Richard Nugent

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a responsible use as relates to a budget that we passed in this House. These appropriations bills live within the confines of the budget that was passed within this House. Now, I can't say that's always been the case here. As we look back over the last 4 years prior to my coming here, that was definitely not the case in regards to living within a budget, living within our means. Mr. Speaker, I've heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain about certain provisions in the underlying appropriations bills. Once again, I'd just like to remind our colleagues this is not the 111th Congress that you're used to. The beauty is that you have an open amendment process, one that did not exist in the last Congress. So you can offer whatever amendment you want as it relates to any of these issues--strike it, defund it, do whatever you want to it. You can do that on this floor. That's why we have the open amendment process. Remember, it's different than it was in the 111th Congress--at least that's what I've read. You know, you get to vote on the issues that are important to the American people. I hope that anyone who opposes any one of the underlying bills will join me in supporting this rule because it gives you the ability to actually amend it and craft it in a way that you think is best for this country. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. We're talking about issues today that already have bipartisan agreement. You hear those on the other side of the aisle talk about issues that are in these appropriations bills, but they passed out of committee unanimously. Democrats and Republicans alike all voted for it unanimously to pass those out of committee. That's pretty telling in regards to what's contained within the appropriations bill. So I can't say it enough: they were passed out of committee unanimously, Democrats and Republicans alike, without dissension. We're talking about funding the Federal Government, something that is fundamental to what we do, something that we have to do as a Member of Congress. And we're doing it in a fiscally responsible way that provides for our government, our veterans, our Homeland Security, and our intelligence community, while simultaneously taking steps to reduce Federal spending, which is what we have to do. I commend the Appropriations and Select Intelligence Committees for their diligent, bipartisan work on these four underlying pieces of legislation. I commend Chairman Dreier and my fellow Rules Committee members on bringing these bills to the floor in an open process. I know that my good friend from Florida likes the open process. We hear about it every time we have a Rules Committee meeting about the open process and the ability to amend it on the floor. ``Let the House work its will'' is what we talk about, and we have that opportunity. While some may not know how to do that because they just haven't had the experience, we're all in this together. We're learning as we go along what that open process means and allowing Democrats and Republicans alike to come to the floor and debate the issues that they want to make a piece of underlying legislation better. That's what's good about this whole system. We know it can be better, and we're making sure that the House does work its will in allowing these amendments. Mr. Speaker, it's about changing how we do business in this House, and we're taking one of the first steps in doing this through our appropriations process and having an open process to allow the ability to submit amendments on the House floor to make all of these pieces of legislation better. That's the goal. I know that's the goal on both sides of the aisle when they submit these amendments--I hope that is. We'll see how the House works its will on all of the amendments. So I support this resolution, I support the open process, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. If they want to make a bill better, then offer the amendments on the floor on the three appropriations bills that you have the ability to do it on. Under the structured bill, there are already seven Democratic amendments made in order and two Republican. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An amendment to H. Res. 667 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause (b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1519) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of the bill specified in section 4 of this resolution.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and of the four rules that it contains. The rules provide for the consideration of critically important pieces of legislation meant to fund the Federal Government, provide for our Nation's veterans and protect our national security. With this resolution, I have the distinct honor of bringing three appropriations bills to the House floor under open rules. I'm not sure when the last time is that somebody got to say he was bringing three open rules to the House floor at one time, but I am proud to be able to do that today. House Res. 667 continues the majority's promise to the American people to bring openness, debate, and transparency back to Congress. As a father of three sons in the military and as the Representative of over 116,000 veterans, I'm particularly happy that this resolution provides an open rule for the bill that funds our Nation's veterans programs and meets our military construction needs. We owe our veterans a debt that can never be repaid, but the very least we can do is provide them with the benefits they so bravely and so selflessly earned. I applaud the Appropriations Committee for the bipartisan way they worked together to fund these programs for our American heroes and their families. It shouldn't go unnoticed that at a time when it seems difficult to work across the aisle, the Appropriations Committee did just that, and they passed it unanimously. We shouldn't play politics with our veterans, and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill doesn't. House Res. 667 includes a structured rule for the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2013. This is a bill that authorizes our Nation's intelligence and intelligence-related activities. It includes our National Intelligence Program and Military Intelligence Program. It specifically ensures that nothing in this bill gives the government the authority to conduct any intelligence activity not otherwise authorized by the U.S. Constitution or our laws. Although this rule may not be an open rule, it is necessarily so. The classified nature of the Intelligence authorization bill means that we can't debate a lot of the specifics of the underlying bill on the House floor. If we were to debate some of these amendments, we would be put in the impossible position of supporting or opposing the amendments based on facts that we simply can't discuss for reasons of national security. Still, in our efforts to be open, the Rules Committee managed to allow nine amendments on this debate. Seven of those amendments are Democratic, and two are Republican. This too is a bipartisan bill, and the Intelligence Committee passed it unanimously with a 19 0 vote. As the minority views of this bill stated, the stakes are simply too high to make our intelligence programs political. For all of these reasons, I am proud to support this resolution, a resolution that provides for an extremely open process while balancing the transparency with our national security when it comes to debating our intelligence programs. With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. NUGENT. I continue to reserve.

Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve.

Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve.

Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friends on the other side, remember that that's an open rule. If you don't like a portion of it, then amend it. Bring an amendment to the floor. I know they're confused about that, and I know they didn't have it in the 111th Congress, but in this Congress you have the ability to amend it. No piece of legislation is perfect. That's why you have the ability for amendments. So I would encourage my friends on the other side, or any Member, Republican or Democrat alike, if they want to see something different, amend it. That's the beauty of this. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUGENT. If the gentleman would yield, I understand his position as it relates to something that occurred 30 or 40 years ago. But last year he didn't even offer it. It was made in order during the fiscal year, and he didn't even offer it.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm always at a loss sometimes when I hear certain things, but this is really about there is no energy policy in America. We're talking about actually investing in some of the resources that we're standing on today in America to help us become more energy independent, not more energy dependent. We've seen what Solyndra did. We've seen what some of these ideas have been. While some are very intuitive or can lead to some directions that we want to go in, we have resources here today in America that can help us become more energy independent. This appropriations bill actually increases that R&D, that development of clean coal. We have over 300 years of energy just in coal alone. Why would we not look at how we can clean it by utilizing technology to do so? This bill does that. Mr. Speaker, as we move forward, you've got to remember that three of these bills are open for amendment. My good friend on the other side probably remembers back to the 111th Congress when they never had an open rule on appropriations. But with this, we have three open rules and one structured rule. So if you don't like something that's contained in any one of those three bills, you have the opportunity to amend it on the floor. You can do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 667 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, upon adoption of House Resolution 667, amendments number 4 and 6 printed in House Report 112 504 be modified to include the amendatory instructions that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's amendment, I believe, was made in order in 2001 when it was Democratically controlled--and it failed in the House. In fiscal year 2012, the Rules Committee actually made the amendment in order but the gentleman failed to submit it on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, on May 2, 2005, the Department of the Army authorized the creation of the Combat Action Badge. This badge provides special recognition for soldiers who personally engage the enemy or are engaged by the enemy during combat operations. The bayonet and grenade on the badge are associated with the act of combat. The oak wreath on the badge signifies strength and loyalty. Current Army policy limits the eligibility to those individuals who meet the criteria of the Combat Action Badge after September 18, 2001. Unfortunately, this overlooks thousands of veterans who made similar sacrifices in previous wars. That's why I offered this amendment that would expand the eligibility for the Combat Action Badge to also include those who served honorably from December 7, 1941, to September 18, 2001. Additionally, in accordance with the wishes of those veterans who approached me about the expanded eligibility of this badge, the costs of the Combat Action Badge would be borne by those individuals, not the taxpayers. Therefore, this measure will cost American taxpayers nothing. I was proud to introduce this identical amendment last year to the National Defense Authorization Act, which passed the House en bloc. So I'm back this year continuing to fight for combat veterans of the past to receive the recognition they rightfully deserve. With that, I ask for your support.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. I thank my fellow Rules Committee member, Dr. Foxx, for allowing me to speak on this issue not only for women but for all Americans. I also want to thank my Florida colleague Sandy Adams for her leadership shown on this issue. I spent my entire career as a law enforcement officer, 36 years, and the last 10 years as a sheriff. When you are a cop, you usually don't get to see people in the best light. Getting called to somebody's house or somebody coming to your office isn't typically something that is a highlight of their day. It's because they are in need of help. Throughout my entire career, I saw some of the worst that man has to offer, and no small part of that was domestic violence. During my four decades as a cop and sheriff, I saw the results of domestic violence: battered partners, both men and women; children either physically or emotionally hurt in the crossfire between their fighting parents; victims who were suffering, scared, intimidated, and didn't know where to go for justice. If you will look at the State of Florida and what it did with regards to domestic violence, it's clear that it was not just about a husband and wife. It's about those folks that live within a home. It's about their relationship within that home as it affects their children, as it affects each other. It doesn't specifically say that it has to be a man or a woman. It doesn't identify that. It talks about a relationship-- not a casual relationship, but a relationship where they're intimate with each other, they spend time with each other, they're sexually active with each other. It doesn't say that it has to be a man and a woman. It says, these individuals have certain rights under domestic violence law and also the ability to get an injunction for protection. I have seen abusers on both sides. I have seen those who were married, those who were boyfriend and girlfriend, and those who were boyfriend and boyfriend or girlfriend and girlfriend commit atrocious crimes on each other. It had nothing to do with marriage. It had everything to do with the relationships that they had within their homes. So as we move forward, those on the other side of the aisle want to add something to this piece of legislation that's already covered. It already covers those relationships. If you start defining a particular relationship, what if you leave one out? In here, it is very broad and allows us, in law enforcement, to be very protective of those that need protection. Whether it's stalking, intimidation, voyeurism, it doesn't matter. And oftentimes, women are the victims of domestic violence, but a man can just as easily be a victim of domestic violence, and I have seen that, too. The Violence Against Women Act protects and prevents all types of intimate partner crime regardless of the gender of either the criminal or the victim. This legislation funds the programs that not only help men and women who have been hurt, but it also helps law enforcement prevent these crimes from ever happening. I have heard a number of my colleagues talk about what isn't in the bill. They say, for example, it doesn't include ``sexual orientation'' as one of the protected classes. The Violence Against Women Act is and always has been gender-neutral. That's the beauty of this piece of legislation. It's gender-neutral. Under the ``real'' VAWA, as some people call it, domestic violence is interpreted as intimate partner violence. It legally includes felony or misdemeanor crimes committed by spouses or ex-spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends, and ex-boyfriends or ex-girlfriends. Now I'm not going to say this House legislation is perfect, but it makes significant improvements to streamline our Nation's domestic violence programs. In fact, the exact same funding authorization levels in the Senate bill is included in this bill, $680 million in funding per year for the next 5 years. Moreover, the manager's amendment brings the House even more in line with the Senate's authorization. Madam Speaker, as you probably know, this week is National Police Week, and we certainly know about domestic violence. The men and women that worked for me, as a sheriff, knew about it. Sandy Adams, a former cop, introduced this legislation. And we've seen firsthand what domestic violence does to our families. By passing this legislation, we get a step closer to making sure these victims receive the services they need. That's why I am encouraging my colleagues to support the rule, support this legislation, and let it get to conference with the Senate so we can bring these services to the men and women who need it the most.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reference to National Police Week, which is going on right now. In 1962, President Kennedy proclaimed May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day and the calendar week in which May 15 falls as National Police Week. This year's National Police Week is Sunday, May 13, through Saturday, May 19. As George W. Bush once described it: Peace Officers Memorial Day and Police Week pay tribute to the local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers who serve and protect us with courage and dedication. These observances also remind us of the ongoing need to be vigilant against all forms of crime, especially to acts of extreme violence and terrorism. On Sunday, May 13, I attended the candlelight vigil for our fallen officers from 2011. There were 163 peace officers who sacrificed their lives for us in the line of duty. Earlier today, I had the honor of attending the 31st National Police Officers Memorial Service right here on the front lawn of the Capitol. We honored over 19,000 law enforcement officers who have given their lives--the ultimate sacrifice--in the line of duty. In 2011, 163 police officers gave their lives for this country. So far this year, we've lost over 40 officers in the line of duty. On July 3, 2011--and this is especially close to me--one of those who lost their lives was Hernando County Sheriff's Deputy John Mecklenburg, a deputy that I actually swore in to serve the citizens of Hernando County. John died while in pursuit of a suspect and gave his life, and John left behind a wife, Penny, and two children. When he left that evening to go to work for the midnight shift, he had all expectations of coming home. But John gave the ultimate sacrifice for his county, for his State, and, ultimately, for his Nation. I served as a police officer for 36 years before I came up here. I know what it is to go through the grief of losing one of our own. I want to thank the Fraternal Order of Police for highlighting this and working with the COPS organization to actually pay respect to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice. We've been blessed in America, and we're protected by people who do it because it's the right thing to do, not because they're going to make a lot of money. They do it because they truly believe in the citizens that they serve. They do it with honor and dignity. And today, the President of the United States spoke to all of the survivors and police officers and their families that were in attendance on the front lawn of the Capitol, rightfully, as he should. We appreciate the President coming forward because it means so much to the survivors of a law enforcement officer who gave the ultimate sacrifice. Once again, we've been blessed, Mr. Speaker, and we owe a debt of gratitude to our law enforcement officers who protect us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we also keep our thoughts and prayers, not only for the law enforcement officers that are out there today at this very minute across the United States putting their lives on the line, but also remember those who are serving in harm's way in our military who also have given the fullest measure that they can, and that's their life, in defense of this country. Mr. Speaker, God bless us and God bless America.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)