Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have just days before the legally mandated budget deadline. Yet, instead of debating your budget, Mr. Speaker, my budget, Mr. Speaker, anybody's budget, Mr. Speaker, we are debating whether to codify existing FCC policy. There is limited time to provide a budget for our country. Households across our country have budgets, and businesses have budgets. Unless there is an announced change to the schedule in bringing Congress to work on Friday and Saturday and Rules Committee convening today or tomorrow, it seems like Congress will miss the deadline for the budget and perhaps never produce a budget. Now, folks on the other side will say that there have been years Democrats didn't produce a budget, and that is true. But Republicans ran to take over this body, saying: We are going to do better. We are going to produce a budget. Republicans have had the chance, and there is not even a vote on the budget. I am going to offer later in this debate a motion to defeat the previous question. If that passes, Mr. Speaker, I will be able to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the budget resolution. I hope it does. I hope there are enough Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber who are outraged by the failure of the Republican leadership to allow the Republican and Democratic Members of this body to present and vote on their budgets. We have historically had a very open process around budgets. There is usually five or six budgets that come before the House and we try to get to one that passes. There have been years where I think they have a king of the hill process and whichever one gets the most votes can become the budget. But it looks like, rather than any of those debates or give Members who have thoughtfully been preparing the budgets from the Republican Study Group or from the progressive Democratic coalition the chance to present their budgets, along with the Republican and Democratic members of the Budget Committee, I think the Republicans are saying: we don't want to have those tough decisions about where to cut or where to tax; we would rather just pretend like our country is in good fiscal order and spend the day discussing codifying FCC policy rather than discussing what the American people sent us here to do--how to balance the budget, restore fiscal stability, and pass a budget. There is another missed opportunity here today. When talking about broadband--if that is what we are going to talk about--in districts like mine in Colorado, we have communities that simply don't have reasonable access to the Internet. I talk to constituents in Evergreen and Conifer in Grand County every day, rapidly growing communities, where people only have access to speeds that were more relevant to the 20th century rather than the 21st century. I remember I visited a school in Grand County where the district has an initiative to provide every child with a Chromebook computer and the computer science teacher there didn't even have high-speed access from his own home. Access to broadband is essential for our economy, particularly our rural economy like those in my district. It is essential for the education of our kids, for a vibrant private sector, for civil society, and democracy. While the FCC and the Department of Commerce have some tools in place, there is not nearly the tools they need or the resources to make our Nation competitive coast to coast by making sure that every American has access to broadband. Bills that try to codify regulations certainly have their place. I would argue it is probably not when we are 48 hours from reaching a budget deadline. But I want to make sure that even if we are going to spend time discussing codifying FCC policy, that we have the more important discussion about how we can make sure that broadband access is available to our rural communities, such as the ones that I represent. Democrats and Republicans largely agree on some of the goals of this bill. In fact, I think there is a missed opportunity to have worked on a bipartisan version that likely could have passed on suspension. There are a number of amendments under consideration, and it is my hope that some of the consumer protection issues can be addressed through that. But I think the big picture here, Mr. Speaker, is we are just 2 days away from Congress' own deadline for passing a budget with no budget in sight. If we can defeat the previous question, we can immediately move to consider the budget. I call upon my Republican and Democratic colleagues to do that. As we look at broadband, which I am hopeful that we can do after this deadline passes--I am happy to revisit this bill if my motion to defeat the previous question passes and we move into the budget debate--I will be happy to resume this debate next week. I haven't seen any particular reason that we have to try to cram in codifying FCC regulations around broadband in the 48 hours before our own budget deadline expires. So let's get back to talking about the budget. It is never easy. The Republicans have certainly talked about how they wanted the country to have a budget. Well, the country is not going to have a budget unless Congress gets to work debating it and passing it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. POLIS. I am prepared to close.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, Americans get it. Households have to balance their budget, businesses have to balance their budget. Not talking about it and putting your head in the sand is only a recipe for increased debt and increased liability for future generations of Americans. The fact that we are spending $400 billion or $500 billion more than we are taking in--of course we might not know about that for the next year until after the fact if we don't have a budget--the fact that we have enormous unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security doesn't go away just because Republicans ignore the topic and refuse to have a debate on balancing our budget. I am proud to sponsor a balanced budget amendment. I think that by working together, Democrats and Republicans can restore fiscal responsibility to our Nation. How can we do it? Well, I will tell you how we can't do it. We can't do it by 48 hours from the deadline to pass a budget by discussing obscure bills to codify FCC regulations with our valuable floor time. It starts with an honest discussion. It starts with Democrats and Republicans offering their budgets. I have been proud in the past to support bipartisan budgets that have come to this body. I have supported and opposed some of the Democratic budgets that my colleagues have offered, but we have to have that discussion on the floor. The work doesn't do itself and the problem doesn't go away when Republicans choose to ignore it. I wish our budget deficit was as easy to solve as simply ignoring it. Wouldn't that be convenient if we could simply ignore the budget deficit and it would go away? Wouldn't it be convenient if we could just ignore the national debt and it would go away? Wouldn't it be convenient if we could ignore the damage to agencies that an indiscriminate sequester has caused and it would simply go away? I like that line of thinking, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, it is completely unrealistic. The American people realize it is completely unrealistic. That is why when America looks to Congress and says: we have these discussions in our households about our budget, and businesses have these discussions. Why can't you, Mr. Speaker? Why can't you? That is the reason the Congressional approval rating is so low. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. That was complicated. My colleague from Georgia, Mr. Speaker, explained a lot of stuff. There were definitely a lot of big words in there, and words that we do not use too often in Colorado. It seems to me that this bill is designed to make it easier for very big companies to merge and reduce the oversight in making sure that those big mergers do not hurt consumers. Most mergers do not even go through this. I think it was in our Rules Committee yesterday where Mr. Marino testified it was maybe 3 percent of mergers. So only if both companies are very, very, very big companies, multinational conglomerates, then it goes up for review. This bill says that maybe there should be a little less review. I think even the proponents say there still should be review. There are several government agencies involved. But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what this bill is really doing--the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act of 2015--it almost takes a few breaths to even say it. It is one of the longer bill titles that I have heard, very technical--it is really the stalling on the floor of the House bill until the Republicans can figure out a budget. That is exactly what we are doing here, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that, as we stall, we could offer more substantive bills that we could do in the meantime. This bill, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules bill, is really, truly a solution in search of a problem. Where does this bill come from? I am certainly very pro-business. I founded several businesses before I came here. I took a long and hard look at this bill today. I am all for streamlining government processes, but I just can't imagine what problem we are even trying to solve here. I don't know. I wonder where the idea for this bill came from. Maybe it came from a town hall. I know a lot of the best ideas that I get start from my constituents and small businesses back home. That was the argument we heard very passionately orated when we talked about brick kilns for an entire week the other week. Maybe Members are fighting for people back home. Maybe a constituent approached somebody in Mr. Collins' district and said: We truly wish review processes for the larger corporate mergers were streamlined; something must be done about the FTC's administrative adjudication authority. Maybe that was the call that was resounding in town halls across the country, but it did not come up in any of mine. In Colorado's Front Range it simply was not the issue that my constituents were raising, but I will certainly give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps there is a groundswell for addressing the FTC's administrative adjudication authority for the largest companies and their mergers that simply has not reached Colorado. Perhaps that is the case. Mr. Speaker, there is an important point I want to make. Time is very precious here on the House floor. Taxpayers are paying for this time. In fact, apparently tomorrow will be the last day. This will be the last bill we vote on before we all get sent home for a 3-week vacation. We have very limited time to pass bills that benefit the American people. Six years ago, nearly to this day, the House took this workweek in late March and passed a little something called the Affordable Care Act. Now, that might not be popular with my friends on the other side of the aisle, but it certainly was consequential. In fact, 15 million more Americans have coverage today because of what we did this same week 6 years ago. We passed the first major piece of healthcare reform in a generation. Like it or not, we had conviction, and we passed bills that helped Americans every day solve problems. Now here we are 6 years later and we are debating a measure that helps a few large corporations merge with each other to become even larger. Look, if we want to help American business, let's find a backbone, let's look at tax reform, let's look at comprehensive immigration reform, let's invest in our infrastructure and in our schools to have a better prepared workforce. Be courageous. Let's present solutions to problems, not solutions in search of a problem. Here we are passing yet another bill the Senate won't consider and that will never become law, and then go reward ourselves with 3 weeks of vacation. Look, maybe someday this bill will help one conglomerate purchase another conglomerate, or save them a few dollars in legal fees along the way. Is that exciting, Mr. Speaker, to you? Is that something that resounds across our country or would even contribute one iota to our country's economic growth? Mr. Speaker, this bill does not solve any of the problems this Congress needs to take on. What should we be doing this week? We should be talking about making college more affordable. We should be talking about growing our economy, investing in infrastructure, reforming our bloated Tax Code, and simplifying taxes. We should be talking about passing a budget. Mr. Speaker, most households have a budget. My household has a budget, but this Congress does not have a budget. Instead of having a budget, everybody is going on a vacation. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not find a solution to the 11 million undocumented people in our country and fix our broken immigration system. This bill does not secure our borders or does not make college more affordable. It is a shame that we are spending an entire week debating this nonsolution in search of a problem that maybe some years hence will help one large company merge with another and reduce their paperwork to the detriment of the public interest and consumer interest in the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close. I yield myself the balance of my time. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that my good friend and colleague Mr. Collins from Georgia said that maybe this bill is important, that maybe it is one of those things that might not be glamorous but that has to be done, that it is important. Yet I think it speaks volumes, Mr. Speaker, that not a single person even showed up to this debate besides Mr. Collins and me, who have to be here. No Republicans who, I guess, support this bill and no Democrats--and there might even be some Democrats, I think, who support this bill or oppose this bill--I mean, no one even came. That is because everybody knows this bill is not going anywhere. The Senate won't consider it. The President won't sign it. The American people have not been crying out for it. Big multinational corporations are perfectly able to merge today as long as they are not blocked by the FTC or the DOJ for antitrust. This bill doesn't solve any problems. Not a single Republican even came to the floor to argue about why we needed this bill, with the exception, of course, of my good friend and colleague Mr. Collins and me, who have to be here because we are running the debate. What does that mean when even the proponents of this bill don't even come here to tell us why they want it? I think it shows a certain moral bankruptcy, Mr. Speaker, and it exposes the veneer off the fact that this is, simply, a time-stalling bill because Republicans don't have a budget, and they want us to go on vacation right away. Look, as to this bill that is being considered, I will address some of its merits. It would alter the process in which the Federal Trade Commission acts to regulate mergers and guarantee a competitive marketplace and protect consumers. I am sure there are valid and important arguments on both sides of this bill. The FTC was created in 1914 as an independent, bipartisan agency, and it has unique tools to look after consumers in order to make sure that when two large companies merge that it doesn't hurt consumers. Of course, because the FTC and the DOJ have overlapping responsibilities, there are issues between them. If there is a pressing problem, I would be happy to consider this bill under an open rule. Now, what does that mean? It means that I believe--and the Democrats on the Rules Committee yesterday made a motion to this effect--that we should allow Democrats and Republicans to offer amendments on this bill to say: Do you know what? Maybe there is a problem. Maybe we need to improve it. Maybe we need to change it. Do you know what? That motion for an open rule was voted down on a partisan vote. Perhaps that is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that no Republicans or Democrats bothered to come in on this bill, because the Republicans have locked us out of participating. They have locked out the Democratic and Republican rank-and-file Members, who represent great districts across our country, like from Texas and California and New York and Wisconsin--Democrats and Republicans. No one with any good ideas can even try to make this bill better. No wonder people aren't bothering to come to the floor in droves. It is because their ideas-- and they are good ideas, and good ideas even come from Republicans, Mr. Speaker--are locked out of inclusion in this bill. Do you know what? In 2007, Congress established the Antitrust Modernization Commission, which released 80 recommendations for revisions to antitrust law and policy. Of those recommendations, one of them advocated for the elimination of the FTC's administrative adjudication authority, and another proposed the adoption of a uniform preliminary injunction standard. Those are two things that are in this bill. To date, Congress has not considered the other 78 ideas that came out of this obscure Commission that were reported back that only affect the world's largest companies that merge with one another. If we had an open rule, I could bring forward some of those other 78 ideas. If this is such a pressing problem and if we need to spend our full day in session here this week in talking about making it easier for corporations to buy one another, why not go all out and allow a discussion of the other 78 ideas that the Antitrust Modernization Commission recommended? Mr. Speaker, this is a half measure that is a solution in search of a problem. Instead of debating bills like the one here today, we should be tackling problems that the American people sent us here to work on. We should work an honest workweek rather than an hour on Monday, a full day on Tuesday, a half a day on Wednesday, and take Thursday off and take Friday off. The American people deserve an honest week. They deserve us to get the budget done. Just like our households have a budget, Congress deserves a budget. I am sure, in the past, my colleague and many others have reminded us that Democrats, at times, have also failed to produce budgets. I am saying neither side is perfect. I am not proud that the Democrats, in the past, have failed to produce a budget, but what we are talking about today are the Republicans who are failing to produce a budget. I remember very distinctly that, when the Democrats had difficulty producing a budget, the Republicans said: How dare you. Produce a budget. Our households rely on budgets. Why can't the Congress have a budget? That was one of the arguments that my colleagues made to the American people, and the American people, for that reason and perhaps others, gave control of this body to the Republicans. Now here we are with the Republicans, who, instead of producing a budget, are sending every Member of Congress home on vacation for 2\1/2\ weeks after working a very taxing 1\1/2\-day week, making it easier for multinational corporations to merge. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. As I mentioned earlier, when we do defeat the previous question on the vote, the amendment I have offered into the Record will amend the rule to prohibit the House from starting our vacation tomorrow, unless we do our job and pass a budget. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and, instead, work to pass a budget and find solutions to the big problems that we were sent here to face, like improving our national security, like securing our border and replacing our broken immigration system into one that reflects our values as a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants, one that makes prescription drugs more affordable and improves upon the Affordable Care Act, improves our schools, invests in infrastructure, and so many of the other issues that I hear about from my constituents at our town halls, on the phone, and in letters. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think the American people deserve to know what Members of Congress are doing to earn their salaries. This week--3 days--this bill is the only bill under a rule that this Congress is even considering. Let me tell you how Congress calculates days, Mr. Speaker, because most Americans think, ``Okay. A day, maybe I go to work at 9 o'clock and come home at 5 o'clock. That is a day.'' Let me tell you that Congress has a different definition of a day for Members of Congress. Monday, we started at 6:30 p.m.--not a.m. but p.m. Now, Mr. Collins and I got to come in at 5 p.m. to start. We started early. Mr. Collins and I worked an extra hour and a half. I asked the Speaker if Mr. Collins did, and he did start at 5 o'clock with me. We worked an extra hour and a half; but you, Mr. Speaker--I don't think you started until 6:30. That is when the votes occurred. On Tuesday--that is today--that is a real day. I will give you that. We are working on Tuesday. I started this morning at around 8 o'clock, and I fully expect we will go until 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock. That is a good day. That is good. I can be proud of that for my kids that I worked a good day and can tell anybody back home. Tomorrow, Wednesday--this day, we are working today. I would ask my colleague from Georgia: Does the gentleman know what time we expect to finish tomorrow? I would ask Mr. Collins if he knows what time we are scheduled to finish tomorrow. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. POLIS. What is that?

Mr. POLIS. I heard it was around noon or, maybe, 12:30. I think I heard a lot of Members discussing whether they could catch their flights at around 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock. I don't know if they are going off to the Caribbean for their vacations or what. So, in this week, in which the Republicans are claiming we are working 3 days, I call it 1 day--Tuesday--and maybe half a day on Wednesday and maybe an hour or two on Monday. Look, that is not the kind of job that the American people expect us to do here. They want us to work full days. Why aren't we here all week? Why aren't we bringing up more than one bill? Fine. This bill can have its day in the Sun, and, as Mr. Collins said, not every bill is glamorous. Maybe there are some really big companies that want to be merged with other really big companies, and they feel it is too much paperwork to do it. Let's discuss it. Let's do that in a half a day. I mean, let's do that on Monday. Instead of coming in at 6 o'clock, maybe we come in at noon and sleep until 11 o'clock--that should be late enough for Members of Congress to sleep--and debate it for a few hours. Then let's do something else on Tuesday. Let's do a budget on Tuesday. Let's do something about the Zika virus on Tuesday. Let's do something about the Puerto Rico virus on Tuesday. On Wednesday, let's get to work and do more, right? I mean, let's roll up our sleeves and get to work. Let's not go home at noon. Mr. Speaker, I have a very exciting motion I will be able to make here. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to prohibit the House from starting a 2-week recess tomorrow unless we do our job and pass a budget. I ask unanimous consent to insert that amendment in the Record.

Mr. POLIS. Now, this is very exciting, Mr. Speaker, because I am giving my colleagues an opportunity. As to this previous question vote, if we vote it down--a ``no'' vote--it will mean ``Congress, don't go on vacation. Do your job and pass the budget.'' A ``yes'' vote means ``go on vacation, and forget about a budget.'' With this motion that I am introducing here, if we defeat the previous question, I am really calling on Members of Congress to account as to whether they think we should do our job or whether we should go home after making it easier for very big companies to merge. I hope that the answer is the one that the men and women who are listening at home would agree is the logical answer: that we should stay here and do our jobs. We will see here in a few minutes what my colleagues want to do: whether they agree with me that we should stay here and do our jobs or whether they think that we should allow bigger companies to have facilitated mergers and then go home. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in solemn observance today of the 13th anniversary of the week that one of the worst foreign policy mistakes of the 21st century was made, the invasion of Iraq, March 20, 2003. The human cost of the invasion: 4,491 U.S. servicemembers who gave their lives and countless more who were injured or who came back with difficulties facing the challenges of everyday life. Iraqi deaths were between 151,000 and 500,000, including many innocent women and children, and millions more were driven from their homes. The economic cost of the war in Iraq: $1.7 trillion are the estimates of that cost, money that was taken out of the hands of U.S. taxpayers, away from our roads, bridges, infrastructure, and schools to send to Iraq. And the national security cost of that colossal mistake: namely, the creation of ISIS and, in fact, arming ISIS with weapons that were paid for by American taxpayers, supplied to the failed Iraqi military. ``When will we ever learn?'', in the words of the late, great Pete Seeger.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, is it true that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush protected in excess of 1 million undocumented immigrants by executive action?

Mr. POLIS. Is it in order to offer an amendment to include a CBO report on the costs of the Office of General Counsel that would occur under this resolution?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Is it in order to amend section 2 of the resolution to formally include the amicus brief prepared by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and signed by more than 200 Democrats?

Mr. POLIS. Is or isn't?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, further inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.