the Senate, another 3 weeks to see if they can possibly come up with a negotiating position. And I'm confident once those negotiations begin, our Speaker will keep the government running, will bargain in good faith, but will cut spending, as we're committed to do.

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 2: Page 5, line 12, after the period add the

following: ``All such unexpended balances so rescinded and

permanently canceled shall be retained in the General Fund of

the Treasury for reducing the debt of the Federal

Government.''.

Offered By: Mr. Cole

Amendment No. 2: Page 4, line 22, after the period add the

following:: ``All such unobligated balances so rescinded and

permanently canceled shall be retained in the General Fund of

the Treasury for reducing the debt of the Federal

Government.''.

This has been a great week for fiscal conservatives. Under Chairman Rogers and the Appropriations Committee and the entire Republican Conference, we have actually enacted or are on the verge of enacting historic cuts and passing them through this body. We have let others come and participate with their ideas and suggestions.

My concern is not the amount of money involved in the amendment; it's the method adopted to achieve the savings. Across-the-board cuts essentially mean you lose the ability to eliminate, to root out and to prioritize. In fact, you adopt the priorities of the people that wrote the original budget. And with all due respect to my friends on this side, that means we are adopting our friends' on this side's priorities when we cut in this manner.

So I think we should embrace the spirit behind this amendment--it's well motivated--but reject the method, and go back to the thoughtful, targeted and tough kinds of decisions that Chairman Rogers, the Appropriations Committee and our entire conference and every Member has had the opportunity to participate in.