Richard Nugent

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I need to go back to when I first took the oath of office as a police officer outside of Chicago and then as a deputy sheriff in Florida and then a sheriff in Florida and then here in this body and also when I joined the military. It was to support and defend the Constitution, not to ignore the Constitution, not to utilize it when we think it is okay or when it is necessary, not to just skip over article I and say: Do you know what? Forget about it because our Congresses have done that. My good friend from Massachusetts pointed that out. They have done it for 30 years, but that doesn't make it right. At some point in time, we have got to set the record straight. Somebody has got to step up and say: Do you know what? The Constitution matters, what we do here matters, and that all of us--the three branches of government--need to work, and they are coequal, not one above the other. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, all I can tell you is that I don't take it as a joke in our defending and protecting the Constitution, which gives us the ability to serve here today. The people gave us the ability to be here based upon what the Constitution laid out for us. That is the plan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make a couple of things clear. In the Judiciary Committee, they did have two hearings on this. Now, they took some action to bring forward one of these bills based upon the hearings and the testimony that they did have. I truly believe in the open process. We want to see that, and I think we agree on that. My good friend from Massachusetts even read an article about George W. Bush and about that Presidency and that someone said that this Congress--or that Congress back then--should actually do something to allow it to go to court. I believe that was the statement. I am paraphrasing it. That is exactly what this does. I can't help it. I wasn't here when George W. Bush was President--I wasn't here 4 years ago--but I am here today, and I am here to defend and support this Constitution. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a good friend of mine.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. All I can say, again, is that as it relates to these bills, there was discussion in the hearings and testimony taken to the concept and the ideas behind these bills. Mr. Speaker, we hear about, this is partisan. It doesn't say ``President Barack Obama.'' This says ``the President.'' It doesn't matter if it is Republican or Democrat, Mr. Speaker. It says ``the President.'' It has nothing to do specifically with President Obama, but it has everything to do with protecting the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with much of what my colleague from Massachusetts said, particularly as it relates to our involvement in Afghanistan and the Karzai regime. Let me read you some quotes, Mr. Speaker, and let's see who we thought said these quotes: The power of what has begun to be termed the Imperial Presidency grows, and the ability of our Democratic institutions, especially the Federal legislative branch to constrain it, seems more uncertain. The next quote: We are a 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. And: We are talking about a systematic extra-constitutional mode of conduct by the White House. The conduct threatens to deprive the American people of one of the basic rights of any democracy, the right to elect Representatives who determine what the law is, subject only to the President's veto. That does not mean having a President sign those laws but then say he is free to carry them out or not as only he sees fit. Another quote: I believe it is in all of our interests to work together to rein in any excesses of the executive branch, whether it is in Democratic, Republican, or even Libertarian hands. Lastly, I will suggest to you that all those quotes I just read were from a highly respected Democrat, Mr. Conyers, talking about the George W. Bush Presidency. What has changed? That is what we are talking about today. This isn't about Republicans or Democrats. Even Mr. Conyers said that that is a problem, that we are giving up what we are supposed to be doing here in the legislative branch, legislating. The President has a right to veto, but when he signs it into law, he has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws that he signs, he signs into law. Mr. Speaker, in an interview with The New York Times last July, the President was asked whether or not he had the legal constitutional authority to delay the employer mandates, and the President's response was this, Mr. Speaker, speaking about Members of Congress: ``I am not concerned about their opinions. Very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, he is right in one regard. Most of us aren't constitutional lawyers, and I am certainly glad the President is proud of his academic achievements. It doesn't take a constitutional lawyer to understand that we have separation of powers in this country, and that is what makes us unique. It doesn't take a constitutional lawyer to understand that the President can't just pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones, don't worry about; we don't have to enforce it. Any eighth-grade civics student can tell you that. Our Constitution explicitly states, the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. It is even in the oath of office. It doesn't say if I disagree with them that means I don't have to worry about that. It is in the oath of office that he is supposed to do that. Mr. Speaker, I take that oath to support and defend the Constitution very seriously. I did it when I raised my hand at 18 years old when I went into the Air Force. I did it when I was 21 years old when I became a police officer outside of Chicago. I did it again when I was a deputy sheriff. I did it again when I was sheriff, and I did it when I got elected to Congress, now, a second time. I take that oath personal. I have three sons that serve this country today. They have all raised their hand to support and defend this Constitution, not when it is convenient, not when it meets what I need out of it. It says you do it. That is the law. That is the Constitution, and we kind of forget that. We say it is just a document. It is a dusty document. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. It talks about how we conduct ourselves as a government of the people and by the people, not because of who we are. I am concerned, on quite a few instances now, this President clearly hasn't faithfully executed those laws. Just recently, the President yet again announced a delay in the implementation of ObamaCare. The administration says they will continue to allow insurance companies to offer plans that don't meet ObamaCare's coverage requirements. How many delays does that make, Mr. Speaker? I have no idea. I have lost count. I haven't kept track. There have been a lot of them because they all hit the front page, most of them hit the front page of the papers. Just because the President's health care law isn't working doesn't mean the President can just change it on the fly. I understand it is what he wants. It is the implementation of a law, but don't say you can just change it willy-nilly. The President is literally making it up as he goes along. Delaying the consequences of ObamaCare, however, does not fix them. Perhaps our colleagues are facing frustrated constituents that just aren't quite ready to defend the law yet. Maybe that is the case. Perhaps it is themselves that these delays are really meant for. I don't know. Nevertheless, I don't object to delaying ObamaCare, just the President's desire not to have come to Congress to do it. Congress enacted it. Congress has a right, then, to modify it, not the President. The fact is, a lot of these plans are good fits for consumers. Cancellations they face, the higher premiums and deductibles, are a real hardship. That doesn't change the fact that the means through which the President changed the policy is wrong, and we all know it. It is time for this body to come together to prevent our constitutional role from disintegrating further. It matters not what has occurred in the last 40 years, it matters what occurs today. It matters to the people I represent that I faithfully support and defend the Constitution. It is time this body pushed back against any Presidency that would assert itself, whether it was Mr. Conyers speaking of the prior Presidents or it is us speaking about this current President. I am confident that the underlying legislation, the rule that it provides for, will start the process, and I urge my colleagues, if you care about protecting our three-branch system of government, support this rule and support the underlying legislation.

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. Speaker, due to inclement weather on December 10th, my flight was cancelled and I was unable to vote on H.R. 3521 Dept. of VA Major Medical Facility Lease and H.R. 1402 VA Expiring Authorities Extension. Had I been able to be present, I would have voted for both pieces of legislation. I applaud the passage of these resolutions which will positively benefit our nation's veterans.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 429 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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, I rise today in support of this rule, House Resolution 429. House Resolution 429 provides a structured rule for both H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act, and H.R. 1105, the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act. The rule gives the House the opportunity to debate a variety of important amendments offered by Members on both sides of the aisle. The Innovation Act seeks to address a growing problem of abusive patent litigation, commonly known as ``patent trolling.'' Patent trolls are nonpracticing entities. In other words, they don't make or sell products, and they don't supply services. Instead, they exist only to secure fees from businesses that use technologies covered by the patents they own. They do this by acquiring weak patents and then filing numerous patent infringement lawsuits or sending blanket demand letters to a business. The victims of these frivolous lawsuits are all too often small businesses or start-ups that are ill-equipped to protect themselves. They simply don't have the resources available to mount an adequate defense. It is, by definition, a lose-lose scenario for them. Defendants pay millions in damages if they lose and millions in legal fees if they win. More often, defendants are forced to settle, despite the merits of a case, in order to avoid expensive legal costs. Meanwhile, patent trolls are aided by law firms that operate on contingency fees. This means that, if nonpracticing entities lose their cases, there are no monetary consequences for them--none at all. They aren't on the hook for legal fees like their counterparts are. As you can see, for small companies, this system is inherently unfair. Our small businesses are our most important innovators in this country. They are largely responsible for the new products and services we, as consumers, enjoy. They are also a critical factor in growing our economy and creating jobs. We ought to provide fairness to them by leveling the playing field in the patent litigation process. We ought to ensure that our patent system isn't stifling innovation but encouraging it. Unfortunately, this just isn't the case right now. Patent trolling is a destructive practice that saps resources from small businesses and increases costs for consumers. And its negative impact isn't limited to just the tech sector either. Patent trolling affects businesses and industries of all types, including the health industry and even grocers. It is absolutely a drag on our economy. An issue like this undoubtedly deserves to be debated by the House. This rule will ensure that a deliberative process takes place. The rule also allows for consideration of H.R. 1105, the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act. This legislation would remove the requirement that small private equity firms register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC. However, it would retain the option of registering if they choose to. Under current law, small private equity firms are being grouped by behemoths despite the fact that they played no contributing role in the financial crisis we just went through. Even the chairman of the SEC in a letter to Chairman Hensarling admitted that the private equity funds were not an underlying cause of the recent financial crisis. Furthermore, private equity does not pose a systemic risk to the economy. So why are we taking limited resources at the SEC away from their mission and shifting them to oversee firms that pose no systemic risk at all? Why are we burdening these small companies with SEC registration costs that, according to the Private Equity Growth Council, can exceed over $1 million per year? More money in unnecessary compliance costs means less money to invest in companies, particularly newer ones, which allow them to grow and create the jobs we desperately need. In my own State of Florida, there are over 1,000 private equity- backed companies. Let me repeat that: there are over 1,000 private equity-backed companies in Florida alone. There are over 100 private equity firms within the State of Florida. These companies support more than 800,000 workers throughout the country. In fact, in 2012, Florida ranked fifth in the Nation in attracting private equity investment. That investment is a vital tool for growing companies, and we are needlessly handcuffing their ability to do just that. H.R. 1105 will help these smaller funds and increase the capital available for real companies so their businesses can thrive. Make no mistake, this is a jobs bill and it will help grow our economy. I support this rule that will allow us to consider these bills, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do the same. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. I thank the gentleman from Colorado, but I will tell you this: the House is moving through the Judiciary Committee at a pace to make sure that we do this right in regards to immigration. Where the Senate has rushed through a bill that is so comprehensive and so large, it will be similar to ObamaCare before we actually----

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to respond to my good friends from Colorado. I appreciate that he appreciates the approach that this House is taking, particularly as it relates to both of the bills that are the underlying aspect of this rule. It is about moving in a deliberative manner to make sure that we get it right. I thank Mr. Polis for pointing that out. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. NUGENT. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. NUGENT. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Mr. NUGENT. I do not.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am speaking to some of the comments that were made, particularly as it relates to football. We talked about a field goal and 3 points, but here is the position that the majority has taken in the House as it relates to immigration. It is about first downs. It is about moving the ball forward in measured steps, about getting it right the first time, not going through what we have gone through with these huge bills.

Mr. NUGENT. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. NUGENT. Reclaiming my time, it takes time, as you know, to move meaningful legislation through and to get it right the first time. You have to live with some things when you have these megabills with thousands of pages, such as a 1,000-page immigration bill or 2,500 pages for the Affordable Care Act. At the end of the day, let's do this in a reasonable approach, because we want immigration reform, because we know we have a broken immigration system. We absolutely know that. I think this House has taken the right approach in doing things in a measured way to get first downs until we get to the end zone where we all want to be. As we notice on this bill, even though there is strong bipartisan support on both of these pieces of legislation, we still have some that aren't happy because sometimes bills never get to exactly where everybody wants them to be. I get that. In a perfect world, we would get everything we want. It is not a perfect world. We don't get everything we want. But it is about moving the ball forward, and I think that my good friend from Colorado has talked eloquently about the issues as relate to patent reform and private equity because I know he has been part of that world. He speaks from experience in those areas. Is it everything that you want? Probably not. We have heard from the chairman of the committee that it is not everything he wants. But it is a step in the right direction. It is moving the ball forward. It is getting the first down. It is moving it so that we can win the game-- not a political party, but the American people. Consumers can win. The holders of patents can win. That is what this is all about. With regard to demand letters, I lived through this as a sheriff. We used to get demand letters that we were going to get sued, and the whole idea behind it was the fact that they thought we would settle for $30,000 or $40,000 to make them go away. Here is what happened. The sheriffs got smart, and they put together a consortium of sheriffs, 60 out of 67, in a sheriffs self-insurance fund. Guess what? We changed the tables and the dynamics in regard to it just as this bill will do. What we did was say, Guess what? We are no longer going to be blackmailed into giving money. On a legitimate case, you are going to settle; but on a case that is frivolous, we would say, No thanks. Let's go to trial. They never want to do that because it is expensive on their end, too, particularly when they could wind up paying for that. Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said today, and I think a lot more is going to be said after we pass this rule. As we talk about what I think is fair, that abusive patent litigation is a growing problem--we have heard that from both sides today. Under current patent systems, small businesses and startups simply don't have the resources to compete with the patent trolls. They are easy targets. They routinely settle, regardless of the merits of the case, to avoid hefty legal costs. We understand that, therefore, it is important that we level the playing field for our innovators, our innovators that actually create something, an idea out of thin air, and create something that can be turned into jobs in the future. Regardless of where the Members of this body fall on the underlying legislation, it seems that we are all in agreement that we need to combat this destructive practice. We are also in agreement that we need jobs. The rule provides for consideration of a bill that will give small companies more access to capital, more opportunities to grow, more opportunities to create jobs. The rule makes in order important germane amendments addressing this. Mr. Speaker, we heard a call to vote ``no'' on the rule for other reasons. Let's talk about creating jobs in America. Let's talk about protecting our innovators. Let's not get caught up in the politics of the day. Let's do the right thing for the American people today, the thing that is going to be heard today in this House. Let's vote on a rule, and let's pass that rule. I support this rule, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule as well.

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

Mr. NUGENT

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