Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. The net-neutrality rules are consistent with the D.C. circuit ruling in Comcast v. FCC and, in fact, that advances the congressional mandates. The rule fulfills the FCC's mandate from Congress and their mandate to encourage broadband deployment by supporting innovation and investment among their other duties. And, in fact, last year Congress had a chance to advance legislation in the area around protecting Internet freedom, and that legislation was supported by many public interest organizations, high-tech companies and, yes, many broadband carriers. That would have put in statute a set of net neutrality rules and that would have definitively, through statute, removed the threat of title II classification. Unfortunately, that legislation was blocked by Republicans in the House. So, again, I think when Mr. Walden mentioned that there were some folks on the broadband side that might have been coerced into supporting something, fearing that there would be a threat of title II reclassification, it was the activities of Republicans that specifically prevented the removal of that title II reclassification threat. And, again, I would like to point to remarks by many investment bankers that it has not been seen as any serious regulatory overhang with regard to the valuation of stocks in that area because there is no effort to move forward with title II regulation. Obviously, with regard to this matter, if it's creating, somehow, this much controversy around what should be noncontroversial rules enshrined into place the current free and open Internet policies that have seldom been violated, but we fear might be violated more in the future, if that's provoking this kind of discussion, even though all the major stakeholders discuss it, you can imagine what type of discussion would ensue if there was a serious effort to reclassify under title II. Mr. Stearns also mentioned that maybe the committee will begin work on what type of statutes we might have. Certainly, specifically, I am curious. I asked Mr. Walden as well yesterday if the committee would consider no-blocking rules, would the committee consider transparency requirements, do they think that they, in fact, could do a better job than the FCC and that this body, with its vast knowledge of the Internet and DNS architecture, would do a better job than the FCC. I think, you know, one of the clear things that I would like to see and I think this body would like to see, and why I oppose this rule, is if we are talking about repealing the FCC's rules, what is the work product of this body? What is the replace? It's repeal and replace. I think there has been some acknowledgment. In fact, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) mentioned that the committee might work on some of these areas. What is that proposed body of work? Why are we not looking at repeal and replace and what we are replacing it with. Is it going to be similar to former Chairman Waxman's net neutrality bill of last year? Are there substantial changes that have--buy-in across the aisle? Can we do better? Frankly, I'm skeptical. But if the gentleman would like to advance the work product of his committee and come forward with a clear decision between what we would be replacing it with, I would be certainly open to seeing if, in fact, the work product of the committee is better than the work product of the FCC with regard to this matter. Mr. Speaker, the Internet has been of immense value to mankind, to America, to me personally and to all of us personally. It's contributed to our culture, our economic advancement, to the flow of free ideas. We should not trade the freedom of the Internet, the freedom of the Internet has been an open, superhighway for a toll road controlled by and for Internet service providers alone. There is a balance to be struck, and the process of finding that balance is under way by thoughtful people in an open and inclusive process. Today's action by the Republicans short circuits that process and imposes simplistic, highly ideological solutions on what is actually a complex issue that has shared ideals for preserving a free Internet, free of government involvement. We can find bipartisan consensus. The FCC order came close to striking that correct balance, far closer than the status quo. That's why it's supported by Internet service providers themselves, consumers groups, the high-tech community, content providers, and faith-based organizations. We must keep the Internet free by allowing the FCC to move forward with the open Internet role, and we should be debating this on an H.R. bill under an open rule. I encourage my colleagues to support the open Internet by opposing the previous question and this rule. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First with regard to the 1099 closing, I think again we can applaud this as a step forward for small business. Many of us wish that there could have been a different way of paying for it, and I did support it twice in the last session of Congress. While there are major winners, and small businesses are, and we needed to close the 1099 loophole, and I am glad we did, the losers under this are American families making about $80,000, $85,000 a year, who will be stuck with a large Republican tax increase. Mr. Speaker, with regard to net neutrality, it is indeed a brave new world that we face on the Internet. And I have been an Internet user since the early 1990s. As I mentioned, my first company was an Internet service provider. So I have experience on that front. It is the very dynamism of the Internet itself that brings its value to humanity and to Americans. That is why it is important to protect under net neutrality and open Internet provisions. Another critical provision that has generally had support from across the aisle in prior sessions has been a transparency requirement that would require broadband providers to inform consumers about how or whether they are tiering access. Part of the issue has been we only find out about these things after the fact, after a very technical analysis, and accusations are made and have to be discovered. We would like to know. And one of the reasons I oppose this rule is Ms. Matsui offered an amendment that would have increased consumer confidence and led to greater investment in broadband infrastructure by supporting a simple transparency requirement with regard to this matter. Net neutrality keeps the Internet free and open. It is that simple. Just as the postal service can't discriminate in delivering legal content, so too the Internet should not discriminate in delivering legal content. Proprietary networks can work their will. And the gentleman from Oregon mentioned Koshernet or people, users, that might only want certain access on their machines. They are empowered to do that under open Internet regulations. They can have programs on their local machine that can say, you know what--many parents do this--they want to have parental controls or block certain sites. They can only have certain sites that are accessible and block down all other sites. Many people, they are empowered to do this not by their provider, no. They are empowered to do this by choosing the software and the service that they use to be able to restrict the Internet for themselves or for a minor that lives in their home. These decisions should not be made by large multinational corporations deciding which Internet you have your own access to. Seventy percent of American families only choose between one or two broadband providers. For them to have access to the Internet, not the Internet minus like they have in China, not the Internet minus that too many Americans could face if we don't encode open Internet regulations into rule or law, if we want to retain that access we need to make sure that the value of the Internet and the dynamism that is created by the content and application providers have unfettered access to consumers in America and across the world. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. The gentleman from Oregon mentioned KosherNet and other sites that might want to provide proprietary content. I want to be clear that this rulemaking and rulemaking process has nothing to do with proprietary networks. It refers to the Internet. I hold several patents with regard to Internet technologies. In those, as is common among Internet patents, we describe the Internet as an open-ended gateway network. To the extent that there are thriving proprietary networks, be they religiously affiliated or commercial, the FCC is not talking about those with regard to this matter.

Mr. POLIS. I would argue that, in Communist China, the residents there do not have access to the Internet. What they have access to is an Internet minus, and Internet minus are sites that their government deems inappropriate. We risk going down that same route if we don't enshrine, in rule or in law, net neutrality provisions that ensure that there is an open and free Internet and that American citizens have access to the Internet in its entirety, not with being sensitive because of economic or religious reasons. One of the simple components of this rule is the no-blocking rule. This states very specifically, a broadband provider cannot block lawful content. A provider cannot say, I don't like Catholics; I'm not going to allow Catholic content through our broadband. A provider cannot say on my Internet we are blocking access to Tiananmen because I have business deals in China. We need to ensure that the Internet, as one entity, is available to all Americans who buy access. And again, the broadband providers themselves, out of their own economic self-interests, endorse this concept because they truly understand, with the fiduciary responsibility of their own shareholders, that the very dynamism that leads to the increase in popularity of the Internet relies on it being an open and free Internet. And without these protections that are afforded by the FCC's open Internet rules, the abuses that have already occurred are just a small sign of far worse things that will come. In expressing support for killing the open Internet rule with this bill, a witness for the majority brought to Capitol Hill said that ISPs should be allowed to block lawful content and said, ``It is appropriate because you block the source of the problem. If the person that is violating your acceptable use policy is Netflix, you block Netflix.'' In effect, you would empower broadband providers to bully around content providers--be it Netflix, be it Yahoo--and say, you know what? I don't like the fact that you are renting this movie; I don't like the fact that you are linking to this news. That's the direction that Communist China has gone, and that is the direction that America and the global Internet will go if we fail to preserve the net neutrality regime that is before us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I will be happy to enter into a colloquy with you on your time. An article from yesterday's StarTribune says, ``Court rejects suit over Net-neutrality rules.'' This happened yesterday. A Federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit by Verizon and MetroPCS to challenge the Federal Government's communications rules, the FCC's communications rules. Now, what I want to point out is, like many newspaper sites, this was a decision between me and the newspaper site, an economic decision about how I would get access. Now, some newspapers want to charge for access, others don't. I was happy the Minneapolis StarTribune allowed me access because I wasn't about to pay. How do they pay for it? They have a couple ads in here. Apparently, Bill Maher is going to be at Mystic Lake Hotel and Casino, coming up. I won't be there, but maybe most of the folks who read the Minneapolis StarTribune would consider that. And then there's something called License to Thrill, also at Mystic Lake Casino and Hotel. Now, I assume they found that many of the viewers of the Minneapolis StarTribune might be interested in Mystic Lake. And again, it was their decision, the Minneapolis StarTribune's decision, Do we sell for access? By the way, The New York Times, I think, is starting to charge for access. I'm going to have to decide whether I'm going to have to try to just make do with their free portion or somehow loop in an online subscription. I do pay for The Wall Street Journal online. It's worth every penny. It's a good publication. But it's hard to strike that balance. What you are doing--what this body is considering by not having a net-neutrality regime in place is to add another party to this contract between me and the StarTribune. And you know what? It is not good enough, Jared Polis and the StarTribune, that they're letting you access and you have to pay. There's also the provider. And you know what? You could have the provider say, You know what? We're not going to serve up these ads. We're going to serve up our own ads. You know what? We're not going give you access to the StarTribune unless you buy our newspaper plus service for an extra $14.95 a month. You're changing the value chain in a way that is unprecedented and conveying enormous value because you're putting them in charge of the whole Internet of the providers and the bandwidth and the pipelines. Yes, they are important to have and, yes, they need to have a return on investment and, yes, they support the FCC rules as a fair way to do that. Yes, given their druthers, would they rather have a reach and control of the Internet? Sure. They'd rather control all the ad space on every newspaper and every other Web site. But they know that's a reach. There's no serious market valuation that's given by investors or investment analysts to that reach scenario that would threaten and kill the very Internet itself by interspersing a third party on my private agreement with the Minneapolis StarTribune. That's why we need to have a free and open Internet for all to ensure that there's not another party that comes in and steals the intellectual property and the usage of others and conveys it to their own advantage. And that's exactly what the very reasonable FCC rules put into rule. [From StarTribune.com, Apr. 4, 2011] Court Rejects Suit Over Net-Neutrality Rules A federal appeals court on Monday rejected as ``premature'' a lawsuit by Verizon and MetroPCS challenging the Federal Communications Commission's pending rules aimed at keeping Internet service providers from blocking access to certain websites or applications. The decision, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, is a first- round victory for the FCC and its chairman, Julius Genachowski. But the real battle over the agency's attempt to regulate broadband providers has barely begun. Several broadband companies, and some consumer advocacy and public interest groups, are likely to return to court this year to challenge aspects of the rules. Edward McFadden, a Verizon spokesman, said Monday that the company intended to refile its lawsuit this year. The House will take up a joint resolution condemning the new Internet access rules this week. Texas Instruments to buy rival for $6.5B Texas Instruments Inc. said Monday that it has agreed to buy competitor National Semiconductor Corp. for $6.5 billion. The all-cash deal, if it goes through, will give Dallas-based Texas Instruments a larger stake in the field of analog semiconductors--devices that are used to convert real- world signals, such as temperature readings or voice recordings, into digital signals. Google bids $900M for Nortel's patents Google Inc. said it was willing to pay $900 million for patents held by Nortel Networks Corp., the bankrupt communications technology company. The Internet search giant couched its bid as a pre-emptive strike to defend against patent litigation. Analysts say Mountain View, Calif.-based Google is wrestling with a major increase in patent litigation from so-called patent trolls and competitors. A major patent portfolio such as the one from Nortel would give Google ammunition in these lawsuits. In the last 12 months, Google has been hit with 39 patent lawsuits involving its Android mobile phone operating software. Pfizer to sell Capsugel unit to KKR Pfizer Inc., the world's biggest drugmaker, agreed to sell its Capsugel manufacturing unit to KKR & Co. for $2.38 billion in an effort to focus on its higher-profit business developing new medicines. The New York-based company lowered its yearly revenue forecast after backing out Capsugel, a unit that makes wholesale pill casings and had $750 million in sales last year. Pfizer said it will use proceeds from the deal to expand a planned $5 billion share repurchase. Japan's crisis will push up some commodities Copper, iron ore and beef are likely to benefit from rising demand in Japan as the country recovers from a record earthquake and tsunami that triggered a nuclear crisis. Rebuilding may drive demand for steelmaking materials and metals used in construction, said Ben Westmore, a commodities economist at National Australia Bank in Melbourne. Demand for imported beef and dairy products may increase because of damage to local protein supply, Rabobank Australia analyst Wayne Gordon said. Goldman CEO's compensation nearly doubles Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankfein's $19 million compensation for 2010, almost double the prior year, ended two years in which the firm's top executives gave up cash bonuses. Blankfein's pay included $5.4 million in cash, $12.6 million in restricted stock, a $600,000 salary and about $464,000 in other benefits, a proxy statement from the New York-based firm showed. Blankfein's $9.8 million pay for 2009 included $9 million in restricted stock plus salary and other compensation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, the absence of a net neutrality regime would be the government deliberately conveying value as gatekeepers to the broadband providers and allowing them to decide, based on religious or ideological or economic--or whatever criteria that they want--what kind of Internet they intend to serve up to their users. I would like to add that, under the legislation we consider today, that this open Internet rule will add the very certainty to investors and companies that we need and predictability in our marketplace that allows companies to continue to grow and invest in job growth. It strikes a balance, and it solves a real issue. Some on the other side will say, oh, this could be an issue in the future, but it hasn't arisen. Well, the rules that we are talking about do enshrine in place the very Internet, the dynamism, the fruitful discussion between different ideologies that the gentlelady from Tennessee said that she aspires to preserve. And we have already reached a point where ISPs have blocked, as a matter of fact, voice-over-IP services. And they have blocked peer-to-peer traffic, they have blocked PayPal in favor of other financial transaction companies that might have economic relationships with them. I believe strongly in Internet, in Internet as an achievement for mankind, in Internet that net neutrality will help preserve for our generation and the next. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. It's hard to know where to begin in refuting the arguments of my good friend from Tennessee. There were several comparisons that I view as simply out of hand. One of them that was given was that this is somehow some sort of Fairness Doctrine for the Internet, that this is somehow some sort of government involvement with the Internet. Quite the contrary is true. I want to be clear. I was an original cosponsor last session of the bill that proactively would have prevented the administration from moving forward with the Fairness Doctrine. I oppose the Fairness Doctrine. I believe in a dynamic marketplace of ideas. The FCC's rulemaking around net neutrality moved forward and fostered that very dynamic marketplace of ideas that the Fairness Doctrine is contrary to. If we do not have some sort of net neutrality regime in place, there will be a selective censorship of the Internet, and we risk the Internet deteriorating into a series of tiered structures, whether they are tiered economically or ideologically. The great human accomplishment that is the one common Internet will simply cease to exist as such. It is, in fact, the proponents of net neutrality and the regulatory regime proposed by the FCC after receiving input from all stakeholders that will preserve the Internet as it is. I would agree with my friend from Tennessee's argument. She said 80 percent of people are happy with their access. I hope it's even higher.

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a simple bill, one page long. Nevertheless, it is a terrible bill, one page long, and I would like to tell you why. Today with our economy only beginning to recover, I believe that this rule and the underlying bill will imperil one of the greatest sources of job creation and innovation in America: the Internet. Now over the past 15 years, the Internet has created more than 3 million jobs, according to a study by Hamilton Consultants. More than 600,000 Americans have part- or full-time businesses on eBay alone. And on average, new Internet firms have 3 million jobs. Yet, the majority brings to the floor legislation that will harm the open Internet. I can speak to this with some degree of authority. Before I came to Congress, I created over 300 jobs myself through founding several Internet-related companies, including ProFlowers.com and BlueMountain.com. My first Internet company was an Internet service provider on the other end of this equation, so I have good experience from both the e-commerce side, as well as the access side which I bring to this debate. I have long supported open access to the Internet and continue to support net neutrality. Let me bring this close to home. When I was starting a flower company, ProFlowers.com, back in the late 1990s, we offered a supply- chain solution. We brought fresher flowers to people at a better price by disintermediating the supply chain and allowing consumers to buy flowers directly from growers. Now, we were up against several legacy companies, companies like FTD and 1-800-FLOWERS, that had a different distribution model that we believed and argued in the marketplace was a less efficient distribution model. Now, had there not been a de facto net neutrality at that point, it would be very difficult for a new company to break in, because you would have had the incumbent leaders in the marketplace buying the access through the broadband connections, much as companies will pay slotting fees to get into grocery stores, some book publishers pay fees to be out on the open table. The big difference is that we have robust competition between grocery stores, robust competition between booksellers. With regard to broadband access, over 70 percent of the residents of this country live in areas with only one or two broadband providers. All of the dynamism--and I have not heard this disputed even by the chairman of the subcommittee who testified before us yesterday--really, the dynamism and the job growth from the Internet comes from the content and applications side. Now, if there aren't legitimate economic considerations on the bandwidth side, clearly those who are providing both wireless and wire bandwidth need to have a return on investment calculus, but it is that very same dynamism around the content-driven Internet that drives the usage that then leads people to pay more for higher speed access to the Internet. Now, the FCC has done an exemplary job with these rules, and they have actually received buy-in from all of the major players with regard to this matter: content providers, content aggregators, search engines. And, yes, even on the broadband access side, most of the major broadband providers have supported these regulations as well. So they have done an excellent job. I realize that what they first put out there, many people were concerned with. And they then did their job, as they were told to by congressional statute, specifically, which authorized them to do this. They listened to all parties, and they revised their net neutrality regulations so they are something that I think we can all be proud of as Americans, and we can all be proud of as users of the Internet. Now, just to be clear how they hit their mark, because I know yesterday the chairman of the subcommittee mentioned that he thought that some of the broadband providers were coerced into supporting the protocol standards before the FCC. I don't know enough to dispute that or not. But what I will tell you is that I have impartial third-party testimony that I think is very compelling from investment bankers who follow this sector. And the way the investment banking sector works is they have analysts who really cover different stocks, cover different sectors, and they inform people about the impact of market regulations on that sector. What I have from the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch analysts, it says: ``The agreement''--the FCC's net neutrality provisions--``is consistent with our view that the net neutrality regulatory overhang has been eliminated from telecom and cable stocks.'' Now, let me elaborate. What that means, ``net neutrality regulatory overhang,'' is there was fear among the analysts covering the telecom and cable sectors that the Obama administration would do something overarching with regard to net neutrality. There was fear based on some of the initial rules proposed. However, the FCC did their job and that fear has been eliminated. There is now no market overhang on companies in this sector, and they are no longer concerned that the regulations are overarching. Let me go to the Goldman Sachs analyst from December of last year: The rules stuck largely to what was expected and will be viewed as a light touch. Let me go to Raymond James: We are glad that the staff is making this innocuous by simply placing official rules around what is already being done by the industry under a no-regulation scenario. So again, all these rules do is essentially preserve the status quo. Why is that important? Absent this, there would be a major shift in power on the Internet to the broadband providers from the content providers. The Internet historically--again, a wonderful innovation for mankind--allows anybody with a great idea to link up a server in their garage, and their product, their service, their content is available to everybody across the world, the very same as a major corporation that spends $100 million launching a Web site, and they compete in the marketplace of ideas. Now, some people ask: Has there ever been an instance where a provider has used tiered access or censored anything? And there are a number of instances. An example, in 2005, Madison River Communications blocked voiceover IP on its DSL network. That was eventually settled with the FCC. In 2006, Cingular blocked PayPal after contracting with another online payment service. This is a perfect example of why we need competition on the provider side. The consumers would have access to presumably a less-efficient payment service that they would not select given their own prerogative because it is locked in through some sort of slotting fee or other arrangement, sometimes vertical integration itself under the same capital structure, as an access provider. So this rule is actually critical to continue to operate a free and open Internet. That is why the FCC moved forward, with explicit permission from Congress in the form of their statutory authority, with rules to address this issue. Their open process included input and got vast buy-in from all major parties, including Internet service providers. Now, there are many on the left that wish that the rule went further. And, yes, there might be some in business that prefer that there were no rules at all. The vast majority of the business community strongly supports the consensus rules that the FCC came out with. Of those commenting on the proposed rule before the FCC, well over 90 percent supported the Commission's effort, and over 130 organizations support the proposed rule and oppose this legislation, including groups like the American Library Association, the Free Press, League of Latin American Citizens, Communications Workers of America, and the vast majority of Internet-related companies. I also want to emphasize that there has been a number of faith-based groups that have weighed in. One of the largest is the Conference of Catholic Bishops, representing millions of American Catholics, who weighed in in a letter opposing this legislation before us today: ``The Internet is open to any speaker, commercial or noncommercial, whether or not the speech is connected financially to the company providing Internet access or whether it is popular or prophetic.'' The letter goes on to state how the Catholics have used the Internet as an outreach tool. Now, there is legitimate fear here from two perspectives: One, among the nonprofit and religious community in general, is that their content would receive a lower tier because they are not necessarily able to pay the same type of slotting fees or access that a for-profit commercial provider would do. So your Web page from Nike might load faster than your Web page from the Catholic Church because, if there was tiered access, who would be more likely to pay for the speed of the access. The other fear, also legitimate, is of political or religious censorship of the Internet. You could have a provider who would say, You know what? I like Obama, so I'm going to block access to tea party sites or slow them down through our broadband access. Now, again, in a market with complete dynamism and where there was a lot of competition and where every American could choose broadband providers, that would be less problematic. But what we have is a situation where over 70 percent of Americans only have one or two choices for broadband access. There has historically been broad support from both sides of the aisle for the ``no blocking'' rule, which simply states that broadband providers cannot block lawful content. It is the equivalent of telling the Postal Service they can deliver or not deliver your mail based on whether they agree or disagree with the content. The carriers--the Internet, itself--is one cohesive entity, and what a wonderful entity for mankind, the fact that you can plug in and have access to a wide breadth of information on the Internet. I also want to refute the argument that there is no nor should there be any government regulation of the Internet. I, actually, have several pages listed here of government regulation of the Internet, including things like regulating child pornography, including, of course, the complex set of protocols around intellectual property and intellectual property enforcement to ensure that the Internet is not used as a medium to steal or to illegally profit from the creative works of others. We go on and on with regard to e-commerce, advertising, privacy laws--a number of laws designed to protect our privacy, to protect us from abuse, and to protect us from security breaches with regard to viruses. This is another dimension. This is to protect us from the Internet being broken apart by a series of tiered pipelines rather than one cohesive Internet. The absence of any net neutrality regime would empower selective parts of corporate America to censor the Internet in the same way that Communist China censors the Internet. If you search for Tiananmen and you're in Mainland China, you will get pictures of happy people. You will not get pictures of their crackdown on the pro- democracy demonstrators. We risk the same potential here. The broadband actors play a critical role, and I want to make sure their concerns are balanced and that they will get their return on investment. We actually have a quote from the AT&T executive, who did appear before the committee, who said that they can use the 10- to 15-year time frame to justify a return on investments with regard to broadband infrastructure. Even Comcast has called the new rules a workable balance between the needs of the marketplace and the certainty that carefully crafted and limited rules can provide to ensure that Internet freedom and openness are preserved. I would further argue that a free and open Internet is in the interest of the broadband providers, themselves. So not only is it not necessarily the case that they only agreed to these under duress, I think many of the forward-looking broadband providers realize that what drives Internet access and what drives consumers to want a faster, better connection is that very vibrancy in the information marketplace that net neutrality helps preserve. So the real question is: Why are we here? Why are we here debating something that was thoughtful, that has buy-in from all sides of the debate? I really had a tough time figuring it out even through our committee examination of this yesterday. But I think that we're here because of a knee-jerk reaction of the opposition that might have been initially opposed to some of the more overarching rules that were initially proposed before the FCC, but we've come a long way since then. This feared takeover of the Internet didn't occur. Overarching rules didn't occur. Most of the broadband providers now support the direction of the FCC. Yet, under the legislation that we will consider today, the open Internet rule and the repeal of it will provide more uncertainty to investors. They will again not know what's going to occur. The investment bankers will, once again, say there was uncertainty and overhang, hurting the valuation of the very broadband stocks that the majority is claiming to do this for the benefit of. Market analyses have found that the new open Internet rule removed the regulatory overhang--it's a light touch--which throws a monkey wrench into the market mechanisms at a critical time for our recovery and job creation. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Department of Communications, Washington, DC, February 14, 2011. Dear Senators and Members of the House of Representatives: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (``USCCB'') is committed to the concept that the Internet continue as it has developed, that is, as an open Internet. The Internet is an indispensable medium for Catholics-- and others with principled values--to convey views on matters of public concern and religious teachings. USCCB is concerned that Congress is contemplating eliminating the Federal Communications Commission's authority to regulate how the companies controlling the infrastructure connecting people to the Internet will offer those connections. Without the FCC, the public has no effective recourse against those companies' interference with accessibility to content, and there will be uncertainty about how and whether those companies can block, speed up or slow down Internet content. Since public interest, noncommercial (including religious) programming is a low priority for broadcasters and cable companies, the Internet is one of the few mediums available to churches and religious groups to communicate their messages and the values fundamental to the fabric of our communities. Without protections to prohibit Internet providers from tampering with content delivery on the Internet, the fundamental attributes of the Internet, in which users have unfettered access to content and capacity to provide content to others, are jeopardized. Those protections have particular importance for individuals and organizations committed to religious principles who must rely on the Internet to convey information on matters of faith and on the services they provide to the public. The Internet was constructed as a unique medium without the editorial control functions of broadcast television, radio or cable television. The Internet is open to any speaker, commercial or noncommercial, whether or not the speech is connected financially to the company providing Internet access or whether it is popular or prophetic. These characteristics make the Internet critical to noncommercial religious speakers. Just as importantly, the Internet is increasingly the preferred method for the disenfranchised and vulnerable--the poor that the Church professes a fundamental preference toward--to access services, including educational and vocational opportunities to improve their lives and their children's lives. It is immoral for for-profit organizations to banish these individuals and the institutions who serve them to a second- class status on the Internet. His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, has warned against the ``distortion that occur[s] when the media industry becomes self-serving or solely profit-driven, losing the sense of accountability to the common good. . . . As a public service, social communication requires a spirit of cooperation and co- responsibility with vigorous accountability of the use of public resources and the performance of roles of public trust . . ., including recourse to regulatory standards and other measures or structures designed to affect this goal.'' (Message of the Holy Father Benedict XVI for the 40th World Communications Day, The Media: A Network for Communication, Communion and Cooperation, Jan. 24, 2006). Lastly, Pope Benedict XVI recently stated, ``Believers who bear witness to their most profound convictions greatly help prevent the web from becoming an instrument which . . . allows those who are powerful to monopolize the opinions of others.'' (Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the 45th World Communications Day, January 24, 2011). USCCB urges Congress not to use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the FCC's open Internet rules. Sincerely, Helen Osman, Secretary of Communications. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Yes, you are correct that the House has passed a continuing resolution; however, that specific resolution has actually failed in the United States Senate. It's actually a rejection. On top of that, the third body, the executive, has threatened a veto of that. What this calls for is some sort of deal that everybody can do to ensure the government continues to operate.

Mr. POLIS. I would be happy to.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, you know, we do face a real issue here before us today, a government shutdown in a week that could hurt our security and safety as a nation, and hurt our recovery and job growth. And this real issue deserves a real discussion, a discussion and agreement between the House and the Senate and the President. We have 6 days left to negotiate, and yet here today, instead of contributing to a solution, the House Republicans are bringing about a constitutional crisis on top of the funding crisis. That's the last thing that our fragile economy needs. Madam Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, and I think this might very well be the first time that this has occurred on the Rules Committee in my just over 2 years, every witness that came to visit our committee was opposed to what we're doing here today. The witnesses were unanimous that this approach is unconstitutional and that this approach is ill-advised. Now, in my time on the Rules Committee I don't think we've ever had such unanimity among the witnesses that have come before us. Madam Speaker, Article I, section 7 of the Constitution, which I will include in the Record, clearly states that ``Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States.'' Now, what's being done with this bill is entirely different. I'd like to show our friends a very basic lesson in how a bill becomes a law. This is our friend, a bill. For a bill to become a law, it needs to pass the House and the Senate before it goes to the President. Now, we all know if there are differences between the House and the Senate version, they can be resolved through a conference committee, or it can be sent, with an amendment, back to the other body to accept that, as we routinely do. What is being done in this case is this little guy, this little guy is deeming from the House that it has passed the Senate. Now, this is particularly unusual because, not only has this bill not passed the Senate, it's actually specifically been rejected by the Senate. And now, a bill is going to the Senate asking them to deem that they have passed something that they have actually rejected. It's some sort of Orwellian doublespeak of conforming some sort of alternate version of reality with regard to this deem and pass measure. Now, there are some things we could be doing in this House and I hope we do. In addition to the good faith negotiations which this constitutional crisis undermines, we could be taking up Senate Bill 388. Senate Bill 388 would make sure that Members of Congress don't get paid during the government shutdown. Now, this is news to most of the American people because, you know what? Most Federal workers, they're not going to get paid if the government shuts down. But you know who does get paid? Those of us who are speaking here before you today. That's the current law. We can change that law today.

Mr. POLIS. The Senate sent over a bill that passed unanimously that would make sure that Members of Congress didn't get paid if the government shut down. We can take up that bill today. It's been sitting here at the House desk because Republican leadership has not taken up that bill. We can send it on to the President of the United States who could sign that bill, make sure that the incentive of Members of Congress is to come to the table, and we are in the same boat as the other Federal workers with regard to a government shutdown. It's time to get serious about solving how we're going to fund the operations of government and not put a constitutional crisis on top of the funding crisis. Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Section. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. Section. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies. No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. Section. 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day. Section. 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal. Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. Section. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office. Section. 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. If the elected officials and people of Washington, D.C., wanted a system of school vouchers, they would have created it and not relied on the Federal Government. The important moral imperative of education reform can occur with or without vouchers, and at this point in time, I think it's critical to give education reformers that are hard at work in the District of Columbia a chance to succeed on a route that they have laid out, which apparently does not include vouchers at this time. I will continue to push for D.C. statehood and for a Federal role that encourages transparency and accountability, improves and builds upon our successes in public education, and makes sure that we change what doesn't work, with the tools and discretion at the local level to make those tough decisions.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman. This bill, the SOAR Act, reestablishes a program to send D.C. students to private elementary and secondary schools. The main issue that I struggle with, that this body needs to struggle with, with regard to this measure is the justification for pushing Federal will onto Washington, D.C., which is counter to local control over education, a concept that has broad bipartisan support. One of my top priorities in this body is to improve our education system--ensure that every child has an effective teacher in a classroom, improve accountability for all schools, and provide a pathway to college and careers for lifelong success. To be clear, the overall state of the schools in Washington, D.C., is a disgrace. A recent Education Week study showed a 48.8 percent on-time graduation rate. Frankly, we as Americans should be ashamed. We need to do better, the Americans who live here in Washington, D.C. Yet it's absurd, Madam Speaker, that we as elected officials from 50 States are executing a right to determine how schools are funded in a jurisdiction that doesn't even have a vote in this body. I'm a Representative of part of one State, Colorado, and yet here I am in a position to make school funding decisions on behalf of Washington, D.C., students. We wouldn't do this to Colorado, Ohio, or any other State. A district near mine in the State of Colorado, Douglas County School District, recently enacted a district-wide voucher program. The residents of D.C. are no less American than the residents of Douglas County, and yet in Douglas County, Colorado, there will be candidates that run for school board for the program, candidates that run for school board against the program, and the future of whether or not vouchers can continue in Douglas County, Colorado, will be decided where it should be, by the residents of Douglas County, Colorado. This vote underscores the need for Washington, D.C., to control its own public school system as the State does. In fact, Madam Speaker, I think Washington should be a State. Until that day, Congress should respect the wishes of D.C. elected officials with regard to the administration of their education system. I would point out that there is a Federal interest with regard to what the States do and what Washington, D.C., does with regard to education. States and the District of Columbia should have the discretion to make the changes they need to improve education but not the discretion to stand back and do nothing. In fact, I worry considerably about a recent announcement by Mayor Gray that they would fund capital for charter schools at only $2,800 per pupil as opposed to the $5,800 that the conventional public schools get.

Mr. POLIS. I would ask for an additional 45 seconds, Mr. Hastings.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to this bill. Today, Republicans are trying to modify the funding structure of National Public Radio, one of the most widely used, universally supported, and efficient journalistic institutions in the country. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that no one can figure out what my Republican colleagues are trying to accomplish and what they are trying to do with this trivial and misguided legislation. Why are we wasting our time on this? Instead of creating jobs, instead of cutting spending, here we are changing the funding structure for something that fundamentally works. Mr. Speaker, America is $14.2 trillion in debt. Yet instead of working with Democrats to come to an agreement on reducing our expenditures and getting the economy going, Republicans have decided to use their taxpayer-funded time on symbolic legislation that doesn't address America's fiscal situation, doesn't save money, and, most importantly, won't create a single job. Mr. Speaker, this is very transparent what is happening here. This bill is a response to a far right agenda based on a manipulative ``got you'' video propagated by conservative activists. Don't the American people know where this Republican policy agenda comes from? I believe they do. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a distraction, not a serious piece of legislation. The Republican Caucus can't get themselves to agree on anything substantial, so instead they're bringing this frivolous measure that doesn't save any money or create jobs before us. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for bringing forth this important resolution and finally bringing to the floor of the House the discussion about the war in Afghanistan. Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. Intelligence estimates are that there are under 50 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. With the current cost of the war effort, we're spending between $1.5 billion and $2 billion per al Qaeda operative. There is a very real terrorist threat to our country that comes from the loosely knit al Qaeda terrorist network, but that threat does not emanate from Afghanistan. It does not emanate from any one particular nation-state. It is a stateless menace. They go wherever they're able to thrive on the lack of order. To effectively combat this menace, we need targeted special operations, we need aggressive intelligence gathering, and we need to make sure that we combat this menace wherever they are with the appropriate resources. Being bogged down, occupying one particular nation-state is a waste of resources and not the best way to keep the American people safe. I strongly support this resolution.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado who serves on the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Perlmutter.

Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th birthday of the city of Westminster, Colorado, one of the Colorado Front Range urban corridor's principal cities. Westminster is framed by the natural beauty of the nearby Rocky Mountains. Westminster's scenic and convenient setting is located between the economic hubs of Denver and Boulder, which has attracted many residents and businesses to the city. Settlers from the East first came to the area of Westminster in the 1870s. It used to be known as the Village of Harris and was formally founded as the town of Westminster on April 4, 1911. Westminster is notable in the Front Range urban area for its long- term commitment to the preservation of open spaces. It has received numerous national rewards and recognition for sustainable development, technology integration in city government, and quality of life. The miles of trails provide public access for outdoor recreational activities that are so important to Colorado residents. I congratulate the people of Westminster on 100 years of progress and prosperity and look eagerly forward to what the future holds for this forward-looking Colorado city.