Richard Nugent

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in the Record on the consideration of this bill.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 723, the Fallen Heroes Flag Act. The bill before us would allow Members of Congress to honor a firefighter, law enforcement officer, member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew, or public safety officer who died in the line of duty by providing the family of the deceased individual, at their request, a United States flag flown over this Capitol. Our Nation's flag would be accompanied by a certificate containing an expression of sympathy for the family of the individual who passed away, signed by both the Speaker of the House and the individual's Representative here in Congress. This measure, authored by the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. King) allows our House to express its gratitude and recognition for an individual who made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of public service to this great country. Many in our country put their lives on the line every day to serve others. They are the firefighters who charge into burning buildings in order to save life or property; they are the police officers and other law enforcement officers who respond to incidents and through their actions shield others from harm; they are the members of rescue squads or ambulance crews who spend countless hours perfecting lifesaving skills and rush to the scene of a disaster; and they are the public safety officers who work to patrol our roads, man the dispatch communication lines, and work within our justice system to accomplish countless other safety services for our communities. Our Nation is exceedingly blessed to have individuals who answer the call to dedicate their lives serving others. We are very grateful to be surrounded by individuals who work hard each day to save and protect lives. Each swore an oath to uphold our laws, and each sacrifices safety in the defense of others. These individuals are our daily heroes. The rescue workers and law enforcement officers are our sons and daughters, they are our mothers and fathers, they are our sisters and brothers who each day rise up and stand in the defense of others. And in some cases, these heroes pay the ultimate sacrifice, and they are killed in the line of duty, just as we heard earlier. It is a tragedy in the truest sense of the word when one of these extraordinarily fine individuals loses their life, most especially while in the act of saving the life of another. I stand here, Mr. Speaker, not just as a Member representing my congressional district but also as someone who knows firsthand the sacrifices that these men and women put forward to serve their communities. Before I came to Congress, I served my community as a police officer, as a deputy sheriff, and eventually as a sheriff in a county in Florida. I know what it means for so many men and women to come to work every day not knowing--you can never predict the events of the day and what those events may hold for you. But one thing is certain: you will answer the call for help with everything you have got. When you kiss your wife or husband goodbye or your children goodbye, when you start your shift, they want to know you are going to come home. But they also know that the realities of life are it is possible that you may make the ultimate sacrifice for your community. So, Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we recognize their selfless efforts of sacrifice and offer this meaningful token as an expression of our Nation's gratitude. It is an honor to stand here today in support of this legislation. Each Member of Congress should have the ability to recognize these brave individuals for their heroism and to extend a gesture of sympathy and gratitude to their immediate families. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 723) to provide Capitol-flown flags to the immediate family of fire fighters, law enforcement officers, members of rescue squads or ambulance crews, and public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Well, I guarantee there are some.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington, Sheriff Reichert. That is a term of endearment. It is won, a title that you earn. It is an opportunity to lead a great body of men and women. So when Sheriff Reichert wanted to do this hour, it was, like he said, we have each other's back. We have been through issues that we can relate to. When I first became a law enforcement officer, my mom said: You know, I could picture one of your brothers doing this, but not you. You just don't have that temperament to be that bold, I guess is what she was saying, compared to my brothers. But at the end of the day, after 39 years, and the last 10 as sheriff before I got elected to this office, those were 39 of the best years, and I guarantee it that Dave Reichert feels the same way with his tenure in law enforcement. I started out as a cop outside the city of Chicago and saw issues that I would rather not even mention. Coming down to Florida was quite a break, it was different. But at the same time, that changed over time too. From a small, sleepy sheriff's office of about 40 individuals to, when I left, we had over 500 folks that served this great Nation in that community. You hear a lot on the news about law enforcement in that they want to make it sound like we are not human. In reality, I have been to those scenes where a law enforcement officer has been involved in a shooting where he has had to take somebody's life. And that officer was so emotionally distraught, because that is not why they got into the business. It is not why I ever got into the business. You got into the business because you wanted to help people, you wanted to be there to protect people. That is what law enforcement is about. And, unfortunately, sometimes bad things happen to good people. Sheriff Reichert mentioned the fact that sometimes police officers and deputies can make a mistake. We are only human. But when things are moving fast as the speed of light, you have got to think back as to what and why that officer did or didn't do what he did at the time. And I worry about when elected officials see it as a political expedience to condemn police officers for something that occurred before they ever get the facts. Dave Reichert and I sit on the floor and we talk about that, about maybe, just maybe people should wait until the investigation is complete before you condemn somebody, until you walk in their shoes. The sheriff talked about the fact that I can remember back as a rookie having to work, and I took the shifts of guys that had families because I wasn't married when it came down to holidays. I didn't have a family, so I would take the shifts so they could be with their families. But it didn't always work out that way. There was many a time that I missed Christmas, missed birthdays, missed wedding anniversaries because of service, and that is just not me. That is all the men and women that serve this country in local law enforcement and other law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Most of the men and women that I served with, I guarantee you could go out and make more money doing something else. They were bright, bright people. But their calling was to be a law enforcement officer. To go out there in the dead of night, climb up in an attic--remember that--you climb up in an attic and you don't know what is up there, except you know there is a bad guy who is up there, and somebody has to go there and do it. At the end of the day, these men and women do it because they love the community they serve. Congressman Reichert talked about what police officers do with their own money in regards to buying turkeys for Thanksgiving for families, buying Christmas presents for children that would not have a Christmas, doing summer camps for free for children because these children don't have or didn't have the ability to go to one of those paid summer camps--that is pretty neat. And we would, in our sheriff's office, without using taxpayer money, with donations from clubs like Kiwanis and Rotary and others, pay for that so that these young men and these girls and boys could have the opportunity to interact with law enforcement, to actually see that, do you know what? We are human. That when we do these little games out there in the field and we have the things, water balloons or whatever it may be, that we are real people, because a lot of times, the only time they see a law enforcement officer is possibly during a domestic situation where they are arresting their mom or their dad. And that can jade anybody. But it can also jade law enforcement, because the things that they see no one here would want to see. There were times when I went home, getting off the midnight shift, and walked in my house at 6 o'clock in the morning. And what I had just seen the night before, you would have a hard time going to sleep, where you would grab your child--I can remember my youngest child at the time, my only child at the time-- grabbing him and hugging him because of what I just saw some other parent do to their child that was unspeakable. Our three sons, they all serve in the military. Our middle son is a Black Hawk pilot in the Florida Army National Guard. He is also a deputy sheriff in one of the major counties in Florida. He wasn't sure if that was the right job because, when they went through the class on child abuse, it struck a chord as a new dad: How could anyone do that to them? But do you know what? He has turned out to be a pretty good cop. And we say that with reverence; it is not a derogatory term. But the men and women that put on the uniform and that badge do it because they love people, not because they hate them. They do it because they really want to make a difference in their community. Their families are the ones that suffer the most. When I have had to go to scenes where I have had an officer killed in the line of duty, it breaks your heart. When I was a rookie officer outside of Chicago, right out of the academy, one of my academy mates was killed, shot and killed by a 12-year-old in our first year on the job. You never know when it is going to hit. When Officer Kondek down in Tarpon Springs went to work on the 21st of December, he kissed his wife and his kids good-bye, expecting to be there for Christmas. Little did he know that that was the last day of his life. The person who killed him shot him and then ran him over with a car. This is not what we want. Where we want to see the America that I love is, the same respect that we give our soldiers returning from war, that we give that to our police officers. That when you see them in a restaurant or you see them on the street or you see them on a call, thank them for what they do. They will be absolutely surprised and amazed, but grateful. When my sons are in uniform and people come up to them in the military and thank them for their service, there is no reason we can't do the same for our law enforcement officers. Congressman Reichert is probably the most humble guy I know in the stories, and he would never brag about himself, but he is a consummate professional. His bravery is unmatched, and his leadership, I am sure, at that sheriff's office in Washington State is better for him being sheriff than not.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, shortly, I will be offering an amendment to the rule, which is necessary to alleviate the budgetary point of order that currently lies against the defense bill. In addition to clearing a point of order, we hope it will expedite the consideration in the Senate of this critically important bill.

Mr. NUGENT. If I could inquire, I thought the gentleman was closing.

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

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 770 provides for the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015. It also allows for the consideration of the Executive Amnesty Prevention Act and for the California Emergency Drought Relief Act, a bill that would provide short-term water supplies to drought-stricken California. This combined rule is necessary because Congress is coming to a close, and we need to get our work done. One of the outstanding items that is most important to me is the 2015 NDAA. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to stand on the House floor in May when the House passed its version of the 2015 NDAA. I was happy to highlight the inclusive and transparent process that the Armed Services Committee and the House, as a whole, took in crafting this year's National Defense Authorization Act. We held countless hearings and heard hours of testimony from our combatant commanders. We worked a lot of late nights within the House Armed Services Committee. In the committee alone, the NDAA was amended 155 times. When the bill moved to the House floor, it was again amended, and another 160 amendments were considered. It was careful. It was deliberate. It was an open process. It is precisely how the House and this Congress should work. When the NDAA passed this body, I was proud of what we produced, and I was really proud of the process that we took to get there. The Senate, though, is absolutely different. As is so often the case, they didn't act. They either couldn't pass a bill, or they just chose not to; either way, it is a shame. They left us with a mess now that we have to resolve. Eventually, a final product was crafted at the last minute between House and Senate staffers. It was not done in conference because the Senate never passed a bill. It was not done in conference because the Senate just ignored the fact that the NDAA was a priority for this country in order to make sure that we funded and equipped those soldiers and airmen and sailors and marines who fight the fight for this country. They ignored it. When you don't get to conference, which is where you have Members argue the points of either piece of legislation--whether it is a Senate bill or a House bill--it really does a disservice to our men and women who fight for this country because they don't get to hear the arguments and they don't get to see the arguments. That is unfortunate. We go through all of the motions. In the House, we get it right, in the House, through the appropriations process, but then again, through the process of the NDAA, we get it right. We have those hearings. We take the testimony, and we listen to those who are most affected. The Senate, I don't know what they do, but they honestly, in my estimation, didn't care enough to get it done for whatever reason. As a member of HASC, we did an awful lot of work just to get a product to the floor, and when it left HASC, it was unanimous. When it came to the floor, there were 160 times that people had the opportunity to amend it and change it and prove it and add things that they thought were necessary for the defense of their country. Once again, the Senate just ignored that process, and that is unfortunate. Congress, as a whole, is harmed by this process. More importantly, it is the troops who are harmed by a process that is broken. It is the troops. We are not out there in harm's way, but they are. We owe them better. I think the House has done that. I think the House has actually done everything in its power to make it right with the troops whom we put in harm's way, but the Senate doesn't seem to care, and that is troubling to me. I am concerned about our warfighters. We are their voice. As Members of Congress, we are their voice. We are the elected Representatives of the people, but they are citizens, too, so we are representing them. We are their voice, and they need to be heard on every issue. Unfortunately, the NDAA is not everything that everybody wants, and I get it. It is always a compromise, and I get that, but we need to show more solidarity with our warfighters, so they know that their voice is being heard here in the Capitol. I fear that, because the Senate botched the process, their voice didn't come through as loudly as it should have. Mr. Speaker, the rule also allows the House to consider the Executive Amnesty Prevention Act. This legislation, if enacted, would nullify the President's recent executive action. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the policy goal of the President's, every Member of Congress ought to be concerned about what it means when he takes that type of action, of unilaterally ignoring Congress. If you look at our article I powers, we are elected to pass laws. We are elected to do that. The President is elected to faithfully execute the laws that are passed by Congress. It doesn't matter if the House did or did not do what the President requested. It doesn't give him the unilateral action to go ahead and say, ``Do you know what? I can just do it on my own.'' That is what this bill addresses. This Nation has benefited by this delicate balance that we have in our government. It benefits every day when we do things the right way. The Constitution is our guiding principle. It is our guiding document. You just can't say, ``Do you know what? I want to do it differently because I disagree with what the legislative branch is or is not doing.'' That is not appropriate. It is not the way the Founding Fathers crafted it. The Executive does not have the power to write law; we do. We need to reestablish our rights as elected Representatives of the people to craft laws that affect the people of the United States of America. It is really just beyond frustrating as all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, should be jealously guarding our article I powers because it matters not whether it is a Republican President or a Democratic President. This institution matters. Otherwise, what are we doing here? Otherwise, why are the American people voting every 2 years to send Representatives to this body to ensure that the Constitution is upheld and followed? It is not meaningless. It is important. As I said before, the legislative versus the Executive issue shouldn't be a Democrat versus a Republican issue. It should be the fact that we should guard the rights and privileges that have been extended to us because of our being elected to this body. I support the rule because it is important that we have a healthy debate on all of the issues that have been outlined, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. 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 Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think I have made my frustrations readily clear in regards to how we got to the current NDAA. It is troubling to see how the Senate's failure to act is going to end up costing our troops. To me, it is just not right to the men and women, the 1 percent of America that put their lives on the line for this country the Senate has turned a blind eye to. I am optimistic, though, that with the changing of the guard in January, that we are actually going to get things done. We are actually going to pass legislation to address the issues that are so confronting this Nation that deserve to have discussions in both Houses. It is important that the Senate act. It is important that the Senate has debate. So I think that at the end of the day, in January with the changing of the guard, we are going to see a different set of facts as Congress moves forward. I am really hopeful that Congress takes the steps, and Mr. McGovern talks about it, but we need to talk about the AUMF. We need to talk about those guiding principles that set up where we are today, things that were passed long before I came to Congress, authorizations that go back 12 to 13 years ago. The landscape has changed, and we need to absolutely have a strong and long, hard debate in regards to how we authorize the use of force in the future in specific instances, as the Constitution requires. When we talk about the Constitution, we talk about the President just ignoring it, the administration sidestepping Congress whenever it sees fit, the use of force is one of those areas, I think. And the same with what this administration has done in the underlying bills that this bill allows us to address in the President's recent executive order. The bill reaffirms that Congress--Congress--has the power to write the immigration laws. It reaffirms that the President must enforce the laws that are currently on the books, not something that he wishes, but what is currently law of the land. Mr. Speaker, the President's actions have gotten so out of hand that we now must pass bills to remind him of what the Constitution sets, and that is a shame. We even have to remind the President of what he, himself, has said in the past about what is the appropriate role of the office of President. Speaking in 2011 in a Univision town hall, the President stated: With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that is just not the case because there are laws on the books. He also said that Congress passes the laws, and it is the executive branch's job to enforce and implement those laws, and then it is up to the judiciary to interpret those laws if there is a question. The President even said that there are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system. That, for me, is simple enough. And the President said that: through executive order, to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President. I didn't say that; he said that. I am not a lawyer; he is a lawyer, a constitutional lawyer. What he hasn't said to us, the American people, is in those 22 utterances where he said those things, why hasn't he justified to the American people that maybe he was wrong when he said that, he didn't get it right, he didn't understand. He never said anything like that. What he has done is come back and to say: Do you know what--and he said it before that--I have a pen and a phone. And he can do what he pleases. Mr. Speaker, this is an unfortunate time when we have to call the President out for not following the Constitution. This is not something that I look forward to. It is not something that I want to do. But it is so important, as I have said before, that we respect the article I power that this body has in the Constitution, that our Founding Fathers thought it was so important that there be a separation of powers so that there was no monarchy, so there was no one person that can call all the shots. They sought it because they needed to because of what the impression is that they left that they were under. We are merely standing up for our rights as citizens of the United States, as I believe we should be enforcing the constitutional requirements, that founding document. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think so. I have been wrong in the past, but on this particular issue, the Constitution is the document that we should live by. The Constitution sets forth the operation of this government, not by whim and not by decree, but by law. We are a nation of laws. You have heard me talk about the NDAA, and I will say this to Mr. McGovern as it relates to authorization of military force. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to have a separate debate. We need to have it when we have a partner across the other side of the Capitol that will join in that debate about what we should be doing with the use of force and what we do as it relates to our men and women that serve. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the checks and balances our Founders so thoughtfully crafted. Amendment Offered by Mr. Nugent

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

Mr. NUGENT. I have none.

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

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

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Cole really addressed the issue. In regards as to how it went down in the Rules Committee, he clearly addressed the issue on this floor in regards to his support of the rule, even though he didn't get everything that he wanted. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 770 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUGENT

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