Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills: H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, and H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act. Both bills are being brought to the House under a hyperpartisan, closed process that limits debate and discussion that can improve the legislation and allow the House to work its will. Many of the meaningful amendments that would have protected privacy under CISPA were not allowed under this rule, and under the Interest Rate Reduction Act, no amendments were allowed. I want to address both of the bills that are contained in this underlying rule. First, the Interest Rate Reduction Act. This is a bill of rather mysterious origin that appeared in the Rules Committee yesterday mere hours after having been introduced by its lead sponsor, Mrs. Biggert of Illinois. No regular order was followed for this bill. This bill received no hearings and no markups by the committee of jurisdiction, and within hours of its being introduced, it was brought immediately to the Rules Committee with direction to go to the floor of the House of Representatives without a single member of either party having any opportunity to amend the bill and with only 1 hour of debate. What is new about this cliff with regard to student loan rates? This was a well-known fact with regard to the expiration date that, in fact, the Stafford student loan interest rate would increase from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. I've joined my colleague, Mr. Courtney, who will later address these issues as a sponsor of his bill that would address extending the lower student loan rate, and yet, there had been no interest from the committee chair or Republicans with regard to this issue until yesterday afternoon, when a new bill, without the benefit of a markup, was presented in committee and to the Rules Committee, going completely around the committee of jurisdiction. Look, there is a legitimate issue here. Middle class families are having a tougher and tougher time affording college for their kids at the same time that a college education is more necessary than ever for young people to have the skills they need to compete in the global economy. It's a serious issue that deserves serious treatment. There's a lot of cost drivers with regard to education. Some have commented about a higher education bubble that has led to higher and higher tuition rates. Certainly, how the State and Federal share of higher education funding is targeted and the manner in which it's spent absolutely affect tuition rates and whether there's a bubble. But instead of a thoughtful approach, an approach that looked at drivers of cost, an approach that looked at outcomes from higher education, and an approach that looked at employment levels pre- and post-higher education, a bill was immediately created and brought to the floor within a day. Again, there is technically a 3-day rule that the majority has said that they would follow. They would give Members of this body on both sides 3 days to consider legislation, but they calculate 3 days in a very funny way. There were, as far as I know, no Members of this body who saw that particular student loan bill before yesterday afternoon. Here we are today on the rule, with final passage vote--without any opportunity to amend--expected to occur midday tomorrow. By most calculations, it sounds like, well, less than 3 days. They had maybe 6 hours, 7 hours yesterday, 24 today, and maybe 10 tomorrow. It seems like, in fact, less than 48 hours, less than 2 days. But, nevertheless, it's yet another example of only governing out of a sense of crisis, and with regard to this issue one in which we do have time, fundamentally, to follow regular order, and even more importantly, we did have time. This is not an issue that appeared from nowhere. Why has the chair of the committee of jurisdiction not been working on this issue for weeks or months? While many of us on our side, including myself, appreciate the sudden interest in helping middle class families afford college, it would be good to do so in a more thoughtful manner that truly addresses the cost drivers of education. I also take issue with the other underlying bill, the initial bill that we thought would be debated under this rule before this other mysterious bill appeared out of nowhere and came to the Rules Committee. This was a bill that did follow regular order in the Intelligence Committee, and while a number of amendments that are meaningful are included in this rule, several of the most meaningful amendments that truly would have addressed the privacy concerns with regard to CISPA are not allowed under this rule. CISPA asks Americans, once again, to make a false choice between security and liberty. Now, we all agree, on both sides of the aisle, Americans in general, that cybersecurity is an important issue that needs to be addressed. That's why it's critical that we get information-sharing correct. This bill in its current form before us is an unprecedented, sweeping piece of legislation that would waive every single privacy law ever enacted in the name of cybersecurity. It would even waive the terms of service and would supersede the terms of service that most American consumers, American people, believe they are entering into in a contract with a provider of a Web site or service of their choice. That information, without any safeguards, would be shared with the government. As a former tech entrepreneur myself, I know very well how important cybersecurity is. Frankly, it's something that I've never thought we could rely on the government to do for us, and I think a lot of tech companies feel the same way. But that doesn't mean that in the effort for expediency we should give up our privacy rights and liabilities to protect online networks. While I appreciate the efforts the sponsors of the bill have made to improve the bill slightly in the direction that people can have more comfort with, they haven't gone nearly far enough to ensure that customers' private information remains just that, private. There's nothing in this bill to stop companies from sharing their private information with every branch of the government, including secret, unaccountable branches, including the military. And allowing the military and the NSA to spy on American citizens on American soil goes against every principle that this Nation stands for. A lot has been made of saying, oh, it's optional. Well, it may be optional for the corporations to share information, but is it optional for their users, whose information they have, who entered a specific terms of service agreement, to have their information shared without their consent? In many cases, under a terms of service agreement, the users, in fact, may be the owners of the information. The company that it's hosted on may, in fact, merely be a host or provider. But, again, outside of any legal process, this gives that company, whether it's hosting or providing, the ability to share wholesale information that can include health records, that can include firearm registration information, that can include credit card information, that can include account information, and that can include political information, with secret government authorities. Now, we have government authorities that have the responsibility and are charged with keeping America safe on American soil, namely, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. They've worked hard over decades to strike a fine balance between protecting our liberties and security. The military and the NSA are unaccustomed to that balance. That's why even within the military many from DOD have expressed opposition to this bill. Eric Rosenbach, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy within DOD, said that a civilian agency, and not an agency within DOD, should be responsible for securing the domestic civilian Internet. According to Mr. Rosenbach: It's almost certainly not the right approach for the United States of America to have a foreign intelligence focus on domestic networks, doing something that throughout history has been a domestic function. So, not only will the military and the NSA be able to receive private information if CISPA passes, but they'll be able to use it for almost any justification. Now, while ostensibly a cybersecurity bill, CISPA allows information-sharing ``for the protection of national security,'' a broad and undefined category that can include practically everything under the sun. Is a Tea Party activist a threat to national security? Is a Communist activist a threat to national security? The danger that this can be used for political oppression and to stifle political speech is very real under this bill. In addition, because of the immunity clauses of this bill, there's no incentive at all for companies to withhold their customers' sensitive private information. Companies are exempted from any liability for violating their own terms of service and sharing information with secret government agencies. In fact, given the high compliance cost for this sort of sharing, CISPA actually incentivizes companies to dump all of their information on the government so they can take advantage of this blanket immunity that this bill includes. This legislation also has glaring omissions when it comes to the Nation's future capacity to be competent in cybersecurity. The bill lacks adequate support and direction for paths that can actually improve the cybersecurity of our Nation: Training in the pipeline for cybersecurity experts, including STEM programs in our K 12 schools in computer science; embedding cybersecurity in computer science; and providing scholarships and ways that students can attain the highest levels and enter public service to support the cybersecurity of the Nation. Mr. Speaker, there should be an open rule for both of the underlying bills to give Members of this House across the ideological spectrum the opportunity to address the deficiencies in both these bills. Now, we've heard from supporters of the cybersecurity bill that privacy concerns are overblown. ``Trust us,'' they've said. Republicans say: Trust Big Government bureaucrats. Trust anonymous intelligence officers to use that information responsibly. Well, under this bill, we have no choice but to trust them, because the bill imposes no serious limitation on what corporations or secret government agencies can do with our private information. It's outrageous to have a closed rule on the student loan interest bill--a bill that no Member of this body, Democrat or Republican, has had any opportunity to amend. And it is also outrageous to not allow a full discussion of the thoughtful amendments brought forth by Members of both parties that would remedy some of the very severe deficiencies in the cybersecurity bill. I, therefore, cannot support this rule or these flawed bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has or is expecting any additional speakers.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the remainder of the time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment of Mr. Tierney's bill into the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Tierney's bill will not only provide the House, as was passionately argued by the leader, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Tierney, the opportunity to decide between women's health or special tax breaks for oil and gas companies, but will also reduce the deficit by $7 billion. The time of record deficits when restoring the fiscal integrity of our Nation is critical to our competitiveness in job creation. I hope that this House acts boldly by defeating the previous question and allowing us to vote on reducing the deficit by $7 billion. With regard to CISPA, it simply strikes the wrong balance between security and liberty. Information-sharing is important. I think a bipartisan consensus can be reached. And while I appreciate the spirit with which CISPA was offered and members of both parties worked on it, the bill is so far from perfect, we need to continue to work on it and defeat this rule and allow more amendments. Any American who values his or her privacy should be concerned by the implications of this bill trusting Big Government and secret agencies with our most personal information. The reality is that CISPA represents a massive government overreach in the name of security. We need accountability and we need oversight. We can't have secretive agencies accountable to no one with vast powers over American citizens on our soil. For these reasons, I oppose the underlying pieces of legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS. The point being made is that it depends on one's political perspective where one sees a national security threat. Some see it on the left, some see it on the right. I don't trust Big Government decisionmakers to decide who is and isn't a threat to security.

Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, Mr. Miller. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House adopts this rule, we will bring up H.R. 4816, Mr. Tierney's bill, to prevent the doubling of student loan interest rates, fully paid for and then some, reducing the deficit by $7 billion by repealing tax giveaways for big oil companies. To discuss our student loan bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this is not smoke and mirrors.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, usually when something is killed, it stays dead. But just like a zombie movie, some earmarks refuse to die and return to life as wasteful deficit spending. That's what has happened with this bill and what my simple commonsense amendment corrects. This Congress was supposed to eliminate earmarks, but zombie earmarks from prior sessions keep appearing and reappearing and my amendment corrects that. Republicans are taking earmarks from previous sessions and calling them something else. Is that our new spending plan? Mr. Speaker, at a time when we face a massive national deficit and have limited resources to address our Nation's transportation needs, the pending measure provides billions of dollars for the construction of the Alabama Porkway and the Canadian Baconway. Mr. Speaker, even as many in Congress have sworn off earmarks, this legislation continues funding to the Alabama Porkway, a 65-mile, six- lane beltway zombie earmark, a massive highway that surrounds the City of Birmingham, costing taxpayers billions. In fact, just last year, an article in the Birmingham News cited how cost estimates have soared from $3.4 billion to $4.7 billion before construction. So costs have soared, and now Alabama wants a bailout for their zombie highway, an earmark and a bailout. Mr. Speaker, I guess the more Washington changes, the more it stays the same. The good news is, Mr. Speaker, with this amendment I'm calling out this bailout and giving Members on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to stop the bailout of the Alabama Porkway. In 2004, a Republican Member of Congress added a provision that had not been included in either the House or the Senate bill behind closed doors to an appropriations bill adding a new 65-mile, six-lane Birmingham beltway to the Appalachian Development System. This earmark is unprecedented in the Appalachian region's more-than-45-year history. Alabama went from receiving 6.2 percent of highway funds to 25 percent in one fell swoop. That's good for the Alabama Porkway and those living high on the hog, but bad for taxpayers everywhere and worthy projects across Appalachia. My amendment strikes the windfall bailout and a windfall that comes at the expense of 12 other States in the Appalachian region. The money comes directly from projects that would have been funded in Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Even many Alabamans understand that this is a waste of Federal dollars. If Alabamans want to build a porkway around Birmingham, go right ahead. Just don't do it with our tax dollars outside of the normal process while competing for their share of Federal dollars. Many Alabamans agree. One in the Birmingham News said, ``Spend, spend, spend. That's the mantra of the Birmingham beltway and State and local government.'' Another Alabaman says, ``As a businessman, I am more concerned about the flagrant disregard for the economic damage that will be wreaked on Alabama in the long term by the beltline.'' The beltline goes right through the farm of 88-year-old Ardell Turner. She lived her entire life in Alabama. The Northern Beltline goes right through her farm that she and her husband have had since 1950. This is big Federal deficit spending, a big beltway, a big porkway right through Ardell's farm. My amendment also prohibits construction of highways in foreign countries, which this bill contains. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides gas tax funds, $30 million a year, for a 325-mile Canadian baconway right through the Yukon, out of the pocket of American families and into a Canadian baconway. The next time my colleagues are at home at a gas station talking to constituents, I encourage them to ask their constituents if they think our gas tax dollars should be used to build a 325-mile highway in Canada or any foreign county. Now, this isn't an anti-Canada amendment. In fact, I don't think Mexico or Canada should be building highways through the United States. What this amendment does is it gives every Member of the House a chance to decide if we would rather build highways in Canada or reduce our deficit. Our choice. If you want to reduce the deficit and make sure there isn't a precedent for Mexico or Canada building highways through your State, vote ``yes.'' If you want to engage in more deficit spending to build expensive highways through the Yukon, vote ``no.'' My amendment would prohibit the use of any funds provided under this act for construction of highways outside of the United States and reduce the Federal deficit by over $12 million. Mr. Speaker, on March 2, 2011, I offered an amendment to stop Federal taxpayer money from funding the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. Mr. Mica gave a response to it and said it was smoke and mirrors. He said it's trying to mislead the House and it's smoke and mirrors.

Mr. POLIS. I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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. This amendment is the Bishop bill and the Corrine Brown bill, which would simply allow the House the opportunity to vote on the Senate bill, which, given the strong bipartisan majority in the Senate, I believe would pass the House of Representatives. At least let's give it a chance. Let's give the House a chance to work its will, Democrats and Republicans, and see where we really are with regard to this Congress' commitment to critical infrastructure needs in this country. Voting down this rule would be the first step in allowing Mr. Bishop and Ms. Brown to come forward with the Senate bill for consideration in this House, which would provide some certainty to State and local planners, allowing them to reduce costs and get better value for the taxpayer dollar. I also strongly encourage the majority to consider allowing amendments and good ideas from both sides of the aisle in bills like the transportation bill, and let us work to find an appropriate time and an appropriate place for the consideration of Mr. McGovern's bill and Mr. McGovern's amendment. And whether the proceeds are used to reduce the deficit or bring down corporate taxes or some split thereof, or other worthy public purposes, surely we can at this juncture, when we cannot afford the government we have, help reduce the size and the scope of government by ending subsidies and giveaways to big multinational oil companies. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in observation of Equal Pay Day, a day that signifies, to a degree, how far we've come with regard to breaking the glass ceiling and providing opportunities for all Americans, regardless of gender, but it also reminds us how far we have to go, how far we have to go before parity is reached. For every dollar earned by a man, for the same job, women continue to earn only 77 cents. That extra difference--thousands of dollars a year of income for working families--constitutes a lot of groceries or a lot of gas money that men can buy for the same work that women are undercompensated for. I was proud that one of my first votes in the United States Congress in the 111th Congress was to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. But we are not yet there in reaching gender parity in this country and ensuring that every American, regardless of their gender, has access to the same opportunity and the same compensation. That's why I introduced the Women WIN Jobs Act, along with Rosa DeLauro, which helps train women for high-paying jobs. I ask my colleagues to continue to address the disparities in compensation among the genders.