Richard Nugent

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, it is an honor for me to rise today in recognition of the forthcoming retirement of Command Sergeant Major William Zito Jr. on January 31, 2014. CSM William Zito Jr. has served the United States Army with honor and distinction for 22 years. A career of such longevity in support of our national security is, in itself, an accomplishment worthy of recognition. In the case of CSM Zito, his stoic demeanor masks the extraordinary achievements accumulated during an exceptional career that demands more than simply the recognition of a grateful nation. He has earned the respect of thousands of soldiers who have directly benefited from his leadership and the adulation of millions whom he has never met, but profited from his wisdom nonetheless. William Zito's combat arms occupational specialty took him directly into harm's way numerous times, deploying to the most dangerous battlefields of his generation. As First Sergeant, he deployed first to Kuwait for Operation Enduring Freedom in 2002 and the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, then returned again in 2005 to 2006. In 1st Battalion, 9th Field Artillery, 3rd Infantry Division, First Sergeant Zito's leadership guided the actions of 130 soldiers whose teamwork under his stewardship received the Presidential and Meritorious Unit awards. After returning to complete the Sergeants Major Course in 2007, now CSM Zito once again met our nation's call and deployed the 2nd Battalion, 12th Field Artillery, 2nd Infantry Division to Operation Iraqi Freedom. During this time, CSM Zito was responsible for designing and implementing command policies and training for an 800 member Task Force. CSM Zito successfully managed all of the Task Force's Joint Security Stations as well as partnering with two Iraqi Army Brigades, an Iraqi Police Division and the Kadamiyah Shrine Police. The lives of thousands of American and Iraqi soldiers depended on the leadership of CSM Zito. Upon his return from foreign battlefields, CSM Zito continued to dedicate himself to the betterment of our nation by graciously allowing Congress to glean what we could from his wisdom. A remarkably small portion of the military are assigned to the unenvious task of explaining the impact on end-users of our legislative ideas. CSM Zito was among the hand-selected cadre, first as Defense Fellow to Representative John Carter and then as Legislative Liaison of the Department of the Army. During these two positions, CSM Zito was responsible for providing guidance on matters relating to military legislation as well as serving as the primary point of contact for enlisted issues. As an effective spokesman, CSM Zito strengthened the Army's relationship with our nation's lawmakers. Over the course of his 22 years of dedicated service, CSM Zito has repeatedly demonstrated honor and dedication indicative of a great American hero. His valiant efforts both across oceans in enemy territory as well as here domestically have helped to protect and shape our nation. On behalf of the United States Congress and the American people we represent, I extend my deep appreciation to Command Sergeant Major William Zito Jr. for his service to our country. My best wishes on a happy retirement and continued success.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, it is with great humility that I stand here tonight, and I think you have heard from a lot of Members tonight talk about Bill Young. I think he has made the same impression on so many Members on this side of the aisle and on the other side about his humility, about his true caring about people, about the caring that he has for the members of the military. As a father and a parent of three sons who serve in the United States Army, what struck me so much about Bill and his wife, Beverly, was their true compassion, particularly his compassion as it relates to those who serve us. Beverly was really the fire behind Bill with regards to a lot of these issues as it relates to our veterans. Bill led the way, but Beverly was right there carrying the flag along side of Bill. Madam Speaker, they were a team together. They worked together for the betterment of all, and that is why Bill is such a great American. While you have heard tonight in this House talk about his legacy, you can't replace Bill Young. When I first met Bill Young here in this Chamber 3 years ago, he was on that side sitting over there, and he had had a fall and he was injured and he had been at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and his health continued to decline over the last few years. But I came in every day in these Chambers to go see Bill Young because Bill was such a good, kindhearted person. He had a great grip when he shook your hand, but he always had a smile. When you asked him, Mr. Chairman, how are you feeling today? It was never about him. You heard that from other Members today. It was always about, How are your sons? How are your boys? He knew that they were serving in harm's way in Iraq and had been in Afghanistan. He was more worried about them than himself. I saw him and his wife, Beverly, on the airplane ride back to Tampa almost every week, and without fail they would offer their better seats to a serviceman or servicewoman who was in uniform walking down the aisle. They would get up and say, Would you sit here? That is just the way they were built. Bill and Beverly were a perfect match, and Bill has gone on to a place that we can only aspire to go. I truly believe that Bill is at the right hand of God. Maybe he is talking about appropriations, talking about what is right with America. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the time you have given all of us to be down here to talk about our good friend, C.W. Bill Young, who will be missed by all. God bless America.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. I thank my good friend on the Rules Committee, a member that I have the pleasure of serving with. Today, I rise in support of House Resolution 322 and the underlying legislation, H.R. 367, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Security Act. I want to thank my friend for bringing this forward as the rule. But this is better known as the REINS Act. The underlying legislation would bring much-needed reform to our broken regulatory process. Now, my good friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter) talked about chickens--and she mentioned it last night. But the issue really, what she's talking about when you're talking about the number of chickens being observed by the USDA, this is the President. They want to increase the number. They want to go to a private system. So I agree that it's a bad idea. But maybe the REINS Act could actually help in that particular instance because you could bring it back to this House to talk about it because, as a valued member of the Rules Committee, she brought up a good idea. But somewhere along the line we have lost sight of what Congress' responsibility in the role of regulation is all about. Through the years, we have delegated away our responsibility. We gave it to unelected bureaucrats to make decisions that have far-ranging effects on the American people. I'm pretty sure that our Founding Fathers really didn't envision us doing that; that bureaucrats are going to decide the fates of small businesses and industries. That's exactly what we let happen because it was easy--it's easier. And all too often, in making regulations in D.C., we just aren't in touch with how that actually affects real Americans, real jobs in this country. We all hear from folks back home about how regulations passed in D.C. are preventing their businesses from growing and expanding. It's a common refrain, Mr. Speaker. The REINS Act, however, would return us to the vision our Founding Fathers had for this institution and for this Nation. It does so by ensuring that any major rule--that's a rule that has over $100 million in impact to our economy--receive approval from this body and from the Senate before it actually goes into the process of regulation. Certainly, regulations with an impact this large deserve to have our attention, our review, and ultimately our blessing by our vote. Frankly, they deserve more than just a public comment period that regulatory agencies give the public. For that reason, I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. I'll just give you one anecdote, Mr. Speaker. Back home, we have a cement kiln that produces cement for use all over the United States; employs 200 people right there. And I come from a county today that still has unemployment of 8.9 percent. What the EPA is looking to do is put those businesses out of existence. When I talked to the folks that actually run the cement kiln, they said, Rich, we can just go across the border into Mexico, where they don't have any restrictions on air pollution, and we can do it cheaper because we don't have to have the pollution controls. But you know what, that air doesn't stop at the border, it comes back into the United States. So when you force companies out--and we have some of the strongest and most stringent EPA requirements for air and water--when you force those companies to leave our country, take the jobs with them, we still breathe dirtier air than we would have. So there has got to be a common ground.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 312 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 312 provides for House consideration of two separate pieces of legislation. The first of these bills is H.R. 2610, which is the appropriations bill to fund the Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and other Federal agencies. The second bill is H.R. 2397, which is the bill that funds our military and our national security programs for the next year. In perfect honesty, I don't think this is a perfect rule, but I know that it's the right rule for what we're doing today. When I came to the Rules Committee as a freshman a little over 2\1/2\ years ago, one of our promises not only to the House but also to the American people was that we were going to return to regular order. We were going to make sure the House worked in an open and transparent process. We promised the American people they would see what was happening in the House and read bills before they came to the floor for a vote. We promised that all Members would have the opportunity to amend and improve legislation. We also said we were going to have an open amendment process on appropriations bills. The rule provides for a true open rule on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. However, we're also taking up the Defense funding bill under a structured rule. While that may not be ideal, when I look at the alternatives, I know that this structured rule is the best way forward. As Members of the House of Representatives, we have a duty to fulfill our core mission of the Federal Government. I can't think of a single function of government more inherently Federal in nature than providing for the common defense of this great Nation. At a time when our troops are stretched too thin, the Department of Defense has been cut repeatedly in the last few years, and the Pentagon is now facing sequestration head on. We cannot let the new fiscal year begin without passing a Defense appropriations bill. There isn't anybody in this House who is more concerned about our Nation's involvement in Egypt and Syria or more upset about the allegations of the NSA spying on American citizens than I am. However, we cannot let these issues prevent us from beginning to debate on a bill that ensures our military has the funds it needs to get their job done. So if the choice is between a structured rule and never getting the Defense appropriations bill passed, or a structured rule versus passing a Defense appropriations bill that actually makes our Nation less safe than we are today, then I will vote for a structured rule every time. That doesn't mean I think it's a perfect process, but the alternative is unconscionable. The Department of Defense already is bearing the burden of half of the sequestration cuts, which, in conjunction with cuts they've already sustained, will completely hollow out our military. We need this Defense appropriations bill if we're going to restore flexibility to our military. And that's an issue that must come to the floor, even if it's under a structured process. So I come here today with a compromise. Far and away, the vast majority of the amendments offered to the Rules Committee on H.R. 2397 will be allowed on the House floor. Our philosophy when considering amendments really is as simple as this: if it would have been allowed under an open rule, it will be allowed under this rule. There are only three exceptions to that general rule of thumb. Those exceptions were amendments dealing with Egypt, Syria, and the NSA. And even then, these issues are in no way being swept under the rug. I wouldn't stand for that. I wouldn't allow it. The rule provides for extended debate time on amendments dealing with both Egypt and Syria. Additionally, the rule provides debate on two amendments getting at the issue of NSA--including one amendment that I personally offered. My amendment would strike a balance between making sure our government has all the necessary tools to keep our citizens safe and protecting American civil liberties. Both of the NSA amendments will get extended debate time. In total, this structured rule allows for debate on 100 amendments. In comparison, the Defense Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2010 also came up under a structured rule. Back then, however, only 16 amendments made it to the House floor. As I said, it's not a perfect world. I wish we didn't need to deal with choosing between an unlimited debate on these issues and making sure that our troops have the tools they need to protect themselves and our Nation. But that's the nature of the world we live in today. And when it comes down to it, the Defense appropriations bill isn't the right place to be having some of these debates. I am downright furious over what NSA has been doing. And the more I learn about the programs, the more outraged I get as it relates to trampling on our rights as citizens of this great Nation. But to try to change these programs on the DOD appropriations bill, where we can't legislate, isn't the right way to go about fixing something that's broken. I'll be the first one to say that we need to have a long and serious discussion and debate about the current law as it stands. Frankly, it seems to me that we need to fix that law--clearly. That's why I'm a cosponsor of stand-alone legislation to do just that. The fact is that it's impossible to make the real, substantive changes by amending this bill. Appropriation amendments are blunt tools. If there ever was an issue that needed thoughtfulness and finesse, it's when we're looking at programs that are used to keep our Nation and its citizens safe. So today, I offer you an open rule--the rule for the Transportation appropriations bill--and one that is as close to open as we could get while still ensuring that the House votes on and hopefully passes a bill this week that keeps our troops funded, our Pentagon open, and our citizens safe from harm. It's not perfect, but it's as good as we can get in an imperfect world, and I'm proud to bring it today to the floor of this House. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. As to the thoughts of the gentlelady from Ohio, I appreciate her comments and her support for the military. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it's always great to hear from Mr. Van Hollen. He has been in front of the Rules Committee, I think, a half a dozen times on this particular issue, but that's not the issue we're talking about today. Today, we are talking about a rule to bring forward two bills. One is the appropriations bill for the defense of this country. I appreciate his comments, but he also forgets to mention that, in the last Congress, this House passed two pieces of legislation to actually do what he was talking about doing. And guess what? It went over to that place where they have rocking chairs--where they do nothing. They didn't discuss it; they didn't debate it; they didn't even send it back to us, because they just didn't have the time to do it in their busy schedule, and I understand that.

Mr. NUGENT. I would be glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. NUGENT. In reclaiming my time, regarding shutting the government down, those are the gentleman's words, not ours. I don't think you've heard that at all from this side. It's not about shutting the government down; it's about passing 12 appropriations bills. That's really what we are supposed to be doing, and we are committed to doing that. We don't want to see a government shutdown, and I think our bringing appropriations bills to this House floor shows, in fact, that that's not the intent and that that's not the desire. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. I have none.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do appreciate the comments my friend from Massachusetts has made in a lot of areas, particularly as it relates to the open rule. I do want to remind him--and I wasn't here in 2010--but the Rules Committee that my good friend sat on made a determination in regards to a structured rule, and that structured rule only allowed for 16 amendments to come to the House floor. That structured rule locked out a lot of folks' ideas in regards to how to better the appropriation bill for the Department of Defense 2011 fiscal year. I agree with my good friend that this rule is not perfect, but I do want to point out that it does make over 100 amendments in order that are going to be debated here on this floor: an amendment on Syria; an amendment on Egypt; two amendments on the NSA, which are appropriate to have a debate here. And as we talk about authorization, particularly as we look at the NSA, that debate is going to come up in a very robust way because I truly believe that we need to have that. As it relates to Syria, I have three sons that currently serve in the United States military. The last thing I want to do is see us arm rebels where my sons may have to face those arms at some point in time. I've had sons deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; and as a Member of this House, there are very few of us that have served in the military in the same way as it relates to having our family members serve in harm's way. So I take it right to heart that we want to make sure that we don't put our sons or daughters in any jeopardy, particularly as it relates to arming those that we have no idea who they are. I think I've said enough, but my position on arming the Syrian rebels, those that we don't even know who they are or what we're doing in Egypt or what's going on within the NSA as it relates to our civil liberties here in the United States as American citizens, we certainly are going to address those issues as we move forward. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I encourage my colleagues to do so, as well. As a father of three sons in the military, I'm disappointed that we've gotten to this point where ideological factions have divided this House so deeply that we're forced to put a structured rule in place in order to simply consider a bill that funds our Department of Defense. Just to note, 2 years ago when we were having this discussion, I got a call from one of my sons who was deployed to Iraq, worried that his troopers were not going to get paid because that's what they were being told, because of actions of this House. The last thing is that when our sons and daughters go off to fight, the last thing they should have to worry about is how they're going to take care of the car payment or feed their children back here at home. They should have one focus, and that's the fight ahead of them and returning back to their families and loved ones in the best possible condition they can be. To me it's about as pathetic as it gets when these men and women are putting their lives on the line each day and we're playing politics with our national defense and we can't put differences aside long enough not to even agree to a funding bill, but just to agree that we should debate the funding bill at all. I wish we could have an open rule on both of these appropriation measures. You know I do. But when it comes to funding the Pentagon and when it comes to funding our military, the issue at hand is too important to leave this subject to the political whims of select Members who could tie up the debate for days and end with irresponsible amendments that might ultimately put this Nation and its citizens at risk. That's why we're here. That's why we've taken the three most hot- button politicized issues and selected specific amendments to address each of these concerns while still making in order every other amendment that would not otherwise be subject to a point of order. I welcome debate on how we need to change the laws of this land. I'm an active proponent in having it. Millions of Americans, including me, are questioning many of the laws right now, especially when it comes to the use of military force and the powers given to the NSA under the PATRIOT Act. It's clear that those are conversations that must happen in this forum here, but we can't let it derail the basic funding of our troops. That's what it comes down to. This bill cannot possibly give the issues at hand the justice they deserve. It's an imperfect tool, and with only 10 minutes per debate per amendment, it would cut short the conversations that we have. That is why, although it is a departure from the normal appropriation process, this resolution brings up H.R. 2397 under a structured rule. That said, the second half of House Resolution 312 is proof that this House is still dedicated to the open process. We fulfill our promise to both our constituents and ourselves by providing an open rule on Transportation and Housing appropriations. It's a reminder to us that the Defense bill is an example of extraordinary times calling for extraordinary measures. At the end of the day, what's most important is that we fulfill our core mission. As anybody in the military will tell you, sometimes we have to adapt. It's not perfect, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when we're talking about keeping our troops and our citizens safe. For that reason, I'm proud to support the rule, and I encourage all my colleagues to do the same. When the Committee on Rules filed its report (H. Rept. 113-170) to accompany House Resolution 312 the summary of amendment numbered 43 was inadvertently omitted. The summary of amendments should have included the following: 43. Cole (OK), Kilmer (WA), McCarthy, Kevin (CA), Bishop, Rob (UT), Jones (NC), Loebsack (IA), McCollum (MN), Scott, Austin (GA): Provides that none of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to implement a furlough of Department of Defense federal employees who are paid from the Working Capital Fund (WCF) Account, which is a revolving fund and does not receive direct funding from Congressional appropriations to finance its operations. (10 minutes)

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, it's not every day I get to stand up here in front of the House and talk about a government program that is actually doing well and running ahead of schedule, but that's what brings me here today. The Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Missile Project, or CHAMP for short, is an Air Force program to develop a capability to disrupt or eliminate an adversary's electronics without causing physical destruction to people or facilities. The only real question with CHAMP is what vehicle to use to deliver that microwave to the intended target. As it turns out, we have an available stockpile of cruise missiles which are expensive to build and for which we have no other use. Fitting CHAMP into our existing cruise missiles is far cheaper than trying to construct a new vehicle just for that purpose. My amendment, which is fully offset, would provide $10.5 million toward that end. By making this investment now, we can ensure that CHAMP will be able to put this weapon in the field years ahead of schedule and at a lower cost, while also continuing to develop a longer-term solution. It's a shame that fixing every government program isn't as simple as this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, all I can tell you is this: the offset from the Rapid Innovation Fund--currently the outlay rate, I think, for the first year was 43 percent from that fund. This is a ready project. This is actually one that the Air Force has tested in a positive manner with positive results in regards to actually eliminating a threat without destroying a building or without destroying lives. If we had something like this when we went into Iraq or that area, we possibly could have done something without having to rebuild an entire infrastructure while still doing what we needed to do to be able to do our military mission. Mr. Chairman, all I can tell you is that it is, in fact, a program that is working. It just needs a delivery vehicle. This is offset in regards to no additional spending that would be required, other than what comes from that fund that is sitting there. That's what that rapid development fund was actually designed for. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo). This is a simple fix to a problem that is an oversight. And I will tell you, from the State of Florida's perception--I live in Florida--we are obviously prone to hurricanes. Our National Guard are our first responders when it comes to a natural disaster like a hurricane. These dual status technicians are in a position to keep the men and women of the Florida Army National Guard up and flying those helicopters that are utilized across the gulf coast to rescue people. Without these dual service technicians, without these women and men who actually repair and keep the equipment running, we are at risk, particularly in the State of Florida, but all along the gulf coast when we can't field the force to go out and protect us here at home, much less out in the world. And our National Guard, and particularly the aviation unit in my hometown, that's affected, they're currently deployed in Europe. But the fact that they have the inability to keep their equipment maintained, and we're furloughing these dual service technicians, it puts us at risk. It hurts our readiness. And so from a Florida perspective, I will tell you that it is imperative that we pass this. I really appreciate Representative Palazzo from the great State of Mississippi bringing this forward.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.