Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if this rule passes, an amendment will not be in order to restore Medicare under the bill. Again, while this claims to be an open rule--and it is for purposes of Department of Homeland Security amendments--it cannot be amended to undo the budget that is deemed passed in the rule, itself. With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. POLIS. The gentleman mentioned the open rule. The open rule itself is largely noncontroversial with strong support from both sides of the aisle. What is contained in this rule is the broadest sweeping policy change in recent history, namely, the elimination of Medicare. That is the controversial element of this rule, which is deemed and passed by the rule itself. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, again, while the majority is claiming this to be an open rule, the very passage of the rule itself deems passed the Republican budget that ends Medicare. That will not be amendable in any way, shape, or form in the general debate. All that will be amendable are provisions relating to the Department of Homeland Security. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, not only does this rule before the House drastically shortchange Homeland Security priorities, but this rule puts into force by deeming and passing the Republican budget resolution. This rule, section 2, states very clearly that the Republican budget resolution shall have force and effect. That is the traditional language of a deem and pass. Yes, this budget deems passed the elimination of Medicare in order to keep in place tax cuts for the highest earners and tax breaks for oil. And while I do thank the majority for offering up the first open rule during my tenure in the House, I ask at what price. Well, I think there would be broad bipartisan support for an open rule. I, for one, cannot support a rule that deems passed the elimination of Medicare. Americans resoundingly opposed the approach of dismantling Medicare. They want us to put our economy on more secure fiscal footing and do it while strengthening our economy, creating jobs and mending, not ending, Medicare. I would like to quote former Minority Leader John Boehner in reference to the approach of ``deem and pass'' that was considered by the then-majority Democrats with regard to the health care bill. Then- Minority Leader 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.''

Mr. POLIS. I will not yield. What could be more massive than an elimination of Medicare contained in a rule rather than approach a simple vote on appropriations with regard to Medicare, cutting Medicare, bills with regard to Medicare reform? This is the most sweeping rule that I've certainly ever faced in my time in the House of Representatives, and I think many of my colleagues agree. The passage of this rule alone would simply end Medicare as we know it by construing in the deem and pass of the bill itself the operative language. And let me explain how this works for some of our colleagues. Rules have broad authority. And I know the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, will on his own time be able to talk of it. The Rules Committee, by the good graces of the House with our rules passing the House, has the ability to accomplish whatever the House allows us to through a rule. So in this rule, the House will deem under section 2 that the Ryan budget, the budget that ends Medicare, the Republican budget, shall have force and effect until a conference report passes and that will likely not occur unless the Republicans alter their negotiating position vis-a-vis the Senate and vis-a-vis the President. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on eliminating Medicare contained in section 2 of this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 30 seconds. Of course while the underlying merits of the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill are critical, and if the rule passes they'll be debated under the underlying rule, eliminating Medicare as we know it is even more important to the American people. Hence the discussion under this rule as well. I should point out that while this is an open rule, again as a member of the minority I'm deeply appreciative for the chance to amend the provisions of the Department of Homeland Security bill. If this rule passes, it will be too late to save Medicare under the bill. The very passage of this rule itself will deem passed the budget that contains the elimination of Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. POLIS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. POLIS. The Democrats have no problem with the open rule. What the Democrats have a problem with is the elimination of Medicare, which is deemed and passed in the language of the rule itself and cannot be amended after the passage of the rule. It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, the ranking member on Homeland Security, Mr. Thompson.

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

Mr. POLIS. A point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. If this rule is passed, would an amendment be germane that would restore Medicare under the budget?

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

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

Mr. POLIS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. POLIS. Again, I have to disagree with my friend from New York. I have never seen in my 3 years on the Rules Committee such a broad and sweeping deem-and-pass under a rule. Section 2 of the rule clearly states that the House Concurrent Resolution 34 shall have force and effect. Again ``force and effect,'' the traditional language of something that is deemed and passed under a rule. The mere passage of this rule will deem and pass the end of Medicare as we know it as contained in House Concurrent Resolution 34, the Republican budget. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi). (Mr. GARAMENDI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there has been a major development in the war on terror in the last few weeks with the successful defeat of Osama bin Laden, striking a major blow to al Qaeda. At a time like this, we should reexamine the restoration of our constitutional protections. There's no reason to continually extend these Patriot Act provisions without taking a close look at them. My colleague from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) put forward an excellent proposal that's an example of the many thoughtful bipartisan proposals that would improve the Patriot Act, keep the American people safe, and protect our constitutional rights. Unfortunately, discussion of that proposal and debate, and a vote on that proposal, is not allowed under this rule. Therefore, I'm opposed to the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill would specifically reauthorize three provisions: sections 215, 206, and 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. Section 215 allows the government to capture any tangible thing that might be relevant to a terrorist investigation. That could include medical records, your diary, even what books you've checked out at a library. Now, in the past, these orders were limited to narrow classes of businesses and records, but the Patriot Act has stripped away these basic requirements and continues to violate a basic American principle of privacy. Section 206, the second provision of the bill, allows the government to conduct roving wiretaps. This allows the government to obtain surveillance warrants that don't specify the person or the object to be tapped. It could be an entire neighborhood. So much for the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which states that warrants must specify the person and place to be seized and searched with ``particularity.'' This is to make sure the executive branch doesn't have the unfettered powers that this version of the Patriot Act would continue to give them for 4 years. The final section that would be reauthorized under this bill, section 6001, deals with the ``lone wolf'' provision. This allows secret surveillance of noncitizens in the U.S. even if they're not connected to any terrorist group or foreign power. This authority is only granted in secret courts and threatens our understanding of the limits of our own government's investigatory powers within our own country's borders. Now, we're told that government has never used this power, so I ask my colleagues, why should we reauthorize? If it hasn't even been used, shouldn't it be allowed to expire, particularly in light of our recent successes in the war on terror and the defeat of Osama bin Laden? My friends on the other side of the aisle say they're worried about the growth of the government. Yet in spite of the rhetoric, this bill grows government and takes away privacy and respect for our private lives. This is the type of government intrusion which the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent. The provisions in the Patriot Act continue to be an affront to our most basic liberties as American citizens. I urge anyone who's worried about the unchecked growth of the State to think twice about this bill, perhaps look at a short-term extension, and have a real discussion of restoring the balance between individual rights and security. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chair.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, these specific suggestions that are based on the Sustainable Defense Task Force may not be a book, but it is 30- pages' long, and, without objection, I would like to submit its ``Executive Summary'' for the Record.

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