[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H4699-H4706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4435, HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' 
  McKEON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015; AND 
       PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3361, USA FREEDOM ACT

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 590 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 590

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 4435) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense and for military construction, 
     to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal 
     year, and for other purposes.
       Sec. 2.  (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
        (b) Each further amendment printed in part A of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole.
       (c) All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part A 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Armed Services or their designees, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3361) to reform 
     the authorities of the Federal Government to require the 
     production of certain business records, conduct electronic 
     surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace devices, 
     and use other forms of information gathering for foreign 
     intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendments in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
     now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate, with 40 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 6.  The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time 
     before 5 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, file privileged 
     reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2015.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a 
point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 590.
  Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules 
Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of 
that same act. House Resolution 590 waives all points of order against 
further amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Therefore, I make a point of order, pursuant to section 426, that 
this rule may not be considered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts makes a 
point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last night, a bipartisan group, 
Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina; Congressman Adam Smith, the 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee from Washington State; 
Congressman Garamendi; and Congresswoman Lee from California; and I, 
offered an amendment to be able to have a debate on a vote on our 
policy in Afghanistan--the longest war in American history.
  It seemed odd to me that a bill like the Department of Defense 
authorization bill would come to the floor without the ability for 
Members to have a vote on Afghanistan. We are at war, and you would 
never know it by the actions of this House.

[[Page H4700]]

  I am ashamed of this House that a bill like this would come to the 
floor and the leadership would block any attempt to be able to have a 
debate and a vote on what our policy should be in Afghanistan.
  The rule that we are going to debate later today makes in order 162 
amendments. There are amendments on everything from deferred retirement 
for military chaplains to charging admission to air shows to public 
access to Rattlesnake Mountain. I am sure public access to Rattlesnake 
Mountain is a big deal, but it is not as big a deal as the war in 
Afghanistan, where we have brave men and women in harm's way because we 
put them there.
  The question is whether or not our policies should remain the same or 
whether it should change.
  The President of the United States has said that he wants to draw 
down American forces in 2014. I hope he does. But there are also 
reports that we may be there for a considerably longer period of time.
  I don't know what the policy is going to be, but let me read to you 
what this amendment that the Republican leadership blocked says. This 
is basically what we are asking here. It says:

       In the event that the United States Armed Forces remained 
     deployed in Afghanistan after December 31, 2014, then no 
     later than March 31, 2015, the President shall send to 
     Congress a determination describing the purpose and expected 
     duration of such deployment and the projected number of 
     troops to be deployed.

  Who could possibly object to that? Basically, it is having the White 
House inform us of what the policy is. Where is the problem?
  The second part of it goes as follows:

       No later than 30 days following the receipt of the 
     President's determination, Congress shall enact a joint 
     resolution to improve the content of the President's 
     determination.
       Should Congress vote against the President's determination, 
     the President is directed to remove all troops not required 
     to protect United States diplomatic facilities and personnel 
     in a safe, orderly, expeditious redeployment from 
     Afghanistan.

  Does anybody really object to that? Does anybody object to doing what 
we are supposed to do--to have a say on issues like war? It astounds me 
that Members of Congress would want to hide behind the Rules Committee 
blocking bringing this to the floor as though it is a way to avoid a 
serious debate and a vote on this policy.
  By the way, the sponsors of this amendment have different opinions on 
Afghanistan. Some of us believe we should get out of there right now. 
That is where I am. Some of those who cosponsored this amendment 
believe that we should be there and have at least a small force in 
Afghanistan beyond 2014.
  So this is not about right now saying we want to get out of 
Afghanistan. What this is saying is that if the President decides to 
change his promise of keeping us there no later than December 2014, 
then we ought to have a vote. We ought to be informed of what is going 
on and we ought to have a vote. Who could object to that?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  I could not agree more. How in the world can the Congress of the 
United States, which has an obligation to declare war, continue to 
abdicate its right to debate our young men and women going to 
Afghanistan to die?
  We have already spent over $1.5 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Iraq was an unnecessary war.

                              {time}  1400

  The previous administration intentionally manufactured the 
justification. It was absolutely unnecessary. And all we are asking--
and that is why I will vote against the rule. There is much in this 
bill that I will vote for.
  But as the gentleman from Massachusetts says, this is a bipartisan 
amendment.
  I have signed over 11,000 letters to families and extended families 
who lost loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. This past weekend I signed 
four letters. I am not trying to single myself out, but I feel the pain 
of my mistake of giving the authority to the previous President to 
bypass Congress to send our young men and women to die in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Mr. McGovern is right. If President Obama believes it is necessary in 
the next couple of years to increase the numbers, then let him come to 
Congress so that we can meet our constitutional responsibility and vote 
either ``yes'' or ``no,'' and then, with pride, know that we did what 
the Constitution required.
  Next Wednesday, I will go to Walter Reed at Bethesda to see three 
marines who were severely injured in Afghanistan in the last month. I 
don't know how severely they are. It might be legs are gone. It might 
be brain injuries.
  Yet, we, in Congress, continue to abdicate our constitutional 
responsibility to these young men and young women. I will tell you that 
the marines down at Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point, which is in my 
district, are sick and tired of this involvement in Afghanistan.
  One last point. The former Commandant of the Marine Corps has been my 
adviser for the last 5 years on Afghanistan, and he has said: Why 
doesn't Congress understand history? You will never change Afghanistan. 
No matter how much blood or money you send to Afghanistan, you will 
never change it.
  I am disappointed in the Rules Committee. So many, and every one of 
them, Republican and Democrat, I have the greatest respect for. But not 
to allow us to debate whether a young man or young woman from America 
should die or lose their legs, their arms, or their mind is a 
disappointment and a failure of this House of Representatives not to 
follow the Constitution.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from 
Florida is recognized for 10 minutes.
  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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want my colleagues to understand one thing. The amendment that we 
are talking about is germane. I spent a great deal of time working with 
the Parliamentarian to make sure that the concerns that the Republican 
majority had about the germaneness of this amendment were addressed. It 
is a germane amendment. There is absolutely no reason at all for this 
not to be on the floor.
  Let me just say that it doesn't take any courage to praise the troops 
and then hide from the vote. It is an act of cowardice, quite frankly. 
The fact that we are debating a Defense Department authorization bill, 
we are at war, and we are not allowed to be able to consider an 
amendment about what our policy should be in Afghanistan, well, what do 
you tell the troops? What do you tell their families? This war is on 
auto-pilot and we will just let it go?
  I mean, we have a responsibility. This Chamber voted to send young 
men and women into harm's way. We have a

[[Page H4701]]

responsibility and we are not living up to it. There is no reason in 
the world why this amendment should not be made in order. It is 
germane. It complies with all the rules.
  The only reason why it isn't made in order is because someone in the 
Republican leadership said, no, we are not going to have a debate; we 
are not going to have a vote. Maybe they are afraid they are going to 
lose. I heard last night that they don't want to embarrass the 
President.
  Really?
  I mean, select committees on Benghazi, 53 votes to overturn the 
Affordable Care Act. They don't want to embarrass the President? Well, 
with friends like you, the President doesn't need any enemies.
  The bottom line is this an important issue, and how dare we come to 
the floor on the defense bill and be silent and indifferent when it 
comes to Afghanistan.
  I am ashamed of this process. There is no reason in the world why we 
shouldn't be debating this issue. We owe it to those young men and 
women who are over there, those who have sacrificed their lives, those 
who are at Walter Reed Hospital.
  How dare we bring a bill like this to the floor without addressing 
this most important issue. We are at war, and no one in this place 
seems to want to talk about it.
  Well, it is our responsibility just as much as it is the President's 
responsibility. To do nothing means we are complicit in continuing this 
war. I have had enough, and I think Members of this Chamber who agree 
with us ought to stand with us and vote against this rule.
  This process stinks. We played by the rules, we did everything right, 
and we got nothing--nothing on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
consideration of the rule, House Resolution 590.
  Clause 9(c) of rule XXI of the rules of the House specifically states 
that the Rules Committee may not waive the earmark disclosure rule 
prescribed by paragraphs (a) or (b) of clause 9 of rule XXI. House 
Resolution 590 waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 
3361.
  Therefore, I make a point of order pursuant to clause 9(c) of rule 
XXI that this rule may not be considered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts makes a 
point of order that the resolution violates clause 9(c) of rule XXI.
  Under clause 9(c) of rule XXI, the gentleman from Massachusetts and a 
Member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question 
of consideration.
  Following that debate, the Chair will put the question of 
consideration as follows: ``Will the House now consider the 
resolution?''
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What I found interesting about the exchange that we have just had is 
that nobody can explain to me why we cannot have a vote on the 
bipartisan amendment that Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith, Mr. Garamendi, Ms. 
Lee and myself have brought before the House. Nobody can give us a 
reason why, other than it is not in order because they have the power 
to not make it in order.
  I want my colleagues to understand a few facts. 2,320 U.S. troops 
have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001.
  19,718 U.S. troops have been wounded in Afghanistan since 2001.
  127 soldiers were killed in 2013.
  1,687 have been killed since the surge of 2009.
  An estimated 30,000 Afghan civilians have been killed since 2001.
  The VA estimates that approximately 22 veterans will die by suicide 
every day. At least 30 percent of veterans have contemplated suicide.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a say in the future of 
America's longest war. We all know that there is no military solution 
in Afghanistan. The American public is sick and tired of war. American 
interests are not advanced by another decade of war.
  And yet, what does this House of Representatives do when we consider 
the Department of Defense authorization bill? We do nothing. We do 
nothing. The only thing that happens is we bring germane amendments to 
the Rules Committee to be able to debate this issue so the Members will 
have a say when the President outlines his policy for Afghanistan 
beyond 2014.
  But it seems that the leadership of this House is perfectly satisfied 
just sitting back and just being okay with whatever happens.
  All we are asking for is that if we are going to stay beyond 2014, 
the President has to tell us what his plan is. That is not radical. 
That is not out there. He needs to tell us what his plan is, and we 
need to vote on it. That is our job. And if you don't want to take 
responsibility for issues like this, maybe you ought to think about 
retiring because it is an insult to the men and women who are serving 
our country for us to be silent and indifferent, to not do the proper 
oversight, to not debate these issues.
  It is an insult to the American taxpayer that we are letting the most 
corrupt government in the world--that is how the Karzai government has 
been rated, the most corrupt government in the world--continue to steal 
our money.
  We cut food stamps for poor people. We don't have enough money to 
take care of our veterans in the VA facilities. We are cutting back on 
moneys for roads and bridges. We can't extend Unemployment Compensation 
for people who have lost their jobs, and yet we just hand over millions 
and millions and millions of dollars.
  Let me just tell you this, Mr. Speaker. Right now, we authorized in 
FY13 spending $87.2 billion for Afghanistan. We authorized in FY14 
spending $85.2 billion. Proposed FY15 spending, $79.4 billion. Total 
since 2001, $778 billion. And when you add in the cost of the veterans 
care that will be needed and all the other associated costs, the total 
cost of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq are about $4- to $6 trillion. 
And we are not even paying for most of it. We are borrowing it. It is 
going on our credit card.
  My friends wail about the deficit and the debt, but when it comes to 
just dumping money into this money pit called Afghanistan, they say 
nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding.
  You know, it is kind of amazing that many of us on my side are 
considered conservatives. I hope that I am considered a conservative.
  Pat Buchanan has written so many articles about the new war party. 
The new war party is the Republican Party. It is the Republican Party 
because of the reason that Mr. McGovern is talking about today.
  We sit here and we allow all these other spending issues involving 
our military, and much of it they deserve: pay increases, taking care 
of their families, doing the good things for our military.
  But when it comes to sending our young men and women to give their 
life and limbs, we don't debate it. We just don't debate it.
  I don't know if the military industrial complex that Eisenhower 
warned the Congress about--do they control Congress? I don't know. I 
haven't checked the campaign finance donations from the military 
industrial complexes.
  But something has changed my party from understanding our 
constitutional responsibilities. Nothing is more important--nothing in 
the House of Representatives is more important than sending a young man 
or woman to die for this country. If this amendment allows us to have a 
debate on whether

[[Page H4702]]

that young man or young woman should give their life, then we owe it to 
the families of America.

                              {time}  1415

  This amendment that Mr. McGovern and myself and Ms. Lee and Mr. Smith 
and Mr. Garamendi offered is very simple. It just says that after 2014, 
if the President decides that he needs to increase the number of troops 
in Afghanistan, then we will vote on it.
  Do you know how pathetic this is that we are asking for this?
  A few years ago, President Obama proposed to the Afghan Government--
President Karzai, who is a crook--that we will have an agreement, that 
we will stay there 10 more years, and that we will send them $2 billion 
or $3 billion a month just to take care of their needs in Afghanistan. 
This, when we are cutting food programs for children, senior citizens, 
and we can't even fix the potholes and can't fix the bridges in 
America.
  And then you will not allow us to have a debate on our 
responsibility, based on the Constitution, that a young man or a young 
woman who would die for this country or lose a leg, an arm, or their 
mind, that we can't have a debate? What a pathetic time for the House 
of Representatives.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, when Speaker Boehner became the Speaker of 
the House, he made a pledge that he would allow the House to work its 
will on major issues.
  This is a major issue. This is a major issue. If my friends want to 
know why the majority of the American people think that this place is 
dysfunctional, this is the reason: we can't get a vote on an issue as 
important as the war in Afghanistan.
  Now, there is really no excuse. It is germane. We spent a lot of time 
working with the Parliamentarian to make sure it is germane to satisfy 
the concerns of the majority. We did that. It is bipartisan. It is 
bipartisan. And of people who are cosponsors of the amendment, some 
want to end the war now and some believe that we need to keep troops 
there for a period beyond 2014. I mean, we have jumped through every 
hoop. What else can we possibly do?
  And for some reason, somebody in the leadership here said, no, the 
House of Representatives will not be able to work its will when it 
comes to Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an article 
entitled ``CNN Poll: Afghanistan war arguably most unpopular in U.S. 
history.''

                      [From CNN Political Ticker]

   CNN Poll: Afghanistan War Arguably Most Unpopular in U.S. History

                     (Posted by CNN Political Unit)

       Washington (CNN).--Support for the war in Afghanistan has 
     dipped below 20%, according to a new national poll, making 
     the country's longest military conflict arguably its most 
     unpopular one as well. The CNN/ORC International survey 
     released Monday also indicates that a majority of Americans 
     would like to see U.S. troops pull out of Afghanistan before 
     the December 2014 deadline.
       Just 17% of those questioned say they support the 12-year-
     long war, down from 52% in December 2008. Opposition to the 
     conflict now stands at 82%, up from 46% five years ago. 
     ``Those numbers show the war in Afghanistan with far less 
     support than other conflicts,'' CNN Polling Director Keating 
     Holland said. ``Opposition to the Iraq war never got higher 
     than 69% in CNN polling while U.S. troops were in that 
     country, and while the Vietnam War was in progress, no more 
     than six in 10 ever told Gallup's interviewers that war was a 
     mistake.''
       The U.S. timetable for Afghanistan calls for the removal of 
     nearly all troops by roughly this time next year, and that 
     can't come fast enough for the vast majority of Americans. 
     Just over half would rather see U.S. troops withdrawn earlier 
     than December 2014. Only a quarter say that America should 
     still have boots on the ground in Afghanistan after that 
     deadline.
       Fifty-seven percent say the conflict is going badly for the 
     U.S. and only a third say America is winning the war in 
     Afghanistan.
       ``Independents have a much gloomier view of the war in 
     Afghanistan than Republicans or Democrats,'' Holland said. 
     ``That may be because a Republican president started the war 
     and a Democratic president has continued it, so there may be 
     some residual support among people who identify with either 
     party.'' Some 2,300 U.S. troops have been killed in 
     Afghanistan since the war began in the autumn of 2001. The 
     U.S. is quickly drawing down its forces in Afghanistan. If a 
     bilateral security agreement that would keep up to 10,000 
     U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the end of 2014 isn't signed 
     in the near future, the U.S. could withdrawal all forces from 
     Afghanistan at the end of next year.
       The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International between 
     December 16 and 19, with 1,035 adults nationwide questioned 
     by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or 
     minus three percentage points.
       The discontent evident in the CNN poll is also seen in two 
     other national surveys conducted earlier this month.
       Two-thirds of those questioned in an ABC News/Washington 
     Post poll said the war has not been worth fighting, and an 
     Associated Press/GfK. survey showed 57% saying the U.S. did 
     the wrong thing in going to war in Afghanistan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. The American people deserve better than what is on 
display here.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal not just to Democrats but to 
Republicans. I want to appeal to the fairness of Members in this 
Chamber. I want to appeal to their sense of making sure that what we do 
here is right.
  On this issue, we ought to have a vote, and the only way to get a 
vote is if you vote down the rule so we can go back to the Rules 
Committee and insert this amendment, that is totally germane, into the 
Department of Defense authorization bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to close by simply saying, it is moments like 
this where I feel a great sadness for this institution. Again, there 
are a lot of things in this Defense Department bill that we are going 
to debate that really, I think, one would fairly characterize as 
somewhat trivial, and I mentioned some of them earlier.
  The fact that we are at war and we can't vote on this war--we are 
being told that we can't have a say on what the future of our policy 
is--that is shameful. I am ashamed of this place for running such a 
closed system on the war.
  This is the defense bill. We are not talking about the education 
bill. We are not talking about the small business bill. This is the 
Department of Defense authorization bill. This is where we should have 
the debate. It is germane, and it should be made in order.
  I will just finish, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we are approaching 
Memorial Day. We are all going to go home and give great speeches. When 
people ask, What are you doing for our troops in Afghanistan, what are 
you doing to try to get them home, you will be able to say, nothing, 
because that is exactly what we are going to do if we can't consider 
this amendment. Nothing. What a shame. What a tragedy. What an insult 
to those men and women who are serving. What an insult to their 
families. What an insult to the American people.
  When you are in charge, you can do whatever you want, but I would 
urge my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to reject this rule.
  I yield back 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

[[Page H4703]]

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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  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.

                              {time}  1430

  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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I agree completely with my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern). How can we possibly be having a meaningful debate about our 
national defense policy when we are not even allowed to have a vote or 
a debate on the war that this country happens to be engaged in at this 
given time? It is a pretense for a discussion that while still 
important is omitting the single largest public policy issue that our 
constituents are interested in and that men and women are putting their 
lives at risk for related to defense.
  There were 131 germane amendments, including the amendment offered by 
my colleagues, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Jones, relating to the war in 
Afghanistan, and 130 others that are rejected

[[Page H4704]]

under this rule--not even allowed a minute of discussion on the floor, 
no less a vote. What would it take to allow a full discussion of those 
issues? Well, 131 amendments, and customarily, even if we gave each 10 
minutes, that is just 2 or 3 days of legislative time about our entire 
national defense policy. Isn't that what we owe this country as our 
Nation's deliberative body here, as Representatives of the United 
States Congress, to discuss for 2 or 3 days all the issues that Members 
on both sides of the aisle have brought forward relating to defense? I 
am including, first and foremost, the obvious issue of the war that we 
are currently engaged in and the demands from our constituents that 
whatever side prevails in that vote--and in the past, I have joined my 
colleagues, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Jones, on that issue--at least we 
should be able to debate and discuss whether an ongoing American 
presence in Afghanistan is in our national security interests.
  The process under which these bills have come to the floor prevents 
open dialogue and debate, and, frankly, continues to undermine the 
reputation of this body, the United States Congress, as a deliberative 
and representative body. One need not wonder why congressional approval 
ratings are so low. Here we are having a debate for a day on national 
defense, and we are prohibited from debating and voting on the single 
largest issue relating to national defense.
  In addition, this bill brings up a very weakened form of the USA 
FREEDOM Act. Not only was this bill weakened in the Judiciary 
Committee, but, in addition, it was weakened just 24 hours ago before 
the Rules Committee. Nonetheless, Members from both sides of the aisle 
submitted amendments to improve the bill, but, unfortunately, every 
single one of those 20 amendments are blocked under this rule. So we 
block 131 amendments by Members on both sides of the aisle from debate 
and from a vote, and we blocked 20 amendments for Members on both sides 
of the aisle with regard to the USA FREEDOM Act.
  Look, this underlying rule also blocked amendments relating to 
military preparedness. It blocked a widely popular amendment that I 
think would have more than enough votes on the floor of the House, 
according to its chief sponsor, Mr. Denham, that would allow our 
aspiring Americans to enlist in the military to ensure that we have the 
very best and most capable aspiring men and women to defend our 
country. Absent that amendment, the military will have to essentially 
go to the next best person on their list, have a harder time meeting 
their recruitment goals, and have to accept something less than the 
very best to defend our country and protect our national security. The 
majority blocked this important bipartisan amendment that would allow 
aspiring Americans who seek to serve our country and know no other 
country and owe no other allegiance to any other country to earn their 
legal status through military service.
  The majority also blocked an amendment by Mr. Castro that would have 
allowed aspiring Americans who are DACA-qualified to become eligible to 
attend, train, and serve at U.S. service academies. I have had the deep 
honor of having been appointed by then-Speaker and now-leader Pelosi to 
serve on the board of governors along with my colleague, Mr. Lamborn of 
Colorado, of the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
  Members from across the country undergo--like we do in our office--a 
selection process where we interview the very best and brightest young 
men and women from across our districts for appointment to that 
academy, and one of the greatest honors I have as a Representative is 
being able to make the phone calls to the talented young individuals 
that our panelists have chosen to say, yes, we are providing you an 
appointment to one of our officer universities, and you will be able to 
serve as an officer in the United States military, one of the U.S. 
service academies. However, again, as a result of the failure of this 
rule to allow for even a debate or a vote on the Castro amendment, once 
again, our military academies are being forced to accept the next best, 
the less prepared student, rather than the most prepared and the very 
best officer that we need in today's and tomorrow's military to keep 
our Nation's national security interests safe.
  Both the Denham and Castro amendments would strengthen our service 
morale, our national defense, and our military preparedness. And those 
are an example of the 131 amendments to this bill that are blocked from 
discussion or votes under this restrictive rule.
  In addition, this rule makes in order H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act. 
Now, this bill was supposed to rein in the NSA's illegal and far-
reaching wiretapping programs. Though I have never in my time here 
supported the PATRIOT Act, even many of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle who have believe that the interpretation of that act was 
overly broad, and therefore, it is desirable for Congress to assert 
itself on behalf of the American people and rein in some of the worst 
excesses. But I am dismayed to find that the final text on the floor 
was not only weakened in the committee process but was weakened just 24 
hours ago behind closed doors with less than just about 24 hours for 
Members of this body to even read the new version of the weakened USA 
FREEDOM Act.
  Mr. Speaker, last year's revelations that the NSA had been collecting 
detailed information about our communication patterns have undermined 
the trust that my constituents and Americans across the country have in 
our government. It has created conflicts with our allies abroad, 
threatening jobs in our country by sullying the reputation of American 
companies and rifling our international trade waters. The NSA 
collection of metadata is a clear violation of our 
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, and 
it simply can't continue.

  Now, while I am pleased that the Chamber is finally taking up 
legislation that is aimed at reining in the NSA's activities, however, 
while this bill does take baby steps towards restoring some of 
Americans' freedoms that are so inherently part of our constitutional 
system, I am very disappointed that it doesn't require the government 
to fully meet the standard, nor does it resolve this issue in any way, 
shape, or form to the American people.
  The USA FREEDOM Act curtails the NSA's ability to monitor Americans' 
private communications under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. And the 
legislative intent is clear: to prohibit the collection of bulk data 
such as the type that was occurring under the secret program revealed 
by Edward Snowden. However, the language in the bill falls short of 
accomplishing that, and none of the amendments that were designed to 
improve this bill and make it work to secure our privacy rights were 
even allowed to be discussed under this rule here on the floor of the 
House, which is another reason that this rule simply must be brought 
down.
  This legislation amended the definition of ``specific selection 
term,'' which is required to conduct surveillance under FISA in a way 
that creates the possibility that the NSA could misuse the bill. Now, 
again, a secret government agency that we have acknowledged has had 
oversight problems in the past, having overly broad discretion, has 
shown and demonstrated that it has been unable to provide the proper 
oversight.
  So the bill's new definition of ``specific selection term'' can be 
read to create a loophole permitting intelligence agencies to use 
selection terms that could permit the collection of large segments of 
data associated with the particular email domain or IP address.
  The American people have seen how broadly in the past the 
intelligence community has interpreted their authority under 
surveillance law. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on 
me. The new definitions provided in the underlying bill provide a 
potential loophole almost as wide as the initial loophole in the 
PATRIOT bill itself and fails to address the privacy concerns of the 
American people.
  In addition, the new language eliminated provisions that strengthened 
and clarified the ban on reverse targeting in 702 and the minimization 
provisions for both the 215-based CDR program and the FISA pen register 
statute.
  The language is a major departure from the bill that passed out of 
two committees. So you might hear Members on both sides of the aisle 
say, oh,

[[Page H4705]]

the bill passed by voice on committee. To be clear, this is not the 
bill that passed in committee. This bill was changed 24 hours ago and 
severely weakened. Were the proponents of these changes hesitant to 
bring these changes forward in committee because they knew they would 
engender bipartisan opposition? Perhaps. But let it not be said without 
refutation that these bills have passed committee by a voice vote 
unanimously. The bill has changed significantly since it passed 
committee.
  Again, while I am encouraged that this Congress is finally taking up 
a bill designed with the intent of reining in the excesses of the NSA, 
this process is flawed. Twenty amendments were offered; none are 
allowed under this rule. If we can defeat this rule, Members from both 
sides of the aisle will be able to move forward to improve upon the USA 
FREEDOM Act to ensure that it can be examined and that Congress can 
engage in their proper oversight role with regard to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, 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. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if you listen to some of the debate on this rule, you 
would not realize that both the underlying pieces of legislation here 
were enormously bipartisan.
  I want to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee--Chairman 
Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Congressman Nadler, Congressman 
Scott, and Congressman Sensenbrenner, the original author--for their 
hard work in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor.
  The bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 32-0 and 
as amended passed the Intel Committee by a voice vote.
  The underlying bill takes important steps toward reforming our 
Nation's intelligence-gathering programs by banning the bulk collection 
of data. The bill enhances civil liberty protections for all Americans 
while at the same time preserving our ability to protect the national 
security of this country.
  National security and international terrorism investigation will now 
be conducted on a case-by-case basis, using specific selection terms 
and with permission from the FISA court, thereby ending the vacuuming 
up of data by the NSA.
  Finally, the bill creates more transparency and provides more 
information to the American people. Companies will now be able to 
publicly report on the requests for information they receive from the 
government. The bill also requires new comprehensive reviews and 
extensive public disclosure.
  The act includes legislation that I offered with my colleagues, the 
Intelligence Oversight and Accountability Act, which requires the 
government to provide to Congress, within 45 days, a copy of each FISA 
court decision, order, or opinion that includes a significant 
construction or interpretation of FISA.
  The Federal Government has the responsibility to ensure that the 
intelligence community is taking appropriate action to root out threats 
to the security of the American people within the boundaries of the 
U.S. Constitution.
  Today, we are striking this balance between safeguarding privacy and 
protecting Americans from terrorist threats in today's post-9/11 world.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, we have heard talk about the NDAA bill and 
amendments that weren't allowed. What you did not hear is that from 10 
o'clock in the morning until 12:30 the next morning, the amendments 
were offered--over 155--and the chairman of that committee was so 
gracious he continued to ask, ``Are there any additional amendments?'' 
until there were none, when we finally passed on a bipartisan basis the 
NDAA bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that is a good bill that strengthens and 
supports our men and women in uniform. I hope that my colleagues will 
support the rule and support the underlying bills.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my distinguished colleague on the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I, once again, rise in strong opposition 
to this rule, which fails to make in order the bipartisan McGovern-
Jones-Smith-Garamendi-Lee amendment on Afghanistan, and I will include 
the text of my amendment following my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, ours is a very straightforward amendment. We worked very 
hard to make it thoughtful, bipartisan, and germane. It reiterates the 
President's commitment to complete the transition of U.S. combat, 
military, and security operations to Afghan authorities by the end of 
this year.

                              {time}  1445

  It requires the President to send to Congress by the end of March 
next year a determination that describes the mission, duration, and 
level of troops of any post-2014 deployment of U.S. troops in 
Afghanistan, and the Congress then has 30 days to enact a joint 
resolution to approve the President's determination.
  In the event that Congress votes against the President's 
determination, then the remaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan would be 
withdrawn in a safe, orderly, and expeditious manner, taking into 
consideration the security of U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel.
  Last year, 305 Members of this House voted in support of an amendment 
calling for just such a vote, but under this rule, those same Members 
will be denied the opportunity to make sure that the President presents 
clearly to Congress what he intends our troops to do in Afghanistan 
after the end of this year and for how long. Under this rule, Congress 
is denied the opportunity to vote on whether they approve the 
President's plan or not.
  I don't know how a vote on our amendment would turn out, and I 
certainly have no idea how a vote next year on keeping our troops in 
Afghanistan would turn out, but here is what I do know: I know that the 
men and women who will be asked to serve and perhaps to die in 
Afghanistan deserve a debate and a vote. I know their families deserve 
a debate and a vote.
  I know that the American people, who have spent billions and billions 
and billions of dollars on this war, deserve a debate and a vote; and I 
know that this Congress has not only the right but the responsibility 
to make our views known on this important issue.
  We are at war, Mr. Speaker. I know that some of my colleagues would 
rather not think about that. They would rather the issue of Afghanistan 
just go away, but wishing and hoping doesn't make it so.
  This is already the longest war in American history. The American 
people are tired of it. Our troops and their families have been 
stretched to their very limits. We have lost over 2,000 servicemembers 
and spent over $700 billion.
  What in the world is the Republican leadership afraid of, Mr. 
Speaker?
  Last night, some of my Republican colleagues told me that they were 
refusing to make this amendment in order because they didn't want to 
upset the President. Are you kidding me? Since when does this 
leadership care one iota about upsetting the President?
  We can vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 50 times. We can 
have investigation after investigation after investigation about 
Benghazi, but we can't take 10 minutes to debate the war in 
Afghanistan? Give me a break.
  Besides, this amendment doesn't upset any plans or negotiations the 
President is currently carrying out on Afghanistan--not a one. It 
doesn't interfere with funding for the war, and it doesn't interrupt 
the deployment of our troops.
  I know, in their hearts, that many of my Republican colleagues agree 
with me, so I am going to give them one more chance to do the right 
thing. I urge you to support the McGovern-Jones-Smith-Garamendi-Lee 
amendment on Afghanistan.
       Strike section 1217 and insert the following:

[[Page H4706]]

     SEC. 1217. COMPLETION OF ACCELERATED TRANSITION OF UNITED 
                   STATES COMBAT AND MILITARY AND SECURITY 
                   OPERATIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN; 
                   REQUIREMENTS TO CONTINUE DEPLOYMENT OF ARMED 
                   FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN TO CARRY OUT MISSIONS 
                   AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2014.

       (a) Completion of Accelerated Transition of United States 
     Combat and Military and Security Operations to the Government 
     of Afghanistan.--In coordination with the Government of 
     Afghanistan, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member 
     countries, and other allies in Afghanistan, the President 
     shall--
       (1) complete the accelerated transition of United States 
     combat operations to the Government of Afghanistan by not 
     later than December 31, 2014;
       (2) complete the accelerated transition of United States 
     military and security operations to the Government of 
     Afghanistan and redeploy United States Armed Forces from 
     Afghanistan (including operations involving military and 
     security-related contractors) by not later than December 31, 
     2014; and
       (3) pursue robust negotiations leading to a political 
     settlement and reconciliation of the internal conflict in 
     Afghanistan, to include the Government of Afghanistan, all 
     interested parties within Afghanistan and with the observance 
     and support of representatives of donor nations active in 
     Afghanistan and regional governments and partners in order to 
     secure a secure and independent Afghanistan and regional 
     security and stability.
       (b) Requirements of Presidential Determination and 
     Congressional Authorization to Continue Deployment of United 
     States Armed Forces in Afghanistan to Carry Out Missions 
     After December 31, 2014.--
       (1) Presidential determination.--In the event that United 
     States Armed Forces remain deployed in Afghanistan after 
     December 31, 2014, then no later than March 31, 2015, the 
     President shall send to Congress a determination describing 
     the purpose and expected duration of such deployment, and the 
     projected number of troops to be deployed.
       (2) Congressional action.--No later than 30 days following 
     the receipt of the President's determination, Congress shall 
     enact a joint resolution to approve the content of the 
     President's determination. Should Congress vote against the 
     President's determination, the President is directed to 
     remove all troops not required to protect United States 
     diplomatic facilities and personnel in a safe, orderly and 
     expeditious redeployment from Afghanistan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule 
to include my amendment calling for a vote on keeping troops in 
Afghanistan after 2014, and that this amendment receive 10 minutes 
total debate like every other germane amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has been yielded for the purpose of 
debate by the gentleman from Florida. Does the gentleman from Florida 
yield for this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. NUGENT. I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.

                          ____________________