Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, appropriations are at the discretion of Congress every year. For that reason and others, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bills. Patent reform is critical, it's important, and it's the right way to go, but this bill and the manager's amendment and the rule are the wrong approach. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to remove the $712 million plus CutGo waiver for amendments to H.R. 1249. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, because while it has shortcomings, at least the CutGo rule provides some checks on increasing spending. By waiving CutGo today, this Congress might risk demonstrating how little we care about fiscal discipline. In order to get patent reform right, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a champion of individual inventors.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman 45 additional seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. POLIS. To be clear, the gentleman from Florida refers to a letter that was regarding the initial bill. The manager's amendment actually changes the equation the gentleman indicated and renders that side letter inaccurate relating to the manager's amendment, which, if adopted under this rule, will then be part of the bill. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. POLIS. I've been advised by some of our advisers on our side that, in fact, this would have been a CutGo violation even if this had been an amendment in committee. This is a serious discussion. When we're talking about CutGo, it's a serious issue. I think this Congress on both sides of the aisle have come here to balance the budget, to restore fiscal discipline to our country; and setting the precedent of a CutGo violation so early in the term really calls into question what a ``rule of the House'' even means if it is to be so casually disregarded. I yield 45 seconds to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, patents are one of the most critical components that drive American innovation, drive our economy, drive invention and innovation. Regrettably, for a variety of reasons, the bill that this rule makes in order fails to ensure that the Patent Office has the resources it needs to process patent applications in a timely manner. Now, I am grateful that this rule allows discussion of a number of important amendments, including my amendment, but there are a number of underlying flaws in the manager's amendment to this bill. Inventors, innovators, and job creation should not be on hold due to delays in patent approval. I'm an inventor of several patents, and I can tell you that the quickest one that I received took over 5 years until it was granted. By the time it was granted, I had actually sold the company and was no longer involved in the sector. The Internet and the information economy move at a speed and a different timeframe than our current patent review process operates under. Yet, this legislation, in its current form, with the manager's amendment, might actually serve to ensure that those delays continue because of a squabble between factions on the majority side. Rather than resolve these differences to the benefit of American inventors, instead, the baby has been split, a decision that would cause King Solomon great reticence. The bad news for any American innovator pursuing a patent, as well as for the employees that new businesses might support, is that we fail to resolve some of the most pressing issues within the patent and trademark administration through this law. The issue is that H.R. 1249 changes what I would consider one of the most important aspects of patent reform. And while there are very legitimate and important policy discussions on the aspect of patent reform, an equally, if not more important issue is adequate funding for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to ensure the speedy approval of applications so that they're relevant and reviewed and granted in a timeframe consistent with the needs of the private sector. The PTO needs to be able to charge fees sufficient to recover the cost of its services and use those fees to pay for providing those services. Now the PTO has a backlog of more than 700,000 patent applications, and it takes on average--well, my wonderful documentation from my staff says 2 to 3 years for a patent to get to be approved or rejected. I have never had one reviewed in anything close to that time. Maybe they just see my name on it and they put it under a pile of notes and they take 5 or 6 years. But if we don't increase the resources of the PTO, there is no way the PTO could expand the number of highly qualified examiners to actually reduce patent review time and put it on a timeframe consistent with the needs of the private sector, protecting innovation. It's crucial that the fees generated are made available to the PTO so they can run in an efficient manner and protect American innovation here and abroad. The fees should not be held hostage to political squabbling here in this body every year on appropriations bills, every year on the budget debate. The price to American innovation is one that is too steep to pay to make that beholden to our very important political discussions that we have every year, but one that inventors need predictability and companies need predictability when deciding how much to invest in R&D and deciding how to pursue patents with their invention. I understand that some on the other side might be satisfied with the current manager's amendment language, but the worry is that the Patent and Trademark Office cannot actually use the patent fees to search, examine, and grant patents where warranted. So I would ask: What's the point? Patent reform is not traditionally--nor is it today, nor should it be--a Democratic or Republican issue. It's a nonpartisan issue. High- quality patents, as mentioned in the United States Constitution, are crucial to our economy getting back on track and moving forward. President Obama issued a challenge in the State of the Union address to outinnovate, outbuild, and outeducate the world. And having a patent and trademark system that we can be proud of is an important part of American competitiveness and a mark that we fail to reach with this bill and the manager's amendment. Contrary to the belief of some, America still does invent, build, and sell our goods and services throughout the world. In fact, one of America's main competitive advantages is in the information economy, the intellectual economy, the creative economy, the very types of economic innovations that we rely on patent trademark and copyright to protect. And yet, if we fail to improve the quality of our patent application system, including rapid and high-quality review, we risk losing our leadership in innovation. I think this Congress needs to rise beyond the petty squabbling over committee jurisdiction, over trying to bind future Congresses, over budget and appropriations debates. We really need to rise beyond that and come up with a patent bill that we can all be proud of that leaves American innovation in good stead. Now, Mr. Speaker, this rule also calls for the consideration of H.R. 2021, that is called the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. The proponents of this bill continue to push a false narrative sprinkled with outrage based not on facts but on sound bites. They somehow want to convince the American people that President Obama is single-handedly shutting down oil drilling when, in fact, he has granted more permits than his predecessor. We've heard this broken record from my colleagues over and over again. And as simplistic and dramatic as the story is, the fact is that it's simply not true. The American people know that prices at the pump--and that has caused difficulty for a lot of American families--have nothing to do with drilling here or now. Not only is there a lag effect in the 5- to 10- year timeframe, but, in fact, the domestic part of that equation in terms of reflecting gas prices is di minimus. The U.S. simply doesn't have enough oil to feed our addiction to oil, and gas prices are controlled by international markets and international supply and demand. Despite the close relationship between the oil industry and the Bush administration, the Obama administration is allowing more drilling than the Bush administration did--much to the chagrin of some Members of the Democratic Caucus. The Obama administration approved more leases in 2010 than the Bush administration did in 7 out of 8 years of its Presidency. In addition to more drilling, we are producing more oil, yet gasoline prices continue to go up--again, gasoline prices, international markets, supply and demand, separate from the long-term issues of drilling in this country. The United States produces 9.7 million barrels of oil per day, and that's the most oil that we've produced in 20 years. We are just behind Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's top producer. We have been raising production steadily since 2005--and that's a trend that I think we will be able to continue--and yet over this same period, oil hit a record high of $147 a barrel in 2008 during our period of production rise. We need a real solution, not simply a solution that is focused on a 2012 election, on policy decrying President Obama's policies. We need a real solution to help end our Nation's reliance on fossil fuels and reduce our demand as well as supplement the energy supply with renewable energy sources. Again and again, Republicans are proving that their energy platform isn't ``all of the above'' that common sense would dictate but, rather, ``oil above all,'' ``drill, baby, drill.'' Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying bills are bad policy. I think we need an open discussion of these issues rather than trying to split the baby in half, pleasing no one; and on the energy issue, rather than giving a sound bite approach, to really require a comprehensive national energy strategy, including ``all of the above.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. There's been a lot of discussion in the House about how best to characterize the Republican plan to eliminate Medicare. I want to start with the definition. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of Medicare: a Federal system of health insurance for people over 65 years of age and for certain younger people with disabilities. So, again, a Federal system of health insurance. If you replace a Federal system of health insurance with a Federal system of assistance or a voucher or helping to pay part of the cost, you don't have anything that meets the definition of what we know as Medicare. Maybe they want to call it ``Medi-Assist.'' Maybe they want to call it ``Medi-Voucher.'' Maybe it covers part of the cost of care for some people. Maybe it costs a lot less than it really costs to get health care insurance for others. In fact, according to nonpartisan estimates, the average senior will have to pay $6,000 more for health care by the time the Republican budget is fully implemented. But whatever it is, it ain't Medicare. Medicare is very simple. The American people truly understand what Medicare is. We all have family that rely on Medicare. Lord knows, we need to improve Medicare to help make sure it's sustainable for the next generation. Ending Medicare is not an improvement.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago this month, President Nixon launched the war on drugs. Four decades later, I've asked through New Media for Americans to share with me their thoughts on what I believe to be a major public policy failure. Just listen to this story of Neil from Baltimore that Law Enforcement Against Prohibition shared with me. Late in the evening on October 30, 2000, Neil was awoken by the ringing of a telephone. As the commander of training for the Baltimore Police Department, late night calls were not unusual, but this call was different. He was told that one of his officers had been shot and taken to the hospital. The officer was a corporal and a 15-year veteran and undercover narcotics agent for the Maryland State Police. He was assigned to a drug enforcement task force and on that night was making his final drug buy in Washington, D.C., from a mid-level drug dealer when the dealer decided he wanted both the drugs and the money for himself. He returned to the car the officer was driving, paused for a moment, and shot the police officer at point-blank range in the side of the head. Arriving at the hospital among the scores of family and friends, Neil was guided into the room where the officer laid with his head bandaged and bloodied. Neil had to face the officer's wife and children and explain why their caretaker was no longer with him. Neil finished his story by writing, ``When the people are gone and quiet comes, so does the question: Why? Initially thinking of the covert operation, you rehash the event. How could this happen? What went wrong? What was the protocol? But then I realized that the questions I was asking dealt only with the symptoms of a much larger problem, the war on drugs--the broken policy of drug prohibition.'' Every comprehensive objective government study over the last four decades has recommended that adults should not be criminalized for using marijuana, and medical science tells us that by any reasonable health standard marijuana is comparable to alcohol. It is less addictive, less toxic, and, unlike alcohol, marijuana does not make users aggressive and violent. We also know that criminalization comes at a very high cost. Each year, more arrests are made for marijuana possession than for all violent crimes combined. Marijuana arrests in the U.S. average 850,000 a year. That's one every 37 seconds; and 89 percent of those are just for possession, not sale or manufacture. Marijuana prohibition is even having a negative impact on our national parks and forests. We have Mexican drug cartels growing millions of plants on Federal land. We've been down this prohibition path with alcohol, and it failed. It increased crime and violence. Crime bosses got rich, murder rates skyrocketed, the prisons filled, and deaths from tainted booze soared. We're seeing the same results today from marijuana prohibition. Prohibition does not stop people from using marijuana. In fact, marijuana is the largest cash crop in the country. It just gives criminals and violent gangs an exclusive franchise on marijuana sales. It drains resources from law enforcement that would be better spent fighting violent crime. It makes it harder to keep marijuana away from children. So what have we learned in four decades of the failed drug war? It's this: The biggest part of the harm involving marijuana is caused by the criminalization of marijuana. And it's time to bring it to an end. Let me end with a story of Brian from DuPage, whose son was caught up in the senseless criminalization of marijuana. When Brian's son was in eighth grade, an incident at school led to the discovery of a small amount of marijuana. Charges were brought. He was sentenced to community service. But the real tragedy followed. As a result of the incident, Brian's son was expelled and barred from reentering any school in the district. He was forced into a school for delinquents where he was grouped with kids who had committed violent crimes. He was basically treated like a criminal. Needless to say, his education suffered immensely. Here's what Brian, the father, had to say about his son's experience: ``Did doing this teach my son a lesson? It did not help him. It harmed him. It disrupted his academic achievement. The school district's solution to finding a small bag of marijuana was to expel four students. No education. No counseling. No help. Just kick them out and wash their hands of the whole thing.'' Using marijuana is harmful. Smoking is harmful. Drinking is harmful. In fact, I applaud the FDA's new highlighting of the dangers of smoking and encourage similar efforts to discourage marijuana, which are impossible under the current criminalization regime. The war on drugs hurts America, wastes billions of dollars of taxpayer money, fosters drug-related violence, and does nothing to help Americans who are confronting serious addiction or serious health issues. After 40 years, it's time Congress put an end to the drug war's 40- year failure.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for votes on Friday, June 3, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 411.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to this legislation. Let's take a step back and talk about what this bill does; Instead of ending wasteful subsidies that go to multi-million dollar agri-business, the Republicans have decided to pay for a Brazil Cotton trade problem by cutting nutrition assistance to poor women and children, cutting conservation funding, and by raising gas prices for Americans by cutting those policing wall street oil speculators. These subsides aren't supporting family farms; they are supporting multi-billion dollar companies, changing the food we eat and the health of our country's citizens. I commend the progress that Congressman Flake has made in the Committee to lessen these wasteful subsidies, and ask my colleagues to support other floor amendments, like the Blumenauer amendment, which will ensure that subsidies are capped ensuring that any needed help is distributed to those who need it, not simply concentrated amongst a few mega-corporations. Madam Chair, I also strongly support the Woolsey Amendment, which would allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to continue developing scientific-based nutritional standards for school meals. This amendment supports the USDA rule that carries out the intent of the Child Nutrition Act passed last year. The standards in this rule are central to students' nutrition, resulting in better child health, better student behavior, and better academic outcomes. It's been 17 years since the last update of the national school meal standards. The USDA recently proposed much-needed updates to those standards based on consensus recommendations from the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The proposed updates will ensure that school lunch and breakfasts provide recommended amounts of fruits, vegetables and whole grains; fat-free and low-fat milk; less salt; fewer unhealthy saturated and trans fats; and moderate calories. Instead, too may schools are currently serving too much sodium, sugar, unhealthy saturated and trans fats, and starchy vegetables, such as French fries. To make this change, USDA received over 130,000 comments from advocates, parents and concerned citizens in support of the rule. Yet, while school meal quality has been modestly improving in some schools, much more needs to be done. The proposed standards maximize the national investment in the school meal programs, helping to reduce both child hunger and obesity, and providing balanced meals to 31 million children each day. Our current national investment in school lunch and breakfast is about $12 billion per year--we need to make sure that these meals are healthy. Delaying the rule--as this legislation would do--goes against what Congress passed and the president signed last year. It would damage the opportunities of our current and future generations by denying them healthy school meals, which limits their ability to live healthy lives. That's why this amendment is so important. We have heard specious arguments that the law saddles school districts with unfunded costs and mandates. Besides a 6 cent increase in school lunch reimbursements, the law's nutritional improvements in both school meals and school snacks will help increase student participation in school meals by 900,000 students according to USDA, raising school district revenues by an estimated $7.5 billion over the next five years on top of the $3.2 billion from the 6 cent increase. So there is funding for better nutritional food for children. Too many school districts are behind the times on ensuring that students have healthy foods. That is why we changed the law and why we need to move forward with timely implementation of the proposed rule. We need to get the most out of the national investment in the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs. Our children's health and educational outcomes depend on it. Madam Chair, this bill is simply bad policy. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Rules Committee for allowing an open rule, including the offering of my commonsense amendment which would save millions of dollars by cutting funding to 287(g), something that is called an immigration enforcement program which actually increases crime by expanding the mandate of our local crime-fighting officials. This program effectively adds responsibilities, which should be Federal responsibilities, to local law enforcement so that they effectively engage in Federal immigration enforcement. So instead of keeping serious criminals from threatening our communities, the 287(g) program forces police to waste their time trying to figure out the immigration status of noncriminals, as well as opening them up to charges of racial profiling which can be expensive to defend. Instead of using our precious national security dollars on these kinds of programs, this bill has estimated savings of $6.4 million for the next year alone. The inspector general found this program cost $68 million. These programs force local law enforcement officers to follow and enforce Federal laws even though they are not trained to do so. That is why law enforcement officers from across the country have spoken out against it. The IG found 33 problems the first time they investigated 287(g) last year. The biggest problem was that they found the program did not focus on noncitizens who actually pose a threat to public safety. Instead, it focused on noncitizens who pose no threat to public safety. Mr. Chairman, 287(g) forces police officers to enforce laws that they are not trained to do, which is why law enforcement leaders across the board tend to oppose this law. Chief Acevedo from Austin said: ``It's a matter of resources and priority. My priority is dealing with criminals and terrorism issues, not dealing with civil matters.'' I would point out that the failure to enforce our Federal immigration laws is a Federal failure. It is a national failure. It is a national disgrace. But the answer is not to add an additional burden to our hardworking men and women who are working at local law enforcement to keep our communities safe at a time when their budgets are being constrained, both the money they receive from Washington as well as their local and State revenue. Why are we not listening to our local law enforcement officials? Instead of cutting funding for firefighters and police, we should stop wasting taxpayer funds on failed programs like 287(g). I would like to show the detrimental effect of the 287(g) program. You can see across Arizona, Statewide, incidents of violent crime went down 12 percent in the last 10 years. But they have one particular sheriff who does a particularly bad job of protecting his community. His name is Sheriff Arpaio. He is one of the notorious abusers of the 287(g) program. In his community, Maricopa County, crime went up 58 percent. So you have a 12 percent decrease, and then you have this incompetent sheriff who has a 58 percent increase. Now he might be incompetent in other areas as well, but one of the main reasons crime has gone up in Maricopa County is because he has diverted law enforcement resources to try to enforce Federal laws that we in this body are irresponsibly ignoring day in and day out and that this bill does nothing to fix. In recent years, local law enforcement has increased community policing efforts, working with our residents, both documented and undocumented, to finally defeat violent crime and keep our communities safe. This is the reason why law enforcement officers across my community, including sheriffs and police chiefs, are strongly opposed to 287(g), which stretches local police forces beyond the breaking point, hinders law enforcement, and causes real harm and danger to American citizens living in our communities. I call on Congress to fix our broken immigration system. We need to enforce our Federal laws. We need better border security. Nobody from either side of the aisle disagrees with that. But it is time to stop playing politics with this issue and stop trying to foist a Federal responsibility into our already overtaxed local community law enforcement efforts, increasing crime and putting innocent Americans in harm's way at the risk of violent crime. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In addition to moving forward the Homeland Security bill under an open rule--which would have strong bipartisan support, and I praise my colleagues on the Rules Committee and hope that this is the first of many open rules. In addition to moving forward the Homeland Security bill under the rule, this rule includes language ``deeming'' the Ryan budget passed. That's right. We're voting once again on the same plan that the American people resoundingly rejected in last week's special election in New York. If this rule passes, the Ryan budget, which ends Medicare, will become the final, enforceable budget on the House side until a conference report is adopted, which is unlikely to happen in this Congress, especially if the House Republicans continue to insist on the end of Medicare as a condition of passing a final budget. A ``yes'' vote on this rule is a ``yes'' vote on the Ryan plan and a ``yes'' vote to eliminate Medicare. Now, this is the sixth time in 36 years that the House and Senate will fail to adopt a budget, and the House has used deeming resolutions in the past. However, never has a deeming resolution been used for such a tremendous policy change, namely, the elimination of Medicare. As then-Minority Leader John Boehner said, ``This legislative trick has been around for a long time, but it's never been used for a bill so controversial and so massive in scope.'' Now that, Mr. Speaker, was in reference to the Democratic efforts last session to pass the Affordable Care Act. The deem and pass was not used at the end of the day to pass that bill; yet here we are in the 112th Congress with the Republicans seeking to use it to end Medicare. And, yes, no bones about it, we are talking about ending Medicare. According to the Congressional Budget Office, and our bipartisan study group has confirmed, a typical beneficiary would spend more for health care under the proposal than under the Congressional Budget Office's long-term scenarios. Second, the government's contribution would grow more slowly than health care costs, leaving more for beneficiaries to pay. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the elimination of Medicare under this rule. Not even under a bill with debate on both sides. Not even amendable. A rule is not amendable. Although this rule provides for debate of the Homeland Security bill, which will be fair and allow amendments to be put forth by both parties under it, the rule itself, Mr. Speaker, is not amendable. It's immutable, unchangeable, and, if passed by this body of the House of Representatives, will deem a budget passed that eliminates Medicare for the American people. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I also will be opposing 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.