Richard Nugent

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chair, in keeping with the spirit of the Warrior Ethos, on May 2, 2005, the Department of the Army authorized the creation of the Combat Action Badge. The Combat Action Badge provides special recognition to Soldiers who personally engaged the enemy, or are engaged by the enemy during combat operations. The bayonet and grenade on the badge are associated with active combat. The oak wreath on the badge signifies strength and loyalty. Unfortunately, current Army policy limits eligibility to those individuals who meet the criteria of the Combat Action Badge after September 18, 2001. In doing so, it overlooks the thousands of veterans who made similar sacrifices in previous wars. This legislation would expand the eligibility for the Combat Action Badge to include those who served honorably from December 7, 1941 to September 18, 2001. Additionally, in accordance with the wishes of those veterans who first pursued this legislation, the costs of the Combat Action Badge would be borne by these individuals, not the military. Therefore, this measure costs American taxpayers nothing. In closing, it is important to mention that our nation's veterans have made tremendous sacrifices in defense of our freedom. As a nation, we owe our veterans a debt that can never fully be repaid.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker: Whereas, May is National Elder American Month; and Whereas, the longer, healthier lives older Americans are living have allowed them to be more engaged in our society and contribute even further to the country for which they have already given so much; and Whereas, older Americans continue to play a significant role in supporting and enriching our communities; and Whereas, an appreciation for seniors and the sacrifices they have made for our Nation must be reflected through our efforts to meet their needs and goals; and Whereas, this month citizens and leaders gather to acknowledge the many ways seniors have improved the lives of Americans; and Whereas, the Partners Club at Oak Hill Hospital is holding a special event to recognize the occasion; Therefore, I, Richard B. Nugent, Member of Congress representing the Fifth Congressional District of Florida, do hereby express my support for efforts to recognize elder Americans in Florida and across this Nation.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions), with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, H. Res. 264, and the underlying legislation, H.R. 754. About a week and a half ago, we all learned that justice had been served: justice for our civil servants working in the Kenya and Tanzania Embassies in 1998, justice for our troops serving on the USS Cole in 2000 and justice for the innocent victims of September 11, 2001. After many years of hard, stealthy intelligence work, we found Osama bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan. Based upon this information, a highly trained team of Navy SEALs came in, performed its mission and rid the world of one of history's most evil and notorious terrorists. Mr. Speaker, this would not have been possible without the work of our hardworking intelligence community. It was President Bush who laid the groundwork for this intelligence that ultimately made all of this possible, and it was President Obama who put this information together and made the gutsy call that only a Commander in Chief can make. Both of these men deserve our thanks for the work they did to make this possible. It is our duty as Members of Congress to ensure that our intelligence community has the tools it needs to continue to keep our Nation safe. That is what H.R. 754 does. As a prior law enforcement officer, I can attest to the value of good Intel in apprehending those who would do dastardly things to our country. With that, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule, to support the underlying bill, and to support the intelligence community, which is keeping this Nation safe.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to get something off my chest. Last night, the President hosted a poetry event at the White House. The invitation of one of his guests has sparked a lot of anger, and let me explain why. The musician wrote a song in which he vocally supports a convicted cop killer and her escape from jail. Oh, by the way, she's still at large, living in Cuba, living the good life. It may not mean much to some, but I've got a serious problem with this. Before coming to Congress, I spent 37 years as a cop. I lost friends in the line of duty, and I'm not the only one. As we speak here right now, police officers--thousands of them--are coming to Washington, D.C., to go to the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Tomorrow night, those men and women will attend a candlelight vigil to honor those law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. This is the 23rd Annual Candlelight Vigil at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. This year, it will also include a 36-year-old father of three, who was struck down last Tuesday night. The White House press secretary said the President opposes the lyrics in question but that they do not represent the sum total of the artist's work. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure I don't care. It's not the point. The point is that you've got thousands of men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day for this great Nation, just like our troops, and the President invited to the White House someone who supports and glorifies a convicted killer of a police officer--an officer who volunteered to protect his community. He was a husband and a father. The loss was not only to that community but to America. Our law enforcement officers are the first line of defense for America. Mr. President, can you not see what this means to the people who put their lives on the line every day? It's a slap in the face--sum total or not.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker: Whereas, our communities must place the highest value on preserving the role of prayer in our society and government, so that all Americans can continue to enjoy the benefits that our faith has bestowed upon us; and Whereas, an appreciation for our history encourages dedication to the values and ideals which have enriched our nation; and Whereas, in the highest traditions of our country, the Fifth Congressional District of Florida has provided an exceptional example of the power of faith in our society; and Whereas, on this day, the citizens and leaders of the community are gathered to partake in a non-denominational day of prayer. Therefore, I, Richard B. Nugent, Member of Congress representing the Fifth Congressional District of Florida, do hereby recognize the district's observance of the 60th National Day of Prayer.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. 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. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I need to correct one thing. The word ``forcible'' is nowhere in the statute or the legislation as we have it on the floor. Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that H.R. 3 is about taking away a woman's right to choose. That is simply not true. H.R. 3 is about ensuring that taxpayers aren't on the hook for paying for that choice. My Democratic colleagues would have you believe that we want to raise your taxes and allow the IRS to audit women. Again, that is simply not true. The bill is about one thing: keeping our tax dollars from being spent for elective abortions on demand. The United States is currently borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we spend. We are in debt and spending money we don't have. We need to focus on bringing our government back to its core mission. You can't tell me that paying for elective abortions is part of our core mission. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to my colleague from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the author of H.R. 3.

Mr. NUGENT. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 237 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, Dr. Gingrey of Georgia.

Mr. NUGENT. House Resolution 237 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3. The rule provides for ample debate on this bill and gives Members of both the minority and the majority the opportunity to participate in the debate. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. For the past 30 years, we've used a patchwork system of clauses and amendments to protect American tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions. Every year Congress has to attach a series of amendments to appropriation bills specifically stating that funds spent in that legislation may not be used for elective abortions. Every year these amendments pass. These amendments pass, Madam Speaker, because Members of Congress know and recognize the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not want their hard-earned money to be spent for abortions of innocent, unborn lives. In 2010 the Zogby/O'Leary poll found that 77 percent of Americans believe that Federal funds should never be used to pay for abortions or should only be used to save the life of the mother--77 percent, Madam Speaker. This number proves that even people who support a woman's right to choose still believe that tax dollars should not pay for that choice. Clearly the time has come to move beyond this piecemeal approach and reform the way our Nation addresses this very important and sensitive issue. H.R. 3 simply codifies and makes permanent the policies that currently rely upon regular, re-approval of Congress. Among the riders made permanent to H.R. 3 are: the Hyde amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage through any program funded through the annual Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act; the Helms amendment, which prohibits funding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas; the Smith Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for Federal employees; the Dornan amendment, which prohibits the use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia; the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause, which ensures that recipients of Federal funding do not discriminate against doctors, nurses, and hospitals because they do not provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortions. Madam Speaker, a woman's right to choose can be a divisive issue that splits the American people down the middle. However, we aren't talking about a 50/50 issue; we're talking about 77 percent. It's clearly a majority. Just like Americans on both sides of the aisle believe that tax dollars shouldn't go to pay for abortions, so do the Members of Congress from both parties. There are 227 bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 3. I'm proud to be one of those cosponsors. H.R. 3 will ensure that American taxpayers are not forced to fund what many consider the destruction of innocent human life through abortion on demand. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act will establish a government- wide statutory prohibition on funding abortion or insurance coverage that includes abortion. This comprehensive approach will reduce the need for numerous separate abortion-funding riders. It eliminates abortion-related amendments to appropriation bills, bills that the rules of the House remind us aren't even supposed to legislate through amendments. It ensures that all Federal programs are subject to this important safeguard. Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Similarly, the rule provided by H. Res. 203 gives us time for a full, comprehensive debate on the issue, and I encourage my colleagues to support them both.

Mr. NUGENT. I thank the gentleman from Dallas, Mr. Sessions. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of House Resolution 203 and the underlying legislation, H.R. 910. When I talk to people in Florida's Fifth District about what we are doing here in the House of Representatives to cut spending, reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government, I always stress that we are just one part of the process. The House can only do so much. We still need the Senate and the President to sign off on any legislation we pass before it becomes law. This is one of the most basic building blocks of our government and one we're reminded of as we continue to wait on the Senate to pass a budget for this fiscal year and to prevent a government shutdown. But the Obama administration has decided to bypass Congress on the issue of greenhouse gas. Can't pass cap-and-tax? Push the greenhouse agenda on the American people another way. So now unelected bureaucrats in the EPA are trying to regulate greenhouse gases. Among the gases the EPA is trying to regulate is methane. According to EPA, 28 percent of the global methane emissions they classify as coming from human-related activities actually come from livestock. I don't think it's a coincidence that the EPA's move to regulate methane, including cow flatulence, comes on the heels of a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization that states: ``Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.'' Now, I am pretty sure if you asked the ranchers of Florida's Fifth District, as much as they would like to regulate cows from passing gas for plenty of reasons, some smellier than others, we just don't have that capacity. Nevertheless, EPA wants to follow the U.N.'s lead and regulate methane. And the cost of that will inevitably fall upon the backs of America's families. Madam Speaker, H.R. 910 is a good and important bill.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.