Richard Nugent

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. If you look at what the Ryan plan said, it also talks about what we currently have today and that, if you want to keep what you have today in the way of Medicare, you keep it. But if you want to go out and buy your own insurance through a select group, you can do it, just as you can today, in regards to Medicare Advantage, but that's a choice that I can make. I thank you for giving me the time.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I have to agree with my good friend from Florida on one issue, and that's in regard to rationing. You're right, it's not in the act. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, because this board, this unelected board, is going to make decisions that Congress can't even touch. This board is going to say, this is the amount of money we will pay for this procedure. It doesn't matter if that's what the procedure costs. It doesn't matter that this doesn't cover the cost of the physician. It doesn't matter that what's going to happen is our physicians are going to refuse to see those patients. Madam Speaker, that is rationing. Call it what you want. That is rationing when you have an independent board that can make decisions in regard to the cost of services that you're going to make or decisions for you to have services by a particular doctor. We see it already today. In my physician's office it already says, ``We do not take new Medicare patients.'' It's going to get worse. And this board, while it may not call it ``rationing''--I give them great credit for not putting that in the terminology of the Affordable Care Act--it is rationing no matter what you call it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I love the hyperbole. I love my friend from Florida's passionate discourse earlier in this conversation. But he was right. You can't have it both ways. Here's the problem. In their idea of having it both ways, they talk about medical malpractice as if, if we do nothing, things get better. If we ignore tort reform, things get better. If we ignore tort reform, costs of health care will stay the same. Well, in fact, it hasn't. It continues to rise. We talk about higher health care costs, but when we talk about that and we talk about IPAB in particular, 15--15--unelected bureaucrats. The maximum number that can be on that panel is seven physicians-- seven--so they're outvoted already. They're outvoted 8 7. No matter what they think is the proper care for a patient, they're going to be overridden by eight other bureaucrats that have nothing to do with providing health care to our seniors--not a thing. It's all going to be about costs. And they're right: that's how you're going to contain costs, by removing the options for seniors to get the medical care that they deserve and that they need. This independent panel is a rationing board. It's going to ration health care out because that's the only way that panel can save money for the Affordable Care Act. It was designed that way. It was designed to keep us--the American people that are going to use that service, that medical care--from getting it because physicians, when they get their payments cut, will no longer offer service. So where are we supposed to go? That is rationing. That's taking away service from people that need it the most, from those seniors that have paid into this system for their lifetimes and who are now depending on it to be there when they medically need it the most. This is about the seniors that are in my district. I have 250,000 seniors, a quarter of a million, that rely upon Medicare. And if we're going to start rationing care to them, I think it's immoral, it's unethical, and it's not the way we should be doing it. We should be doing it by the free market. We should be talking about tort reform. Everybody agrees we need tort reform. Even the gentleman from Florida talked about the high cost of medical malpractice insurance. Well, where does that come from? It doesn't just spring up out of the Earth. It comes up because of a reason: because of the increased cost to provide medical malpractice. And, particularly for doctors, where it drives up the cost of medical care is that defensive medical care. That's what's driving up the cost along with the premiums that they have to pay because of the lack of tort reform. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my fellow member of the Rules Committee, a freshman, Rob Woodall from Georgia.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, House Resolution 591. H. Res. 591 provides a structured rule so that the House may consider H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act of 2012. The rule provides for 6 hours of debate on this vital issue. In my opinion, the HEALTH Act is one of the most imperative pieces of legislation to come to the floor of the House in the 112th Congress thus far. The bill repeals a particularly egregious part of the government takeover of health care: the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB. In case you're not aware, IPAB is the 15-member panel created by ObamaCare to rein in Medicare costs. IPAB is made up of 15 unelected bureaucrats. The majority are not doctors, and their decisions will have the force of law and will go into effect automatically without the consent of Congress. We'll get back to IPAB in a moment. H.R. 5 also implements long-needed medical malpractice tort reform. I hear all the time that we need to bring down the cost of health care. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that the government takeover of health care would do just that, reduce the cost of health care. In fact, President Obama claimed it would lower premiums by $2,500 per family per year. We know that's just not the case. Since inauguration day in 2009, premiums have risen by $2,213, almost the same amount the President promised he was going to save us. The annual Kaiser Foundation survey of employer-provided insurance found that average family premiums totaled $12,860 in 2008 and are now $15,073 in 2011. Moreover, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, projects the law's new benefit mandates will force premiums to rise on top of that $15,000 by $2,100 per year per family. Malpractice reform, on the other hand, will most definitely reduce the cost of health care. We've seen what defensive medicine is: CAT scans ordered, antibiotics prescribed, blood tests conducted--not because the doctor thought they were necessary, but because he or she was scared that if they didn't order them they would be sued for not prescribing them. A Department of Health and Human Services study said that defensive medicine costs between $70 billion to $126 billion a year. That's billions. The CBO estimate takes a little more moderate stance, putting that number around $54 billion. Let me tell you, $54 billion, $70 billion, $126 billion, that's a lot of money in anybody's terms. I've heard from a lot of folks they are opposing the legislation because it defies States' rights. I have to say I'm particularly surprised to hear so many of my colleagues on the other side making this argument. I'm happy to see they've come to recognize the importance of States' rights and of State sovereignty. I hope that means that we can count on them for their support and efforts in moving forward to take Federal power away from Washington, D.C., and return that power back to the States, where it belongs and where our Founding Fathers envisioned it to be. I want to take a moment to make it clear to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle why this bill, H.R. 5, does not trample on the rights of our States. In the modern era, Congress has enacted many Federal tort reform statutes to supersede contrary State laws, including recent Federal tort reform protecting the vital domestic firearms industry, and judicial precedents leave little doubt as to their constitutionality. Even President Reagan, who was an unabashed champion for the States, established a special task force to study the need for tort reform, which concluded that the Federal Government should address tort reform across the board. I fear that the folks who are claiming the 10th Amendment and States' rights aren't looking at the entirety of H.R. 5. They aren't looking at all of the provisions that make it clear that the caps created in this bill only apply to States that don't already have their own caps. These provisions--``flexi-cap'' they are called--recognize that any State amount on caps takes precedence to this piece of legislation. That means if a State has a billion-dollar cap, good for them, let them keep it. It also means that if a State has a $100,000 cap, they can keep it, too. If a State decides to pass a law and establish a cap on their own to change their existing cap, they should go ahead and do it because H.R. 5 isn't going to do anything to stop them from doing that. H.R. 5 clearly ensures that it is a State's right to set its caps where it wants them. I understand that trial lawyers won't like the Federal limit. Luckily, I really worry about the American people as a whole, not just what trial lawyers have to say. I know this may be speculation, but I think that special interest groups and, perhaps, some of the new converts to the 10th Amendment are hiding behind the States' rights argument because, in fact, they just don't want to see their own profits go down. But I fear that the States' rights discussion is a red herring that only gets us off the most important issue, the issue that I started off with, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Plain and simple, IPAB is going to cut the health care that our Nation's seniors can receive. This Medicare-rationing board, which is what this is, will decide the value of medical services and impose price controls that will slash senior access to doctors and other health care providers. We see this happening already. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services actuary has confirmed that large reductions in Medicare payment rates to physicians would likely have serious implications for beneficiary access to care, utilization, intensity, and the quality of that care. As Donald Berwick, President Obama's appointee as the Medicare administrator, said: The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. H.R. 5 takes that choice away from Administrator Berwick, from IPAB, and from President Obama. H.R. 5 sets forth a new way forward, a way that says we don't need Washington bureaucrats, who haven't even practiced medicine, telling us what's best for us. We need to sit down with our doctors and come up with individual treatment plans, a way that actually does something about health care costs by removing frivolous lawsuits from the equation, a way forward that means States' rights are still protected while also protecting seniors' rights to the best health care options available. Madam Speaker, I support this rule, and I support the underlying legislation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself as much time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 591 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I'm a little confused because I thought we were talking about other issues than what the gentleman was just speaking to, particularly as relates to IPAB and about tort reform. I'll be happy to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, on January 18th, 2012 the USO Board of Governors voted to approve the establishment of the USO Center at the Tampa International Airport. This has been a long process, but thanks to a hardworking team of volunteers, the USO in Tampa is excited about serving the roughly 40,000 active military and their families living in the Tampa Bay area that may use Tampa International Airport as well as the approximately 300,000 that fly in and out of the Tampa International Airport on a yearly basis. As both a Congressman and a father of three sons in the U.S. Army, I know how important the USO services are to our men and women in uniform. When I visit with the veterans in my district, I hear their stories of watching Bob Hope in the USO Concerts and receiving packages with urgent supplies from the USO on Christmas. Today's USO centers give our active duty heroes a place to relax, if only for a few minutes. The new facility in the Tampa International Airport will allow members of our local communities the opportunity to recognize the service and sacrifice of this Nation's proud active duty servicemembers and their families. I am a proud supporter of this outstanding institution and welcome its arrival in the Tampa International Airport.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. I want to thank my very good friend from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for the time. As he mentioned, we both sit on the Rules Committee. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 540, and the issue we are talking about is whether or not the American people can trust us. Today, Congress has a job approval rating of--what?--10, 11, 12 percent. The American people are pretty sick of us, and I don't blame them. Ms. Slaughter has been working on the STOCK Act bill for over 6 years, which is commendable. Yet it's unfortunate that it never came to the Democratic Congress when it had control. That's very unfortunate that she was never able to move it forward. If anything, as we move forward here, I am amazed that 13 percent of folks actually approve of the work we're doing. I can't believe there is even 1 percent. It was only about a year ago that I was one of those people who was disappointed in this body, but my parents always taught me that, if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. So, sure enough, I ran for Congress, and the people of Florida's Fifth Congressional District put their trust in me to represent them. One thing I promised the folks back home is that I was never going to use my service in the House of Representatives to enrich myself, which is why I turned down the congressional health benefits. That's why I introduced my bill, H.R. 981, the Congress is Not a Career Act, so that I could turn down the congressional pension that I am legally required to take. That's why I think that trading on any kind of insider knowledge received through the virtue of working in this office is flat out, downright wrong. Anybody who uses his office to get rich and game the markets should go to jail. It's that simple. I've put people in jail for doing things that were illegal. Madam Speaker, sometimes I wonder if folks right here in this very Chamber forget about what we're talking about. We're talking about the United States Congress. We're talking about the institution that makes up the first branch of government. We're talking about the people's branch. We're talking about the institution where men like Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, JFK, and George H.W. Bush all served at one point or another in their careers. This is an institution that ought to be held to the highest standards, an institution that I, at least, expect more from, and we're failing--we're failing our constituents; we're failing ourselves; and we're just outright failing. What we need to do now is take deliberate steps towards making things better. We need to prove to the American people that we hear them and that they're right and that we're going to do better. One major step in the right direction would be in showing our commitment to ethics reform and in ensuring that we aren't using Congress as a way to line our own pockets. As the Tampa Bay Times wrote in an editorial just this morning, the United States Congress needs to ``finally address the exploitation of public office for individual financial gain.'' H. Res. 540 lets us bring that discussion to the floor of the House of Representatives, which is where it belongs. I've gotten up here, Madam Speaker, and have spent a lot of time talking about honesty and of doing better, so here is my opportunity to be honest with everyone here and with everybody watching us at home. If it were up to me, we wouldn't be voting on this bill that we'll be voting on tomorrow. As I see it, the STOCK Act we'll be voting on tomorrow has some problems. Transparency and openness mean that we'll be able to look at all of these problems and really think about if the benefits outweigh the costs. It means that we will be able to have a full and knowledgeable discussion about the STOCK Act on the floor of this House tomorrow. But I've got to tell you that the process that got us to where we are today and where we're going tomorrow is just wrong. Thirty-eight pages isn't a long bill in congressional speak, but it's 38 pages that never went through the normal legislative process, and it's 38 pages that we didn't get an opportunity to amend. Since I'm being honest, there are better alternatives out there than the STOCK Act, which is what we're going to be voting on tomorrow. One of those options is my bill, H.R. 3639, the Prevent Insider Trading by Elected Officials Act. My bill is only 1\1/2\ pages long. It's quick; it's easy and to the point, and all elected officials both in the legislative branch and in the executive branch are required to put their stocks, bonds, securities--whatever you have--into a blind trust. It's just that simple. If you don't know what you have, you can't trade it based on insider knowledge. That's what a blind trust is all about. My bill is 1\1/2\ pages, and there is no room for loopholes. Legislation up here is written by attorneys that sometimes only attorneys can understand, and there are loopholes in all of this. If I had my way, the discussion we'd be having on the floor tomorrow wouldn't be about honest services provisions, IPO sales, or registering searchable mortgages and disclosures and whatnot online, but that's not my call. So we're here today, and at least we've gotten this far. I wish we were doing more. This is the United States Congress we're talking about. When I was growing up, it was supposed to mean something, and I'm hoping it still does. If it does, then we need to be holding ourselves to the highest of standards. The American people ought to know that they can have faith in the people who are serving them here in Washington. Do I think this is the very best step? No, I do not. Do I think it's better than the bill the United States Senate sent to us through that rushed process--a bill that has conflicting provisions and at its core doesn't, in fact, address the problem that the American people want fixed? No doubt about it. I wish the Senate hadn't rushed the STOCK Act. I suspect Harry Reid just really needed a shiny object he could wave and point to, hoping he could distract the American people long enough to forget that it has been over 1,000 days since the United States Senate passed a budget. He has already promised that they wouldn't even have one for this next year. If not for the rush, then we probably wouldn't be forced into acting on this at such breakneck speed. Do I think that this is a discussion we must have and need to have? Absolutely. That's why I'm going to support this rule. I'm being honest. I wish we'd done it differently, but we're here to work the will of the people, and that's the most important thing right now.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call upon the Senate majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid. He set no budget this year. The American people, I guess, don't deserve a budget. When the Senate, on the 24th of January, surpassed the 1,000th day that they've yet to put a budget forward, Harry Reid said, Guess what, American public? You really don't need one. Even though this organization, this government, is running at a 40 percent deficit, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, says, Don't worry about it. We don't need a plan, and we don't need a budget, even though small businesses have a budget, county and State officials have a budget, and you and I at home have a budget that we have to depend upon to guide us as we move forward throughout our year. We just can't wing it any longer, Mr. Reid. The American people demand more of us. The American people actually believe that the Senate should take action on bills that we, in the House, have passed. Now, American job creators, it's about what we are supposed to be doing here, not partisan politics. Mr. Reid, this body--this body--has had more bipartisan support on bills that we've sent over to the Senate only to see them die, to see no action at all, bills that could create jobs in America--not hypothetical jobs, but real jobs by people that actually create jobs, those in our small businesses that create 70 percent of our new jobs in America. Mr. Reid, the American public demands more of us as an institution to reach across and do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, all I can ask is that this body continue to put pressure upon the Senate, and particularly the Senate majority leader, Mr. Reid, to do the right thing. It doesn't matter if you pass the bills that we send over to you, Mr. Reid. It's about bringing them up on the Senate floor, debate them, and let the American people see where you stand on the issue. And at the end of the day, whether you vote for it or against it, at least the American people have seen you in action. The other thing the Senate can do is they can always amend any measure that we send over there and send it back to us. It's not to say that we always have the best idea, but I believe that the Senate, our brothers and sisters in the Senate, could have some good ideas. Attach them back, amend our bill, and send it back to us for us to consider and even go to conference if necessary. All we're asking is the United States Senate to take action on things that we, in the House, have passed, many in a very bipartisan way. If you remember back on January 24, on the 1,000th day, this body here-- this body--voted 410-1 to vote on a resolution calling upon the Senate to pass a budget, that it's of national importance that we actually have a budget and that the Senate be a participant in the discussions, not just sitting on the sidelines expecting us to carry the water. Mr. Speaker, we stand here today imploring our Members to do the right thing. Let's keep the pressure on the Senate to do the right thing. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, we in the House of Representatives need to start restoring the trust that the American people gave when they elected us to this office. Last night, 100 Members voted to give themselves a pay raise. Is that what we're all about? It's not about us enriching ourselves, because I don't believe that's what our Founding Fathers thought. When I first came to Congress last year, I found out that I had an option to either take the health insurance plan that the Federal Government offered or to go out on my own and do my own thing. And I took the option, even though it cost myself and my family over $10,000 more. But then we started to look at options with regards to the Federal Employee Retirement System that all Members of Congress are required to be in, and also the Thrift Savings Plan that all Members of Congress are part of, whether they want to be or not--even though it's different for the Senate. The House of Representatives back in the 104th Congress decided that they wanted to take that option away. I think that's wrong. I believe that America is about choices. I also believe that Congress is not a career. And so when those Members of Congress don't have an option to remove themselves from the Federal Employee Retirement System, as I wanted to, or those Members of Congress that wanted to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan but are told that you, the taxpayers, are going to give us an additional 5 percent of our salary because you like us so much, I asked if I could exempt myself from that. And guess what? We were told we couldn't because those prior to us had made a decision for us now that we couldn't do that, we couldn't do what we think is right for this body. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, it is about doing the right thing. It is about looking back at what our Founding Fathers envisioned for this country. It's about service to this country, not about enriching ourselves on the backs of our fellow countrymen. On the ``60 Minutes'' program we saw the insider trading issue that has gone across this Congress. It brings to mind that it is about doing the right thing. And unfortunately, there are those among us that really believe that it's about enriching ourselves on the backs of those that we're supposed to serve. There has been a number of bills put forth in regards to stopping insider trading, and so we have put forth a bill to do the same thing. It's very simple. It just requires that Members of Congress, the President, and the Vice President put their holdings into a qualified blind trust, which means no matter what information they may have they can't enrich themselves with it because within 30 days of their taking office, they must put it within a blind trust. It takes away all the issues in regards to how do you enforce some of the issues that were talked about in the STOCK Act. These are noble intentions, but when you make it more difficult to enforce, what you do is you give people loopholes to get around it and skirt around the issue. If you put it into a blind trust, it takes away the ability to skirt around the issue. Ladies and gentlemen, it's not about creating more loopholes. It's about making it simpler to do the right thing here in Congress. When we have the lowest approval rating, I'm shocked. I'm not shocked because we don't deserve it, I'm shocked because we don't want to do anything to improve it. As sheriff, I had a 73 percent approval rating. I come to Congress, and I find out that we're not as respected as we should be. But it's because of our own hand that we're not. It's nobody else's fault. Its not the press' fault. It's not anybody's fault. It's what we do within these Halls. What we do sets the tone for what the American people believe in or what we are supposed to be providing to the American people, and that is a level of trust. So in two things: A bill that was called Congress is Not a Career Act is sitting out there and also one in regards to blind trusts. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we think about those issues and move forward.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the significant achievements that the University of South Florida (USF) has made in the fields of innovation and technology. In 2010, USF furthered their dedication to these fields by founding the National Academy of Inventors (NAI). Today, the NAI works to recognize inventors, enhance the visibility of university innovation, educate and mentor innovative students, and translate research and inventions of its members that may benefit society. With this type of commitment to innovation, it is no surprise that a recent report issued by the Intellectual Property Owners Association listed USF, along with 12 other American Universities, among the top 300 organizations to receive patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 2010. I am also proud that as USF continues to be a national leader in the field of innovation, the entire Tampa Bay area will significantly benefit. Researchers and inventors from USF will continue to work together with business and industry leaders in their respective fields to put their ideas and prototypes into action. These interactions will lead to a direct and positive impact on our local communities-- communities desperately in need of high quality jobs and business opportunities. I've always said that one of America's greatest strengths is the innovation of its citizens. Without innovation, this nation would not be what it is today. Unfortunately, many of these innovators in the past have not received the recognition for their achievements that they rightfully deserve. That is why it is my honor to recognize and support the achievements of USF for their commitment to innovation and research. With that, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the achievements of the University of South Florida.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution. This is an important resolution because it brings us back to the greatest cut since the 104th Congress. You know, in tough times like today where the American people are pinching pennies to get by, shouldn't they have the same expectation of those that serve them in this great House? I believe they should. You know, when talking to people in my district, they ask and say, what are you doing to get your house in order? By supporting this piece of legislation, this truly talks about cutting the spending in D.C. While it's a small amount comparative to the whole budget, it is the right step in the right direction. It is about doing more with less. The American people are doing that today. So why shouldn't this government do the same thing? I appreciate where the chairman, Mr. Lungren, has brought us in regards to this important piece of legislation. It really moves us in the right direction. Cuts across the board are tough; and if you notice what this committee did is it didn't cover everybody the same, didn't treat everybody the same. Under Chairman Lungren's leadership, and also the ranking member, they did it, I believe, in a bipartisan way, that didn't take away from the minority in regards to funding as it relates, nor differently than it did from the majority. So, Madam Speaker, I strongly support this resolution as we move forward to cut the budget of committees in this House, just like the American people have had to cut their budgets in their house.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. I would like to thank the chairman, Mr. Ryan, for allowing me to speak and allowing me to close. And I heard this is a sideshow. I don't think the American people see it as that. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the passage of a fiscal year 2013 Federal budget is of national importance. You've heard it over and over again that this is the 1,000th day, 1,000 days, Mr. Speaker, since the Senate has not fulfilled its obligation. Think about all the things Americans have done and been able to accomplish in the last 1,000 days, and yet the Senate has failed to achieve this basic responsibility under the Budget Act of 1974. It's astonishing. I've had two sons graduate from college, two sons go to war and come home again. Another son got married in that time period. And in that time, the citizens of Florida's Fifth Congressional District sent me to Washington to do this job to work for the American people. That work undoubtedly includes passing a budget, as this House did on April 15 based on the leadership of Chairman Ryan. The Senate, on the other hand, hasn't produced a budget since 2009--I believe it's April of 2009--and didn't even bother to propose a budget this last year. The last time the Senate passed the budget, the CBO predicted that the deficit for 2011 would be $693 billion. In reality, it was twice, almost twice that, $1.3 trillion. When I'm at home talking with people in my district, they're astounded that the Senate has not passed a budget in almost 3 years. They can't fathom how we can operate without a budget. In truth, Mr. Speaker, you've heard the other side even say that we haven't been operating smoothly. When I first got here, we had to do a CR. That's because we haven't done what we're supposed to do in the Senate and the House. The American people know that, and that's reflected in our approval ratings. You see, in the real world, Americans routinely set budgets for themselves, their families, and their businesses. I had to set one when I was a sheriff. Unfortunately, the Senate doesn't operate in the real world. Rather, it has become a legislative graveyard, even for bills passed with bipartisan support. The House, however, has acted. We've passed 27 bipartisan jobs bills that have been lost to the black hole that is the Senate. Some of those bills received an overwhelming majority of support. For instance, H.R. 1070, the Small Company Capital Formation Act, would allow small businesses to capture more capital in the early stages of their formation, and that passed in this House with 421 votes for and one opposed. That's a perfect example of legislation that should be public law, and it isn't because it's died in the Senate. Now, I understand the Senate may not agree with everything in our bills that we pass, and that's fine. That's how the Founding Fathers envisioned it. But if you have objections, then put forth your own proposals and allow the normal process to work. Do not simply sit on the sidelines and decry every idea that comes out of the House of Representatives--ideas that we put forward. In my opinion, there couldn't be a better example of putting politics before country than the Senate's refusal to pass a budget. Even those on the other side have said, it's a plan, we have to have a direction. That's what we ask. We don't have to agree on that direction; but at the end of the day, we have to have something to set our appropriators free to work with within the confines. Rather than show Americans what priorities are, rather than show what they're willing to spend, where they want to cut and how much they want to increase taxes, and whether they believe our colossal debt is even an issue, the Senate has instead insisted on punting this issue entirely. This is not only a disservice to the American people; but, frankly, it's irresponsible. And when you hear them say the Republicans in the Senate are blocking a budget, you can't filibuster a budget in the Senate. The rules do not allow for it. So they could, if they wanted to, do their job and assist the American people in figuring out where they stand on issues of great national importance. Once again, we talked about spending, taxes, and how we move forward. The Senate Democrats had the supermajority in the Senate, control of the House and the White House and still didn't pass a budget. I don't think it's too much to ask the Senate to produce a budget. I know Americans don't think so either.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, just think about this. Three days ago, Saturday, President Obama said: ``It would be inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this middle class tax cut for the rest of the year.'' The same day, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ``House Democrats will return to Washington to take up this legislation without delay, and we will keep up the fight to extend these provisions for a full year.'' And on Saturday, Minority Whip Hoyer said he was disappointed that the Senate would not agree to a longer-term extension. Mr. Speaker, what the Senate has done--and we've heard this term so many times before--it's about business as usual. Let's not make a decision we can put off for another 2 months. This House, in a bipartisan way last week, came up with a 1-year extension and a 2-year doc fix extension that will help those individuals provide medical services to our seniors, that gives them a sustainable way to look forward on our docs and a doc fix for 2 years, not 2 months. When you hear from other individuals in the real world, those that have to implement a policy that was designed by those in the Senate for 2 months, think about it. When you have to report that tax to the Federal Government, it's quarterly, not 2 months. How are they supposed to do that? How do you reconcile that difference? Once again, the Senate refused to take action that the House did. Everybody talks about what the Senate has done. The House passed a bipartisan bill and moved it forward in regards to a 1-year extension on unemployment benefits, 1-year extension in regards to the payroll tax, and a 2-year doc fix. That's what the House did. Now all we're asking is that we go to regular order, just like they have done for hundreds of years when the two bodies can't agree. When the two bodies can't agree, they go to conference, where conferees from both sides sit down and hash it out and come up with a resolution to bring back to both bodies. That's what you're supposed to do. That's what our Founding Fathers envisioned; not backroom deals, not things cut in the dead of night. It's not about us voting--and thank God that our Speaker saw the light in regards to not voting in the dead of night. He believes in regular order. He believes that we should move forward as a body and go to conference with our Senate brothers and sisters to decide the course that we need to make. I can't believe, I can't believe that there aren't folks in the Senate that couldn't get this done with our Members in this House and get it done in 2 weeks. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I wholeheartedly support the underlying legislation.

Mr. NUGENT

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remind all Americans that we still have troops in harm's way. As the Iraqi war comes to a close and we prepare to draw down in Afghanistan, we cannot forget those who serve us, the men and women. We cannot forget those that are still being held captive in those foreign lands. And these are our volunteers. These are young men and women that went to the fight and volunteered to go there willingly because America calls. Several weeks ago, I sent a letter to the President, asking him for his continued commitment for those that we have left behind, those that have been held against their will in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I never got a response. I never received a response. And recently, if you read the British tabloids, one of the British papers talked about PFC Bowe Bergdahl who escaped from his Taliban captors in Afghanistan and was on the run for 3 days. Unfortunately, he was recaptured. It shows you that we have those that are still in harm's way as we pull out from Iraq and start to withdraw from Afghanistan. But we can never forget--we should never forget--the sacrifice that these young men and women have given to this country. They truly are the 1 percent that need to be talked about because they have volunteered at great risk to themselves and to their families. I have three sons that are currently serving in the United States Army. And I know what it's like to have a son go to war. On numerous occasions now, my sons have been called. And one still is in Iraq today. So we can never forget about the sacrifice not only of the men and women in our armed services but how about their families and loved ones that they leave behind. The warrior ethos says, We never leave a man behind. And I call upon the President and I call upon this great body to make that same statement, that we will never leave a man behind, that we will do everything within our power to make sure that we get these kids back home. And I call them kids because I have three sons, and I still call them kids, even when they're 30 years old. It is about doing the right thing. So today we're putting forth a resolution, this resolution, asking for the House to exert its will, to talk about our unending commitment to those that have given up their freedoms to protect us. In this season of Christmas, we need to think about the families that are out there whose loved one is being held captive, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. We cannot forget them. We should not forget them. And this great country should stand up for those that have stood up for us. We should express our outrage and our feeling that we will never leave a man behind on the battlefield, ever. Madam Speaker, I just want to implore this body to stand up and vote for this resolution, talking about the sense of this Congress and supporting those men and women who have given so much and have asked for so little. God bless America.

Mr. NUGENT

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

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

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal stated that the REINS Act-- this act that we are talking about--``would revolutionize government in practice and help restore the representative democracy the Founders envisioned.'' Profound words. While discussing regulatory reform, Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a contributor to Forbes magazine said that ``reaffirming Congress' accountability to voters for agencies' most costly rules is a basic principle of good government.'' And Jonathan H. Adler, a professor of law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, said in a congressional hearing earlier this year that the REINS Act ``offers a promising mechanism for disciplining Federal regulatory agencies and enhancing congressional accountability for Federal regulation.'' The REINS Act brings accountability back to the regulatory process. I would agree that some regulations are necessary. We all want clean air and clean water. There's no doubt that we need that. We need a safe and healthy environment. We need safe food if we want to protect ourselves and our families. But regulations at what cost? Through the rulemaking process, the EPA has put a new burdensome standard on water quality in Florida alone. With the numeric nutrient rule the EPA wants to take over the State's water system. And because they are Washington bureaucrats trying to create a D.C. solution for a Florida problem, the requirements they have set on the State of Florida are scientifically impossible to reach given our State's natural phosphorous levels in our waters. Compliance will require an investment of billions of dollars that will be passed on--to whom? The Florida taxpayers, of course, effectively resulting in a new tax levied on all Floridians. Another analysis estimates that the EPA rulemaking will impose statewide costs ranging from $3.1 billion to $8.4 billion per year for the next 30 years. To put that in perspective, Florida's total budget is only $64 billion annually. The REINS Act is what people in Florida need and what people in the country need if we're going to keep executive agency rulemaking in check. We've heard about a number of issues on this House floor. We've heard about issues as they relate to unemployment and to the payroll tax holiday. These issues, though, aren't what are in front of us today. It's really about the REINS Act. It's really about getting government off the backs of people. It's about making Congress accountable for the actions of the agencies that have their authority granted through Congress. It's not the other way around. Regulatory agencies don't enact laws for Congress. Congress enacts laws. Congress enacts and gives the authority to those who regulate, but Congress can't walk away from its authority to oversee the rules, particularly the major rules, that are promulgated by these agencies-- that are costing us jobs, that are costing us billions of dollars every year. You've heard about it from all of my colleagues who spoke on this side of the aisle. I don't know when Congress lost its way-- Representative Bishop talked about it years and years ago--but Congress did lose its way. It's so much easier to just pass a law and say, You know what? Let the regulatory folks figure out how this is going to shake out at the end. That's not what we were elected to do. We were elected not only to pass laws but to make sure that the regulations that are proposed by those agencies that have the authority from this Congress are responsible to the people. We need to be responsible to the people who elected us, not the other way around--not responsible to bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. It's what I hear from all the businesses in my district. It's what I hear from the people I represent. They want government to get out of the way, not to end all regulations like you hear some of my friends across the aisle say. That's not what we're talking about. We are, though, talking about a congressional review before it actually comes to pass so that we stand up as a body and say, You know what? This is just not good for America. The Keystone pipeline is a perfect example of a jobs bill. They keep talking about the lack of jobs bills. Had the Keystone pipeline come to fruition, which the President has pushed off until 2013, there would have been 25,000 immediate jobs to create and construct that pipeline, and there would have been 100,000 new jobs within the areas of Texas and Louisiana as it relates to the processing of that oil. The last time I looked, Canada was a friend, but we buy oil from countries that hate us. Do you know what Canada said?--that China is ready to step in and help them out. Is that really what we want, or do we want to bring jobs to America? With all that has been said, we're to the point at which we need to talk about regulations, and that's what this bill does. It allows seven amendments that are germane to come to the floor--two Republican and five Democratic amendments. With that, I am happy to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and am ready to close.

Mr. NUGENT. Yes. I have one further speaker.