Richard Nugent

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 590 provides for House consideration of two separate pieces of legislation. The first of these bills, H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act, will be considered for 1 hour under a closed rule. This legislation will prohibit the bulk collection of all tangible things, not just telephone records. It will end a practice that, in my sincere belief and in the belief of so many other Americans, violated our privacy and our constitutional rights. This isn't the end of the issue for me and, I suspect, for a lot of our Members as well. And secondly, the reason I am proud to be here to sponsor this particular rule is because it provides further consideration of this year's National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA passed for 52 consecutive years, and I am confident that this will be the 53rd consecutive year that it passes. Mr. Speaker, this is the very definition of a bipartisan effort. This year's NDAA was reported out of the House Armed Services Committee with unanimous support, 61-0. For all the infighting that exists in Congress, it is nice to know that we can unite around the common cause of supporting our troops and fulfilling our constitutional responsibility of providing for the common defense of our homeland. Part of the reason this legislation received so much support is that so many Members have had input into the process, from the committee to the floor. The committee alone, this bill was amended 155 times in committee. And the rule will allow for the consideration of over 160 more amendments, with over 70 of those amendments coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Of course, no piece of legislation is perfect to each Member. Even as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I didn't get everything I wanted in this legislation. But I am extremely proud of the work that we have done and the product that we have put forward. One of the things I would like to highlight in this bill is the 1.8 percent pay raise for our troops. It is definitely more modest than I had hoped, but it is still a good step. And I think we all know our brave men and women have earned it. We have also rejected, for 4 years in a row now, the President's proposed benefit cuts to our warfighters and their families. In the President's FY12 budget request, he proposed cuts to TRICARE. In the NDAA that year, the committee fully restored those cuts. In the President's FY13 budget proposal, he proposed compensation cuts once again. And, once again, our NDAA restored much of the funding and required the President to find other sources for the remaining funds. Fiscal year '14 was no different. This President proposed TRICARE cuts and actually reduced the military's pay raise from 1.8 to just 1 percent. Congress again rejected those TRICARE cuts and worked to restore the program with other resources. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to say the President's proposed cuts this year were the most sweeping to date. Those cuts would have included TRICARE, housing allowances, and commissary benefits. These cuts add costly out-of-pocket expenses to those military families, that 1 percent who protect our freedoms, and he was willing to cut that. Our warfighters deserve better, and the NDAA before us ensures that those damaging cuts will not happen. This NDAA also rejects the administration's insistence on one or more rounds of base closure to conserve resources. It is our opinion that Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, is an ineffective way to produce true savings. Instead, they add large up-front costs. And so in this year's NDAA, we have prohibited another round of BRAC. We have also expanded sexual assault prevention by reviewing the discharge status for victims who separate from the military. And this is so important to all of us. What we want to do is to ensure that no servicemembers were prosecuted for reporting a crime, and we want to make sure that we hold those responsible for the crime to the highest level that we can. Finally, the underlying bill ensures the preservation of the National Guard. In every State and territory in this Union, guardsmen are exceptionally well trained and must retain equipment to respond to disasters in their States. These brave men and women are critical to the operational Reserve of this country--ready to deploy to combat zones in defense of the entire Nation, as they have proudly done over the last 12 years. These are active members of our community who risk their own safety to come to our rescue when we are in need the most. The Guard also provides for some of the most effective and efficient dollars spent, and that is why it is always frustrating to see proposals that could dramatically cut from their budget. The NDAA recognizes the importance of the National Guard and the Reserves and preserves their capability to protect us here at home and abroad. I support the 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) whom I serve with on the Armed Services Committee, but he also serves on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NUGENT. I do not.

Mr. NUGENT

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

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), whom I have the honor of serving not only on the Rules Committee with, but also in Armed Services.

Mr. NUGENT. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. NUGENT. I do not.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, the rule today, before us today, continues the process of allowing Members to provide input on the NDAA. That process is important. This rule makes in order 162 amendments to the NDAA. I know some of the other side don't think that is enough. Remember, in committee, we were there from 10 o'clock in the morning until after midnight, and we heard another 155 amendments from both sides of the aisle. And 155 amendments were considered in order and were voted on or added to the NDAA. So it is not like there hasn't been any input. It is just the opposite. It has been impressive this year as compared to other years, and unprecedented. It is also important to stress that both of these underlying pieces of legislation are bipartisan agreements. They include the input of Members on both sides of the aisle. Any time you get agreements like this, no one is going to get everything they want. I sure didn't. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. That approach doesn't work, not for this body and not for the American people. But what this rule allows is for debate on both of these issues. On the USA FREEDOM Act there will be a separate hour of debate to debate the merits of that particular piece of legislation, and we are going to have debate on the remaining amendments that have been made in order that we are bringing forward today as relate to the NDAA. That is a lot of input. Is it ever enough? It probably could never be enough. But for this body, it is kind of unprecedented the amount of debate that we have had already on the NDAA. I have only been here 3 years, but it is long enough to know that if you insist on all or nothing 99 percent of time, you know what you are going to get? You are going to get nothing. And that is not what we want. We have an opportunity here to debate the USA FREEDOM Act and the merits of it or not, but we also have the ability to debate amendments to the NDAA that support our troops. We need to recognize that when this happens, the American people win when this body works its will in committee. They are American people, and this body has a voice in regard to what occurs in the future. We have made significant progress on issues central to American rights and freedoms. Trust me; I have been the biggest opponent of the massive collection of metadata that was going on in the United States. I thought it was unconstitutional and a violation of our privacy rights. I absolutely do. What we have today is a vast improvement on what we have now. I wish we would come together more often and we wouldn't let our differences outweigh our common goals. Like I said before, is the USA FREEDOM Act perfect? By no means. But it is certainly better than what we have today when this government has the right--and is doing it up to this moment--and is collecting an unprecedented amount of data, metadata, on all of us, which I believe is directly against the Constitution. But I am particularly encouraged once again that we are united around our constitutional requirement as it relates to the NDAA on common defense. That is one of the responsibilities this body has is the common defense of this country, and nothing more. That is paramount. Because if we don't have common defense, we don't have anything that we enjoy today, whether it is back home or here in Washington, D.C. We don't have the ability to have freedom of speech. We don't have the ability to sit here and debate back and forth and have differing opinions. But at the end of the day, we move forward, and that is what makes America great. What has made America great is that 1 percent that protect us today. Mr. Speaker, like I said, I have three sons. They all currently serve. They do it willingly and not just because Mom or Dad wanted them to. Probably just the opposite. Because when we had them deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan--and now our youngest just came back from a deployment to Africa--we would rather them not be in harm's way. But they have made a decision that this country is worth it. Those that have led the way before them made that decision, and some have paid the ultimate sacrifice. We owe it to them to finish up the NDAA and move this rule forward so we can have a common debate, particularly as it relates to the USA FREEDOM Act. I don't know how we can look our servicemen and -women in the eye. I hear this all the time. We have a debt we can never repay. They are looking at what we do today. They are looking at what we do on the NDAA, in how we are supporting them. If you think back to the Armed Services Committee, it was 61-0 in support of this particular piece of legislation. That is pretty good coming out of this place that is dysfunctional, to say the least. But we can unite on one singular cause, and we have. We have the ability to continue to support our troops. We have the ability to continue to support the families that support our troops. Let me tell you, they listen and they watch. They wonder where we are in the whole process. Do we really support them or is it just lip service. Do we just give speeches and say how much we appreciate their service and sacrifice, or is it lip service? I would suggest to you that the Armed Services Committee stepped up to the plate, and it is not lip service from them. They went above and beyond what the President requested to support our troops, our warfighters, and that is the right thing to do. I would hope that we would do this now and in the future. We want to make sure that they have the best possible equipment and the best possible training. When my kids were in Iraq and Afghanistan, the one thing that gave my wife, Wendy, and me solace was the fact that we knew they were the best equipped, best fighting force on the face of the Earth that give them the best opportunity to come home. And that is what we want. It is as simple as that. These are real people. So I strongly urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. 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. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall). We came in to this Congress together a couple of years back, and I have had the great opportunity to serve with him on the Rules Committee. And being placed on Armed Services last year was a great opportunity for me to be in the process of crafting how our military establishment moves forward. Madam Speaker, in addition to providing an open rule for the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, H. Res. 585 provides for 1 hour of general debate on this year's National Defense Authorization Act. It also makes in order the first of many amendments that are going to be coming forward in the debate over the next couple of days. Because the Rules Committee traditionally does two rules, one for the underlying legislation and the second for the amendments, which I am going to bring forward tomorrow--as we have heard, we have had over 300 amendments come forward on the NDAA this year. My understanding is that is a record. Typically, it is around 200-and-some. This year, it was over 300. So we are going to have the opportunity to hear arguments on both sides as to why an amendment should pass or why an amendment should fail, and that is a good thing. That is what this body is designed to do, to have a dialogue and a discussion back and forth about the merits of a particular issue. I have three sons who currently serve this Nation. One is in the National Guard, and two are in the Active Duty Army. So when we craft an NDAA, it is extremely important to me to make sure that our men and women have all the resources they need if they are called to go into harm's way. It is not their call to go. It is the President's call, the Commander in Chief's call in regards to whether or not our servicemen and -women go off to fight. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) mentioned earlier about all the partisanship in this place. The NDAA, when it passed through committee, had over 100 amendments within committee that passed and were attached to the NDAA, amendments from both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican alike, because there was great discussion within the committee about those amendments. Some didn't pass, but the vast majority, over 100, did pass, and you see it in the body of the National Defense Authorization Act today. That says an awful lot. The National Defense Authorization Act has passed 52 times, 52 consecutive times, and we are hoping that this is the 53rd consecutive time that it passes in this body. Mr. Woodall was correct. It passed out of committee 61-0. I would suggest to you, I don't think I have heard that number before in other committees. While there are disagreements on how things should work in the NDAA, disagreements about priorities and how things should be moved around and where our money should be spent, at the end of the day, we came together as Democrats and Republicans and put forward a piece of legislation that we can be proud of, that was actually named after the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Chairman Buck McKeon. Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to help craft the NDAA. I believe that it is a good step in the right direction. We have heard a lot of things about sequestration in the coming year, and we need to be very cognizant of what that will do to our military, our readiness, and our ability to meet the demands that this country could call upon our military to meet. This legislation takes care of that 1 percent of Americans who step forward and raise their hand and say: If you need me, I am there; if you need me to fight your fight, I am there. That is why this legislation is so important. It protects the members of our military, the 1 percent of America, Americans who stand up and say: I am there to protect you. That is why this legislation is so important. The benefit of this is that we have a strong, well-run military, that we have a military that is trained and equipped for the battles to come. And I will suggest to you that we have not done a very good job of figuring out what our next battle will be. As a matter of fact, we have had members of the military, flag officers, high-ranking folks that have been involved in the military for 30-plus years say we have never gotten it right once; not one time have we gotten it right in regards to what our future conflicts are going to look like. So I would suggest to you that we need to make sure that we are on top of it now.

Mr. NUGENT. Well, I appreciate that. I don't know that I am expert, but I certainly have the heart. I have the heart to make sure that America is safe. It is a constitutional responsibility that this body make sure that we have a strong defense for our homeland. It is a huge responsibility, and it is not one that is taken lightly. As you can see in the vote that was taken in the House Armed Services Committee--61-0--it is one that is shared by all Members. We have seen the threats. Unfortunately, not everybody knows what the threats are. But if you look at and read the news, whether it is Russia today resurging its influence within Europe, whether it is China, or whether it is Iran or North Korea, there are so many players out there that have ill intentions to our people, to this Nation. We have Africa, a continent that has seen a huge increase in violence that is associated with al Qaeda. We have threats around this world. To those who would say this world is safer than it was before, I would suggest to you it is not. So I will do anything that I can do to lend credence to our military fighting force to make sure we have the strongest, most-equipped, and best-trained force. It is what gave my wife and me solace when our older son was deployed to Afghanistan. It gave us solace when our two sons were deployed to Iraq, that we knew they were the best fighting force out there. That gave them the greatest opportunity to come home safe to us. Last night in the Rules Committee, we had a young man, a double amputee, who is a proud, proud member of the 82nd Airborne's 4th Combat Brigade. Specialist Stefan LeRoy was in our midst last night as we talked about the NDAA in the Rules Committee. There is not a more powerful statement than that young man sitting right in front of me at the dais looking at us to make sure that we provide for them, for that 1 percent I talked about earlier. That is what makes this all worthwhile, in my estimation, that we do the right thing.

Mr. NUGENT

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

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 568 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 in support of this rule, H. Res. 568. House Resolution 568 provides for consideration of two important resolutions. Both resolutions are critical to getting to the bottom of the IRS' targeting of conservative nonprofit groups, and they are critical to holding this government accountable. The groups who are discriminated against deserve to know the full truth and so do the American people. To this day, Mr. Speaker, no one has been held accountable for the actions of the IRS. I wish that the underlying resolutions weren't necessary; but, once again, the self-proclaimed ``most transparent administration in history'' hasn't been helping much in providing the answers to the American people that they so rightly deserve. For example, one of the underlying resolutions, H. Res. 565, calls for the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting that took place. Again, it is frustrating that this House even needs to take this step, Mr. Speaker; but as we have come to find out, the Justice Department chose a Democratic political supporter to lead their investigation into the IRS' actions. This attorney donated over $6,000 to President Obama's election campaigns, and if that is not a conflict of interest, I don't know what it is. That is extremely disappointing to me because this administration had the opportunity to give Americans assurances that they wouldn't stand for the IRS' conduct, they wouldn't allow an agency to be a tool to punish people for their political beliefs and would work diligently to root out this behavior and hold the appropriate people accountable. Instead, the administration severely undermined the credibility of the investigation at every turn. We need impartiality and objectiveness from this administration; and, Mr. Speaker, we just didn't get it. We have hit a wall, Mr. Speaker. It is time we had a special counsel to look into the issue so we can fully understand the depths of the targeting. What we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that all signs point to Lois Lerner as a central figure in this scandal. Ms. Lerner has been unwilling to answer questions before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, despite giving testimony to two other bodies. Her actions to this point beg the question: What is she trying to hide? Ms. Lerner has roughly a year--she has had a year to work with the committee and ample time to comply with this subpoena. Unfortunately, she has refused to do so. When called to testify before the committee, Lois Lerner simultaneously asserted her innocence, while depriving the American people of the opportunity to get their questions answered. Ms. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her Fifth Amendment right--17, Mr. Speaker. In the words of my colleague from South Carolina, that is a lot of talking for someone who wants to remain silent. Some people believe--me being one of them--that you can't do that. You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth Amendment right. Mr. Speaker, I believe that Mrs. Lerner's conduct shows contempt for this body. I certainly do. I truly believe that. But that is what we are here today for, to have a debate, to see what the majority of this body believes. This rule allows for the debate to happen and a vote to happen. It allows Congress to do its job, providing oversight of the executive branch. If the contempt vote passes, it will place the issue into Federal court. It will be up to them to decide if we are accurate or off base. Let the court decide that. That is the appropriate step, because that is where the dispute between these two branches is supposed to reside. The judicial branch is the arbitrator between the executive branch and the legislative branch when it comes to issues like this. That is how a three-branch system works. We should let the process take place. I support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.