[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H4699-H4706]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4435, HOWARD P. ``BUCK''
McKEON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015; AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3361, USA FREEDOM ACT
[...]
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 590 provides for House
consideration of two separate pieces of legislation. The first of these
bills, H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act, will be considered for 1 hour
under a closed rule. This legislation will prohibit the bulk collection
of all tangible things, not just telephone records. It will end a
practice that, in my sincere belief and in the belief of so many other
Americans, violated our privacy and our constitutional rights. This
isn't the end of the issue for me and, I suspect, for a lot of our
Members as well.
[...]
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
[...]
In addition, this bill brings up a very weakened form of the USA
FREEDOM Act. Not only was this bill weakened in the Judiciary
Committee, but, in addition, it was weakened just 24 hours ago before
the Rules Committee. Nonetheless, Members from both sides of the aisle
submitted amendments to improve the bill, but, unfortunately, every
single one of those 20 amendments are blocked under this rule. So we
block 131 amendments by Members on both sides of the aisle from debate
and from a vote, and we blocked 20 amendments for Members on both sides
of the aisle with regard to the USA FREEDOM Act.
[...]
In addition, this rule makes in order H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act.
Now, this bill was supposed to rein in the NSA's illegal and far-
reaching wiretapping programs. Though I have never in my time here
supported the PATRIOT Act, even many of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle who have believe that the interpretation of that act was
overly broad, and therefore, it is desirable for Congress to assert
itself on behalf of the American people and rein in some of the worst
excesses. But I am dismayed to find that the final text on the floor
was not only weakened in the committee process but was weakened just 24
hours ago behind closed doors with less than just about 24 hours for
Members of this body to even read the new version of the weakened USA
FREEDOM Act.
Mr. Speaker, last year's revelations that the NSA had been collecting
detailed information about our communication patterns have undermined
the trust that my constituents and Americans across the country have in
our government. It has created conflicts with our allies abroad,
threatening jobs in our country by sullying the reputation of American
companies and rifling our international trade waters. The NSA
collection of metadata is a clear violation of our
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, and
it simply can't continue.
Now, while I am pleased that the Chamber is finally taking up
legislation that is aimed at reining in the NSA's activities, however,
while this bill does take baby steps towards restoring some of
Americans' freedoms that are so inherently part of our constitutional
system, I am very disappointed that it doesn't require the government
to fully meet the standard, nor does it resolve this issue in any way,
shape, or form to the American people.
The USA FREEDOM Act curtails the NSA's ability to monitor Americans'
private communications under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. And the
legislative intent is clear: to prohibit the collection of bulk data
such as the type that was occurring under the secret program revealed
by Edward Snowden. However, the language in the bill falls short of
accomplishing that, and none of the amendments that were designed to
improve this bill and make it work to secure our privacy rights were
even allowed to be discussed under this rule here on the floor of the
House, which is another reason that this rule simply must be brought
down.
This legislation amended the definition of ``specific selection
term,'' which is required to conduct surveillance under FISA in a way
that creates the possibility that the NSA could misuse the bill. Now,
again, a secret government agency that we have acknowledged has had
oversight problems in the past, having overly broad discretion, has
shown and demonstrated that it has been unable to provide the proper
oversight.
So the bill's new definition of ``specific selection term'' can be
read to create a loophole permitting intelligence agencies to use
selection terms that could permit the collection of large segments of
data associated with the particular email domain or IP address.
The American people have seen how broadly in the past the
intelligence community has interpreted their authority under
surveillance law. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on
me. The new definitions provided in the underlying bill provide a
potential loophole almost as wide as the initial loophole in the
PATRIOT bill itself and fails to address the privacy concerns of the
American people.
In addition, the new language eliminated provisions that strengthened
and clarified the ban on reverse targeting in 702 and the minimization
provisions for both the 215-based CDR program and the FISA pen register
statute.
The language is a major departure from the bill that passed out of
two committees. So you might hear Members on both sides of the aisle
say, oh,
[[Page H4705]]
the bill passed by voice on committee. To be clear, this is not the
bill that passed in committee. This bill was changed 24 hours ago and
severely weakened. Were the proponents of these changes hesitant to
bring these changes forward in committee because they knew they would
engender bipartisan opposition? Perhaps. But let it not be said without
refutation that these bills have passed committee by a voice vote
unanimously. The bill has changed significantly since it passed
committee.
Again, while I am encouraged that this Congress is finally taking up
a bill designed with the intent of reining in the excesses of the NSA,
this process is flawed. Twenty amendments were offered; none are
allowed under this rule. If we can defeat this rule, Members from both
sides of the aisle will be able to move forward to improve upon the USA
FREEDOM Act to ensure that it can be examined and that Congress can
engage in their proper oversight role with regard to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Forbes) whom I serve with on the Armed Services
Committee, but he also serves on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, if you listen to some of the debate on this rule, you
would not realize that both the underlying pieces of legislation here
were enormously bipartisan.
I want to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee--Chairman
Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Congressman Nadler, Congressman
Scott, and Congressman Sensenbrenner, the original author--for their
hard work in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor.
The bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 32-0 and
as amended passed the Intel Committee by a voice vote.
The underlying bill takes important steps toward reforming our
Nation's intelligence-gathering programs by banning the bulk collection
of data. The bill enhances civil liberty protections for all Americans
while at the same time preserving our ability to protect the national
security of this country.
National security and international terrorism investigation will now
be conducted on a case-by-case basis, using specific selection terms
and with permission from the FISA court, thereby ending the vacuuming
up of data by the NSA.
Finally, the bill creates more transparency and provides more
information to the American people. Companies will now be able to
publicly report on the requests for information they receive from the
government. The bill also requires new comprehensive reviews and
extensive public disclosure.
The act includes legislation that I offered with my colleagues, the
Intelligence Oversight and Accountability Act, which requires the
government to provide to Congress, within 45 days, a copy of each FISA
court decision, order, or opinion that includes a significant
construction or interpretation of FISA.
The Federal Government has the responsibility to ensure that the
intelligence community is taking appropriate action to root out threats
to the security of the American people within the boundaries of the
U.S. Constitution.
Today, we are striking this balance between safeguarding privacy and
protecting Americans from terrorist threats in today's post-9/11 world.
Also, Mr. Speaker, we have heard talk about the NDAA bill and
amendments that weren't allowed. What you did not hear is that from 10
o'clock in the morning until 12:30 the next morning, the amendments
were offered--over 155--and the chairman of that committee was so
gracious he continued to ask, ``Are there any additional amendments?''
until there were none, when we finally passed on a bipartisan basis the
NDAA bill.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that is a good bill that strengthens and
supports our men and women in uniform. I hope that my colleagues will
support the rule and support the underlying bills.
[...]
[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H4707-H4712]
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.
[...]
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.
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. 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
the underlying bill, the 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 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
[[Page H4710]]
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. 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
[[Page H4711]]
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. 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.
[[Page H4712]]
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.
____________________
