Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

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

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

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In listening to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), there was a discussion of to what degree does this language interfere with potential and existing business models, and I agree with them. There are many workarounds. I think the danger here is invoking the language of copyright in an unrelated area. To quote from Public Knowledge: this new language, even if Congress believes that bulk unlocking is a problem, it is clear that it is not a copyright problem. Just as individual unlocking is not a copyright problem, a bill designed to scale back overreaching copyright laws should not also endorse an overreach of copyright law. I have a full statement from Public Knowledge that I will submit for the Record, Mr. Speaker. And as put by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, by expressly excluding bulk unlocking, this new legislation sends two dangerous signals: one, that Congress is okay with using copyright as an excuse to inhibit certain business models, even if the business isn't actually infringing on any of its copyrights; and, two, that Congress still doesn't understand the collateral damage section 1201 is causing. For example, bulk unlocking not only benefits consumers, but it is also good for the environment. Unlocking allows reuse, and that means less electronic waste. I will be submitting the Electronic Frontier Foundation statement into the Record. Again, the bill, as it passed committee, didn't weigh in on these matters of bulk unlocking and was satisfactory to consumer advocacy groups, including those that have now come out in opposition to this underlying bill. Many of the arguments that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) made about the potential use of phones for criminal purposes may, in fact, be valid arguments and may, in fact, deserve policy responses, but not within the realm of copyright law. They deserve appropriate attention within the realm of criminal law and perhaps might prevail upon the expertise of both of my colleagues from Virginia, who know far more about these matters than I. But if there need to be harsher penalties or more enforcement within criminal law with regard to the illegal use of cell phones, whether locked or unlocked, or illicit transactions, that would be an appropriate venue. But invoking copyright law is a very dangerous precedent for an unrelated area. We did reach a bipartisan consensus on this bill in July, but at the last minute after the bill was marked up and reported out, this new language was added to the bill that would have negative effects on consumers' ability to unlock their phones. The new language specifically states that the bill does not apply to bulk unlocking. Now, that signals that Congress believes that it is illegal for companies, including many small businesses and start-ups, to unlock cell phones in bulk, again, as Mr. Issa pointed out, not binding language, not something that immediately would be used to prosecute a small business, but it would create greater uncertainty-- not less uncertainty--around unlocking of cell phones in bulk, which could make it more difficult for consumers to buy an already unlocked, used cell phone. Again, since many consumers lack the technical expertise themselves to unlock cell phones, we want to ensure that they have availability to purchase unlocked cell phones and use them with the carrier of their choice. Again, this is an inappropriate use of copyright law to bar small businesses and large businesses from unlocking devices when it has nothing to do with making illegal copies of protected works, the purpose of copyright law. Again, if there is a criminal problem, we should address that within the realm of criminal law and enforcement, not within the realm of copyright. My colleague, Congresswoman Lofgren, offered compromise language to Chairman Goodlatte, but she reports back that this language was rejected because it was provided too late in the process. Again, I wish that Congresswoman Lofgren and others were brought in earlier in the process. I think there was the general assumption among the advocates on my side of the bill and that encourage more consumer choice that the bill, as reported from committee, would be the bill that was considered on the floor, as is traditionally done. Unfortunately, we are not voting on that bill that had that bipartisan consensus in committee. The bill has changed, and the bill now can be perceived as picking sides with regard to congressional intent of application of copyright law for bulk unlocking, something that many of us see as a negative precedent with regard to consumer choice and overreach of using copyright law to protect incumbent advantages. But, Mr. Speaker, it is never too late to reach a compromise. There is no rush to bring this bill to the floor today. There is a temporary agreement in place which offers consumers the same protections that are considered under this bill, and I hope that the chair and ranking member consider working to improve this bill so that it can pass this body unanimously. It doesn't need to be a controversial bill. I fear that the bill currently before us, while, again, it enshrines some of the current protections that protect consumers that Mr. Chaffetz talked so passionately about, also, unfortunately, weighs in in applying copyright law in an unrelated area that can have the effect of restricting consumer choice. I reserve the balance of my time. Rep. Goodlatte Slips Secret Change Into Phone Unlocking Bill That Opens the DMCA Up for Wider Abuse (By Mike Masnick) As you may recall, there's been a ridiculous (on many levels) fight concerning the legality of ``unlocking'' mobile phones. Let's go through the history first. Because of section 1201 of the DMCA, the ``anti-circumvention'' provision, companies have been abusing copyright law to block all sorts of actions that are totally unrelated to copyright. That's because 1201 makes it illegal to circumvent basically any ``technological protection measures.'' The intent of the copyright maximalists was to use this section to stop people from breaking DRM. However, other companies soon distorted the language to argue that it could be used to block certain actions totally unrelated to copyright law--such as unlocking garage doors, ink jet cartridges, gaming accessories . . . and phones. There have been court cases about a number of these issues, with (thankfully) many courts ruling against this kind of abuse, though it still happens. Separately, every three years, the Librarian of Congress gets to announce ``exemptions'' to section 1201 where it feels that things are being locked up that shouldn't be. Back in 2006, one of these exemptions involved mobile phone unlocking. Every three years this exemption was modified a bit, but in 2012, for unexplained reasons, the Librarian of Congress dropped that exemption entirely, meaning that starting in late January of 2013, it was possible to interpret the DMCA to mean that phone unlocking was illegal. In response to this there was a major White House petition-- which got over 100,000 signatures, leading the White House to announce (just weeks later) that it thought unlocking should be legal--though, oddly, it seemed to place the issue with the FCC to fix, rather than recognizing the problem was with current copyright law. Following this, a slew of new bills were introduced in Congress, many of which attempted to narrowly deal with the specific issue, while leaving the larger issues untouched. Many of these bills were incredibly problematic, though eventually the consensus seemed to get behind one bill before . . . nothing. Fast forward a year and nothing has changed, though the main bill, supported by Rep. Goodlatte, called the Unlocking Consumer Choice Act, is scheduled to go to a vote on Tuesday. It had gone through the basic markup process and some adjustments had been made to make it a good first step towards fixing problems. As of last week, a bunch of folks, who were concerned about the issues with unlocking and how Section 1201 was a problem, were supportive of this bill and were expecting to publicly speak out in favor of getting the bill passed. Except . . . late last week, with no explanation whatsoever, and no consultation with others even though the markup and Judiciary Committee process had already concluded, Rep. Goodlatte slipped into the bill a little poison pill/favor to big phone companies, adding a seemingly innocuous statement as section (c)(2): No Bulk Unlocking--Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit the unlocking of wireless handsets or other wireless devices, for the purpose of bulk resale, or to authorize the Librarian of Congress to authorize circumvention for such purpose under this Act, title 17, United States Code, or any other provision of law. While this gives Goodlatte and other maximalists some sort of plausible deniability that this bill is making no statement one way or the other on bulk unlocking, it certainly very strongly implies that Congress believes bulk unlocking is, in fact, still illegal. And that's massively problematic on any number of levels, in part suggesting that the unlocker's motives in unlocking has an impact on the determination under Section 1201 as to whether or not it's legal. And that's an entirely subjective distinction when a bill seems to assume motives, which makes an already problematic Section 1201 much more problematic. Without that clause, this seemed like a bill that was making it clear that you can't use the DMCA to interfere with an issue that is clearly unrelated to copyright, such as phone unlocking. But with this clause, it suggests that perhaps the DMCA's anti- circumvention clause can be used for entirely non-copyright issues if someone doesn't like the ``motive'' behind the unlocker. Given that, both Public Knowledge and EFF have pulled their support for the bill. As Public Knowledge noted: ``The new language specifically excluding bulk unlocking could indicate that the drafters believe that phone unlocking has something to do with copyright law. This is not a position we support. Even if Congress believes that bulk unlocking is a problem, it's clear that it's not a copyright problem, just as individual unlocking is not a copyright problem. A bill designed to scale back overreaching copyright laws should not also endorse an overreach of copyright law.'' EFF made a similar statement: By expressly excluding [bulk unlocking], this new legislation sends two dangerous signals: (1) that Congress is OK with using copyright as an excuse to inhibit certain business models, even if the business isn't actually infringing anyone's copyright; and (2) that Congress still doesn't understand the collateral damage Section 1201 is causing. For example, bulk unlocking not only benefits consumers, it's good for the environment--unlocking allows re-use, and that means less electronic waste Two members of Congress who have been closely associated with these issues, Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Anna Eshoo, also pulled their support of the bill late Monday as well, expressing their clear outrage at how this change was slipped in after the fact, in a letter sent to their colleagues in the House: After this bill was marked up and reported out of committee, a new section was added to the bill without notice to or consultation with us. . . . They furthermore point out that it's ridiculous that Congress is not fixing the broken anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA, and could possibly be strengthening them with this sneaky change of language: In his concurring opinion in Lexmark v. Static Control Components, Judge Merritt wrote: ``We should make clear that in the future companies like Lexmark cannot use the DMCA in conjunction with copyright law to create monopolies of manufactured goods for themselves . . .'' The court's holding prevented Lexmark from using dubious copyright claims and an overboard reading of 17 USC 1201--the same section the Unlocking Consumer Choice Act alters--to prevent third parties from creating competing printer ink cartridges. The issue is similar here.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. POLIS. I don't believe there is a rule for this bill. Is there a rule for this bill?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act. I support the sentiment behind this bill, and I support the version that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee. However, unfortunately, an important change that I will discuss to the detriment of this bill was added last week, just prior to this bill being brought to the floor. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) gave some background with regard to why a bill is necessary. Ever since the Library of Congress ruled last year that unlocking your cell phone violates copyright law, there have been a number of us on both sides of the aisle who have worked to ensure that consumers have the right to unlock their wireless devices and use their property as they see fit. I am proud to be a cosponsor of Congresswoman Lofgren's bill, the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013, which gives consumers the right to unlock their devices on a permanent basis. Before I came to Congress, I was an entrepreneur who started a number of businesses, and I understand firsthand the importance of allowing a free market to thrive and to create a positive environment for businesses and consumers alike. Allowing consumers to unlock their cell phones, which are their own personal property, can spur competition, allowing new start-up carriers to succeed, lowering prices, and increasing service options for all cell phone users. To be clear, this is a separate issue from being contractually bound to use a certain provider for a certain period of time. Many Americans choose to enter into a long-term contract in exchange for discounts or free cell phones. That is not the issue being discussed today, and I don't think there is a problem from either side of the aisle about those consensual contracts. Rather, we are talking about unlocking cell phones that are not contractually bound to a certain service provider. This has been an issue within our trade agreements. I have recently drafted bipartisan letters to the United States Trade Representative, with Representative Massie, expressing concern that the leaked text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement would potentially make any permanent fix to unlocking cell phones illegal. Now, this bill is not a permanent fix. This bill would make clear congressional intent consistent with the optional agreement between the companies that they have reached. However, the last-minute change that was made in this bill, different from the bill that was passed out of committee, puts a real poison pill in this bill for consumer advocates, such as myself. The bill adds the language that nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit the unlocking of wireless handsets or other wireless devices for the purpose of bulk resale or to authorize the Librarian of Congress to authorize circumvention for such purpose or any other provision of law. Now, while this gives, again, at least a patina of deniability that the bill is making a statement in one way or the other, the statement certainly implies that Congress believes that bulk unlocking is, in fact, illegal. Now, why is bulk unlocking important? When it comes to the actual technical skills necessary, many consumers are not going to be unlocking their phones themselves. There needs to be a market in unlocked phones for consumers to have the full ability and to be empowered to choose the provider of their choice. This bill does weigh in, with congressional intent, against the creation of a dynamic marketplace that increases consumer choice and options. I think, without this clause, this was a bill that made it clear that we can't use the Digital Millennium Copyrights Act to interfere with an issue that is unrelated to copyright, but with this clause, it suggests that perhaps the DMCA's clauses can be used for noncopyright issues if, perhaps, somebody doesn't like the motive behind the unlocker. So, as a result of this change, a number of organizations have withdrawn their support: iFixit, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, Generation Opportunity, and FreedomWorks. I hope to be able to continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve this bill, but with the current language, I do not believe, at this point, that this bill is a step forward for consumers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, there seems to be some strong, bipartisan consensus here that there remains more work to be done. As Representative Chaffetz said, we do need a long-term solution. We need to ensure that any solution we enter is not compromised by our Nation's trade agreements to ensure that consumers are protected in control of their own devices in choosing the plan that they desire. The language in question that was added after the bipartisan consensus was reached in committee is not operative language. It is not language that criminalizes something that wasn't criminal before or proactively bans the bulk sale of phones. What it does explicitly do is establish some degree of congressional intent. Perhaps this colloquy between the two gentlemen from Virginia helped roll back a part of what could be read in the congressional intent of this language, and I am appreciative of that effort. However, congressional intent could, nevertheless, be construed that there is an imprint, there is a congressional desire to use a more restrictive view of copyright, one in which copyright laws can be used to ban business practices that have nothing to do with making illicit copies of protected works. Copyrights are a very important area of law. It is meant to protect the creator of a work from having their work ripped off and sold and others profit at their expense. However, it is difficult to see, and this is why so many of us were critical of the Librarian of Congress' initial decision. It is very difficult to see what the nexus is between unlocking cell phones and copyright. By adding this language in, it adds some degree of congressional perception that copyright law can be what many of us feel to be abused in this manner that reduces consumer choice and does not protect any legitimate creator of a work. Again, to the extent there are concerns from police and law enforcement officials with regard to how unlocked or locked cell phones are being used for transactions that are otherwise illegal, that is a question of criminal law and enforcement and something that I would hope to be certainly supportive of efforts within Judiciary or Homeland Security or other committees to ensure that we reduce crime across all of those. But let's not give the court's ruling on these actions a reason to think that perhaps Congress condones them. Again, having my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the Record talking about how this bill is simply a first step and how we need to go further and, of course, not backing away from the initial committee markup of the bill, it is certainly also helpful in establishing congressional intent. And that is really what we are talking about here. We are not talking about binding language where before this bill passes somebody doesn't go to jail, after this bill passes they do. We are talking about potential use and precedent going forward with regard to how copyright law can, from my perception, be misapplied to reduce consumer choice in areas that are unrelated to the purpose of copyright protection. That is why I continue to stand in opposition to this bill, certainly appreciating the step forward of enshrining in law potentially that it is no criminal penalty for an individual unlocking their own cell phone. But, again, we want to make sure it doesn't happen at the expense of moving the entire discussion in the wrong direction. An opinion in yesterday's L.A. Times was headlined, ``The House's cell phone unlocking bill: Thanks but no thanks.'' I would like to submit the L.A. Times op-ed into the Record, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time. [From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 25, 2014] The House's Cellphone Unlocking Bill: Thanks But No Thanks (By Jon Healey) How hard can it be for Congress to make it legal for consumers to switch mobile networks without having to buy a new phone? Too hard, evidently. The House is scheduled to vote Tuesday on a bill that was supposed to clear the way for consumers to unlock the phones they buy from wireless companies after they've fulfilled their contracts. But the measure, which was modest to begin with, has been rendered irrelevant by voluntary agreements on unlocking that the Federal Communications Commission obtained from the wireless companies. The bill was also changed at the last minute in a way that arguably weakens consumers' ownership rights, prompting some consumer advocates and Democrats to withdraw their support. The current version is so bad, consumers would be better off if Congress did nothing at all. At issue is a dubious interpretation of copyright law that deters people from moving their phones from one network to another. Each mobile carrier typically sells phones with electronic locks that prevent them from being reprogrammed to work on rival carriers' networks. The U.S. Copyright Office, acting through the Librarian of Congress, ruled in 2012 that removing the locks violated the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which forbids the circumvention of technologies that protect copyrighted works. The ruling was bizarre, considering that the locks inside phones don't protect against software piracy; their only real purpose is to protect the mobile carriers' business model. And the carriers have (and use) better tools to recover the subsidies they put into the phones they sell, most notably contracts that impose hefty early termination penalties. The 1998 law requires the Librarian of Congress to revisit the anti-circumvention rules every three years, which means the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other consumer advocates can try to set things right in 2015. Sadly, however, the default interpretation of the cellphone locks is that they are covered by the anti-circumvention ban. The Copyright Office's decision, which took effect early last year, led more than 100,000 people to petition the White House for help. Tech-friendly lawmakers lined up to offer bills, including an elegantly simple one by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Wis.) that would require mobile companies to let customers unlock the wireless devices they buy, and a more sweeping proposal by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to exempt wireless device unlocking from the anti-circumvention ban. The best of the bunch was a bill by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors to limit the 1998 law's anti-circumvention rules to locks that protect against piracy. That bill also would have declared that it was not copyright infringement for the owner of a mobile device to unlock it for the purpose of switching to another network. The House, however, is scheduled to take up a different measure Tuesday afternoon, H.R. 1123 by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and co-sponsors from both parties. As introduced, it would simply have replaced the Copyright Office's 2012 ruling with its decision in 2010 that cellphone owners could unlock their phones without running afoul of copyrights. It also would have called on the Librarian of Congress to decide within a year whether to extend the exemption to all other locked wireless devices, such as tablets. The relief offered by the bill would have remained in effect only until the Librarian of Congress reviewed the anti-circumvention rules again in 2015, so it hardly seemed worth the effort. The version that the House is slated to vote on Tuesday also includes a new provision effectively barring devices from being unlocked in bulk for the purpose of reselling them. The latter change disturbed Lofgren (a member of Goodlatte's committee) and fellow Silicon Valley Democrat Anna Eshoo, who accused Republicans of adding the provision in secret after the Judiciary Committee approved the bill. The proposed ban on unlocking for the sake of resale, they argued in a letter to colleagues Monday, is an inappropriate use of copyright law to stop people from disposing of the devices they buy as they please. ``Congress should work to roll back abusive practices that use copyright law to prevent owners from having control over the devices they lawfully own,'' Lofgren and Eshoo wrote. ``What it means to 'own' a device that has been purchased is what's at stake here. The new addition to the bill puts the effort to stand up for the property rights of the owners of technology devices at risk.'' Public Knowledge, a technology advocacy group, agreed. ``Even if Congress believes that bulk unlocking is a problem, it's clear that it's not a copyright problem, just as individual unlocking is not a copyright problem,'' said Sherwin Siy, the group's vice president of legal affairs. ``A bill designed to scale back overreaching copyright laws should not also endorse an overreach of copyright law.'' Both Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation withdrew their support for the measure after the new provision was disclosed last week. The House plans to bring up HR 1123 under an expedited procedure that forbids amendments but requires a two-thirds vote to pass. With some luck, Lofgren and Eshoo can rally all the supposedly tech-friendly members in the chamber to knock the bill off track. As you may recall, there's been a ridiculous (on many levels) fight concerning the legality of ``unlocking'' mobile phones. Let's go through the history first. Because of section 1201 of the DMCA, the ``anti-circumvention'' provision, companies have been abusing copyright law to block all sorts of actions that are totally unrelated to copyright. That's because 1201 makes it illegal to circumvent basically any ``technological protection measures.'' The intent of the copyright maximalists was to use this section to stop people from breaking DRM. However, other companies soon distorted the language to argue that it could be used to block certain actions totally unrelated to copyright law--such as unlocking garage doors, ink jet cartridges, gaming accessories . . . and phones. There have been court cases about a number of these issues, with (thankfully) many courts ruling against this kind of abuse, though it still happens. Separately, every three years, the Librarian of Congress gets to announce ``exemptions'' to section 1201 where it feels that things are being locked up that shouldn't be. Back in 2006, one of these exemptions involved mobile phone unlocking. Every three years this exemption was modified a bit, but in 2012, for unexplained reasons, the Librarian of Congress dropped that exemption entirely, meaning that starting in late January of 2013, it was possible to interpret the DMCA to mean that phone unlocking was illegal. In response to this there was a major White House petition-- which got over 100,000 signatures, leading the White House to announce (just weeks later) that it thought unlocking should be legal--though, oddly, it seemed to place the issue with the FCC to fix, rather than recognizing the problem was with current copyright law. Following this, a slew of new bills were introduced in Congress, many of which attempted to narrowly deal with the specific issue, while leaving the larger issues untouched. Many of these bills were incredibly problematic, though eventually the consensus seemed to get behind one bill before... nothing. Fast forward a year and nothing has changed, though the main bill, supported by Rep. Goodlatte, called the Unlocking Consumer Choice Act, is scheduled to go to a vote on Tuesday. It had gone through the basic markup process and some adjustments had been made to make it a good first step towards fixing problems. As of last week, a bunch of folks, who were concerned about the issues with unlocking and how Section 1201 was a problem, were supportive of this bill and were expecting to publicly speak out in favor of getting the bill passed. Except... late last week, with no explanation whatsoever, and no consultation with others even though the markup and Judiciary Committee process had already concluded, Rep. Goodlatte slipped into the bill a little poison pill/favor to big phone companies, adding a seemingly innocuous statement as section (c)(2): No Bulk Unlocking--Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit the unlocking of wireless handsets or other wireless devices, for the purpose of bulk resale, or to authorize the Librarian of Congress to authorize circumvention for such purpose under this Act, title 17, United States Code, or any other provision of law. While this gives Goodlatte and other maximalists some sort of plausible deniability that this bill is making no statement one way or the other on bulk unlocking, it certainly very strongly implies that Congress believes bulk unlocking is, in fact, still illegal. And that's massively problematic on any number of levels, in part suggesting that the unlocker's motives in unlocking has an impact on the determination under Section 1201 as to whether or not it's legal. And that's an entirely subjective distinction when a bill seems to assume motives, which makes an already problematic Section 1201 much more problematic. Without that clause, this seemed like a bill that was making it clear that you can't use the DMCA to interfere with an issue that is clearly unrelated to copyright, such as phone unlocking. But with this clause, it suggests that perhaps the DMCA's anti- circumvention clause can be used for entirely non-copyright issues if someone doesn't like the ``motive'' behind the unlocker. Given that, both Public Knowledge and EFF have pulled their support for the bill. As Public Knowledge noted: ``The new language specifically excluding bulk unlocking could indicate that the drafters believe that phone unlocking has something to do with copyright law. This is not a position we support. Even if Congress believes that bulk unlocking is a problem, it's clear that it's not a copyright problem, just as individual unlocking is not a copyright problem. A bill designed to scale back overreaching copyright laws should not also endorse an overreach of copyright law.'' EFF made a similar statement: By expressly excluding [bulk unlocking], this new legislation sends two dangerous signals: (1) that Congress is OK with using copyright as an excuse to inhibit certain business models, even if the business isn't actually infringing anyone's copyright; and (2) that Congress still doesn't understand the collateral damage Section 1201 is causing. For example, bulk unlocking not only benefits consumers, it's good for the environment--unlocking allows re-use, and that means less electronic waste Two members of Congress who have been closely associated with these issues, Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Anna Eshoo, also pulled their support of the bill late Monday as well, expressing their clear outrage at how this change was slipped in after the fact, in a letter sent to their colleagues in the House: After this bill was marked up and reported out of committee, a new section was added to the bill without notice to or consultation with us. . . . They furthermore point out that it's ridiculous that Congress is not fixing the broken anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA, and could possibly be strengthening them with this sneaky change of language: In his concurring opinion in Lexmark v. Static Control Components, Judge Merritt wrote: ``We should make clear that in the future companies like Lexmark cannot use the DMCA in conjunction with copyright law to create monopolies of manufactured goods for themselves . . .'' The court's holding prevented Lexmark from using dubious copyright claims and an overboard reading of 17 USC 1201--the same section the Unlocking Consumer Choice Act alters--to prevent third parties from creating competing printer ink cartridges. The issue is similar here. Congress should work to roll back abusive practices that use copyright law to prevent owners from having control over the devices they lawfully own. What it means to ``own'' a device that has been purchased is what's at stake here. The new addition to the bill puts the effort to stand up for the property rights of the owners of technology devices at risk. It is sad that the bipartisan consensus reached during mark-up in the Judiciary committee to improve the law has been destroyed by a secret decision of the majority after the bill was reported out. Unfortunately, the bill was deemed so uncontroversial that it's been listed on the suspension calendar of the House, which is where non-controversial bills are put to ensure quick passage. That means that, not only did Goodlatte slip in a significant change to this bill that impacts the entire meaning and intent of the bill long after it went through the committee process (and without informing anyone about it), but he also got it put on the list of non-controversial bills to try to have it slip through without anyone even noticing. Either way, it seems that even if the bill does pass, it won't do anything to fix a very broken part of the DMCA and, in fact, could make it somewhat worse. Politics as usual when it comes to anything having to do with copyright.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. I am heartened by the discussion on both sides of the aisle with regard to the path forward. I wish we could be at a better place today. I think we had a bill that was reported out of committee that would not have engendered, I don't believe, any degree of controversy here on the floor of the House. We have now moved to a place where the bill does invoke some degree of appropriate controversy and some degree of appropriate opposition. I would advance that it is never too late to reach a compromise, either before this bill is voted upon--perhaps my colleague, Mr. Goodlatte, will be willing to consider Ms. Lofgren's language change--or after this bill passes. I think that we would all agree that this issue is not one in any way, shape, or form that is being put to bed here today. I would hope that, as a guiding principle, Members on both sides of the aisle look to consumer choice and the power of markets to achieve the best outcome and ensure that incumbents don't seek to co-opt copyright law to the detriment of our economy and the detriment of consumer choice. Again, this bill has language that can be construed as applying copyright law in another area and having a congressional blessing to do so, which is why I encourage my colleagues to join Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, Generation Opportunity, FreedomWorks, and iFixit, and some of those very organizations that were in the forefront of proposing that we pass a bill that allows unlocking that have since withdrawn their support from this bill because of the last-minute changes, which I saw for the first time yesterday and that I wish this House had a bigger opportunity to vet, perhaps bringing this bill forward under a rule if the suspension motion fails. If a third of the Members of the House oppose, we would have an opportunity to remedy this bill under a rule that was hopefully structured to allow for compromise language that would then allow the bill to proceed with near unanimity. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle see that as an opportunity, certainly not as a rebuke to the chair and ranking member on the committee. We appreciate the direction and the intent behind this bill, their desire to make sure that Americans know that they are not under duress or a criminal threat if they are unlocking their own cell phone. That is a sentiment that both the chair and the ranking member have echoed passionately, but I think we can do better with regard to ensuring that this bill is also not a precedent for the use of overreaching copyright law and a congressional blessing to do so in a way that hampers the trade, the bulk trade of unlocked cell phones which offer great potential benefits to the marketplace and to consumers. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this suspension bill, to consider working with both sides to get to ``yes,'' and to move in a direction that we look at as a guiding principle, ensuring that consumers and the marketplace are allowed to fully operate without the co-option of copyright law to protect incumbents. 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can deal with one of these pressing issues that my colleagues from Florida and other States have made a compelling case for here on the floor of the House today in order to address flood insurance. I also urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it has been clear--and we actually have some bipartisan agreement here--about what this bill lacks. This bill does not do anything about hundreds of people sneaking across our southern border every day. It does nothing to reunite American families. It does nothing to end over 2 million deportations that have occurred during the Obama administration. It also does nothing to address the imminent hikes in flood insurance that many Americans face, including Americans in my home State of Colorado, if Congress fails to act. So what does this bill do that has preempted Congress instead of dealing with illegal immigration? instead of dealing with flood insurance? It creates additional Federal Government bureaucracy. It takes one person's job and turns it into a commission of five people who will endlessly debate things rather than decide things. What if one is sick and what if there are four at work and it is deadlocked 2-2, and then the other one comes in and one is missing because the appointment is held up? Do we really need to have more government regulators in charge of this Federal agency, Mr. Speaker? That is exactly what this bill does. One person can do the job. How many companies in this country are run by a panel of five co- CEOs? I don't know of a single one. Why would we want to run a Federal agency like that? The gamesmanship that we are doing in this House, while there are important issues like illegal immigration and flood insurance, is at a serious cost to the American people. The Senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill last June. The House hasn't dedicated a single minute of legislative floor time to an immigration reform bill. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Duffy is correct that immigration reform is not in the bill or the rule. It should be, but it is not. We have another motion for something that should be in the bill, but is not. Mr. Speaker, last week we provided the House two opportunities to consider flood insurance reform, a bipartisan measure that now has almost 200 cosponsors, but unfortunately, it was denied. Not only does this bill not have immigration reform, it also does not have flood insurance reform. Today, we are offering Members another chance to put aside party politics and do something that is important for the American people. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the bill that would delay flood insurance premium hikes and provide relief to thousands of American families. To discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, today, unfortunately, we commemorate the 2 millionth deportation under President Obama. President Obama continues to tear families apart by deporting noncriminal immigrants to our country who want nothing more than to make our country stronger, grow our economy, and raise their American families. But the President can bring an end to deportation. Even if this body doesn't act, the President can stop deporting noncriminal detainees. If somebody has violated our criminal laws, they should suffer the consequences of their crimes. If their only crime was trying to make a better life for themselves in our great country, just as our own forebears did, just as my great- grandparents did, we should welcome them to help make our country stronger, create jobs for Americans, and grow our economy. Madam Speaker, it is time for this body to act. Absent this body acting on comprehensive immigration reform, I encourage the President to stop deporting noncriminal aliens.

Mr. POLIS

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