Richard Nugent

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. And, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comments, and I appreciate the work that you have done on this. With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. I certainly do appreciate the ranking member's comments about other Federal employees, and I am the last one to malign Federal employees, but this is specifically in regard to--do you remember back when we passed the Pay Our Military Act? It was that act that allowed for the President and the Department of Defense to make that determination that these folks were essential. They decided that they weren't. And, in fact, we know they are because they are the ones, like I said, that keep the equipment operational, that allows our pilots and, in particular, Black Hawk pilots the ability to fly to respond to missions at home and abroad. So while I don't disagree with a lot of what the ranking member said, this is really about those that wear the uniform of this country and allowing them to make sure that they are paid, A, and make sure that they are on duty to keep that equipment operational. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 628 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, H. Res. 628 provides for the consideration of H.R. 4870, the Department of Defense Appropriation Act for FY 2015 under a modified open rule. This resolution will give Members on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to offer as many amendments to the bill as they wish, provided they comply with the rules of the House. It ensures that all Members can be active participants in shaping this bill. I think my colleague on the Rules Committee from Georgia described it best when he called this process a ``festival of democracy.'' The underlying legislation will give the Department of Defense the resources it needs to protect our country at home and abroad. I am encouraged that both sides of the aisle can usually unite around this cause. This bill is another example of that bipartisanship, as it was reported out of the committee unanimously. The DOD Appropriations Act will also provide support for our warfighters, the 1 percent who risk all in defense of this Nation. It is critical that we give our troops the tools they need to carry out their mission abroad and the resources they need to support their families here at home. This legislation will fully fund a 1.8 percent pay increase for the military instead of the 1 percent raise requested by the President. Secondly, this rule allows us to begin ironing out the differences between the House and the Senate attempts to address the VA scandal. While we have yet to uncover the full scope of this scandal, it is apparent the problems are systemic to that institution. There have been secret wait lists, unacceptable patient wait times, inadequate care, backlogs, a culture of retaliating against whistleblowers, and a serious lack of leadership, to name only a few of the issues plaguing the VA. Tragically--tragically--veterans have died because of these problems. Mr. Speaker, it is disgraceful. The fact that a veteran died waiting for care from this country that they fought for, it is just tough to come to grips with that reality, but it is a reality. As a father of three sons serving in the military, I am appalled, I am horrified, and I believe the American people are, too, as to the treatment of our veterans. Our veterans deserve a whole lot more, a whole heck of a lot more from their government than to have the government turn their back on them. They deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and the House will make every effort to ensure that these problems never happen again. One of the ways we can begin this effort is by giving the VA the authority to terminate employees for performing poorly, much like the private sector, much like I had as sheriff. It is what most employers have the ability to do. This will give the Secretary of the VA the ability to quickly remove bureaucrats who falsified, in this instance, wait times. As we have come to find out with all other scandals this administration is engulfed in, it is difficult to hold people accountable in the executive branch, try as we might. Therefore, the provisions are sorely needed. We can also require the VA to reimburse private health care for veterans who live more than 40 miles from a VA facility or those who have not received timely medical treatment at the VA. This will allow our veterans to get the care that they need when they need it. Finally, it is a bit discouraging that we even have to codify this into law, but we need to end the bonuses and awards at the VA for at least the next two fiscal years. Incredibly, the Phoenix VA--where veterans actually died waiting for care--felt it was appropriate to pay out $10 million in bonuses over the last 3 years. By prohibiting this practice, we can ensure that the funds we provide to the VA are going where they are needed: toward the care of our veterans and not to fatten bureaucrats' pockets. I stand in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

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

Mr. NUGENT. I have none.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us allows for an open and transparent consideration of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015. Chairman Frelinghuysen has done an excellent job in the appropriations area, working with his minority member, to craft this appropriations bill to fit the needs of our military. They have done an excellent job. Providing for the common defense is a constitutional responsibility that we share with the President. This Congress shares that with the President. Without a strong defense, we have no way of ensuring that our liberties we enjoy and the safety of our citizens from threats, both foreign and domestic, keep us safe here at home. The underlying legislation helps fulfill Congress' responsibility to provide for our national defense by funding the Armed Forces and addressing critical readiness gaps. The DOD Appropriations bill provides $1 million to be used exclusively for improving military readiness. That commitment is vital because we need to give our warfighters the best possible chance to complete their mission and make it home safe and sound. As a father of three soldiers, I can only tell you that the ability to train and equip our men and women that have volunteered to serve this country is the utmost responsibility that this country has to them to make sure that they have the ability to come back. We need to give them the best possible fighting chance to come home to their families. As a father who has sons serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we have got to make sure this country provides the best possible military, second to none in the world. We want to make sure that our men and women have the ability to have the medical treatment that they so rightly deserve when they come back after serving their country. I think that we have taken the steps in the Rules Committee to do just that. This rule and this appropriations bill actually rejects, again, the President's proposed cuts to TRICARE. Once again, in the last 4 years, TRICARE has come under fire. We don't believe that we should balance the budget on the backs of our men and women who fight for this country. We need to make sure of our priorities that we owe our troops, which is a debt we can never repay, but you don't repay it by cutting their benefits, and you don't repay it by cutting their pay, you don't repay it by ignoring them as it relates to when they come back with a service-connected disability, go in front of the VA, and be denied the service they rightfully earned. Finally, the rule provides for the motions necessary to go to conference with the Senate because, if you remember right, the Senate passed a bill, the House passed a bill as it relates to the VA, in regards to trying to fix the VA. It is a good first step. Those bills have already been passed. Now, it is the opportunity to provide an opportunity to conference with the Senate to come up with a compromise that puts our veterans first--not last, not behind bureaucrats, but in front of the line, not the back of the line. We can quickly resolve those issues between the House and the Senate by going to conference, and that is what this bill helps us do. I think we all agree the treatment of our veterans has been shameful. It is a complete disservice to those who risked their lives for us. The severity of this issue, the sheer gravity of it, demands input from both Chambers. We have heard about how keeping GTMO open makes us less safe. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that releasing five members of Taliban's senior leadership positions makes America less safe--which we just did, without input from this House or without input from the Senate, as required by law. It was just done. Are we safer because we released these five Taliban leaders? They are not the trigger pullers. They are not the guys on the ground. These are the guys that actually helped design and implement the Taliban and the attacks on us. Some of those leaders are purported to be members of that group that helped design and implement those. I agree with my good friend from Massachusetts. We agree on a lot of issues, particularly as it relates to our military and open-ended conflicts. We do agree on that. Having sons that have served both in Iraq and Afghanistan, I want to make sure that this body has a say in what happens. I want to make sure this body hears from the President in a cohesive way in regards to what he expects to accomplish and what our mission is. I have two sons in Iraq in the conflict. I happened to travel there and got to see my two kids. The night that I was there, a U.S. base was struck by an IRAM, which is an Iranian rocket warhead. The only place you get that is from Iran. You don't find it on the shelf at a store. Iran provided a warhead that killed five troops the night I was in Iraq. They were part of the division where my youngest son served. Here we are, talking about working with Iran, who has been the most destablizing country in the world, as it relates to Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a sectarian issue going on between the Sunnis and the Shiites. I don't know what the best way forward is, but I want to hear from the President what his plan is. We sent more troops to Iraq. I want to hear specifically what we expect to get out of that. What do we expect? I will tell you that the ISIL in the media, they want to hurt America. They are the ones that are advancing towards Baghdad. They have the ability, from what I am reading in the press, to reach out and touch America. Do we have a vested interest in seeing what happens in Iraq? I believe we do, but I want to hear from this President about how you move forward and how you fix something that my good friend from Massachusetts talked about, the corrupt government within Iraq. We have some of the same issues in Afghanistan. How do we do that? I think he hit it on the head. The people of those countries have got to stand up and take control. The problem is we don't want terrorists to take control. The ISIL is a terrorist organization; there is no doubt about it. Lastly, I just want to touch on the conference allowing us to give instructions to conferees as relates to the Senate. We want to make sure that that gets done--and it gets done right and done in a timely fashion. It is amazing that the Senate, when motivated, can do the right thing and move a piece of legislation through. I support this straightforward rule and the much-needed underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. NUGENT

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

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, the Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Missile Project, better known as CHAMP, is an Air Force program to disrupt or eliminate an adversary's electronics without causing physical damage to facilities or people. My amendment would transfer $10 million within the Air Force R&D budget from directed energy technology to advanced weapons technology. This will move duplicative funds from laboratory development of high- power microwave technology to integration on a delivery vehicle for actual use on the battlefield a decade ahead of schedule. The Air Force intends to develop CHAMP for use on a reusable delivery vehicle that will be available to combatant commanders in 2025. For a small investment of $10 million this year, the Air Force can get CHAMP to the combatant commanders on a cruise missile delivery system 18 months after enactment of this bill, almost a decade ahead of schedule. The reason we can do this so quickly and at such a low cost is by utilizing unused cruise missiles, just like the ones the Air Force used to test CHAMP recently. There is an existing stockpile of cruise missiles that have been removed from their original mission and can be cost-effectively repurposed as a delivery vehicle for CHAMP. Over the next few years, the Air Force has an opportunity to fit CHAMP on a proven delivery vehicle already in stock. In this window, it is very cheap to make a cruise missile-delivered CHAMP system and very expensive for adversaries to defend. The $10 million my amendment allocates to advanced weapons technology will improve the size and weight of the weapon to optimize its performance on a cruise missile. It is important to note this amendment will ensure that sufficient funds exist to develop both the short-term cruise missile system and the long-term reusable delivery system. The offset for this amendment pulls from an increase in another directed energy program in the Air Force that is doing duplicative work to reduce the size and weight of high-power microwave. Instead of just doing lab work, we can do the lab work and get it out into the field. As I said, these two programs are doing duplicative work, and one is closer to the finish line than the other. This is a bipartisan bill. I am happy to have support of the ranking member of the Armed Services subcommittee of jurisdiction and cochair of the Directed Energy Caucus, Mr. Langevin. The authorization for this program increase has been in the National Defense Authorization Act since the chairman's mark and was in the bill the House passed earlier this year. In the Armed Services Committee, we have heard the desire of this game-changing technology in testimony from combatant commanders and from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Let's get the warfighter this capability in 18 months by passing this simple amendment today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his consideration. What I would like to add to this is that the Air Force tested CHAMP on that delivery vehicle--a successful test, as it may be--and the testimony from those combatant commanders, the guys in the field that actually need it, are saying: hey, I would rather have it in 18 months than in 2025. It is just that simple. We heard testimony with regards to China and about Russia. Wouldn't it be better to use these limited funds that we have already spent millions of dollars on to develop the process, develop the technology, wouldn't it be better today to spend $10 million to actually get it in the field to support our troops and our warfighters? That is our argument. While I respect the Air Force, I think what the Air Force has--and they are looking at a long-term solution, a reusable vehicle, which I support, but I also support those who are out on the front line today. I have three kids out on the front line. This helps those soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors with more protection. We can do it cheap, and we can do it today, and we can have it done in 18 months. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Trinity Catholic High School Baseball Team's State Championship Title. It is with great pride that I stand to honor this momentous accomplishment. On Wednesday, May 14, with great determination and skill, the Trinity Catholic Celtics rose to win Marion County's first baseball state championship. These young men, after dedicating countless hours, were rewarded with a well deserved victory. Moreover, this honor was received with true sportsmanship and class. This distinguished accomplishment is indicative of the power of our nation's youth. The drive, as well as the athleticism displayed by Trinity Catholic High's Baseball Team should serve as a model for all those who dream of great feats. The people of Florida's 11th Congressional District are extremely proud and I invite you all to join me in extending our most sincere congratulations. Therefore, I, Richard B. Nugent, Member of Congress representing the Eleventh District of Florida, do hereby recognize the Trinity Catholic High School Baseball Team's State Championship Title.

Mr. NUGENT

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

Mr. NUGENT. Chairman Wolf, I want to thank you for your leadership and all the years of service to this body, and to the Nation in general. Each day, more and more Americans are realizing that we need to take action to deal with mental health issues in this country. You merely need to watch the news. We need to make it a priority. My amendment, in keeping with that sentiment, would provide additional funding for programs under the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act, or MIOTCRA, and for Veterans Treatment Courts. These programs have a proven track record of effectively addressing some of the important issues associated with mental health illnesses. My amendment would offset this increase by taking $4 million from the periodic censuses and programs account, which I have heard had been hit over and over again. This is less than one-half of 1 percent. Madam Chairman, both of the programs that would receive an increase in funding under my amendment highlight the need for our justice and mental health systems to work together. As a former sheriff, I can tell you cooperation is vital. If our justice and mental health systems are collaborating, we can provide more positive outcomes--not only for those with mental health issues, but for our taxpayers as well. Grants provided under MIOTCRA are used, among other purposes, to set up mental health courts, for community reentry services, and training for State and local law enforcement to help identify and respond to people with mental illnesses, which should be obvious to folks back home, just as with what happened in California. During my 37 years as a cop, I saw firsthand how our jails are becoming warehouses for people with mental health issues. No one is well served by this process--not those with mental health issues, not our taxpayers, and certainly not our veterans. Let me provide some numbers to illustrate what is actually going on in our jails. According to the Florida Mental Health Institute, over a 5-year period, 97 individuals in the metro Miami-Dade area accounted for 2,200 bookings into the county jail, 27,000 days in jail, and 13,000 days in crisis units, State hospitals, and emergency rooms. The cost to the State and taxpayers was nearly $13 million for just 97 people over a 5- year period. However, the type of programs my amendment supports have shown to dramatically reduce these rates. In Pinellas County--another county in Florida--for instance, a mental health jail diversion program showed an 87 percent reduction in rearrests for nearly 3,000 offenders that were enrolled in that program. Not only does my amendment support these programs but recognizes the unique responsibilities that we have to our veterans. Veterans are disproportionately affected by mental health issues. Even more, they likely wouldn't have these issues had it not been for their service to our country. We owe them a better outcome. And Veterans Treatment Courts can help. The point, Madam Chairman, is we don't have to waste taxpayer dollars warehousing people in jail. We don't have to be content with a system that isn't effectively serving the people it is supposed to. We have programs to help and that save money. And we can make this a priority. I know that this account has been hit numerous times, but I would tell you that you need only to see what is going on in this country. Mental illness is a problem that needs to be addressed. The Veterans Treatment Courts that can be put in place by this, I think, is owed to our veterans, and certainly is owed to the people we represent. So I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 590 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The question before the House is, Should the House now consider H. Res. 590? While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any point of order. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that, while the two underlying bills contained in the rule would impose intergovernmental and private sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the mandates would fall well below the threshold in that act. That said, I know my friend is using this point of order to debate a very important issue that he cares passionately about. I am glad he has had the opportunity to bring it forward because we tend to agree on a lot of what he has said, and he knows that. We have talked on numerous occasions. But in order to allow this House to continue its scheduled business of the day, I urge our Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, like I said before, I don't disagree with a lot of what my friend from Massachusetts said. As we voted last time, we are not going to have the opportunity to do that this time. But I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the House now consider H. Res. 590? While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. All of the relevant committees have included earmark statements in their reports filed with the House, so there is no violation of the House earmark rule. That said, I know my friend is using this point of order to debate an important issue--and I have said this earlier--that he passionately cares about. So I am glad that he has had that opportunity. But in order to allow this House to continue with the scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, so much has been said. As I said earlier, I agree with a lot of what has been said. I will be honest with you, I am disappointed. I have sons that have been sent off to war for this Nation: two of them in Iraq at the same time and one in Afghanistan. They didn't ask to go. They went because, long before I got here, a majority of the Members here voted for it. Now, you can have disagreements about whether or not we should have been involved in Iraq. I have some serious reservations. Or about what our continued involvement in Afghanistan should be. I actually voted for an amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) put up last year in regards to getting out of Afghanistan. Listen, what I say is not hallowed words. I have had blood and flesh of my own in those countries. And I agree, there is nothing we can do to change where Afghanistan is going to go in the future. You can't change history, as has been brought up here. But I will tell you that if you don't vote for the underlying rule, then we won't have the opportunity to support our troops. We won't have an opportunity to override what the President is doing in regards to cutting the COLA for our troops and adding additional costs to our troops that they have to bear out of their own pockets. So you want to make a statement. Let's not forget about what the NDAA is all about. It is about supporting our troops and giving our warfighters the equipment and the training and the compensation that they and their families richly deserve for what that 1 percent gives to this Nation, the freedom to stand down here and have a difference of opinion. But, Mr. Speaker, in order to allow this House to continue with its scheduled business for the day, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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.