Richard Nugent

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that those on the other side of the aisle would say this is trivial. This impacted American citizens. And I won't disagree that it may have impacted those on the left; but, to a greater extent, it impacted those on the right. And to Americans, one of the most powerful organizations there is in America is the IRS. They can instill fear into your heart when you get that letter. So when you have one that does something that is so outrageous as what they have done, it is not trivial, at least not to the people I represent. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, it is just interesting to hear the argument on the other side. I have spent 37, 38 years protecting people's rights. That is what I did. As a sheriff, we did things and lived within the law. We answered questions truthfully. That is all we are asking. This is terrible that we have to get to this point, but at the end of the day, we are not taking her rights away. We are going to the court and asking the court, Are we right in our assumption in regards to what the House counsel had told us? Are we right? If we are not, they are going to tell us we are not. So, she has due process. This whole thing about we are taking her due process away is just ludicrous. It doesn't make sense. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not an attorney. That is what they say on commercials when somebody wants to give some legal advice: I am not an attorney. What I will tell you from my past experience is that I can get attorneys' opinions on either side of an issue. That is what they get paid to do. Whether they are paid or unpaid, they all have an opinion. It doesn't mean their opinion is the right opinion. It just means that they have an opinion. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I do have to go back to the comments that my good friend from Massachusetts mentioned. Now, I wasn't here in 2008, but if you look back at the history, the Democrats controlled this body and the Rules Committee in 2008. When Congress considered a contempt resolution in 2008, the rules opted to hereby the resolution, preventing Members from even debating it or holding a vote on the measure on the floor. They just said: here we are, we are bringing it to the floor for debate and a vote. It is pretty open to me. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. NUGENT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I love the comments about McCarthyism as it relates to this particular issue, but really, McCarthyism is the IRS. The IRS is targeting American citizens who have done nothing wrong, who merely wanted to express their freedom of expression that is guaranteed by the Constitution. That is all they wanted to do. We hear that there is a bunch of liberal groups that were caught up. I don't believe so. The record will reflect that there was less than half a dozen, while there were conservative groups of over 200 that were targeted. I think that is pretty compelling, and those are the facts. It is not just my thought. It is the facts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. NUGENT. I do not have any additional speakers, but go right ahead.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. We have heard a lot today. It should concern the American people of what we have heard in regards to the allegations and the operations within the IRS. You know, I regret, I really do regret that somehow this turned into a partisan shouting match. Both sides--both sides--are involved in this. I regret it because we have lost sight of the real issue: The IRS constituted a serious violation of public trust. Mr. Speaker, this goes back to when I was sheriff, and I would sit there and have parents come in and complain about schoolteachers and the police officers that arrested their son or daughter for a violation of law, and they were more concerned about what were perceived as issues--in regards to how they were handled--versus the actual conduct of their child. This is the same thing. We are blowing smoke all over the place trying to obscure the fact that the IRS--under the direction, we believe, of Lois Lerner, the involvement of her--violated Americans' rights across the board. Talk about McCarthyism. They have done it. They have the power to do it. They have the power to come in. If you remember the questions asked, they asked people about what they believed and what were their conversations, who they talked with. Was it an invasion of privacy? I think so. The American people--and you have heard this from other speakers today--really need to have their faith restored that this government operates in a very open way, that people can trust government again. No one should have to worry. No one--Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or otherwise--should ever have to worry about their political speech having them singled out by the IRS. No one should have to worry about that. No one group should have to worry about the government worrying about their speech and having the ability to counter it in a way that brings officialness to it. How do you do that? This is true, though, whether you are Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, or anything else. The point is we should be alarmed. This is what we are talking about today. We should be alarmed about the conduct of the IRS under the direction of Lois Lerner. We should be worried about that in the future, because that is the biggest single threat to America today is how our own government treats its people, Mr. Speaker. A Federal Government agency used its weight to bully Americans. That is not what America is all about, Mr. Speaker. Make no mistake, though, that is exactly what happened. The IRS bullied people. We had someone last night testify about constituents in their district that wanted to promote an organization and do something, and they were bullied by the IRS until they finally said: You know what, I give up. I can't take it. I worry about what is going to happen because I know the IRS has the ability to do other things on my personal tax return and call it into question. This is an extreme disservice to the American public. They really do deserve better. If we are ever going to right this wrong, we have got to find out what happened. We have to understand all the facts. And so my friends across the aisle really don't want to hear the facts. They talk about everything else under the Sun, but they really don't want to talk about what happened. You know, my good friend talked about this being trivial, doubling down on crazy. Well, I guess that you are talking about my constituents, because my constituents have that concern. They do have the concern because of what they have seen and what has been reported in the media by both the left and right media in regards to the overstepping of Federal investigation--the IRS--on groups. I heard this called a circus. Well, that is what we are trying to get away from. We are trying to get away from this partisanship, and let's do what we are supposed to do. By appointing a special counsel, we are hoping to take politics out of it, because politics are on both sides of this issue. So to do that, you would appoint someone, a special counsel, to investigate. Let's take away the partisanship. It is also important that people are held accountable for their actions. Ms. Lerner defied a lawfully issued subpoena, and there ought to be repercussions for that; otherwise, this is just for show. We really have no oversight ability if people just come and say: Oh, I am not going to tell you. That is not how it works. That is not how it is supposed to work. This rule brings this question to the floor, not like the Democrats did in 2008. This rule brings everybody to the floor where they can have an open debate and question and vote on what they think is right. So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. We have the ability to get answers, because whether it is a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, the American people need to know that their government is going to be held accountable if they overreach. If they trample on my rights as a citizen, we should have the ability to know who is doing it and why, and there should be some redress. Today it is really about we don't care. That is what we are hearing. There are all kinds of other issues, but we don't care about this. It doesn't matter that we sent numerous bills over to the Senate--we talk about job creation--that were passed bipartisanly here. The Senate has refused to take any action on that, has refused to bring it up, discuss it, debate it, amend it, and send it back. They have done nothing. So we have the ability today to get politics out of it. Let a D.C. court make a decision. Let's do the right thing. I urge all my colleagues to support this rule.

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

Mr. NUGENT

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

Mr. NUGENT

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

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would end the practice of Members leasing vehicles on the taxpayers' dime. I am just not convinced that this is a necessary use of taxpayer money, and neither are the constituents that I represent. We are asking agencies throughout the Federal Government to use their funding carefully and to cut out unnecessary, nice-to-have things. We ought to apply the same standard to ourselves, and in many ways we have done an excellent job of doing that. Funding for the House of Representatives has been cut since the Republicans took the majority by over 14 percent. We have cut our own MRAs and committee funds. We have frozen our own pay. Unfortunately, the vehicle lease program isn't consistent in that effort. That is not to say that some Members who lease vehicles aren't doing it responsibly. They are, and they have good reason. Unfortunately, I think the line of what is appropriate in terms of leasing vehicles has been blurred by others. Members of Congress driving around the Capitol in luxury vehicles financed by the taxpayers that they represent isn't exactly the image we want to portray to the American people, especially when many Americans are struggling just to get by. The vehicle lease program in its current form is simply out of touch with the economic reality of what our American brothers and sisters face. Therefore, until we can ensure that all Members of Congress are using this program responsibly, I believe we ought to halt it entirely. The Senate, to their credit, in one of the few times that I agree with the Senate--and I don't say that often--already has barred its Members from leasing vehicles with public money; and, frankly, I think it is time that we do the same. To be clear, my amendment is straightforward. It says that the CAO may not make any payments from any Member's Representational Allowance for the leasing of a vehicle. My amendment excludes short-term vehicle rentals and mobile district offices, as those are often necessary resources used in serving our constituents. But having basically a personal car entirely paid for by taxpayers should no longer be allowed. I urge adoption of my amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chair, I do appreciate the comments of more senior Members of this House. I, obviously, have been here 3 years, and I do appreciate their comments. But I will go back to this. Think about this. The Senate, each Senator represents their whole State. They gave up that privilege a while back because it didn't make sense. But think about this. Today, Members of Congress can lease Lexuses, BMWs, Infinities, Acuras, Mercedes, which all fall within the guidelines, and not all do that. But does that send a message to our folks back home that this is the right way to do it? Because that MRA that was discussed, this also covers all of the wear and tear on the car, it covers the fuel. There is no expense that is spared with regards to covering that, versus the mileage reimbursement, if I used my own car, which I do. That is not to try to diminish or hurt any Member. It really is, though, bringing us into compliance with the same thing that the Senate has done. It is about reasonable usage of the dollars the taxpayers give us. Once again I will tell you that I agree with most of what my good friends have said, but I disagree on this one. I truly believe it is time for this House to move forward and limit itself in regards to these types of acquisitions and purchases. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the National Day of Prayer. Since 1952, the first Thursday of May in this great Nation has been dedicated to prayer. As in years passed, on May 1, 2014, millions of people of all faiths across the United States will gather together and humbly bow their heads asking God to bless our country. With great pride I can say that many of my friends and neighbors across Florida's 11th Congressional District will be joining me in participating in this annual observance of prayer for our Nation. This day of prayer is reflective of the faith our Founding Fathers had that the United States of America would one day be a great nation. These men with deep religious and spiritual convictions built our country from the ground up and our continued faith and prayer will keep it moving forward. Therefore, I, Richard B. Nugent, Member of Congress representing the Eleventh District of Florida, do hereby recognize the district's observance of the 63rd National Day of Prayer.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, one of the most important things that we do in this Congress--and it is a constitutional requirement--is we provide for the common defense of this Nation, to allow things like my good friends on the Democrat side are arguing for in regards to more entitlement programs, more helping our neighbors; but without a national defense, all of this is moot. It doesn't matter. It adds up to nothing if we can't defend the homeland and defend our friends when they need it. Now, I will tell you that this budget does something that is needed. It increases the spending for our military. It actually takes something that the President, the Commander in Chief who has cut the military by $1 trillion in the last few years, is actually restoring money that he was holding hostage. He said the military can have $26 billion more if you give us $27 billion more for domestic spending. It is about holding our safety hostage. When those that are in a position to talk to us and tell us that the world is changing, you don't have to look very far. See what is going on in Russia and China and Iran and North Korea. This is not a safer world since this President has taken office. It has become a much more dangerous world, particularly from state actors. It is not all his fault, I must say, Madam Speaker. This goes back to years of kicking the can down the road by this Congress. Mr. Woodall and I came to Congress at the same time, 3 years ago, Madam Speaker. We weren't part of the problem, but those who were here prior to that have been part of the problem. They continued to kick the can down the road. Paul Ryan, chairman of the Budget Committee, and members of the Budget Committee actually took the bull by the horns. It is starting to turn this country.

Mr. NUGENT. This is actually talking about difficult questions we have to talk about. This body loves, if the problem isn't immediate, we don't have to worry about it, don't worry about it because it will never happen; but we are being told by professionals: guess what, Medicare and Social Security are at risk if we do nothing. If we don't challenge the status quo, if we don't start talking about how do we move forward to protect our seniors today from cuts in Medicare and Social Security, how we move forward for our younger folks as they get closer to retirement age, we have to do more, and I believe this budget is creating a dialogue for us to move forward and do more, not just put our heads in the sand and say we just need to spend more money because we can tax our way out of it. Everybody knows that is not true. Madam Speaker, the first and most important job of our government is to provide for the defense of its citizens. If the government can't protect the people's liberty then everything else we talk about today--every dime spent on every domestic program-- is all moot. So when we're considering how taxpayer money should be spent, we ought to keep this at the forefront of our minds. We ought to put forward a budget that recognizes this basic truth and most fundamental responsibility. I'm glad to see that Chairman Ryan's budget embraces this fundamental priority because, Madam Speaker, not all the budgets we'll debate today share this perspective. Not even the budget of the military's own Commander in Chief. The House Armed Services Committee has analyzed the last several budget proposals from President Obama, and I want to share some of those findings with my colleagues in the larger House of Representatives today: Since entering the White House, President Obama has proposed more than $1 trillion in cuts to the military. Over the next 10 years, the President is proposing $345 billion less than the minimum amount the military says they need to perform the President's own defense strategy. Less than 15 percent of our U.S. Army is deployment ready today. Without regard for the command signals from Combatant Commanders, the President has produced a budget recommendation that neither complies with the statutory nor strategic requirements of the military. Instead, the President cuts $26 billion from the military and holds it for ransom until this Congress is willing to give him $32 billion in domestic programs. These budget gimmicks will not stand and I applaud the House Budget Committee for not engaging in the false narrative that this Congress must pay $58 billion in order to restore $26 billion to meet the minimum standard of national security. In this tough fiscal environment, the budget brought to the Floor by this Rule provides the minimum dollars necessary to resource the President's strategy and sustain the World's premiere fighting force. In fiscal year 2015, that means a commitment of this Congress to our military of more than $521 billion. Translating that dollar amount into capability--this budget maintains a force structure well above the drastic reductions recommended by the President: The Army has the flexibility to retain the 100,000 soldiers on the chopping block, Navy can preserve the 11 aircraft carriers required by both strategy and law, Modernization programs critical to maintaining our military's technological edge and our troops' safety will continue to give our warfighters an advantage on the battlefield next year and beyond. I truly hope the Army will take the flexibility afforded them under this budget as an opportunity to establish the right balance between Active Component, Reserve Component and the National Guard. By the time this budget goes into effect, our Army will be drawing down from 14 years of continuous war. To effectively make that transition To reduce the cost of a war-time standing Army while preserving capability To ``right-size'' the forward deployed force and meet the domestic responsibilities to the individual states Big Army must recognize and incorporate the National Guard's indispensable role in providing our national security at home and abroad. If such a right-sizing cannot be found internally within the Army, this Congress will have to put Army decisions on hold until a commission can be established to study the correct balance of the Service moving forward. Finally, I applaud this budget for sustaining compensation for all warfighters, retirees and their families. Too many times over the past several years, Congress has had to defend the pay of service members--as if the reasons for adequately compensating our all-volunteer military were not self-evident. I hope that this year, the paycheck of our troops will be spared the political games of the recent history. We are certainly off to a good start with this budget that meets our compensation commitments to the military--including healthcare. And so, Madam Speaker, I support this rule and the underlining resolution.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. I certainly do appreciate it; and to my colleague from Florida on the other side of the aisle, once again, it is always a pleasure. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington can politicians pat themselves on the back for cutting spending while actually increasing spending. That is a novel idea. Say, for example, we spent $100 on a program 1 year. The next year, we automatically assume that we are going to spend $103 on that same program, due to inflation. If we only end up spending $102 versus the $103, according to official government accounting, we have cut spending, but we increased spending by $2. In the real world--at least back home--you can't simultaneously cut spending while increasing spending and then say you cut spending. You can't do both. It is one or the other. Families don't budget this way. Businesses don't budget this way. It would have made my life a whole lot easier as sheriff if my budget automatically increased 3 percent because of inflation that may or may not exist within the program. If you change the baseline every year by inflation, no one has to justify what their increase is; but then, again, we live in this fantasy world called Washington, D.C. This is where we live today. The fantasy is that we can spend more money than you take in, and it will all work out in the end. We can be $17 trillion in debt today, but don't worry about it because it will get better on its own. How does it work? It doesn't work that way. Mr. Speaker, our current budget process is broken. By assuming automatic increases in spending, our system favors more and more spending without any accountability. Under this scenario, programs don't receive a real examination as to whether or not they deserve the increases. They just get it anyway. Just because they exist, they get more money; not that they need it, not that they can show folks that they absolutely have to have it, we just get it. As Chairman Ryan pointed out last night in the Rules Committee, our current budget process has not been significantly reformed since the Budget Control Act of 1974. That is 40 years ago. We haven't done a thing. Given our fiscal situation, it is about time we do something to try to get this on the right track. I appreciate the committee's work, and I particularly appreciate Mr. Woodall's bill today. These are important steps to refine and reform the budget process. You hear folks from the other side of the aisle say that these are gimmicks. Well, I will tell you that, back home, it is not a gimmick when I stand there and have to justify why I need more money in my budget as sheriff. I had to stand there with the appropriators and say: Here are the reasons why I need more money; and by the way, here is what we have done with the money. So we show that we have actually earned it, and the taxpayers can see that there was a reward at the end of the day and that they got what they paid for. There is none of that up here. I sit in committee meetings, day in and day out, in regards to seeing money being spent by government. Nobody is held accountable. We give people five-digit bonuses, Mr. Speaker, for doing a lousy job, but that is the way government works. We reward mediocrity. This budget idea, if enacted, actually reins that in and makes people accountable for the dollars they are given from the American public so they can say: Listen, we are not talking about it; we are doing it. So to Mr. Woodall and to Mr. Ryan, I do appreciate all their hard work and what they have done and where they are trying to move this process forward.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 511 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, H. Res. 511, which provides for a structured rule as relates to H.R. 4138, ENFORCE the Law Act, and H.R. 3973, the Faithful Execution of the Law Act. The rule gives the House an opportunity to debate a variety of amendments, all offered by Members from the other side of the aisle. Both of the underlying bills, the ENFORCE the Law Act and the Faithful Execution of the Law Act, aim to halt an increasingly Imperial Presidency. The Faithful Execution of the Law Act is straightforward legislation that expands reporting requirements, forcing increased disclosure and transparency when the executive branch employs a policy of nonenforcement of Federal laws. Current law dictates that a report must be submitted to Congress when the nonenforcement policy is adopted on the grounds that a Federal law is unconstitutional. This bill would simply expand that report to include any instance in which a policy of not enforcing Federal law is established, regardless of the reason. For the self-proclaimed ``most transparent administration in history,'' this really shouldn't be a problem. The other piece of underlying legislation, the ENFORCE the Law Act, puts procedures in place to allow authorizations of lawsuits against the President for failure to faithfully execute the laws. It would also expedite judicial review, which is badly needed given the length of time it takes for these types of cases to be heard; mostly, they are never heard. The fact of the matter is that we desperately need a way to ensure the executive branch is upholding its responsibility to enforce the law faithfully. Every day it seems the President is using more and more unilateral actions to achieve his agenda. I understand that Congress and the administration are going to have differences over time. Our Constitution basically guarantees there are going to be differences between the administration and the House and the Senate, but I would like to think that a President wouldn't just abandon our constitutional principles of governing because it is difficult to get what he wants. I am sure some will argue that a legislative fix to the President's unilateral actions aren't needed. They will say the President has prosecutorial discretion and so that entitles him to make these changes in enforcement or delay certain provisions of the law. But we are really not talking about individual cases, Mr. Speaker. We are not here today because we are concerned with the administration using discretion on a case-by-case basis. What we are concerned with is the President employing blanket policies of nonenforcement. In some instances, the President isn't just ignoring enforcement of the laws; he is effectively rewriting them. Now, I understand the President isn't the first to expand executive power under his watch. He is not the first President to do that. In fact, Congress has failed to protect article I powers for decades. This House and the Senate have been in dereliction because they haven't actually protected article I powers. The pace of expansion of power, though, should alarm every Member of this body. Take the President's recess appointments, for example. They have already been deemed unconstitutional by the D.C. circuit court in a unanimous--unanimous--decision. The court rejected the administration's argument that the President has the discretion to determine when the Senate is in recess. The court explained: Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers. Mr. Speaker, the President's actions aren't in danger of disrupting the legislative process; they already are disrupting it. What assurances do we have that the President won't just change the law once we have passed it? What guarantees do we have that the President won't suspend parts of the law that we believe are important? The truth is, Mr. Speaker, we don't have that assurance. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, we can't trust the President to enforce any would-be law equally and faithfully, and that is a shame. If anyone thinks the President's unilateral actions aren't a big deal because they happen to agree with him on the policy, well then, Mr. Speaker, they have badly missed the point. All Presidents--all Presidents--have probably pushed the limit of their power, and it is our responsibility, this House, to check that power. We are a nation of laws. We ought to fight to keep it that way. We can no longer sit by and watch Congress' constitutional role in our government eroded. This rule is to allow us to consider legislative addressing this growing problem. This rule ensures that ideas from Members on either side of the aisle are included in consideration of the underlying legislation. I support this rule, and I hope all my colleagues will also. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.