Richard B. Nugent

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington, Sheriff Reichert. That is a term of endearment. It is won, a title that you earn. It is an opportunity to lead a great body of men and women. So when Sheriff Reichert wanted to do this hour, it was, like he said, we have each other's back. We have been through issues that we can relate to.

When I first became a law enforcement officer, my mom said: You know, I could picture one of your brothers doing this, but not you. You just don't have that temperament to be that bold, I guess is what she was saying, compared to my brothers.

But at the end of the day, after 39 years, and the last 10 as sheriff before I got elected to this office, those were 39 of the best years, and I guarantee it that Dave Reichert feels the same way with his tenure in law enforcement. I started out as a cop outside the city of Chicago and saw issues that I would rather not even mention.

Coming down to Florida was quite a break, it was different. But at the same time, that changed over time too. From a small, sleepy sheriff's office of about 40 individuals to, when I left, we had over 500 folks that served this great Nation in that community.

You hear a lot on the news about law enforcement in that they want to make it sound like we are not human. In reality, I have been to those scenes where a law enforcement officer has been involved in a shooting where he has had to take somebody's life. And that officer was so emotionally distraught, because that is not why they got into the business. It is not why I ever got into the business. You got into the business because you wanted to help people, you wanted to be there to protect people. That is what law enforcement is about.

And, unfortunately, sometimes bad things happen to good people. Sheriff Reichert mentioned the fact that sometimes police officers and deputies can make a mistake. We are only human. But when things are moving fast as the speed of light, you have got to think back as to what and why that officer did or didn't do what he did at the time.

And I worry about when elected officials see it as a political expedience to condemn police officers for something that occurred before they ever get the facts. Dave Reichert and I sit on the floor and we talk about that, about maybe, just maybe people should wait until the investigation is complete before you condemn somebody, until you walk in their shoes. The sheriff talked about the fact that I can remember back as a rookie having to work, and I took the shifts of guys that had families because I wasn't married when it came down to holidays. I didn't have a family, so I would take the shifts so they could be with their families. But it didn't always work out that way. There was many a time that I missed Christmas, missed birthdays, missed wedding anniversaries because of service, and that is just not me. That is all the men and women that serve this country in local law enforcement and other law enforcement agencies throughout the United States.

Most of the men and women that I served with, I guarantee you could go out and make more money doing something else. They were bright, bright people. But their calling was to be a law enforcement officer. To go out there in the dead of night, climb up in an attic--remember that--you climb up in an attic and you don't know what is up there, except you know there is a bad guy who is up there, and somebody has to go there and do it. At the end of the day, these men and women do it because they love the community they serve.

Congressman Reichert talked about what police officers do with their own money in regards to buying turkeys for Thanksgiving for families, buying Christmas presents for children that would not have a Christmas, doing summer camps for free for children because these children don't have or didn't have the ability to go to one of those paid summer camps--that is pretty neat. And we would, in our sheriff's office, without using taxpayer money, with donations from clubs like Kiwanis and Rotary and others, pay for that so that these young men and these girls and boys could have the opportunity to interact with law enforcement, to actually see that, do you know what? We are human. That when we do these little games out there in the field and we have the things, water balloons or whatever it may be, that we are real people, because a lot of times, the only time they see a law enforcement officer is possibly during a domestic situation where they are arresting their mom or their dad. And that can jade anybody.

But it can also jade law enforcement, because the things that they see no one here would want to see. There were times when I went home, getting off the midnight shift, and walked in my house at 6 o'clock in the morning. And what I had just seen the night before, you would have a hard time going to sleep, where you would grab your child--I can remember my youngest child at the time, my only child at the time-- grabbing him and hugging him because of what I just saw some other parent do to their child that was unspeakable.

Our three sons, they all serve in the military. Our middle son is a Black Hawk pilot in the Florida Army National Guard. He is also a deputy sheriff in one of the major counties in Florida. He wasn't sure if that was the right job because, when they went through the class on child abuse, it struck a chord as a new dad: How could anyone do that to them? But do you know what? He has turned out to be a pretty good cop. And we say that with reverence; it is not a derogatory term.

But the men and women that put on the uniform and that badge do it because they love people, not because they hate them. They do it because they really want to make a difference in their community. Their families are the ones that suffer the most.

When I have had to go to scenes where I have had an officer killed in the line of duty, it breaks your heart. When I was a rookie officer outside of Chicago, right out of the academy, one of my academy mates was killed, shot and killed by a 12-year-old in our first year on the job. You never know when it is going to hit.

When Officer Kondek down in Tarpon Springs went to work on the 21st of December, he kissed his wife and his kids good-bye, expecting to be there for Christmas. Little did he know that that was the last day of his life. The person who killed him shot him and then ran him over with a car. This is not what we want.

Where we want to see the America that I love is, the same respect that we give our soldiers returning from war, that we give that to our police officers. That when you see them in a restaurant or you see them on the street or you see them on a call, thank them for what they do. They will be absolutely surprised and amazed, but grateful.

When my sons are in uniform and people come up to them in the military and thank them for their service, there is no reason we can't do the same for our law enforcement officers.

Congressman Reichert is probably the most humble guy I know in the stories, and he would never brag about himself, but he is a consummate professional. His bravery is unmatched, and his leadership, I am sure, at that sheriff's office in Washington State is better for him being sheriff than not.

Well, I guarantee there are some.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 770 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 770 provides for the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015. It also allows for the consideration of the Executive Amnesty Prevention Act and for the California Emergency Drought Relief Act, a bill that would provide short-term water supplies to drought-stricken California. This combined rule is necessary because Congress is coming to a close, and we need to get our work done.

One of the outstanding items that is most important to me is the 2015 NDAA. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to stand on the House floor in May when the House passed its version of the 2015 NDAA. I was happy to highlight the inclusive and transparent process that

the Armed Services Committee and the House, as a whole, took in crafting this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

We held countless hearings and heard hours of testimony from our combatant commanders. We worked a lot of late nights within the House Armed Services Committee. In the committee alone, the NDAA was amended 155 times. When the bill moved to the House floor, it was again amended, and another 160 amendments were considered.

It was careful. It was deliberate. It was an open process. It is precisely how the House and this Congress should work. When the NDAA passed this body, I was proud of what we produced, and I was really proud of the process that we took to get there.

The Senate, though, is absolutely different. As is so often the case, they didn't act. They either couldn't pass a bill, or they just chose not to; either way, it is a shame. They left us with a mess now that we have to resolve. Eventually, a final product was crafted at the last minute between House and Senate staffers.

It was not done in conference because the Senate never passed a bill. It was not done in conference because the Senate just ignored the fact that the NDAA was a priority for this country in order to make sure that we funded and equipped those soldiers and airmen and sailors and marines who fight the fight for this country. They ignored it.

When you don't get to conference, which is where you have Members argue the points of either piece of legislation--whether it is a Senate bill or a House bill--it really does a disservice to our men and women who fight for this country because they don't get to hear the arguments and they don't get to see the arguments. That is unfortunate.

We go through all of the motions. In the House, we get it right, in the House, through the appropriations process, but then again, through the process of the NDAA, we get it right. We have those hearings. We take the testimony, and we listen to those who are most affected. The Senate, I don't know what they do, but they honestly, in my estimation, didn't care enough to get it done for whatever reason.

As a member of HASC, we did an awful lot of work just to get a product to the floor, and when it left HASC, it was unanimous. When it came to the floor, there were 160 times that people had the opportunity to amend it and change it and prove it and add things that they thought were necessary for the defense of their country. Once again, the Senate just ignored that process, and that is unfortunate.

Congress, as a whole, is harmed by this process. More importantly, it is the troops who are harmed by a process that is broken. It is the troops. We are not out there in harm's way, but they are. We owe them better. I think the House has done that. I think the House has actually done everything in its power to make it right with the troops whom we put in harm's way, but the Senate doesn't seem to care, and that is troubling to me.

I am concerned about our warfighters. We are their voice. As Members of Congress, we are their voice. We are the elected Representatives of the people, but they are citizens, too, so we are representing them. We are their voice, and they need to be heard on every issue.

Unfortunately, the NDAA is not everything that everybody wants, and I get it. It is always a compromise, and I get that, but we need to show more solidarity with our warfighters, so they know that their voice is being heard here in the Capitol. I fear that, because the Senate botched the process, their voice didn't come through as loudly as it should have.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also allows the House to consider the Executive Amnesty Prevention Act. This legislation, if enacted, would nullify the President's recent executive action.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the policy goal of the President's, every Member of Congress ought to be concerned about what it means when he takes that type of action, of unilaterally ignoring Congress. If you look at our article I powers, we are elected to pass laws. We are elected to do that.

The President is elected to faithfully execute the laws that are passed by Congress. It doesn't matter if the House did or did not do what the President requested. It doesn't give him the unilateral action to go ahead and say, ``Do you know what? I can just do it on my own.'' That is what this bill addresses.

This Nation has benefited by this delicate balance that we have in our government. It benefits every day when we do things the right way. The Constitution is our guiding principle. It is our guiding document.

You just can't say, ``Do you know what? I want to do it differently because I disagree with what the legislative branch is or is not doing.'' That is not appropriate. It is not the way the Founding Fathers crafted it.

The Executive does not have the power to write law; we do. We need to reestablish our rights as elected Representatives of the people to craft laws that affect the people of the United States of America.

It is really just beyond frustrating as all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, should be jealously guarding our article I powers because it matters not whether it is a Republican President or a Democratic President. This institution matters. Otherwise, what are we doing here? Otherwise, why are the American people voting every 2 years to send Representatives to this body to ensure that the Constitution is upheld and followed?

It is not meaningless. It is important. As I said before, the legislative versus the Executive issue shouldn't be a Democrat versus a Republican issue. It should be the fact that we should guard the rights and privileges that have been extended to us because of our being elected to this body.

I support the rule because it is important that we have a healthy debate on all of the issues that have been outlined, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Cole really addressed the issue. In regards as to how it went down in the Rules Committee, he clearly addressed the issue on this floor in regards to his support of the rule, even though he didn't get everything that he wanted.

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

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

I have none.

If I could inquire, I thought the gentleman was closing.

Mr. Speaker, shortly, I will be offering an amendment to the rule, which is necessary to alleviate the budgetary point of order that currently lies against the defense bill. In addition to clearing a point of order, we hope it will expedite the consideration in the Senate of this critically important bill.

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