Richard Nugent

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation. Whereas, stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, responsible for the death of one person every six seconds and nearly six million each year; and Whereas, stroke is not only a killer, but it is also the most common cause of long-term disability, reducing quality of life and placing burdens on entire families; and Whereas, we cannot solve our problems by ignoring them, and the threat of stroke to our communities will only increase as our population ages and faces increased lifestyle health risks; and Whereas, in raising public awareness about this preventable and treatable threat, together we can help save millions of lives. Therefore, I, Richard B. Nugent, Member of Congress representing the Eleventh Congressional District of Florida, do hereby recognize the 29th day of October as World Stroke Day.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the collective attention of the House to an unfortunate case of federal over- regulation and the consequences to a small business in my district. In Ocala, Florida, we have a small family business that has produced and distributed snacks to schools across the country for more than three decades. Country Meats makes a pork-based snack that is common to student fundraisers and the proceeds of its sale in public schools over that time have netted more than $30 million in support of marching bands, athletic teams and academic clubs nation-wide. New standards established under the Healthy Hunger-Free Kid Act would prohibit the sale of anything in schools that cannot meet the nutrition standards. A well intentioned policy, but one that when rigidly enforced, excludes: cheese, milk, nuts and the snacks made by Country Meats. The Department of Agriculture applied common sense to offering exemptions for each of those items and their many variations, but not to the small family business in my district. Country Meats is not an international business that can pool resources into a common interest of a multi-billion dollar industry to make its concerns heard in Washington. Its twenty employees in Ocala, whose jobs will be lost as collateral damage to federal overreach. This company does not have the clout to educate each state legislature on how to file exemptions with the Department of Agriculture. It needs to do that in order to continue fundraisers that have been a mainstay in schools dating back to 1978. Instead, Country Meats will be added to the list of small businesses that lost their income because of obtuse federal regulation.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Glen R. Bortell's one hundredth birthday. It is with great pride that I stand to honor Mr. Bortell, not only for his long life but his great contributions to the health and well- being of his fellow citizens. Mr. Bortell has not let life pass him by without many accomplishments for the good of his community and those around him. The dedication and effort of people like Mr. Bortell allow our communities to thrive and reach their utmost potential. For nearly 10 years, Mr. Bortell has volunteered at Citrus Memorial Hospital in the diagnostic imaging department. At an age when most hope for a quiet and restful retirement, he has dedicated an amazing 5,000- plus hours of his time to the hospital and its patients. Still having so much to give, to this day Mr. Bortell continues transporting patients in wheelchairs and beds to various departments throughout the hospital. The selflessness Mr. Bortell has demonstrated throughout his life as well as his constant ``can do'' attitude have inspired many members of his community, especially his fellow volunteers and hospital employees. I am extremely proud to be Mr. Bortell's congressman and I invite everyone to join me in wishing Mr. Bortell a Happy 100th Birthday, and congratulating him on his long, rich, and active life.

Mr. NUGENT

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

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot here today. A lot of it, I don't know exactly where they are coming from. But we have heard a lot of things today. Democrats would like to believe--or would like the American people to believe, or go to that narrative--that Congress hasn't done its job. Well, you have to remember that the House of Representatives is one- half of that. The Senate is the other half. Now, if you think about it, we have sent 40 jobs bills over to the Senate, where they are gathering dust on Leader Reid's desk. We have passed seven of the appropriations bills here in the House. The Senate, zero. We have passed important tax legislation to ensure our economy continues to grow and that companies continue to hire. We will be voting today on a veterans package to help our veterans. And tomorrow, for the second time, we are going to consider a bill as it relates to the highway trust fund. So perhaps the Republicans in the House are getting the job done with support of Members on the other side of the aisle. How many bipartisan bills are sitting there in the Senate just languishing away because there is a decision made just not to move anything forward from the House? That is unfortunate because that hurts the American people. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of things that are supposedly what we want to do. But here is what I believe we are trying to do today. It is about defense of the Constitution. It is pure and simple. It is about the protection that is given by the Constitution to the two houses of the legislative branch and to the President of the United States and the executive branch and to the judiciary, and that separation of powers is within the Constitution. That is what we are fighting for. Forget about all this other stuff that has been thrown up as a smokescreen. We are fighting to defend the Constitution. And people say, well, you know, it could cost money. Well, thank goodness. Thank God that our Founding Fathers didn't say, well, you know what? It is a reach too far. It will cost too much. It could cost our lives. They didn't make that decision. What they said was, it is important for the future of this country that we live by the Constitution, that we design a Constitution that will endure into the future. And, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this Constitution has endured and has provided the guidance for this country to move forward every day. It is not by happenstance. It is by the fact that we are supposed to live by and defend the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, when I was a deputy sheriff, if we just said, You know what, I don't agree with the free speech portion of the Constitution, we would have stopped free speech. I had to defend people, stand there and put my body in front of people who were opposed to what the people behind me were saying that was repugnant to us and to most Americans. But I had to put my safety at risk for their free speech. And you know, I could have said, You know what, I don't agree with that. That is just part of the Constitution. Let's not worry about free speech. But we didn't do that. We didn't rewrite the law. We didn't rewrite it. You know, yesterday or the day before--I am not sure which day it was--but in the Rules Committee, we heard an impassioned description from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster), who was the speaker of the house in Florida, who was sued by the Governor in regards to the implementation of law. And guess what? That body won. And thank goodness that the house won in the Supreme Court of Florida and that they just didn't say, You know what, you don't have standing. So forget about that. A lot of people are trying to presuppose what the Supreme Court is going to say or do. I would suggest to you that I am willing to go along with whatever the Supreme Court says. Now, I may not like it. But I am willing to go along with it because I do believe they are the ultimate arbitrators as to what is constitutional and what isn't. It is amazing that this document that we are talking about, that there is a question about it, that there is a question about the separation of powers. I would like to read a quote from then-Senator Barack Obama: We have got a government that was designed by the Founders with checks and balances. You don't want a President that is too powerful, a Congress that is too powerful, or a Court that is too powerful. Everybody has got their own role. Congress' job is to pass legislation. The President can veto it or sign it, but what George Bush has been doing as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the Presidency, he has been saying, well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter that says I don't agree with this part or that, I'm going to choose to interpret it this way or that way. It is not part of his power, but it is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. Once again, quoting then-Senator Obama, Senator Obama says: I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. Now, I don't know what happened on the trip from the Capitol down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, how that changed, but I guess the Presidency can change your view of the world. It may not be an accurate view of the world, but it can change it. I think what then-Senator Obama said rang true then and rings true today. It is about the separation of power, and let me tell you something, my friends on the other side of the aisle should be standing there with us because, for too long, this House has now become irrelevant. Congress in general is becoming irrelevant. When I got elected just over 4 years ago, I came up here with a purpose. I came up here with a belief in the Constitution and that there is separation of powers between the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, but now, I hate to say it, in my 4 years, I have become disenchanted with the fact that this House for way too long has just had a ``cooperate and graduate'' kind of attitude, and I don't think we should do that. That is why, today, the buck stops here. We have got to make a stand in regards to is the Constitution relevant, is this House relevant. If not, we should just all go home. There is no reason to be here. I have three sons that serve their country and that have put their lives on the line for this country, not by their own choice--I mean, they serve their country at their choice--but when they go off into war, it is at the direction of the President. It is a direction to protect this country, and they do so willingly. They raised their hand to say they are going to support and defend the Constitution. I raised it as a police officer outside of Chicago, I raised it as a deputy sheriff, I raised it as sheriff, and I raised it here when I got sworn in as a Member of this body. I take that seriously, and I take it seriously when anybody thinks they can trample on the Constitution. I take it seriously when anybody thinks that they are above where we need to be. This legislation is about empowering the Speaker of the House, if he so deems it, to sue the President. I happen to agree with that. Mr. Speaker, we can talk all day--at least I could--in regards to why it is important that this House protect its prerogative in regards to passing legislation and reminding the executive branch as to what their duties are. Mr. Speaker, this isn't about Democrats and Republicans. Let me tell you something, I wasn't here before this. I got here 4 years ago. I don't care if it is a Republican or Democrat or Independent or whatever. I believe in this institution. I believe in the Constitution of this country, and I believe we should do everything in our power to defend it no matter who is trying to usurp it. So I encourage my colleagues for the last time to support this rule, to support this institution, and to support this Constitution. It is about are we really serious about the checks and balances that our Founding Fathers so rightfully created.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), chairman of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member, 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 Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 964 provides for consideration of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013. On Monday, the House had a full and thorough debate on H.R. 935. While the bill did not gain the two-thirds majority necessary to pass by suspension, it did receive 253 bipartisan votes. It is important we pass this bill in order to reduce the regulatory burden that has been placed on the nearly 365,000 pesticide users, and this rule allows us to do that. The rule also allows the House to consider H. Res. 676. This resolution will allow the Speaker to initiate litigation for actions by the President--or other executive branch officials-- inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution. The fact that we have to sue the President simply to ensure that he is working within the constraints of the Constitution, to me, Mr. Speaker, is troubling, but that is the situation we are facing. While there have always been disagreements between the legislative and executive branches about how expansive the President's authority is, the Constitution is explicit that Congress writes the laws and the President's role is to ``take care'' that those laws are faithfully executed. No President may have both powers. Our Founding Fathers understood the danger of having a President who not only enforced the laws, but made them. An executive with those powers would easily infringe on citizens' liberty. Our Founders saw this firsthand. That is why they were fleeing to come to this country and form this country. They knew the Executive would try to exceed the power afforded under the Constitution, even when it is occupied by someone who previously taught the limits the Constitution puts on Presidential power. That is why they were so careful in delegating among the three branches. This system of checks and balances has served America so well for so long. Now, I am sorry for the civics lesson, but it is clear that some on the other side of the aisle have temporarily lost sight of how important these checks and balances are to the functioning of this House and to the legislative branch in general. But that wasn't always the case. When Representative Conyers, for instance, was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he remarked: We are coequal branch of government, and if our system of checks and balances is going to operate, it is imperative that we understand how the executive branch is enforcing or ignoring the bills that are signed into law. Representative Nadler, for his part, cautioned: And I hope that anyone who thinks that inquiring into the excesses of the executive branch and into what appears to be a concentrated effort in every different aspect of law to destroy the power of the Congress and the judiciary and to limit our power to protect the liberties of the American people against encroachments by the Executive are a waste of time, I hope they will rethink what they are doing here. Mr. Speaker, I read these quotes to illustrate the concern of the executive branch overstepping its authority isn't confined to just one party or one President. This is a legislative versus executive issue; it is not a Democrat versus Republican issue. And, to be frank, the legislative branch has been on the losing end of this for quite some time. But my point is that we shouldn't be so callous or shortsighted as to not defend our article I powers simply because the President in question happens to belong to one party. If we don't take action now, what stops future Presidents--Republican or Democrat--from eroding our powers further? Congress, itself, has shown little opposition to the harm it has done to the separation of powers over the years. That is why it is critical that we take action now. This should be a cause that the legislative branch can unite around, not divide over. Instead, we have Members of Congress standing in applause when the President says he will bypass Congress to enact his agenda. Mr. Speaker, half of this body stood up in applause. It should be done in defiance. Here we have Members of Congress cheering for the President for basically saying he is going to eliminate their purpose here. This isn't the first President whose actions have raised the alarms of an overreaching executive, and it is clear if we do nothing, it will not be the last. I urge my colleagues to defend our role in government, and to stop the assault on the separation of powers. Let's finally say to the Executive: ``Enough is enough.'' Let's finally say: ``Support the Constitution, support the separation of powers, and support this rule.'' With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 694 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUGENT. I do not, Mr. Speaker. I want to reiterate my earlier announcement that all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only, and we are not yielding for other purposes.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider House Concurrent Resolution 105 in the House, if called up by the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the amendment printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and numbered 1 be considered as adopted; that the concurrent resolution, as amended, be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution, as amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Royce of California and Representative McGovern of Massachusetts or their respective designees.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Chair, as a past sheriff, we utilized that equipment in a responsible way. All of the helicopters we had in our fleet were all surplus helicopters that flew as far back as Vietnam. Some of the weapons that we had came from the military. We didn't receive any bombs. At the end of the day, you can always find misuses of any equipment that is given or utilized by law enforcement. It is the responsibility of those communities to keep that law enforcement agency in check. To just outright ban the usage of that equipment would devastate local law enforcement agencies across the Nation, not just in Florida, but everywhere. With that, I do appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chair, I have heard a lot of things in my life as a sheriff and in my 38 years in law enforcement, but I will tell you this: first of all, the Federal Government does not give local law enforcement or any law enforcement agency bombs. The helicopters that local law enforcement receive are all demilitarized. They are all stripped out of any capability of having weapons in them. Those are used to save people's lives. They are used to find guys that have murdered people or to find rapists. This is absolutely ludicrous to think that the equipment that is utilized by law enforcement is utilized for any reason except for public safety interests, and it happens across this Nation every day in a responsible way.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chairman, the amendment treats the National Guard dual status military technicians as uniformed personnel in the event of furlough. Dual status technicians are uniformed full-time guardsmen, but a lot of their workweek falls into a legal gray area between active duty and civilian. Essentially, they wear two hats. They are trained to perform a particular job in the Armed Forces, and they drill in that role like all other guardsmen. However, these dual service technicians are the ones that actually keep the equipment operational. My son serves in the Florida Army National Guard as a Black Hawk pilot. These dual service technicians are there all week long, to make sure that the helicopters he flies are viable, are safe, and can do a mission. When they were furloughed last time under this President, we lost the ability to respond to natural disasters within the State of Florida. When we were in the hurricane season and the helicopters were not flyable because our dual service technicians had been furloughed and not treated like other full-time military personnel, we lost the capability to respond to issues that are State issues. More than that, this same unit that I am talking about--and it goes across this Nation with regard to National Guard units and dual service technicians--they have deployed to Afghanistan, to Iraq; and when they deploy, they actually go with them because they are in uniform. They are military. Because of the gray area they fall in, they can be furloughed by the President, like they did this last time, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) and I had come to this floor to talk about that issue, and we had this same amendment, which passed unanimously, I believe, because it protects not only the States, but it also protects our national mission of self-defense here in the homeland and being able to project the force that we need. So at the end of the day, these technicians who during the day wear a uniform of the United States--this time it would be the Army--in keeping the equipment serviceable and operational--and in this instance were Black Hawk helicopters--they were furloughed. And guess what? They can only be there when they were on the drill weekend. Well, unfortunately, 3 days out of a month is not enough to keep a Black Hawk operational. So this is really important. We are lucky this time that sequestration is put off in 2015. But that doesn't stop the Commander in Chief from changing that and furloughing these employees, another reason to save money. At the end of the day, it is about readiness. We should do nothing that hurts readiness in our military, whether it is National Guard or Reservists, but particularly, and I will tell you from my standpoint in the State of Florida that is hurricane prone, those Black Hawks deliver rescue capability that no other vehicle provides for. And we need to make sure those dual-service technicians are treated with respect and kept on the payroll to do the job of keeping our military active with that Reserve component, the National Guard, keep them ready to respond to emergencies here at home and abroad.

Mr. NUGENT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.