Lowell National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2012

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 631 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, House Resolution 631. The rule provides for consideration of multiple pieces of legislation meant to provide solutions to some of today's most pressing threats and concerns. House Resolution 631 ensures that we'll be able to have a robust debate on important issues facing our Nation's cybersecurity infrastructure while also providing the path forward for student loan legislation that reflects quick action we need to take on this pressing issue.

First, House Resolution 631 gives this House the opportunity to be a leader when it comes to our Nation's cybersecurity needs. The rule also sets up the opportunity for us to vote tomorrow on a measure that addresses our Nation's student loan programs. Without this legislation, Americans with Federal student loans will see their rate double starting in July.

These are issues that cannot wait. Our Nation's security cannot wait. At a time when our workforce is so bleak and President Obama's policies keep digging us deeper and deeper into a financial hole, we cannot wait on finding a solution for those young people with student loan debt who are still trying to find a place in our workforce.

We all know that the Internet has fundamentally changed the way we live our lives day-to-day. I think it's safe to say that even 20 years ago, many of us in this room couldn't have imagined that one day we would live in a world where we could do almost anything we wanted, be it buy groceries, run a business, or talk to a loved one serving our country overseas, through a computer. The Internet has made all this possible.

But for all the ways the Internet has made life, business, and even government, to some extent, faster, more responsive, and more transparent, it has also opened us up to new threats. U.S. companies report an onslaught of cyberintrusions that steal sensitive information. Even our own government has suffered from cyberattacks. This type of rampant Internet theft not only costs American companies valuable information, intellectual property, and research and development work, it also costs American workers their jobs. It's hard to say exactly how much cyberattacks cost our Nation's economy, but they could cost as much as $400 billion a year, according to one report from the Computer Security Institute and the FBI.

Today, the House will begin consideration of a bill that will help protect our Nation from these kinds of threats. H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, would allow private companies to voluntarily share information with each other and with the government in a sort of public-private Internet security partnership. The bill includes significant safeguards to protect personal and private information. It significantly limits the Federal Government's use of that information that the private companies voluntarily provide, including the government's ability to search data.

It requires that the independent inspector general for the intelligence community audit information shared with the government and report the results to Congress to ensure regular oversight. It also encourages the private sector to make the information it shares with others, including the government, as anonymous as possible.

This is a strongly bipartisan piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that was passed out of the Intelligence Committee with an overwhelming vote of 17 1. In the Rules Committee yesterday, we heard testimony from both sides, speaking to the cooperative, bipartisan work that was done in this piece of legislation. I commend the work that the Intelligence Committee did with members on both sides of the aisle, as well as with private sector companies, trade groups, privacy and

civil liberty advocates, and the executive branch. It's because of these efforts that virtually every sector of the economy supports this legislation. It's also why there are more than 100 cosponsors of this legislation, including 11 committee chairmen.

But recognizing that we don't always face one problem at a time, this rule also provides for consideration of a measure to address student loans. Our legislation, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, would prevent federally subsidized student loan interest rates on new loan disbursements from doubling to 6.8 percent from the current 3.4 percent on July 1 of this year. This 1-year measure would cost the government $5.9 billion.

Now, you all probably heard me talk again and again about bringing our Nation back to its core mission. You've also heard me talk about how we need to cut back on the ``nice-to-haves'' and make hard choices of what we will and won't pay for. Back when the previous majority passed their health care takeover in 2010, they paid for it, in part, by taking $9 billion from college financial aid trust funds. Now that they've robbed Peter to pay Paul, they're realizing Peter still needs that money, too. To resolve the problem, the Interest Rate Reduction Act pays for this stopgap measure by taking some of that stolen money back from the ObamaCare slush fund and redirecting it to student financial aid.

Sometimes this House has to multitask, Mr. Speaker. As we face an economy that can't afford to lose any more jobs to cyberattacks and college loan recipients who can't find a job thanks to President Obama's failed policies, that is one of those times. House Resolution 631 provides the House with a way forward on both of these critical measures.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the underlying pieces of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute, if he needs it.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I do not.

Mr. Speaker, I've been here now 1 year and 4 months, and I'm always amazed at what we hear from the other side. I hear about how this is supposed to be an attack on women's health. You know, it's interesting because that's the position that President Obama's taken. I understand that that's the position that my friends on the other side of the aisle have taken, but it's not true.

You know, yesterday in markup in Energy and Commerce in regards to this pay-for, they talked about a number of issues in regards to this slush fund that HHS has. Now, it's interesting, part of that slush fund comes out to a partly paid for by the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, the Department's Communities Putting Prevention to Work campaign.

It's $100 million. Part of it was in spaying and neutering pets, which I agree with, but I don't see how that is taking money away from women's health. If you go on to HHS' Web site, where they actually chronicle the spending from this slush fund, not one place does it talk about cervical cancer or breast cancer in regards to the dollars spent. So to stand here on this floor and accuse Republicans of being against women and women's health when the facts don't back it up--if you go to HHS' Web site, you will see specifically where the money has been spent. Like I said, in one area it is $100 million. The other area that they've gone after is media campaigns as they relate to soda, fast- foods, and others. That's not women's health.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats would like you to forget that in 2010, they took over $9 billion away from student financial aid. The same argument that they're making today, they took it away. I wasn't here in 2010, so it's kind of hard to have your cake and eat it, too. When we say robbing from Peter to pay Paul, and now Peter needs the money, those are students that need the money. Those are students that can't afford to pay additional interest on loans that they're already having a hard time paying off because they are trying to find a job.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard so much about cybersecurity today, but remember that the committee started their work on cybersecurity over a year ago in regards to hearings and working in a bipartisan way that produced a bill that was overwhelmingly bipartisan, 17 1. In this Congress, that's pretty difficult to do. But they saw the need based upon their experience within where we stand today as it relates to threats against our infrastructure, those people that actually create jobs, and against our government.

Not only have they worked tirelessly amongst themselves, but they reached out to other stakeholders in a way that I believe has been unprecedented in regards to trying to craft a bill that, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction.

This isn't about government coming in--you heard one gentleman up here talking about how government should tell businesses what to do. Folks, this is America. This is about freedom for businesses. If they don't act upon information, shame on them. It's not about

government takeover of private businesses that tells them how to operate. It is about, though, the ability of government to help formulate the aspect of protecting our cybersecurity. It's all about that. It's about sharing of information. It's about right now the Federal Government is precluded from sharing information to help alert those businesses out there to protect themselves. We know about it, and we can't even tell them.

That was one of the inherent problems we had back in 9/11, the fact that we couldn't talk to each other, that agencies didn't talk and share information. Now we want to set ourselves up for a greater catastrophe, one that could bring this Nation down to its knees or worse.

You heard about regular order or not regular order. We had regular order on the cybersecurity bill, and it's not enough. Sixteen amendments were made in order. The gentleman from Colorado's amendment was made in order. Five privacy-related amendments were made in order, two Republican and three of those bipartisan. Of the total of those 16 amendments made in order, eight were Republican, four were Democrats, and four were bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, I believe in regular order, and I think that was a perfect example of how this House is supposed to work. That was regular order at its best.

We talk about a fair and open process. I want to make sure that we protect the American people; that when you go to bed tonight, your financial information is still going to be secure tomorrow, that you're going to have the ability to protect yourself financially. One of those is to allow businesses to share cyberthreats that are made against them and others, and also for the Federal Government to share when they see a cyberthreat coming that could affect a business today in America.

HHS has discretion on how they spend that slush fund. Remember, that money was stolen from students back in 2010 to provide for their education. It was stolen. Call it what you want, but now it's just righting a wrong. It's about making sure that our students have the ability to get an education and hopefully get a great job.

I also heard my good friend from Colorado mention about how we're going to make a decision as to who's a national security threat. He mentioned the Tea Party in the same word with Communists. I think it's pretty clear that the Tea Party is not a national security threat and communism is. I don't think that takes a whole lot of rocket science.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I get what you're saying. But at the end of the day when you're trying to say, I guess, a description in regards to that, and you say Communists and then you say Tea Party, I think it's pretty clear. The Tea Party is not a threat to national security. Communism is and has been.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

We're talking about two issues here today that have a lot of bipartisan agreement. Our Nation's cybersecurity is just an integral part of our national security as a whole. It's part--not all--but part of our national security as a whole. And we agree something must be done with our Nation's students as it relates to the loan debt that they have. These are issues that I think we all agree on, Democrats and Republicans alike.

I know from some of our previous conversations that my friend, Mr. Polis, is a fan of NPR. So I wanted to let him know this, just in case he didn't. This morning NPR did a story about the fact that China and Russia aren't the only threats to our Nation's cybersecurity anymore. In fact, according to the story today, the newest cybersecurity threat we face today is going to continue and grow, and it's from Iran. Even though Iran may not have as strong a cyberpresence now as Russia and China do, it's continuing to grow. It's growing at the same time as their nuclear program is growing, too. Iran has learned how to manipulate the Internet to shut down protesters in their own country, to hack Web sites that have antigovernment messages, and carry out sophisticated cyberattacks in their own country to identify those dissidents who may disagree with the government. With threats like that growing every day, we need to make sure our networks here at home in America are safe and secure.

This bipartisan--I can't stress this enough--this bipartisan Rogers cybersecurity bill is critical. It's a critical step in ensuring America and our private industry are safe from cyberattacks. We talk about bipartisan a lot in this Chamber. We don't always practice it. This committee not only practiced it, but they reached outside of the committee itself to those that may be supportive and may be opposed, and they tried to work and put forth amendments that would make this a better bill.

That's what it's all about, the amendment process, is to make something better, nor tear it down. So I encourage colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this strongly bipartisan legislation both on cybersecurity and protecting our students and student loans.

As the President begins his taxpayer-funded college tour, which is really more like a reelection tour, he's going to be talking a lot about student loan debt. Well, he can talk all he wants because in this House we're going to act--and we're going to do it in a way that fixes a problem that was a temporary fix for 5 years.

Well, guess what. We're going to fix it again. We're going to make sure that our students have the ability to get a college education and be able to pay it back in a way that they can be successful in the future. We're going to make sure that the ratio of the student loan rates don't double come this July 1.

In Washington-speak, to a lot of people, that's a ways off. But up here, this House, this Congress has kicked cans down the road before to the tune of 20 years when they're looking out and saying, oh, we've got plenty of time, and all of sudden we have other issues facing this country--and now we have one here.

This House is taking action to correct a wrong or a problem that exists today in America, both in cybersecurity and in student loans, and we're going to do it without costing the taxpayers anything by taking money out of the ObamaCare slush fund, which was funded by cuts to student loan programs to begin with, and sending it back to our student loans.

Now remember, this slush fund can be used for anything. As we saw, they used it for a whole bunch of things. As they tried to link us to women's health issues, not one of those were related to that. Not one nickle or dime was spent on those, even though they would like to say it was.

So, Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying legislation.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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. 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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me.

I rise in support of the rule and the cyber bill that it brings to the floor, as well as the other cyber bills which the House will consider today and tomorrow.

Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by acknowledging the leadership of the Speaker and majority leader for setting up a process for a thoughtful examination of the many issues related to cybersecurity. They recognize that not only is it a significant national security threat, it's a threat to our economy and to jobs. But at the same time, what we are trying to protect, at least 85 to 90 percent of it is owned and operated by the private sector. So one has to tread carefully in this area, and we have tried to do so with the limited legislation that is before the House today and tomorrow.

I also want to thank the members of the House Cybersecurity Task Force, who put in a great deal of time and expertise in sorting through these issues and making recommendations: Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Coffman, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Hurt, Mr. Latta, Mr. Lungren, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Stivers, and Mr. Terry. Of course, a number of Members have worked on these issues for several years, including a number of those I've just mentioned, as well as Mr. Langevin, Mr. Ruppersberger, people on both sides of the aisle.

Finally, I also want to take a second to thank the staffs of the various committees who have worked on this issue, as well as Josh Martin and Michael Seeds of my office, as well as Jen Stewart, the Speaker's national security adviser, whose guidance on substance and process was invaluable.

Mr. Speaker, we will have ample opportunity to debate the merits of the individual pieces of legislation, but I think it's important at the beginning just to step back and say: Why all this hubbub about computers? What does all that mean?

Well, I think we should start with the point that cyber--and that includes networks that are connected to the Internet and networks that are not connected to the Internet--but cyber is deeply ingrained in virtually every facet of our lives now, from the time we get up until the time we go to sleep and all the times in between. We very much depend on cyber, and anything you very much depend on can, and often does, become a vulnerability.

We know of at least three different kinds of vulnerabilities these days. People can reach through the Internet and steal information which businesses, large, medium, and small, have produced. It happens every day in this country. Intellectual property is ripped out of the possession of those who produce it. And every time people steal information, they cost us jobs; they are stealing jobs as well. So our economy is directly affected by the difficulty in protecting the information that we, as individuals and businesses, store on our computers.

In addition to that, though, information can be destroyed on our computers or it can be manipulated, or the computers themselves can be manipulated so that what we intend to do or what we want to do is not possible. If, for example, you have a lot of bank records that are destroyed or other such important records, then it can have a huge effect on our economy as well as our security.

But going beyond stealing information, destroying information, we now know it's possible to reach through the Internet and other networks to have physical consequences in the real world, to flip a switch, to open a valve. It's the sort of thing that happened with the Stuxnet virus in Iran. But there are physical consequences to doing so. So that's part of the reason

that people talk about the electricity grid going down, a whole city being poisoned by its water supply, chemical plants releasing emissions that they don't intend to release, physical consequences.

Real death, potentially, and destruction can occur all because of things going on the Internet. That's the reason a lot of people talk about a cyber 9/11 or a cyber Pearl Harbor.

I know it's tempting to think all that's hype, but the truth is that over the past decade--and especially over the past couple of years--the number and sophistication of threats has grown much more rapidly than our ability to respond. And it's especially our laws and policies that have not kept up with the growing sophistication of threats.

So the bills that we have before us this week, four of them, try to begin to take a step to close that gap between the growing threat and laws and policies. They don't solve all the problems, they don't try to, but they are a step in the right direction.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I would just point out two other things, briefly:

One is, again, one criticism one hears is that, well, you don't solve this problem or that problem, and that is absolutely true. These bills, all four of them, don't solve all the problems in cyberspace. But we shouldn't let the pursuit of the perfect answer prevent us from accomplishing some significant steps in the right direction, and that's what these bills do.

The second point I'd make, as the gentleman from Florida mentioned, is three of these bills were reported out of committee by voice vote. The information-sharing bill was reported out 17 1. I believe that it has been made better since then. New protections are there. A host of restrictions on how the information can be used and privacy protections have been added and will be added with the amendments to come.

So I think this deserves the support of all Members on both sides of the aisle, and Members on both sides of the aisle should take credit for taking a step to make our Nation more secure.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving us this opportunity to talk about a choice we have here today.

Everybody knows that what is essential to a democracy is the education of our children, of investments in the future so that people can reach their own personal self-fulfillment and provide for their families but, also, so that our country can be competitive in the global economy. It is a very important part of the American Dream.

Democrats believe in imposing ladders of opportunity where people can have the opportunity to succeed if they want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility.

An important rung of that ladder is education. We all know the impact that the GI Bill had on America's great middle class, growing America's great middle class, the education of our returning veterans to our country, enabling them to have more education than their parents, and that has been the way it has always been in our country's history, the enduring theme of reigniting the American Dream.

So we have a challenge before us, because the clock is ticking on a July deadline. At that time, left to the budget of the Republicans, the Ryan-Republican-Tea Party budget, there would have been a doubling of interest rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. We've been having this debate for a while on how we could stop that doubling from happening. Republicans told us they were tired of hearing about the interest rate debate.

Until now, thanks to President Obama taking this issue public so that the American people understood what was at stake here and that the doubling of interest rates would deprive some people of even going to college and be more costly for many others. In fact, 7 million students would be affected, and that means at least 20 million people, assuming they have an average of two people in their families.

So this has a direct impact on many people in our country. It's a bread-and-

butter issue. It's a kitchen table issue where people talk about how they're going to make ends meet, and one of those ends is the education of their children.

So all of a sudden Republicans in the House have seen the light. They're willing to reverse a vote that they took not more than a week ago--100 percent of them voted for the Ryan budget, which would allow the interest rates to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Thank God they have seen the light. Thank you, President Obama, for shedding some light on this, and now they say they're for stopping that.

But how do they want to pay for it? They want to take it from their favorite target--women's health. I don't know why it hasn't dawned on them yet that the health of America's women is very important to the health of America's families.

So they want to take the funds from women's health and then also childhood immunizations. That's very important. Immunization of every child in America is very important to every other child in America. That's where they want to take the money from.

The motion that we have here today is to say instead of taking the money, instead of robbing Paula to pay Peter, we should be taking the money from the tax subsidies that go to Big Oil in our country. That's what we should be doing. Isn't that a better show of what our values are, that we value the health of our women and our children?

To make matters worse, not only are they suggesting that we take the money from the prevention fund, the immunization and screening for breast cancer and cervical cancer and other women's health issues, not only are they saying we should take the $6 billion from there, they're saying we should take the additional $5 billion that would be left in the account and repeal it. We're taking twice as much money as we need for the student loan bill because we're going to use this as an excuse to do away with this prevention initiative that affects women's health so directly. It's outrageous. We prefer tax subsidies for Big Oil rather than the health of America's women.

Once again, they're targeting women's health.

So, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so we will have an opportunity to at least put before the House an alternative that says give us a choice to choose between whether we want to pay for our young people's education by removing some of the subsidies to Big Oil or we want to take it out of women's health.

The very idea that the Republicans would deny us a vote to do that speaks very clearly about how focused they are on targeting women's health as something that they want to cut.

So, again, I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on the previous question, which would allow the House to vote on a Democratic bill that reduces the interest rates, keeps them at 3.4 instead of raising them to 6.8, which is in the Republican budget. If we cannot do that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived, way-out-of-whack statement of values that we would make women's health pay for children's education when we should be doing both.

So ``no'' on the previous question--we're not allowed to at least even take a vote--``no'' on the bill, and let's admit that we can do better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

It is with great pleasure that I rise today in support of H.R. 2240, the Lowell National Historical Park Land Exchange Act.

This legislation will facilitate the exchange of land or interest in land between the city of Lowell and the Lowell National Historical Park.

In 1978, legislation was passed establishing this park. It was championed by my late husband as well as by two Republican Members of Congress who previously represented this district. We should take bipartisan pride in its great success.

This national park was given a unique mandate to not only preserve and interpret the resources representing Lowell's central role in our 19th century industrial revolution, but also to serve as a catalyst in revitalizing the city's physical, economic, and cultural environment, all outgrowths of the city's industrial heritage.

In working together with the city of Lowell, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and many other public and private partners, the Lowell National Historical Park has played a vital role in rehabilitating over 400 structures and has since 1978 helped spur an estimated $1 billion in private investment in the city. All of this has been done while the park has developed a compelling array of programs, exhibits, guided tours, and other interpretive programs.

H.R. 2240 would allow the park and its partners to continue working to advance the park's mission to preserve the city's historic industrial architecture while creating jobs and continuing to partner with the city of Lowell to advance a critical economic development project, the Hamilton Canal District.

This legislation would most immediately allow the park to exchange a current surface parking lot for an equivalent number of spaces in a new garage that will be built by the city of Lowell adjacent to the present parking lot, guaranteeing necessary parking spaces for park visitors while freeing the surface parking lot for the incorporation into the Hamilton Canal District redevelopment.

On the space of the current parking lot and adjacent vacant property, the city, in working with private partners, plans to construct over 400,000 square feet of commercial and R&D space, generating as many as 1,600 jobs. As such, it is a critical piece in the master redevelopment plan for the area. This land exchange is supported by the Lowell National Historical Park, the city of Lowell, and all local stakeholders, and has received all major State permits and local zoning allowances.

Because the enabling law for the Lowell National Historical Park only provides for the park to receive additional land, it is not allowed to exchange land. This legislation would allow this mutually agreed-upon exchange. I want to stress that this legislation will cost the taxpayers absolutely nothing.

I thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey, as well as Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva and the committee staff for working with me to advance this bill to the floor. It is my hope that my colleagues today will appreciate the importance of passing this legislation to create jobs, continue revitalizing this historic mill city, and protect a key part of our industrial heritage and economic history.

I yield back the balance of my time.