Richard Nugent

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 631 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 631. The rule provides for consideration of multiple pieces of legislation meant to provide solutions to some of today's most pressing threats and concerns. House Resolution 631 ensures that we'll be able to have a robust debate on important issues facing our Nation's cybersecurity infrastructure while also providing the path forward for student loan legislation that reflects quick action we need to take on this pressing issue. First, House Resolution 631 gives this House the opportunity to be a leader when it comes to our Nation's cybersecurity needs. The rule also sets up the opportunity for us to vote tomorrow on a measure that addresses our Nation's student loan programs. Without this legislation, Americans with Federal student loans will see their rate double starting in July. These are issues that cannot wait. Our Nation's security cannot wait. At a time when our workforce is so bleak and President Obama's policies keep digging us deeper and deeper into a financial hole, we cannot wait on finding a solution for those young people with student loan debt who are still trying to find a place in our workforce. We all know that the Internet has fundamentally changed the way we live our lives day-to-day. I think it's safe to say that even 20 years ago, many of us in this room couldn't have imagined that one day we would live in a world where we could do almost anything we wanted, be it buy groceries, run a business, or talk to a loved one serving our country overseas, through a computer. The Internet has made all this possible. But for all the ways the Internet has made life, business, and even government, to some extent, faster, more responsive, and more transparent, it has also opened us up to new threats. U.S. companies report an onslaught of cyberintrusions that steal sensitive information. Even our own government has suffered from cyberattacks. This type of rampant Internet theft not only costs American companies valuable information, intellectual property, and research and development work, it also costs American workers their jobs. It's hard to say exactly how much cyberattacks cost our Nation's economy, but they could cost as much as $400 billion a year, according to one report from the Computer Security Institute and the FBI. Today, the House will begin consideration of a bill that will help protect our Nation from these kinds of threats. H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, would allow private companies to voluntarily share information with each other and with the government in a sort of public-private Internet security partnership. The bill includes significant safeguards to protect personal and private information. It significantly limits the Federal Government's use of that information that the private companies voluntarily provide, including the government's ability to search data. It requires that the independent inspector general for the intelligence community audit information shared with the government and report the results to Congress to ensure regular oversight. It also encourages the private sector to make the information it shares with others, including the government, as anonymous as possible. This is a strongly bipartisan piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that was passed out of the Intelligence Committee with an overwhelming vote of 17 1. In the Rules Committee yesterday, we heard testimony from both sides, speaking to the cooperative, bipartisan work that was done in this piece of legislation. I commend the work that the Intelligence Committee did with members on both sides of the aisle, as well as with private sector companies, trade groups, privacy and civil liberty advocates, and the executive branch. It's because of these efforts that virtually every sector of the economy supports this legislation. It's also why there are more than 100 cosponsors of this legislation, including 11 committee chairmen. But recognizing that we don't always face one problem at a time, this rule also provides for consideration of a measure to address student loans. Our legislation, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, would prevent federally subsidized student loan interest rates on new loan disbursements from doubling to 6.8 percent from the current 3.4 percent on July 1 of this year. This 1-year measure would cost the government $5.9 billion. Now, you all probably heard me talk again and again about bringing our Nation back to its core mission. You've also heard me talk about how we need to cut back on the ``nice-to-haves'' and make hard choices of what we will and won't pay for. Back when the previous majority passed their health care takeover in 2010, they paid for it, in part, by taking $9 billion from college financial aid trust funds. Now that they've robbed Peter to pay Paul, they're realizing Peter still needs that money, too. To resolve the problem, the Interest Rate Reduction Act pays for this stopgap measure by taking some of that stolen money back from the ObamaCare slush fund and redirecting it to student financial aid. Sometimes this House has to multitask, Mr. Speaker. As we face an economy that can't afford to lose any more jobs to cyberattacks and college loan recipients who can't find a job thanks to President Obama's failed policies, that is one of those times. House Resolution 631 provides the House with a way forward on both of these critical measures. With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the underlying pieces of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute, if he needs it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. NUGENT. I do not.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I've been here now 1 year and 4 months, and I'm always amazed at what we hear from the other side. I hear about how this is supposed to be an attack on women's health. You know, it's interesting because that's the position that President Obama's taken. I understand that that's the position that my friends on the other side of the aisle have taken, but it's not true. You know, yesterday in markup in Energy and Commerce in regards to this pay-for, they talked about a number of issues in regards to this slush fund that HHS has. Now, it's interesting, part of that slush fund comes out to a partly paid for by the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, the Department's Communities Putting Prevention to Work campaign. It's $100 million. Part of it was in spaying and neutering pets, which I agree with, but I don't see how that is taking money away from women's health. If you go on to HHS' Web site, where they actually chronicle the spending from this slush fund, not one place does it talk about cervical cancer or breast cancer in regards to the dollars spent. So to stand here on this floor and accuse Republicans of being against women and women's health when the facts don't back it up--if you go to HHS' Web site, you will see specifically where the money has been spent. Like I said, in one area it is $100 million. The other area that they've gone after is media campaigns as they relate to soda, fast- foods, and others. That's not women's health. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats would like you to forget that in 2010, they took over $9 billion away from student financial aid. The same argument that they're making today, they took it away. I wasn't here in 2010, so it's kind of hard to have your cake and eat it, too. When we say robbing from Peter to pay Paul, and now Peter needs the money, those are students that need the money. Those are students that can't afford to pay additional interest on loans that they're already having a hard time paying off because they are trying to find a job. Mr. Speaker, we've heard so much about cybersecurity today, but remember that the committee started their work on cybersecurity over a year ago in regards to hearings and working in a bipartisan way that produced a bill that was overwhelmingly bipartisan, 17 1. In this Congress, that's pretty difficult to do. But they saw the need based upon their experience within where we stand today as it relates to threats against our infrastructure, those people that actually create jobs, and against our government. Not only have they worked tirelessly amongst themselves, but they reached out to other stakeholders in a way that I believe has been unprecedented in regards to trying to craft a bill that, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction. This isn't about government coming in--you heard one gentleman up here talking about how government should tell businesses what to do. Folks, this is America. This is about freedom for businesses. If they don't act upon information, shame on them. It's not about government takeover of private businesses that tells them how to operate. It is about, though, the ability of government to help formulate the aspect of protecting our cybersecurity. It's all about that. It's about sharing of information. It's about right now the Federal Government is precluded from sharing information to help alert those businesses out there to protect themselves. We know about it, and we can't even tell them. That was one of the inherent problems we had back in 9/11, the fact that we couldn't talk to each other, that agencies didn't talk and share information. Now we want to set ourselves up for a greater catastrophe, one that could bring this Nation down to its knees or worse. You heard about regular order or not regular order. We had regular order on the cybersecurity bill, and it's not enough. Sixteen amendments were made in order. The gentleman from Colorado's amendment was made in order. Five privacy-related amendments were made in order, two Republican and three of those bipartisan. Of the total of those 16 amendments made in order, eight were Republican, four were Democrats, and four were bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, I believe in regular order, and I think that was a perfect example of how this House is supposed to work. That was regular order at its best. We talk about a fair and open process. I want to make sure that we protect the American people; that when you go to bed tonight, your financial information is still going to be secure tomorrow, that you're going to have the ability to protect yourself financially. One of those is to allow businesses to share cyberthreats that are made against them and others, and also for the Federal Government to share when they see a cyberthreat coming that could affect a business today in America. HHS has discretion on how they spend that slush fund. Remember, that money was stolen from students back in 2010 to provide for their education. It was stolen. Call it what you want, but now it's just righting a wrong. It's about making sure that our students have the ability to get an education and hopefully get a great job. I also heard my good friend from Colorado mention about how we're going to make a decision as to who's a national security threat. He mentioned the Tea Party in the same word with Communists. I think it's pretty clear that the Tea Party is not a national security threat and communism is. I don't think that takes a whole lot of rocket science.

Mr. NUGENT. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. NUGENT. Reclaiming my time, I get what you're saying. But at the end of the day when you're trying to say, I guess, a description in regards to that, and you say Communists and then you say Tea Party, I think it's pretty clear. The Tea Party is not a threat to national security. Communism is and has been. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. We're talking about two issues here today that have a lot of bipartisan agreement. Our Nation's cybersecurity is just an integral part of our national security as a whole. It's part--not all--but part of our national security as a whole. And we agree something must be done with our Nation's students as it relates to the loan debt that they have. These are issues that I think we all agree on, Democrats and Republicans alike. I know from some of our previous conversations that my friend, Mr. Polis, is a fan of NPR. So I wanted to let him know this, just in case he didn't. This morning NPR did a story about the fact that China and Russia aren't the only threats to our Nation's cybersecurity anymore. In fact, according to the story today, the newest cybersecurity threat we face today is going to continue and grow, and it's from Iran. Even though Iran may not have as strong a cyberpresence now as Russia and China do, it's continuing to grow. It's growing at the same time as their nuclear program is growing, too. Iran has learned how to manipulate the Internet to shut down protesters in their own country, to hack Web sites that have antigovernment messages, and carry out sophisticated cyberattacks in their own country to identify those dissidents who may disagree with the government. With threats like that growing every day, we need to make sure our networks here at home in America are safe and secure. This bipartisan--I can't stress this enough--this bipartisan Rogers cybersecurity bill is critical. It's a critical step in ensuring America and our private industry are safe from cyberattacks. We talk about bipartisan a lot in this Chamber. We don't always practice it. This committee not only practiced it, but they reached outside of the committee itself to those that may be supportive and may be opposed, and they tried to work and put forth amendments that would make this a better bill. That's what it's all about, the amendment process, is to make something better, nor tear it down. So I encourage colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this strongly bipartisan legislation both on cybersecurity and protecting our students and student loans. As the President begins his taxpayer-funded college tour, which is really more like a reelection tour, he's going to be talking a lot about student loan debt. Well, he can talk all he wants because in this House we're going to act--and we're going to do it in a way that fixes a problem that was a temporary fix for 5 years. Well, guess what. We're going to fix it again. We're going to make sure that our students have the ability to get a college education and be able to pay it back in a way that they can be successful in the future. We're going to make sure that the ratio of the student loan rates don't double come this July 1. In Washington-speak, to a lot of people, that's a ways off. But up here, this House, this Congress has kicked cans down the road before to the tune of 20 years when they're looking out and saying, oh, we've got plenty of time, and all of sudden we have other issues facing this country--and now we have one here. This House is taking action to correct a wrong or a problem that exists today in America, both in cybersecurity and in student loans, and we're going to do it without costing the taxpayers anything by taking money out of the ObamaCare slush fund, which was funded by cuts to student loan programs to begin with, and sending it back to our student loans. Now remember, this slush fund can be used for anything. As we saw, they used it for a whole bunch of things. As they tried to link us to women's health issues, not one of those were related to that. Not one nickle or dime was spent on those, even though they would like to say it was. So, Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. NUGENT. 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.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Madam Speaker, we hear so much out here on the House floor. I support the rule and the underlying legislation because it gives the ability to small businesses to create jobs here in America. It allows people to go back to work. Those folks, when they go back to work, actually pay taxes. They start contributing as citizens of this great country. This small business group tax deduction affects small businesses that are minority-owned, that are women-owned, that are veteran-owned businesses. You hear all this talk about how it affects all these other folks, but this is really about creating jobs in America. It's about allowing people that are entrepreneurs to utilize the resources that they've worked hard for and their employees have worked hard for to create additional jobs. You've heard a whole lot of stuff down here about transportation. The transportation bill expired back in September of 2009. My good friend from Florida, I agree with you, we should have a long-term transportation bill. But what did you do since 2009? I got up here in 2011. We're still talking about the lack of action by this Congress, by the Senate, and by this President since 2009 to get Americans back to work. When you talk to those that are small businesses that actually do the work on roads, they said if you do a 90-day, a 2-year extension, we're not going to add jobs. We're going to be able to keep the jobs that we have, but we're not going to add jobs. We're not going to be buying equipment from Caterpillar up in Peoria, Illinois, and putting people to work in Illinois. We've already canceled those jobs. So, Madam Speaker, this is about America. This is about actually looking people in the eye, those that actually create jobs. Remember, small businesses create over 70 percent of the new jobs in America. We're making them the villain in this instead of returning it back and saying, you know, small businesses and entrepreneurs, they're going to use the money to grow their business. That's why they're in it. That's why they get into this whole thing in regards to putting their risk, their money, and their reputations at stake. You hear about class warfare. We heard it here today. And I agree about comprehensive tax reform. I'll give you the best comprehensive tax reform. Why don't we move to the fair tax? Why don't we move to the fact that we can encourage our small businesses and businesses in America that can compete globally instead of under a tax burden and debt that we have here in America? We have the ability to move forward and do the right thing. Let's not get caught up in the semantics and the political rhetoric. Let's really stand here and do the right thing for small businesses to allow them, Madam Speaker, to create the jobs that we know they can. I have the utmost confidence in small businesses.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida and fellow Rules Committee member to allow me to speak today on behalf of this. It's interesting to stand up here and listen to what comes across from the other side. They talk about the FAA bill. That's a bill that while they were in control of this area, since 2007, there was not a reauthorization of that bill until this year, until the 112th Congress came into power. We now have a 4-year reauthorization of the FAA bill that sat over on the other side while they had control of this House since 2007. There's been no action other than just temporary fixes. The same goes now with this bill today in regards to transportation. They want you to believe that the Senate passed this great bill out of the Senate, a 2-year fix. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, a 2-year fix in this industry is like nothing at all. In speaking with developers and road construction folks in my State, they said a 6-month extension is as good as a 2-year extension, and basically all it does is keep their doors open. They don't hire new folks; they don't go out and purchase new equipment; they don't go to Caterpillar up in Peoria, Illinois, and buy more equipment. What they told me was that when the Senate came back out with an 18-month and 2- year extension, they canceled major equipment orders in Peoria, Illinois. They canceled those orders because there's no reason for them to invest millions of dollars in equipment on a 6-month, an 18-month, or a 2-year extension. We should be standing here talking today about a 5- to 7-year extension of the highway bill. That's what we should be talking about. That gives those builders some certainty. We talk about certainty. The other side talks about it at great length, but what certainty did they show when they had control of both houses, the Senate and the House, and the President? What did they show for an accomplishment, other than short-term fixes that have nothing to do with certainty? The construction industry hires based upon certainty, how far they can look out. A major road builder that I talked to said: ``Listen, Rich, it's just not going to work that way.'' Mr. Speaker, what they're saying to us is that for them to spend money to hire new workers, they need to have some certainty that they're going to have a 5- to 7-year window to start building upon, not a 6-month fix, not an 18-month fix, not a 2-year fix. Once again, the builders I'm talking to are saying that on these short-term fixes, all it does is keep the status quo alive. It allows them to keep the employees that they have, but they will not invest in new equipment, and they're not going to invest in hiring new employees because it's a short-term fix for them, not a long-term fix. We had the opportunity to do a pay-for, and I agree with my friend from Worcester when we talk about we should have a pay-for 5- to 7-year transportation bill, not a short-term fix. But if we don't do a short- term fix today--you heard my colleague from Florida talk about what's going to happen on Sunday--all projects stop as we know it. That's not what this House should do. We need to pass the 90-day extension. We need to support this rule and pass the bill so we can eliminate uncertainty, not what we have today.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 108, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, in closing, I appreciate my good friend's confession about being a trial lawyer. I'm not. I'm not an attorney. So what I'm worried about is not how attorneys enrich themselves; I'm worried about the people that I represent, the 250,000-plus that are on Medicare. I'm concerned about them. You hear from the other side, well, don't worry about it. It could be 5, 10 years from now. Well, you know what? I'm concerned now because why would you have something put in place that's going to ration care to our seniors when they need it the most? That's when they need it the most. We should be advocating for them, not for trial lawyers. We should be here talking about tort reform to lower the cost. If you look at what California did, they're a model. They set up a model program. Their liability insurance for doctors is lower than the average across the board in the United States. This act, the HEALTH Act, is modeled after that. In regards to the noneconomic damages, limits on contingency fees for lawyers, big one there; about fair share, about proportional, whoever's at fault. It's a proportion of that reference to how the claim gets paid out. And I heard this talked about before: But will the health care act work to reduce health care costs and lower the deficit? According to the CBO, it will. It will be an average of 25 to 30 percent below what it would be under current law, which is IPAB today, 25 to 30 percent less than what the current law, IPAB, calls for. Is this important? I think the relationship between a patient and a doctor should be between a patient and a doctor and not have a middleman, called the United States Government, stepping in between you to say, ``You know what? We don't think that that service deserves a certain level of payment,'' and by reducing that payment we know that that service is not going to be provided. I truly don't believe that that's where we should be as a government, and I certainly don't believe that we should be in between the patients and their physicians. I also worry about--and I hear this from docs all the time back in my district--Rich, you know what's going to happen? We're just going to close our doors. Those that are entering the profession, there's less and less because they're concerned about how they're going to make a living, how they're going to pay back those student loans that they have, because they really want to pay it back. They want to do the right thing. But how are they going to do that if they can't open a practice and if they can't take Medicare patients because this board makes a decision to lower the cost of reimbursement? We've seen it already. Every time we do a doc fix, we have more and more doctors that are in trouble because of the fact they don't know what tomorrow's going to bring, and I don't want our seniors to worry about what tomorrow is going to bring. I don't want to balance the budget on the back of our seniors. That's not where we need to be. As we move along here, the reason I stand here today is that I support and I will defend our seniors, which is why I support H.R. 5, because it's common sense. Like I said, I'm not an attorney. I'm not a lawyer, so I have but one constituency that I worry about at this point on this particular issue, and it is this issue. You put all kinds of other stuff out there about transportation and all these things, but this is the pressing issue today in front of us. The issue is about tort reform. The issue is about IPAB and repealing IPAB so our seniors can have a direct relationship with a physician of their choice, and that's the important part. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 591 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting of the text of the bill (H.R. 14) to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of , the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this resolution.

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

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my good friend from Florida how many more speakers he may have.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.