tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 21, 2014 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
against the rule, there's much in this bill i will vote for but as the gentleman from massachusetts says,s that bipartisan, bipartisan 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'm not trying to single myself out. but i feel the pain of my mistake 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's 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 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, and yet we in congress continue to advocate our constitutional responsibility to these young men and young women, and 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 advisor for the last five 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, 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 will yield my time back to the gentleman from massachusetts and thank him. mr. mcgovern: i reserve my time, mr. speaker.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of the 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 consider h.res. 590. while it waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any point of order. the congressional budget office bills, ed while 200 would impose intergovernmental and private sector mandates und in the unfunded reform mandate, it would fall below the threshold. the gentleman was using a point of order to debate a very important issue that he cares passionately about. i'm glad he's had the opportunity to bring it forward
because we tend to agree on a lot of what he's saying and he knows that. we have talked on numerous occasions. but in order to allow this house to continue in scheduled business of the day, i urge our members to vote yes on the question of consideration of the resolution, and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has 2 1/4 minutes. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. 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 a vote. it's an act of cowardess, quite
frankly. the fact we are debating a defense department authorization bill, we're at war and we are not -- and we're not allowed to be able to consider an amendment about what our policies should be in afghanistan. i mean, what do you tell the troops? what do you tell their families? this war's on autopilot and we'll 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 responsibility and we're not living up to it. and there's 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're not going to have a debate, we're not going to have a vote. maybe they're afraid they're going to lose. i heard last night they don't want to embarrass the president. really? select committee 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. bottom line, this is an important issue. how dare we come to the floor on a defense bill and be silent and indifferent when it comes to afghanistan. i'm ashamed of this process. there's 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're at war war and no one in this place seems to talk about it. well, it's our responsibility just as much as it is the president's responsibility. to do nothing means we're complicit in continuing this war. i've 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. you know, we've played by the rules, we did everything right
and we got nothing, nothing on this issue. mr. speaker, with that i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. 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're not going to have the opportunity to do it this time. but i ask my colleagues to vote yes on consideration of this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. the question is will the house now consider the resolution. hose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: i make a point of order against consideration of the rule, house resolution 590.
clause 9-c of rule 21 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 21. 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 and rule 21, that the 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 21. under clause 9-c of rule 21, the gentleman from massachusetts, and a member opposed, each will control 10 minutes of debate on question of consideration. the chair will put the consideration as follows -- will the house now consider the resolution? the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. what i found interesting about the exchange that we had -- we have just had is nobody can
explain to me why we cannot have a vote on the amendment, 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's 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 v.a. estimates that approximately 22 veterans will die by suicide every day. at least 30% of veterans have contemplated suicide. mr. speaker, the american people deserve a say in the future of america's longest
war. we all know 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 that 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, you know, and just being ok with whatever happens. i mean, all we're asking for is that if we're going to stay beyond 2014, the president has to tell us what his plan is. that's not radical. it's not, you know, that's not out there. he tells us what his plan is and we need to vote on it. that's 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's an insult to the american taxpayer we're letting the most corrupt government in the world -- that's how the karzai has been rated, the most corrupt government in the world to steal from our country. we cut food stamps from poor people. we don't have enough money to take care of our veterans in the v.a. facility. we're cutting back money for roads and bridges. we can't extend unemployment compensation for those who lost heir jobs and we hand over money. we authorized in f.y. 2013 spending $87.2 billion for afghanistan. we authorized in f.y. 2014
spending $85.2 billion. proposed f.y. 2015, $79 billion. total, $778 billion since 2001. when you add in the cost of the veteran care that will be needed and all the other associated costs, the total cost of the war in afghanistan and iraq are about $4 trillion to $6 trillion. and we're not even paying for most of it. we're borrowing it. it's going on our credit card. my friends wail about the deficit and debt but when it comes to dumping money in this money pit called afghanistan they say nothing. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, will be recognized for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, i thank you, again, and the gentleman from massachusetts. you know, it's kind of amazing many of us on my side are considered conservatives. i hope i'm considered conservative and pat buchanan has written so many articles
about the new war party, the new war party is the republican party. it's the republican party. because of the reason that mr. mcgovern's talking about today. we sit here and we allow all of these other spending issues involving our military, and much of it they deserve. pay increases, taking care of the 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. and if this amendment allows us to have a debate on whether that young man or young woman should give their life, then we owe it to the families of america. this amendment that mr. mcgovern and myself and ms. lee and mr. smith and mr. garamendi 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 it is that we're asking? a few years ago president obama proposed to the afghan government, karzai, who's a crook, that we will have an agreement that we will stay there 10 more years and we'll sending $2 billion or $3 billion a month just to take care of your needs in afghanistan when we're cutting food programs for children, senior citizens and can't fix the potholes, can't fix the bridges in america and then you will not allow us to have a bate on our responsibility based on the constitution that a young man or young woman who will die for this country or lose a leg and arm or their mind that we can't have a debate. what a pathetic, what a pathetic time for the house of
representatives, and with that, mr. speaker, i will yield back to the gentleman from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. nugent: the question before the house is, should the house now consider h.res. 590. while the resolution waives all points of order against the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. all relevant committees have included earmark statements in their reports filed with the house so there's 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've said this earlier, that a passion -- that he passionately cared about. i'm glad he's had that opportunity. but in order to allow this
house to continue ski squled business for the day, i urge members to vote yes on the consideration of the question and continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes. mr. mcgovern: when speaker boehner became speaker of the house he made a pledge to 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 american people think that this place is dysfunctional,s the reason. that we can't get a vote on an issue as important as the war in afghanistan. there's really no excuse. it is germane. we spent a lot of time working with the parliamentarian to make sure it's germane, to satisfy concerns of the majority. it's we did that. it's bipartisan. it's bipartisan. and the people who are co-sponsoring the amendment,
some of us want to end the war now, some of us believe we need to keep troop there is for a period beyond 2014. i mean, we have jump through the every hoop. hat 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'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a -- an article entitled cnn poll, afghanistan war, arguably the most unpopular in u.s. history. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, ordered. mr. mcgovern: the american people deserve better than what is on display here. i want to appeal not just to democrat fwouse republicans, i want to appeal to the fairness of members in this chamber. i want to appeal to their sense of making sure that we do -- that what we do here is right. and on this issue, on this
issue, we ought to have a vote. the only way to get a vote is if you vet down the rule and we can go back to the rule committees and start this amendment that is totally germane to the department of defense authorization bill. mr. speaker, i'm going to close by simply saying, it is moments like this where i feel great sadness for this institution. you know, again, there's a lot of things in this defense department bill that we're going to debate that really, i think, one would fairly characterize as trivial. and i mentioned some of them earlier. the fact that we're at war and war, we vote on this are being told that we can't have a say on what the future policy is. that's shameful. i'm ashamed of this place. for running such a closed system. on the war. this is the defense bill. we're not talking about the education bill. we're not talking about the small business bill. this is the department of
defense authorization bill. this is where we should have the debate. it'sier main and it should be made in order. i'll just finish, mr. speaker, by saying that, you know, approaching memorial day, we're all going to go home and give great speeches. when people ask, you know, what are you doing for our troops in afghanistan, what are you doing to try to get them home? you'll be able to say, nothing. because that's exactly what we're 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 serving -- serving, what an insult to their famlirks what an insult to the american people. but you're in charge, you can do whatever you want, but i urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to reject this rulism yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, so much has been said. as i said earlier, i agree with a lot of what has been said.
i'm disappointed, i'll be i've had sons that have been sent off to war for this nation. two of them. in iraq at the same time, one in afghanistan. they didn't ask to -- they didn't have to go. they went because members here, long before i got here, the majority of them voted for it. now you can have disagreements about whether or not we should have been involved in iraq. i have some serious reservations. or about what our continued involvement in afghanistan should be. i actually voted for an amendment that mr. mcgovern put up last year in regards to getting out of afghanistan. listen, what i say is not hollow words. i've had blood and flesh of my own in those countries. i agree there is nothing we can
do to change where afghanistan is going to go in the future. you can't change history. and it's been brought up here. but i will tell you that, if wow don't -- if you don't vote for the rule, the underlying rule, we don't have the opportunity to support our troops. we don't have an opportunity to override what the president is doing in regards to cutting the cola for our troops, adding additional cost to our troops that they have to play out of -- pay out of their own pocket system of you want to make a statement, let's not forget about what the ndaa is all about. it's about supporting our troops, giving our war fighters the equipment and the training and the compensation that they and their families richly deserve for what that 1% gives to this nation. the freedom to stand down here and have a difference of opinion.
mr. speaker, in order to allow this house to continue 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: the gentleman yields back his time. all time for debate has expired. the question is will the house reconsider the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the -- for what purpose does the entleman from florida -- mr. nugent: for purposes of debate only i yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one hour, he yields 30 minutes to the minority. mr. nugent: during
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask for unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, house resolution 590 provides the house consideration of two separate pieces of legislation. the first of these bills, h.r. 3361, u.s.a. freedom act which will be considered for one hour under a closed rule. this legislation will prohibit the bulk collection of all tangible things not just telephone records. it will end the practice that in my sincere belief, in the belief of so many other american that violate 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. secondly, the reason i'm 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 has passed 52 consecutive years and i'm confident that this will be the 53rd consecutive year it passes. mr. speaker, this is a very -- this is the very definition of bipartisan effort. this year's ndaa was reported out of the house armed services with unanimous support, 61- 0. for all the infighting that exists in congress, it's nice to know that we can unite around a common cause of supporting our troops and fulfilling our constitutional responsibility for defense of this homeland. part of the reason this legislation receives so much support is that so many members have input into the process from the committee to the floor. the committee alone, this bill was amended 155 times in committee. the rule will allow for
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. as a member of the house armed services committee, i didn't get everything i wanted in this legislation. i'm extremely proud of the work we've done and the product we've put forward. one thing i'd like to highlight in this bill is the 1.8% pay raise for our troops. it's definitely more modest than i hoped but it's still a good step. i think we all know our brave men and women have earned it. we've also rejected for four years in a row now the president's proposed benefit cuts to our war fighters and their families. the president's fiscal year f.y. 2012 budget request, he proposed cuts to tricare.
in the ndaa that year, the committee fully restored those cuts. in the president's f.y. 2013 budget proposal he, proposed compensation cuts once again. once again our ndaa restored much of the funding and required the president to find other sources for those remaining funds. fiscal year 2014 was no different. this president proposed tricare cuts and actually reduced the military's pay raise from 1.8% to 1%. congress again rejected those tricare cuts and worked to restore the program with other resources. mr. speaker, i'm disappointed to say that the president's proposed cut this is year were the most sweeping to date. those cuts would have included tricare, housing alounses, and commissary benefits. cuts add costly out of pocket expenses to those military families, those 1% that protect our freedoms.
and he was willing to cut that. our war fighters deserve better. 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's our opinion that pace realignment and closure, brac is an ineffect i have way to produce true savings. instead it adds large up front costs and this year's ndaa we prohibit another round of brac. we've also expanded, and this is so important to all office, expanded sexual assault prevention by reviewing the who arge for those separate from the military. we want to be sure no service member is prosecuted for reporting a crime. we want to make sure we hold
those responsible for the crime to the highest level we can. finally the underlike bill ensures the preservation of the national guard. in every state and territory in this union, guardsmen are exceptionally well trained and must retain equipment to respond to disasters in their states. these brave men and women are critical to the operational reserve of this country. ready to deploy in 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, efficient dollars spent and that is why it's also frustrating to see proposals that could dramatically cut their budget. the ndaa recognizes the importance of the national guard and 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 plans of my time. -- the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman from florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: 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're not even allow to have had a vote or debate on the war that this country happens to be engaged in at this given time? it's a pretense for a discussion that while still important is omitting the single largest public policy issue that our skits are interested in, 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 under this rule. not even allowed a minute of discussion on the floor, no less a vote. what would it take to allow discussion of those issues while 131 amendments and customaryly, even if we gave each one 10 minutes? that's just two or three 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 two or three days all the issues that members on both sides of the aisle have brought forward relating to defense? including first and foremost, the most obvious issue of the war we're currently engaged in and the demands from our constituents that however -- whatever side prevails in that vote, and in the past i joined my colleague, 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 interest. the process under which these bills 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're prohibitive 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 u.s.a. 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 were
blocked -- are blocked under this rule. so we block 131 amendments from members on both sides of the aisle from debate, from a vote, and we block 20 amendments from members on both sides of the aisle with regard to the u.s.a. 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 we have the very best and most capable aspiring american 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 have to expect 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 no other country -- and know other allegiance to the country to get their legal status through military service. the majority also blocked an amendment by mr. castro that would have allowed aspiring americans who are doca qualified to become eligible r being trained at service academies. i served on the board of governors, along with my colleague, mr. lamborn from colorado, the air force academy in colorado springs. members from across the country undergo, likely in our office, to 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 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. nd those are an example of the
131 amendments to this bill that are blocked from discussion or votes under this restricted rule. in addition, this rule makes in order h.r. 3361, the u.s.a. freedom act. now, this bill was supposed to rein in the n.s.a.'s illegal and far-reaching wiretapping programs. now, i never in my time here supported the patriot act, but 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's desirable for congress to assert itself on behalf of the american people to rein in some of the excesses. i'm dismayed that the final text of the floor was not only weakened in the committee process but weakened just 24 hours ago behind closed doors with less than just about 24 hours for this body to even members of this body to even read the new version of the weakened u.s.a. freedom act.
mr. speaker, last year's revelations that the n.s.a. 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's created conflicts with our allies abroad, threatening jobs in our country by sullying the reputation of american countries and the n.s.a.'s -- ction of metadata is a can't continue. now, while i'm pleased that the chamber is taking up legislation that's aimed at reining in the n.s.a.'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'm very disappointed that it doesn't require the government to fully meet this standard, nor does it resolve this issue in any way, shape or form for the american
people. the u.s.a. freedom act curtails the n.s.a.'s ability to monitoring conversation 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 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 n.s.a. could misuse the bill. now, again, a secret agency that we've acknowledged has had oversight problems in the past, having overly broad discretion that chef' shown and demonstrated that they've been unable to provide the proper
oversight for. 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 i.p. 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. this new definition is provided -- provided in this underlying bill had another loophole 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 minimumization for the c.d.r. program and the fisa pen statute. 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, 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 poe ponets of this changes hesitant to bring these changes in committee? program. but let it not be said without reputation that these bills passed committee by voice vote unanimously. the bill has changed significantly since it passed committee. and again, while i'm encouraged that this congress is finally taking up a bill to design with the intent of reining in the excesses of the n.s.a., this process is flawed. 20 amendment were offered, none are allowed under this rule. if we can defeat this rule, members from both side of the aisles will be able to improve -- sides of the aisle will be able to improve the u.s.a. freedom act and congress can engage in their proper
oversight role with regard to this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, who i serve with on the armed services committee, but he also serves on the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. forbes: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. if you listened 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 towards 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 vacuum of data by the n.s.a. finally, the bill creates more transparency and provides more information to the american people. companies will now be able to publicly report on the request 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 the congress within 45 days a copy of each fisa court decision, order or opinion that includes the significant construction or
interpretation of fisa. the federal government has a 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 heard talk about the ndaa bill and amendments that weren't allowed. what you did not hear is that from 10:00 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 until we finally passed on a bipartisan bill the ndaa bill. and mr. speaker, i'll tell you that's a good bill that strengthens and supports our men and women in uniform. i hope my colleagues will support the rule and support
the underlying bills and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back his time. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield five minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, my distinguished colleague on the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman for yielding. 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 ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment be printed in the record following my remarks. toird. -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: ours is a very straightforward amendment. we worked hard to make it straightforward and germane it would complete the transition of u.s. combat, security operations to afghan authorities by the end of this year. it would require 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. and under this rule, congress is denied the opportunity to vote on whether they approve the president's plan or not. now, 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's 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 they deserve a vote. i know that 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'd 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 service members and spent over $700 billion. what in the world is the republican leadership afraid f, mr. speaker?
last night some of my colleagues told me they were refusing to make the amendment in order because they didn't want to upset the president. are you kidding me? since when do 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 of benghazi but we can't take 10 minutes to debate the war in afghanistan? give me a break. beside this is amendment doesn't upset any plans or negotiations the president is currently carrying out in afghanistan. not one. it doesn't interfere with funding for the war and doesn't interrupt the deployment of our troops. i know in their hearts many of my republican colleagues agree with me. ill give you one more chance to do the right thing. i urge you to support the mcgovern-jones-smith-lee amendment on afghanistan. i yield back. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to amend the rule, to include my amendment calling for a vote on keeping troops in fghanistan and that it receive 10 minutes of debate like every other amendment in the rule. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from florida yield for this unanimous consent request? mr. nugent: i do not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman doesn't yield. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcgovern: i make a point of order that a quorum is not present, make a point of order that a quorum is not present and ask for a vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman objects to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present, makes a point of order that a quorum is not
present. a quorum is not present. under the rule the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. s that 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 23 and the nays are 361. the motion is not adopted. he house will be in order. he house will come to order. the gentleman from florida is recognized and has 21 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, has 16 minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida is recognized.
mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. he gentleman will suspend. members, take your conversations off the floor. staff, take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from florida -- excuse me. the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i appreciate the gentleman for recognizing me, and yielding time to address the subject of this rule. mr. speaker, this house is considering a combined rule. it's a rule that addresses the ndaa, and it's a rule that addresses the u.s.a. freedom act wrapped up together. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will come toured.
-- come to order. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: again, thank you, mr. speaker. to reiterate the point that we're addressing a combined rule between the national defense authorization act and the u.s.a. freedom act, and the first component that i'd like to address with the time that i have is an expression of appreciation to the rules committee for going through all the amendments in the ndaa, to taking a look at that and coming down with a rule that recognizes that the jurts diction of the rules committee is immigration policy -- jurisdiction of the rules committee is immigration policy, not armed services. for that reason, for recognition of the point i made before the rules committee last night -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. members, take their conversations off the floor. the house will continue
business when the chamber is in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa, mr. king is recognized. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i commend the rules committee for the decision they made on the ndaa, even though there were a whole -- dozens a dnd dozens, actually scores of amendments to consider, last year there was an amendment that addressed the immigration ssue made in order on the bill
and that debate took place on the floor. place ar the debate took in the committee. i rise to thank the rule committees for that decision and transition into a discussion about the u.s.a. freedom act which i am troubled by. 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 telefwone bills, there was a negotiation that took place over the weekend a substitute amendment was delivered, anounsed at 12:35 p.m. on a monday, we took up the bill the next day, quickly new york 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. but the amendment that i offered, mr. speaker, was an amendment -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend the gentleman's time has expired. >> i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: the amendment i offered, even though it was voted on, the debate didn't really consider this proposal that the head of an el only of the intelligence community may enter into an agreement to compensate for retaining call detail record for a period of time. what this bill, the underlying bill does, section 215, 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 required by the f.c.c. we need to have the opportunity for this command for the chief, the intelligence community, or subsequent commander in chief to be able to expand that period of time while still
protecting that data within the protection of the private sector companies which we have confidence in. that's an issue that i'd like to see before this congress. it's 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 think the -- thank the rules committee but i wanted to make that point that when national security issues come up, somebody has to put the marker downism urge all to consider the point i made here today and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: once again, this rule doesn't even allow a discussion of the war we're 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 one and a half minutes to the yom from texas, ms. jackson lee. i'm sorry. i yield one and a half minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. barbara lee.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. lee: thank you for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to this rule. this act continues wasteful spending at the pentagon and won't allow, as congressman polis says a full debate on the longest war in american history. this bill continues the overseas contingency slush fund and it is a slush fund at a time when the administration still hasn't the sided on how much the afghanistan war is going to cost or how many troops are going to 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. for many years we have known that there is simply no military solution in afghan stand -- afghanistan and our constituents are tired of war
this bill ignores 82% of the americans who oppose the war and 72% favoring all u.s. troops out by 2014. i want to just read the authorization that we're talking about today. the authorization for the 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 14678 we had probably, maybe an hour of debate. maybe one hour of debate. that resolution said, which is what we're talking about today, which is, we are insisting on a debate on, it says that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determined planned, authorized or committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or people -- mr. polis: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized.
ms. lee: we're 3 years into this war without end system of 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 esolution, the one of 9/14 /2001 should still hold. minimally we should have a full debate on this i'm really pleased, though, to see that the administration finally agreed to release the secret drones memo. that's a good thing. that's happening, i think, today. but we need to have a debate on this resolution and we need to have it today. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: thank you, mr. speaker. i have the opportunity to yield three minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, whoif the honor of serving not only on the rules committee with but also armed service. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for from florida. the underlying defense authorization bill is a good bill. s that good rule. with maybe one caveat that there are too many amendments in here. henry clay is the first -- as the first speaker of the house that went from the senate over here, elected as speaker and served as speaker every day he served in the house. he started the standing committee process where people discuss these issues before they come to the floor. some of these amendments 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, full day of debate on the bill before it comes here. there is, for example, one amendment made in order, has a great sponsor, wonderful member of this body but it has untold
consequences that probably need the experience of being explored. let me give you some examples. it starts with the words notwithstanding any other provision of law -- shah should be -- that should be something that scares someone. it mean this is bill, except for section d which it exempts, takes precedence over everything else that exists in law, not only for the military issue but every element of federal government. i'm only going to talk about the military side because that's the only expertise i actually have. the one part that is not exempt that 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 10. there's a reason those are in different titles. they have a different substance, different purpose. at the end of this reference, there is also the provision put in there, actually it's in the first of this reference that what is an inherent governmental function can be
changed by any official of o.m.b., the office of management and budget. which simply means, i assume that's one of the reasons the defense department is opposed to this particular amendment, because it rev removes decisions from the defense department over to the president through o.m.b. that is not the way we wish to go when it deals with -- it deals with programs, weapons and systems that we have, there is an acquisition side and a sustainment side. the acquisition side often competition is extremely important 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 bewe define in title 10 what is a core work load which would beover turned by the very first phrase in this particular piece of legislation. this particular amendment. core work load by law has to be
brought in to the depots for work once every four years or at least one time in the initial four year of operating capability. prior to that time maintenance is usually done by the contractor. after that, it go into what is known -- mr. nugent: and additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: go into raised awareness by the military. we have mill depots for a military reason there is a direct extension or these depots are a direct extension of the soldiers on the field. civilian workers at the depots cannot go on strike, cannot undertake a work stoppage. sometimes in times of war, federal civilian workers have been ordered to work around the clock or other kinds of dangers. all these things which have been worked out in title 10 are overcurn -- overturned by the
first phrase in the amendment. a wonderful amendment in the first phrase, a wornedeful sponsor, but it has unintended consequence and as we duo through this bill and go through these amendments we should consider what those unintended consequences may or may not be it's one of the reasons the committee process was so wisely established by henry clay back in the 1800's and should be respected today. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis:: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the elucidating reminder of the way it's supposed to work. unfortunately, the most expensive single project was never allowed to be discussed, the war in afghanistan. $79 billion in the ndaa for afghanistan and not one second
of discussion about the role of america in afghanistan and about the ongoing war. the committee structure did not work. therefore it's to this floor, 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're 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 is country that this house will foresake and forgo its responsibilities. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. conway. the speaker pro tempore: the -- mr. conaway. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conway: i rise in support of -- mr. conaway: i rise in support of this rule. one of the provisions is a defense audited advisory panel. it comes as no shock that the partment of defense is unauditable. there are herculean efforts going on to try to correct this issue. there are millions being spent to try to make this happen, to get to a point where it can. the current law requires that the defense be auditable by the end of 2017 and the fiscal 2018 books be audited and the report provided to congress by 2019. there will be important decisions going on throughout that time frame.
we need a canary in the coal mine. we need an early warning system in this house that tracks that congress. this panel will do that i was pleased it was included in the underlying bill. it's important that congress watch this congress throughout. the department of defense gives us a fire report every six months. we need a better insight into what's going on on a more relevant basis quicker so 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 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 set up to meet its need and the needs of mission support. it was not set up to be audited. consequently, in order to be able to audit something they have to rebuild the legacy systems that are out there it is hard work and a lot of it. the department of defense this is one of the largest enterprises on the face of the earth. it takes good, hardworking
people to get it done. our congress needs to have the insight into that process to make sure they do it and get it right. this effort doesn't fall really within the structure of the committee, the subcommittees naturally so this defense audit panel will correct that oversight and allow taos see the progress on as realtime a basis as we can get and if we need to take corrective actions and take something to make that happen, this will give us a quicker insight into that. for this reason and a whole lot of others, i'm supporting the underlying bill and i support this rule. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and when it come time for the bill itself to vote yes on the national defense authorization. that would be the buck mckeon national defense authorization act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: it's critical that this house reject this rule because it's impossible to have a discussion about meeting our national security needs and defense without this body being able to issue any guidance or
debate on the ongoing war in which this nation is engaged in afghanistan. mr. speaker, i yield one minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. takano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and 15 seconds. mr. at that can o': i rise in support of two amendments that i am submitting for the national defense authorization act. the first which i'm offering would require the secretary of defense report to congress no later than 30 days after enactment of this law on the various implementing audit reporting requirements, a recommendation to -- to ensure reporting deadlines are met. this would ensure that taxpayer money is being well spent. the second offered by myself 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. only $500 per placement, far
teacher than any other -- than other employment programs that can cost as much as $10,000 per placement. placing 2,500 california guardsmen in jobs is a great start but i know this can multiple many times over if this is supported nationwide. i ask my colleagues to support these amendments and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time and the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute and 15 seconds. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, there are few greater threats to the security of american families than those which could arise from the failure of 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 hardliners may ultimately doom these negotiations. our responsibility is to ensure that hardliners here don't do the obstruction for them. our arsenal of democracy includes more than bombs. it includes tough negotiations a strong sanctions to reach carefully monitored, verifiable agreement that would 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're even completed. it's too soon to wave the white flag and give up in favor of war. the objections raised last years to the interim agreement were proven to be unjustified. the international atomic energy
gency has determined that iran has taken verifiable options to halt the nuclear programs. let's give peace a chance and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield a minute and 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for a minute and 15 seconds. ms. jackson lee: well, thank you so very much. let me indicate there are many reasons to be concerned about the rule. i'm certainly concerned we are not able to debate to the issue dealing with afghanistan. having spent almost a decade-plus dealing with provision 215 under the patriot act and helping to construct the strengthening america by fulfilling rights and ending eavesdropping, online monitoring, it's imperative we move the freedom u.s.a. act forward. for example, i introduced h.r. 2440, the fisa court and sunshine act of 2013.
specifically, my bill would require the attorney general to expose the foreign intelligence -- the fisa court, allowing americans to know how broad illegal authority it had. even having an advocate for the american people. in sections 402 and 604, this in the bill. in addition, i strongly support this act because of section 301 of the bill continuing the prohibition against reverse targeting, an amendment i had in the restore act. and then, of course, it goes forward with ensuring that this megadating, this bulk collection does not occur. i'm grateful that the jackson lee-wilson-lee dealing 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 expensive. i breeb my amendment would have been effective in determining how much we use outside contractors. this is an amendment -- this is a rule that is unfortunately -- the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady will suspend. the gentlelady is not recognized. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield a minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lofgren: thank you. i want to express my concern about the u.s.a. freedom act. first, it's important that members 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's ironic that a bill that was intended to increase transparency was secretly changed between the committee markup and floor consideration, and it was altered in worrisome ways. the definition of selector,
rather than being narrow, has been defined in such a way that it would allow for a large-scale acquisition of data. this is a concern that's been expressed by to me by both republicans and democrats, the way the definition is lodged, you could get first these 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 we do better than this, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. as ms. lofgren said, the bill under consideration is not the bill that passed committee. it was a different bill that was changed 24 hours ago in secret behind closed doors. mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is
recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding, and i rise at this time to highlight my amendment which will be considered later today, to improve tricare for our military moms and their families. you know, doctors are now recommending that new moms exclusively breast-feed their babies, but we know that despite their intentions, far too many women who want to breast-feed these infants find the cost of lactation supplies and support to be a barrier to that choice. and while most women, covered by private insurance and health insurance have access to these services, women with tricare do not. and that's 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 creating parity of access to health care for service members, along with private civilians. i urge my colleagues to join the medical groups, many of
them, women's organizations and military families associations which support this effort. please vote yes on this amendment, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado reserve. to the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from maine, ms. pingree. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine is recognized for one minute. ms. pingree: i rise in opposition to this rule. it would have $79 billion in war funding, which i oppose. and 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 onbudgeted lpd class 17 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-51's and the l.p.d.'s. this agreement requires that the navy obligates funding and support for another ddg-51 destroyer if another l.p.d. is awarded. we may have had an open discussion about this issue and so many others. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. speier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. speier: mr. speaker, thank you. 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% increase in the number of persons filing claims for sexual assault in the military as a result of the most study. here are the facts, members. there are more than 200 members in this house right now that 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 it 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 that do not file claims for sexual assault. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. enyart. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. enyart: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this rule and in support of representative speier's amendment. i'm unique in this chamber. i 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. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida continues to reserve. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire as to how much time remains on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado has 3 3/4 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from florida has 12 minutes. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire of the gentleman from florida if he has additional speakers. perhaps they wanted to speak after ours, very well i'll prepare to close and yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 3 3/4. mr. polis: thank you. i'm grateful that this rule includes several of the amendments that i've had the opportunity to work on. a bipartisan amendment with my colleague, mr. perlmutter and mr. whitfield with regard to rocky platte in my district, 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, suffering from severe health effects. if they were on the military side they would have been taken re of, but they are civilian -- on the civilian side but put their lives in harm's way and deserve to be taken care of for their service to our country. i'm also pleased my amendment with mr. blumenauer which would defund the midlife nuclear 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. and i'm pleased my amendment with representative nadler to encourage the department of defense to ensure our ground-based missile defense systems work and their tasks -- before additional purchases made, a system that does not keep americans safe, will also be permitted on the floor of the house today. however, 131 ideas, good, bad
and the other from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will not be around to be debated or voted on. the single biggest issue of the ongoing war which this nation is engaged is not even able to have 10 minutes or one minute of floor debate as it has, that very same issue, the ongoing presence in afghanistan, and i have my opinions and my colleague, mr. mcgovern, has his and folks on both sides of the aisle have theirs. it's not a partisan issue. it's 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 we can ensure that this body is allow to have had their voice, democrats, republicans, people who want to have their say is to bring down
this rule and bring forward a rule that allows for debate of the single most pressing national policy issue. in addition, there's a number of amendments around military preparedness, making sure our military has the best and brightest to keep our country safe, not even allowed to be discussed under the rules of the bill and finally the u.s.a. freedom act or what is no long they are u.s.a. freedom act a bill that has a loophole as wide as the grand canyon that was not in the original u.s.a. freedom act that was passed on a biron basis, voice vote out of committee and yet 20 amendments, again, good, bad, indifference -- indifferent, some of which would have addressed the flaws, not allowed 10 minutes, not aloud 10 seconds, not allowed a vote. why are we scared of letting the members of the body republican and democrat have a voice in addressing the very
legitimate privacy concerns about the n.s.a.? this bill, people think this will somehow address the concerns and they're gone, they are wrong. i plan on voting against this stripped version which is no longer the u.s.a. freedom act to show it no longer even comes remotely close to the concern misconstituents have about the n.s.a. 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: thank you, 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 on the other side don't think that's enough but remember, in committee, in committee, we were there from 10:00 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 and were added to the ndaa. so it's not like there hasn't been any input. it's just the opposite. it's been impressive this year as compared to other years, and unprecedented. it's also important to stress that both of these underlying pieces of legislation are bipartisan agreements. they include the input of members on both sides of the aisle. any time you get agreements like this, no one is going to
get everything they want. i sure didn't. but it doesn't have to be all or nothing that approach doesn't work. not for this body and not for the american people. but what this rule allows is for debate on both of these issues, the u.s.a. freedom act, there'll be a separate hour of debate to debate the mir rit -- merits of this -- of that particular legislation. we'll have debate on the remaining amendment that was been made in order that we're bringing forward today. as it relates to the ndaa. that's a lot of input. is it ever enough? probably it could never be enough. but nor body, it's kind of unprecedented the amount of debate we have had already on the ndaa. i've only been here three years. but it's -- you know, it's long enough to know that if you insist on all or nothing if you insist on all or nothing, 99% of the time you know what
you're going to get? nothing. and that's not what we want. we have an opportunity here to debate the u.s.a. 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. the american people and this body have a voice in regards to what occurs in the future. we've made significant progress on issues central to american rights and freedoms. trust me, i've been the biggest opponent of the metadata massive collection 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 over what we have now. i wish we'd come together more often and i wish we wouldn't let our differences outweigh our common goals. like i said before, is the u.s.a. freedom act perfect? by no means. but it's certainly better than what we have today when this government has the right and is doing it to this moment, collecting unprecedented amounts of data, metadata on all of us. on all of us, which i believe is directly against the constitution. but i'm particularly encouraged again, united around our constitutional requirements as it relates to the ndaa on common defense. that's one of the responsibilities this body has, the common defense of this country and nothing more. that's paramount. because if we don't have common
defense, we don't have anything that we enjoy today, whether it's 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's what makes america great. and that's made america great is that 1% that protect us today. like i said, i have three son, they all currently serve. they do it willingly, not because mom or dad wanted them to, probably just the opposite. because when we had them deployed to iraq and afghanistan and now our youngest one just came back from a deployment to africa, we would rather them not be in harm's way. but they have made decisions 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 have -- to finish up the ndaa, move this rule forward so we can have a common debate, particularly as freedom to u.s.a. act. i don't know how we can look our service men and women in the eye, and i hear this all the time, we have a debate we can never repay. they're looking at what we do today. those in favor say aye looking at what we do on the ndaa and how we're supporting them. and i think this body, if you think back, the armed services support of 1-0 in this particular piece of legislation. that's pretty darn good coming
out of this place that's 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 support our families that support our troops and 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's not lip service from them. they went above and beyond what the president requested to support our troops, our war fighters. and that's the right thing to do. and 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, the best possible training. when my kids were in iraq and afghanistan, the one thing that gave wendy and i solace is the fact that we knew they were in the best force on the face of the earth and gave them the best opportunity to come home. that's what we want. it's as simple as that. these are real people. we urge our colleagues to support the rule -- i strongly urge my colleagues to support the rule and legislation. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. without objection the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the
yeas and nays will rise a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause , rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to section 2a of house resolution 567, 113th congress and thed orer of the house on january 3, 2013, of the following members to the select committee on events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in enghazi. the clerk: mr. smith of washington, mr. schiff of california, ms. linda t. sanchez of california, ms. duckworth of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair
>> good afternoon. what happened in benghazi on september 11, 2012, was a tragedy for the families and loved ones, for those who were lost, who lost their lives, for america's diplomatic corps and for all americans. unfortunately, the republican obsession with benghazi has not been about the victims or their families or our country. we had hoped that the house republican leaders would not go down the path of forming a select committee. we've already been there. eight reviews have been conducted in the house and senate, 25,000 documents released, millions of taxpayer
dollars spent. it was not necessary to put the families or our country through this partisan exercise once again. over the past two weeks, we have engaged in good faith discussions with speaker boehner on the shape and standards of the select committee. we had hoped for a level of fairness and transparency and balance. especially considering the subject matter. we were not able to reach any agreement. regrettably the republican approach does not prevent the unacceptable and repeated abuses committed by chairman issa in any meaningful way. that is all the more reason for democrats to participate in the committee. to be there to fight for fair hearing and process. to try to bring some openness and transparency to what's going on. what is the purpose of this investigation?
what is the timetable? what are the milestones? what are they hoping to achieve? i could have argued this either way. why give any validity to this effort. but i do think it is important for the american people to have a pursuit of these questions done in as fair and open and balanced a way as possible. that simply would not be possible leaving it to the republicans. that's why i'm appointing my distinguished colleagues here today to serve on the select committee. i'm so proud of them. and congressman cummings will be the ranking member. he is the ranking member member on the committee of oversight and government reform. congressman adam smith, ranking member of the armed services committee has agreed to s.