[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8835-8840]
[From the U.S. 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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent) has 
21\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) has 
16 minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
time to address the subject of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this House is considering a combined rule. It is a rule 
that addresses the NDAA and it is a rule that addresses the USA FREEDOM 
Act wrapped up together.
  Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate the point that we are addressing a 
combined rule between the National Defense Authorization Act and the 
USA FREEDOM Act.
  The first component that I would like to address with the time that I 
have is an expression of appreciation to the Rules Committee for going 
through all the amendments of the NDAA, taking a look at that and 
coming down with a rule that recognizes that the jurisdiction of the 
Judiciary Committee is immigration policy, not Armed Services.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Speaker, I commend the Rules Committee for the decision that they 
made on the NDAA. Even though there were dozens and dozens, actually 
scores of amendments to consider last year, there was an amendment that 
addressed the immigration issue that was made in order on the bill. 
That brought about a debate and a discussion here on the floor.
  Instead, that debate took place this time in the Rules Committee and 
the Rules Committee declined to approve essentially amendment number 58 
that dealt with the immigration issue. It is the proper jurisdiction of 
the Judiciary Committee. Additionally, it was bad policy.
  So I rise to thank the Rules Committee for that decision and 
transition into a discussion about the USA FREEDOM Act, which I am 
troubled by; and that is the process of regular order in this Congress, 
and the idea that, as the Congress put together a bill that blocked the 
Federal Government from collecting metadata on telephone bills, there 
was a negotiation that took place over the weekend, a substitute 
amendment was delivered, announced at 12:35 p.m. on a Monday, we took 
up the bill I believe the next day quickly, no amendments were 
accepted, we didn't have an opportunity to have a serious discussion 
about the national defense, national security implications of a bill 
that addressed the civil liberties.
  I support the underlying bill, I support the effort to protect the 
civil liberties of the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the 
gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman.
  The amendment that I offered, even though it was voted on, the debate 
really didn't consider this proposal that the head of an element of the 
intelligence community may enter into an agreement to compensate for 
retaining call detail records for a period of time.
  What the underlying bill does in section 215 is it limits the amount 
of time that we can get a FISA warrant to do a query of existing 
records in the private hands of the telecommunications companies to the 
18 months that is required by the FCC. We need to have the opportunity 
for this Commander in Chief, the intelligence community, or a 
subsequent Commander in Chief to be able to expand that period of time 
while still protecting that data within the possession of the private 
sector companies, which we have confidence in.
  That is an issue that I would like to see before this Congress. It is 
not going to be voted on in this bill. I am troubled by the national 
security implications of it, which brings me to the floor. I will 
support this rule. I do thank the Rules Committee. But I wanted to make 
that point that when national security issues come up, somebody has got 
to put the marker down.
  I urge all to consider the point I have made here today.
  Mr. POLIS. Once again, Mr. Speaker, this rule does not even allow a 
discussion of the war that we are currently engaged in in Afghanistan. 
How can we have a discussion about our national defense when being 
prohibited from any amendments relating to the war in Afghanistan?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this rule.
  First, the underlying National Defense Authorization Act continues 
wasteful spending at the Pentagon and won't allow, as Congressman Polis 
said, a full debate on the longest war in American history.
  This bill continues the overseas contingency operations slush fund, 
and it is a slush fund at a time when the administration still hasn't 
decided on how much the Afghanistan war is going to cost or how many 
troops will be there.
  Yet the Republican leadership of this House has failed to allow the 
American people to have a say in the future of America's longest war, 
while maybe, quite frankly, some of these amendments probably would 
pass.
  Finally, we would be reflecting the views of the majority of the 
American people.

[[Page 8836]]

  For many years, we have known that there is simply no military 
solution in Afghanistan, and our constituents are sick and tired of 
war. This bill simply ignores 82 percent of the Americans who oppose 
the war and 74 percent favoring all U.S. troops out by 2014.
  I want to just read the authorization that we are talking about 
today. The Authorization for Use of Military Force was passed 
sorrowfully. Let me tell you, after the horrific events of 9/11--some 
were not here during that period--it was passed September 14, and we 
had probably about maybe 1 hour of debate, maybe 1 hour of debate.
  That resolution said--which is what we are talking about today, which 
is what we are insisting on a debate on--it said:

       That the President is authorized to use all necessary and 
     appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or 
     persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or 
     aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 
     2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to 
     prevent any future acts of international terrorism against 
     the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. LEE of California. We are 13 years into this war without end.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I authored H.R. 4608. I had an amendment to come 
here on this bill that would really get us back to the drawing board so 
that we could have this full debate to determine whether or not this 
resolution, the one of 9/14/2001, should still hold. Minimally, we 
should have a full debate on this.
  I am really pleased though to see that the administration finally 
agreed to release a secret drones memo. That is a good thing. That is 
happening I think today. But we need to have a debate on this 
resolution, and we need to have it today.
  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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  The underlying defense authorization bill is a good bill. This is a 
good rule with maybe one caveat that there are too many amendments that 
are in here.
  Henry Clay, as the first Speaker of the House who went from the 
Senate over here and was elected Speaker on the first day and served as 
Speaker every day he served in the House, he is given credit for 
starting the standing committee process where people with expertise 
discuss all these issues before they actually come to the floor. Some 
of these amendments we have had have not gone through that process and 
will be given 10 minutes of debate time on the floor, which is rather 
small when you compare it to the process of each subcommittee on the 
Armed Services Committee: having established their bill, going to the 
full committee, with a full day of debate on the bill before it comes 
here.
  There is, for example, one amendment that is made in order, has a 
great sponsor, a wonderful Member of this body, but it has untold side 
consequences that probably need that experience of being explored. Let 
me give you a simple example. It starts with the words 
``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' That should be 
something that scares someone. It means this bill, except for section 
B, which it exempts, takes precedence over everything else that already 
exists in law, and not only for the military issue, but also in every 
element of Federal Government.
  I am only going to talk about the military side because that is the 
only expertise I actually have. The one part that is not exempt deals 
with the concept known as ``inherent governmental functions.'' 
Unfortunately, the reference this makes is to title 31. Most of the 
military stuff, especially dealing with our depots, is in title X. 
There is a reason those are in different titles--because they have a 
different substance and a different purpose.
  At the end of this reference, there is also the provision put in 
there--actually, it is in the first of this reference--that what is an 
inherent governmental function can be changed by any official of OMB, 
the Office of Management and Budget, which simply means, I assume, that 
is one of the reasons the Defense Department is opposed to this 
particular amendment, because it removes decisions from the Defense 
Department over to the President through OMB. That is not the way we 
wish to go.
  When it deals with programs, weapons, and systems that we have, there 
is an acquisition side and a sustainment side. On the acquisition side, 
often competition is extremely important to driving down cost. When it 
comes to sustainment, the maintenance of those provisions, sometimes 
that saving has a detrimental effect that is an unintended consequence 
because the maintenance is directly tied to the readiness issue, which 
is why we define in title X what is a core workload, which would be 
overturned by the very first phrase in this particular piece of 
legislation, this particular amendment.
  Core workload by law has to be brought into the depots for work once 
every 4 years, or at least at one time in the initial 4 years of 
operating capability. Prior to that time, maintenance is usually done 
by the contractor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. But after that, it goes into what is known as an 
endangered mission readiness that is determined by the military, and 
should be determined by the military.
  What it simply means is we have military depots for a military 
reason. There is a direct extension, or these depots are a direct 
extension, of the soldier on the field. Civilian workers at these 
depots cannot go on strike, they cannot undertake a work stoppage. 
Sometimes, especially in times of war, Federal civilian employees have 
been ordered to work around-the-clock or do other kinds of dangers.
  All of these things which have been worked out traditionally in title 
X are overturned by the first phrase in this amendment: A wonderful 
amendment in its purpose and goal, has a wonderful sponsor, but it has 
unintended consequences. As we go through this bill, as we go through 
these amendments, we should consider what those unintended consequences 
may or may not be. It is one of the reasons why the Committee process 
was so wisely established by Henry Clay back in the 1800s and should be 
respected today.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the rather elucidating 
discussion on the way in which the committee system is supposed to 
work.
  Unfortunately, in the Armed Services Committee, the most expensive 
single project was never allowed to be discussed, and that is the war 
in Afghanistan--$79 billion in the NDAA for Afghanistan and not 1 
second of discussion about the role of America in Afghanistan and about 
the ongoing war.
  The committee structure did not work. Therefore it is to this floor, 
it is to the membership of this House to take up this critical issue of 
what is the role of America in Afghanistan. Are we to continue this war 
or not? If we are to continue it, how are we going to do that? That is 
our business. That is the business that we were elected to do, and we 
have been prevented by the actions of the majority in the committee and 
on this floor to even deal with this issue, to even discuss it for one 
moment, except in this issue of how the rule is to be written.
  This is not right, it is not fair to those of us who want to have a 
legitimate debate on the role of America in Afghanistan, and it is not 
in the interest of this country that this House forsake and forgo its 
responsibilities.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague for yielding.
  I rise in support of the rule, as well as the underlying bill, the 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  One of the provisions in there is the addition of a defense audit 
advisory

[[Page 8837]]

panel. It comes as no shock to anyone in this room that the Department 
of Defense is unauditable, or their financial statements are 
unauditable. There are Herculean efforts going on across the river at 
the Pentagon and throughout the entire system to try to correct this 
issue. There are millions and millions of dollars being spent to try to 
make this happen and try to get to a point, in fact, where they can.
  The current law requires that the Defense Department be auditable by 
the end of 2017 and that the fiscal 2018 books and records be audited 
and a report provided to Congress by 2018. There will be important 
decisions going on throughout that timeframe. We need a canary in the 
coal mine. We need an early warning system in this House that tracks 
that process, and this panel will do that. I was pleased that it was 
included in the underlying bill. It is important that Congress watch 
this process throughout.
  The Department of Defense gives us a report every 6 months, but we 
need better insight, we need a line of sight into what is going on on a 
much more relevant basis quicker so that we don't wait until the end of 
2017 and suddenly discover that the Department is not achieving that 
goal, or we don't get to the end of 2018 and can't, in fact, audit the 
books and records of the Department of Defense.
  This is a stunningly difficult problem to fix. For decades, the 
Department of Defense has had an accounting system that was set up to 
meet its needs and the needs of providing the mission support. It was 
not set up to be audited. Consequently, in order to be able to audit 
something, they have got to go back and rebuild all these legacy 
systems that are out there. This is hard work and a lot of it.
  The Department of Defense, as my colleague earlier said, this is one 
of the largest enterprises on the face of Earth. It is not easy, and it 
takes good hardworking people to get it done, and that is what has been 
going on.

                              {time}  1530

  Our Congress, though, needs to have the insight into that process to 
make sure that they get it right. This effort doesn't fall, really, 
within the structure of the committee or of the subcommittees, 
naturally, so this defense audit panel will correct that oversight, and 
it will allow us to see the progress in as real time a basis as we can 
get.
  If we do need to take corrective actions and if we do need to do 
something to make that happen, then this will give us a quicker insight 
into that.
  For this reason and for a whole lot of others, I support the 
underlying bill, and I support this rule. I urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of this rule and, when it comes time for the bill itself, to 
vote ``yes'' on the National Defense Authorization Act, which would be 
the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that this House reject this 
rule because it is impossible to have a discussion about meeting our 
national security needs and defense without this body's being able to 
issue any guidance or to even debate the ongoing war in which this 
Nation is engaged in Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for two 
amendments I am submitting to the National Defense Authorization Act.
  The first I am offering would require the Secretary of Defense to 
report to Congress no later than 30 days after the enactment of this 
law on the barriers to implementing audit reporting requirements and 
recommendations in order to ensure reporting deadlines are met. This 
would ensure that taxpayer money is being well spent.
  The second, offered by me and Mr. Cook, would create a pilot program 
to take the California National Guard's Work for Warriors job placement 
program nationwide.
  Since the State of California created the program in 2012, more than 
2,500 Guard members have been placed in jobs and at only $500 per 
placement, far cheaper than any other employment programs, which can 
cost as much as $10,000 per placement.
  Placing 2,500 California guardsmen in jobs is a great start, but I 
know that that number can multiply many times over if the Work for 
Warriors program is expanded nationwide.
  I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute and 15 seconds 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there are few greater threats to the 
security of American families than those which could arise from the 
failure of the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.
  Parts of this bill seek to disrupt the administration's tough, 
persistent diplomacy. Some would even assign to Israel the job of 
starting what could become World War III. Even the Bush-Cheney 
administration rejected that approach.
  Iranian Revolutionary Guard hard-liners may ultimately doom these 
negotiations. Our responsibility is to ensure that hard-liners here 
don't do the obstruction for them.
  Our arsenal of democracy includes more than bombs. It includes tough 
negotiations and strong sanctions to reach a carefully monitored, 
verifiable agreement that will protect our families and our allies.
  Given the high cost of failure, we certainly cannot afford to 
surrender to defeatists, who capitulate on the negotiations before they 
are even completed. It is too soon to wave the white flag and give up 
in favor of war.
  The obstinate objections raised last year to the interim agreement 
were proven to be unjustified. The International Atomic Energy Agency 
has determined that Iran has taken verifiable actions to halt the 
progress of its nuclear program.
  Let's give peace a chance.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield a minute and 15 seconds 
to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you so very much.
  Mr. Speaker, let me indicate that there are many reasons to be 
concerned about the rule. I am certainly concerned that we are not able 
to debate a very important issue dealing with Afghanistan.
  Having spent almost a decade-plus in dealing with provision 215 under 
the PATRIOT Act and in helping to construct the Uniting and 
Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, 
Dragnet-collection, and Online Monitoring Act, it is imperative that we 
move the USA FREEDOM Act forward.
  For example, I introduced H.R. 2440, the FISA Court in the Sunshine 
Act of 2013. Specifically, my bill would require the Attorney General 
to expose the FISA Court, allowing Americans to know the broad, illegal 
authority it had, even having an advocate for the American people in 
sections 402 and 604. This is in the bill.
  In addition, I strongly support this act because section 301 of the 
bill continues the prohibition against reverse targeting, which is an 
amendment that I had in the RESTORE Act; then, of course, it goes 
forward with ensuring that this megadata--this bulk collection--does 
not occur.
  I am grateful that the Jackson Lee-Wilson-Lee amendment that deals 
with Boko Haram is in this national defense bill because we have to 
stop the tragedy that is going on, but more importantly, the 
devastation of Boko Haram.
  Finally, I would have wanted the amendment that deals with the 
contracting out of our intelligence services. I believe it is too 
extensive. I believe that my amendment would have been effective in 
determining how much we use outside contractors. This is a rule that 
is, unfortunately, without a lot of point to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 590, the rule 
governing debate on H.R. 3361, the ``USA Freedom Act,'' and amendment 
to H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015.
  Regarding H.R. 3361, I support the rule and am a co-sponsor of the 
underlying bill, the

[[Page 8838]]

USA Freedom Act, which stands for ``Uniting and Strengthening America 
by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection, and 
Online Monitoring Act.''
  The USA Freedom Act is the House's unified response to the 
unauthorized disclosures and subsequent publication in the media in 
June 2013 regarding the National Security Agency's collection from 
Verizon of the phone records of all of its American customers, which 
was authorized by the FISA Court pursuant to Section 215 of the Patriot 
Act.
  Public reaction to the news of this massive and secret data gathering 
operation was swift and negative.
  There was justifiable concern on the part of the public and a large 
percentage of the Members of this body that the extent and scale of 
this NSA data collection operation, which exceeded by orders of 
magnitude anything previously authorized or contemplated, may 
constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy and threat to the civil 
liberties of American citizens.
  In response, many Members of Congress, including the Ranking Member 
Conyers, and Mr. Sensenbrenner, and myself, introduced legislation in 
response to the disclosures to ensure that the law and the practices of 
the executive branch reflect the intent of Congress in passing the USA 
Patriot Act and subsequent amendments.
  For example, I introduced H.R. 2440, the ``FISA Court in the Sunshine 
Act of 2013,'' bipartisan legislation, that much needed transparency 
without compromising national security to the decisions, orders, and 
opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or ``FISA 
Court.''
  Specifically, my bill would require the Attorney General to disclose 
each decision, order, or opinion of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Court (FISC), allowing Americans to know how broad of a legal authority 
the government is claiming under the PATRIOT Act and Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act to conduct the surveillance needed to 
keep Americans safe.
  I am pleased that these requirements are incorporated in substantial 
part as Sections 402 and 604 of the USA Freedom Act, which requires the 
Attorney General to conduct a declassification review of each decision, 
order, or opinion of the FISA court that includes a significant 
construction or interpretation of law and to submit a report to 
Congress within 45 days.
  Significantly, the USA Freedom Act contains an explicit prohibition 
on bulk collection of tangible things pursuant to Section 215 
authority. Instead, the USA Freedom Act provides that Section 215 may 
only be used where a specific selection term is provided as the basis 
for the production of tangible things.
  Finally, I strongly support the USA Freedom Act because Section 301 
of the bill continues the prohibition against ``reverse targeting,'' 
which became law when an earlier Jackson Lee Amendment was included in 
H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act of 2007.
  ``Reverse targeting'' is the practice where the government targets 
foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect 
information on certain U.S. persons.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment, codified in Section 301 of the USA Freedom 
Act, reduces even further any such temptation to resort to reverse 
targeting by requiring the Administration to obtain a regular, 
individualized FISA warrant whenever the ``real'' target of the 
surveillance is a person in the United States.
  I support the USA Freedom Act because it will help keep us true to 
the Bill of Rights and strikes the proper balance between liberty and 
security.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying USA 
Freedom Act.
  Finally, I am pleased that the rule also makes in order the Jackson 
Lee-Wilson-Lee Amendment to H.R. 4435, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for FY2015.
  This amendment makes three important contributions to the bill:
  1. First, it strongly condemns the ongoing violence and the 
systematic gross human rights violations against the people of Nigeria 
carried out by the militant organization Boko Haram, especially the 
kidnapping of the more than 200 young schoolgirls kidnapped from the 
Chibok School by Boko Haram;
  2. Second, it expresses support for the people of Nigeria who wish to 
live in a peaceful, economically prosperous, and democratic Nigeria; 
and
  3. Third, it requires that not later than 90 days after the date of 
the enactment, the Secretary of Defense shall report to Congress on the 
nature and extent of the crimes against humanity committed by Boko 
Haram in Nigeria.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my serious concern about 
the USA FREEDOM Act.
  First, it is important for all of the Members to know that what is 
being considered is not the bill that was marked up by the House 
Judiciary Committee. After it was reported out unanimously by the House 
Judiciary Committee, certain key elements of this bill were changed.
  I think it is ironic that a bill that was intended to increase 
transparency was secretly changed between the committee markup and its 
floor consideration, and it was altered in worrisome ways.
  The definition of ``selector,'' rather than being narrowed, has been 
defined in such a way that it would allow for the large-scale 
acquisition of data. This is a concern that has been expressed to me by 
both Republicans and Democrats.
  The way the definition is lodged, you could get first the southern 
half of the United States, then the eastern half of the United States, 
then Missouri. Those could be the selectors.
  I offered nine amendments. None were put in order. We should insist 
that we do better than this.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, as Ms. Lofgren said, the bill under 
consideration is not the bill that passed committee. It is a different 
bill that was changed 24 hours ago in secret, behind closed doors.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. 
Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight my amendment, which will be 
considered later today, to improve TRICARE for our military moms and 
their families.
  Doctors are now recommending that new moms exclusively breastfeed 
their babies, but we know that, despite their intentions, far too many 
women who want to breastfeed these infants find the cost of lactation 
supplies and support to be a barrier to that choice. While most women 
covered by private health insurance have access to these services, 
women with TRICARE do not.
  That is why I introduced the TRICARE Moms Improvement Act, which will 
be on the floor today as an amendment. My amendment would end this 
discrepancy--this disparity--and would create a parity of access to 
health care for servicemembers, along with private civilians.
  I urge my colleagues to join the many medical groups, women's 
organizations, and military family associations which support this 
effort.
  Please vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
rule.
  This legislation would authorize over $520 billion to the Department 
of Defense, not including over $79 billion in war funding, which I 
oppose; yet, for such a large bill, there are many amendments that my 
colleagues wanted to offer that will never see the House floor because 
of this very limited rule.
  One issue that, I think, deserves discussion is the inclusion of an 
$800 million authorization for an unbudgeted 12th LPD-17 class ship. 
While we are still addressing the effects of the sequester, which I 
voted against, I have concerns about this provision.
  In particular, I am concerned that the committee does not address the 
fact that there is a Navy shipbuilding agreement in place regarding the 
DDG-51s and the LPDs.
  This agreement requires that the Navy obligate funding and support 
for another DDG-51 destroyer if another LPD is awarded. Under a 
different rule, we may have been able to have had an open discussion 
about this issue and about so many others.

[[Page 8839]]

  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  Here are the facts, Members: We have a crisis in the military when it 
comes to sexual assault cases. We have a 50 percent increase in the 
number of persons filing claims for sexual assault in the military as a 
result of the most recent study.
  Here are the facts, Members: There are more than 200 Members in this 
House right now who support taking sexual assault cases out of the 
chain of command, and yet we do not have the ability to have a vote on 
the floor of this House on whether or not Members of this House support 
taking sexual assault cases out of the chain of command and putting 
them in the hands of a chief prosecutor, who has legal training.
  Members, the elephant is in this room. It is time for us to have the 
guts to stand up and be counted on whether or not we want all members 
of the military to be safe or only those who do not file claims for 
sexual assault.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Enyart).
  Mr. ENYART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in 
support of Representative Speier's amendment.
  I am unique in this Chamber. I have served as a military prosecutor, 
a military defense attorney, a staff judge advocate; and, indeed, 
before coming to Congress, I served as a commanding general. I 
understand the impact of sexual violence in the military.
  Justice needs to be properly served to victims of sexual assault and 
to all members of our military. Decades ago, military defense attorneys 
were taken out of the chain of command. We must do the same with the 
prosecution. It is the only way that justice can be properly served, 
without influence, perceived or real.
  My fellow colleagues, I urge you to join us in ending the appearance 
of undo influence in military prosecutions.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time I 
have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 3\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if 
he has any additional speakers.
  Mr. NUGENT. I do not.
  Mr. POLIS. I thought, perhaps, they had been holding their tongues 
all along, wanting to speak after ours. Very well then. I am prepared 
to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I am grateful that this rule does include several of the amendments 
that I have had the opportunity to work on.
  One is a bipartisan amendment with my colleagues Mr. Perlmutter and 
Mr. Whitfield, with regard to Rocky Flats in my district, which will 
help increase transparency to ensure that cold war nuclear workers will 
have their benefit applications reviewed expeditiously.
  There are many survivors in my district who have been exposed to 
radiation and who are suffering from severe health effects. If they had 
been on the military side, they would have been taken care of. They are 
on the civilian side, but have put their lives in harm's way, and they 
deserve to be taken care of for their service to our country.
  I am also pleased with my amendment with Mr. Blumenauer, which would 
defund the midlife nuclear refueling and overhaul of the George 
Washington aircraft carrier, which would save $5 billion. The 
administration released a statement of administrative policy, 
expressing concern about this unneeded reoverhaul of an aircraft 
carrier that we do not need as we shrink our carrier fleet permanently 
to 10 vessels.
  Finally, I am pleased with my amendment with Representative Nadler, 
which is to encourage the Department of Defense to ensure that our 
ground-based missile defense systems actually work and that there are 
operational, realistic tests before additional purchases are made of 
systems that do not keep Americans safe.
  This will also be permitted on the floor of the House today.

                              {time}  1545

  However, 131 ideas--good, bad, and other--from my colleagues on both 
side of the aisle are not even allowed to be debated or voted on under 
this bill.
  The single biggest issue, the pressing national issue of the ongoing 
war in which this Nation is engaged is not even able to have 10 minutes 
or 1 minute of floor debate, as it has that very same issue, the 
ongoing presence in Afghanistan. And I have my opinions; my colleague, 
Mr. McGovern, has his; and folks on the other side and both sides of 
the aisle have theirs.
  This is not a partisan issue. It is simply one that we as 
representatives of the American people deserve to be able to be their 
voice on: How long and in what capacity should we continue to send 
American men and women to Afghanistan?
  The only way that we can ensure that this body is allowed to have 
their voice--Democrats, Republicans, people who want us to stay there, 
people who don't--is to bring down this rule and to bring forward a 
rule that allows a debate of the single most significant pressing 
national policy issue.
  In addition, there are a number of amendments around military 
preparedness and making sure our military has the very best and 
brightest aspiring Americans to draw from to keep our country safe that 
is not even allowed to be discussed under the rules of the bill.
  And finally, the USA FREEDOM Act, which is no longer the USA FREEDOM 
Act but a bill that has a loophole as wide as the Grand Canyon that was 
not in the original USA FREEDOM Act, passed on a bipartisan basis on a 
voice vote out of committee, and yet 20 amendments--again, good, bad, 
indifferent, some of which would have addressed the flaws--not even 
allowed 10 minutes, not allowed 1 minute, not allowed 30 seconds, not 
allowed 10 seconds, not allowed a vote.
  Why are we scared of letting the Members of this body, Republican and 
Democrat, have a voice in addressing the very legitimate privacy 
concerns about the NSA?
  If people think this bill will somehow address the concerns and they 
are gone, they are wrong.
  I plan on voting against this stripped version, which is no longer 
the USA FREEDOM Act, to show that it no longer even comes remotely 
close to addressing the concerns that my constituents have about the 
NSA overreach with regard to their privacy.
  We need to reject this rule to ensure that this body, representatives 
of the American people, Republican and Democratic, can bring forward 
the issues that pertain to national defense and our privacy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  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.

[[Page 8840]]

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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________