Stop the Rate Hike Act of 2012

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 643 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 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.

Mr. Speaker, I always look around when I hear the Reading Clerk reading the rule because I can't tell if folks are glossing over or if they are excited about it, like I am. If you paid close attention to the Reading Clerk this morning, Mr. Speaker, you're excited about it. You're excited about it because we're here to do the first appropriations bill of the FY 2013 cycle. Now, Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is about two-thirds of the budget that is the mandatory spending--that budget that gets spent whether Congress shows up to work or not. It's just money that gets borrowed from our children and goes right out the door.

This one-third of the budget, the discretionary spending side, is the part that doesn't go out the door unless the House comes together and passes a bill, sends it to the Senate, and gets the Senate to pass a bill, and it goes to the President's desk for signature. This is the first of those bills that we're going to have a chance to do in this Congress. And as we began the year last year, we are going to begin the year this year--with an open rule.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, an open rule allows any Member of this body to bring any idea that they have and offer it as an amendment to the underlying bill. You don't have to be a high-ranking Republican to get an amendment to this bill. You don't have to be a senior Democrat to get an amendment to this bill. You just have to be a representative of constituents back home, and you can show up on this floor and have a say. This is going to be Congress at its best, Mr. Speaker. When you hear it read, it sounds like a lot of legalistic mumbo jumbo, but when you see it in action, it is this House as our Founding Fathers intended this House to be.

This is House Resolution 643, Mr. Speaker, and it is an open rule for consideration of H.R. 5326, the fiscal year 2013 Commerce-Justice- Science appropriations bill.

You know, last year, Mr. Speaker, we only got through 6\1/2\ of the appropriations bills in this House before it became apparent the process was going to break down, and we went to a minibus to finish the deal. But we considered 350 amendments--350 different ideas, Mr. Speaker--350 lines that came from the body right here that said we have a better way than what the committee has reported to us.

Now, this is a special day, as my colleague from Florida knows, because this appropriations bill passed out of subcommittee by a voice vote--a voice vote. Democrats and Republicans came together in subcommittee, passed this bill, and sent it on to the full committee where, again, Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass out of full committee this bill on a voice vote, and now we bring it to the House floor today. Goodness knows, we may be able to pass this rule on a voice vote, I say to my colleague from Florida, and perhaps the underlying legislation as well. This is the House working as the folks back home intended the House to work.

Now, this is funding for the Commerce Department, Mr. Speaker. All of those programs intended to grow jobs in this country, to promote trade in this country, Commerce Department, funded under this bill. This is the bill that funds the Justice Department, funds our U.S. Marshals, funds our FBI, funds those parts of our society that we know need special attention, Mr. Speaker, in these difficult times.

This is the bill that funds NASA, Mr. Speaker. This is the bill that funds the National Science Foundation. This is the bill that funds the U.S. Trade Representative and the International Trade Commission. Mr. Speaker, I will quote the subcommittee chairman, Frank Wolf, who said:

This legislation builds on significant spending reductions

achieved in last year's bill while continuing to preserve

core priorities. Those priorities continue to be job

creation, fighting crime and terrorism--with a focus on

cybersecurity--and boosting U.S. competitiveness through

smart investments in science. This bill makes job creation a

priority by maintaining and expanding manufacturing and job

repatriation initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, these are tough times. I don't know if you've seen all the young people outside this Chamber today, Mr. Speaker, folks in town with their schools, folks in town visiting Washington, D.C. You know, 40 cents out of every dollar that this Chamber spends, Mr. Speaker, we borrow from those children. We heard lots of 1-minutes this morning about the student loan program. Of course, every penny that goes out the door is a penny that we borrowed from the next generation of Americans.

This bill, passed out of subcommittee and full committee on a voice vote, represents a 1-percent reduction from the President's request in this title. A lot of folks in this body would like it to be more than 1 percent. I suspect we'll have some amendments on this floor during this wonderful open amendment process that will in fact try to change that number to be greater than 1 percent. But what folks came together to say is these are priorities for this country. These all are important funding priorities that only the national and the Federal Government can do. So we want to fund those in a responsible way that both focuses on not borrowing from the next generation, but still maintaining important core priorities that I think we would all agree are important to this Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you, I don't actually prepare remarks when I come down here to sit opposite my friend from Florida, because I always know his opening statement is going to be that line by line by line that reminds me of absolutely everything that I want to say. And generally speaking, it reminds me of absolutely everything I'm proud of, and sometimes things that my friend from Florida wishes had not happened.

You know, folks ask me back home, Mr. Speaker--I'm a freshman here. They say, Rob, what have you learned in your first term in Congress? And I say, What I have learned is that when you watch the House floor on C SPAN, it looks like theater. And what I've learned is that the comments from my friends on the other side of aisle, it's not theater at all, it is heartfelt belief in absolutely every word that comes out of their mouth. And that's instructive, because if it were theater, we could go into a dark back room somewhere and try to sort it out around the edges. But when it's heartfelt belief about what direction we ought to take this country, it requires the full and open hearing that we give it here on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you were here for the deem and pass of the budget several Congresses ago before I was elected, but the gentleman's absolutely right. Deeming a budget as being passed by both Houses of Congress is a terrible way to run this institution. He is absolutely right.

Now, I'm proud that he and I did not shirk our responsibilities. We passed a budget here in this House under yet another open process. We asked any Member of this House that had an idea about what the budget ought to look like in this country to bring that budget to the floor of this House and we'd have a vote and a debate on it. And we did, and we passed a budget here in the House of Representatives.

Now, sadly, our friends on the Senate side have chosen for the 3rd year in a row not to pass a budget. And I would say again, those areas on which we agree, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's absolutely right. In the absence of actually having a budget that has passed the Senate--and not just because they haven't passed one, Mr. Speaker, but because they have said affirmatively and apparently with some pride they do not plan on passing a budget. So what's the responsible body here on the other side of the Capitol supposed to do? Well, what we said is we need to move forward with our appropriations process, and so we are going to move forward under the budget that has passed this entire U.S. House of Representatives.

Now, the truth is we did that in a rule a couple of weeks back and we got it wrong. This is not the first time we've had to make up for the Senate's mistake. You would think, as often as we've had to take up for those folks, we'd have figured out how to do it right. But sadly, we didn't get it quite right, and I hope we don't get into the habit of getting it right. I hope we get into the habit of actually passing a budget over there, bringing a budget to conference, and having a budget that controls all of Capitol Hill.

But in an effort to make up for what's not happening there, we did absolutely, in this rule that's before us today, Mr. Speaker, specify that the caps that we created, the 435 of us created in the budget that we passed, will be the caps that regulate the activity that the 435 of us engage in for the rest of the year. And I welcome the Senate to join in that debate.

You know, to be fair to my colleague from Florida, we just see the Budget Control Act differently. I think we both voted for the Budget Control Act last fall. I viewed it as budget caps. In fact, if you open up the legislation, it says budgetary caps. And when I read the word ``caps,'' Mr. Speaker, what I see is you can't spend any more than that. I was never under any illusion that I was obligated to spend absolutely all of it.

And, candidly, I think that's one of the issues we have here in this body, Mr. Speaker. You may hear other speakers come down here today on the other side of the aisle who believe exactly that, that because we signed an

agreement with the President that we would not spend a penny more than $1.047 trillion this year that we are, in fact, now obligated to spend every single penny of that $1.047 trillion.

As we talked about, 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend in this town, Mr. Speaker, is borrowed, borrowed from our children, from our grandchildren. Forty cents out of every dollar is money that we do not have but we are borrowing against the next generation's prosperity to spend on our priorities today.

My friend from Florida brings up the COPS program. The COPS program is a neat program, provides dollars to local law enforcement agencies to help them succeed in their local law enforcement mission. But the clever little secret that sometimes we don't talk about, Mr. Speaker, is that my community back home takes all the tax money out of their pocket and they send it to Washington, D.C. We don't have access to any money in my part of the world, my little Seventh District there in northeast Georgia. There's no money that we get back that we didn't send in to begin with.

We can prioritize those local priorities locally. We can control those outcomes locally. Forty cents out of every dollar we're borrowing. Not one budget.

I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that in this open process we allowed every Member of Congress to bring any budget they wanted to the House floor for debate and consideration. Not one of those budgets, not one, balanced next year. Not one. Not one budget. And some of the brightest leaders I hope that our Nation has to offer, Mr. Speaker, sit here in these chairs in this body, and not one of them had a proposal for how to right this ship next year. Not one.

So the question is: What, do we just quit trying? Do we just quit trying, Mr. Speaker? Do we just concede that the economic security of this Nation is just going to drip, drip, drip away with deficit spending year after year after year? Are we going to concede that the 50 percent increase in the public debt that's occurred over the last 4 years is just the way it's going to be; that's a pattern that is going to continue, instead of a pattern that needs to be stopped?

But here is the good news. I have heartfelt feelings on that issue, and my friend from Florida has heartfelt feelings on that issue. The rule that we from the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker--my colleague from Florida and I--have brought to the floor today is going to open up that debate so that absolutely all Members can have their passions and feelings heard on this issue.

One more point of pride, Mr. Speaker, because I really do like coming down here on open rule days.

What we don't talk about sometimes from that Budget Control Act is that those caps--that $1.047 trillion I mentioned earlier, which is the most that we could possibly spend--that's only good from October 1 to the first week of January because that very same agreement said that in the failure of the Joint Select Committee last fall to act--and I will tell you it was quite the failure--it was going to lead to 8 percent across-the-board reductions in every single account that we're talking about here on the floor today--8 percent across-the-board reductions.

What our budget does and what our caps do is recognize that failure, Mr. Speaker, that the House Representatives on that Joint Select Committee and that the Senator representatives on that Joint Select Committee did not come to an agreement on deficit reduction. Thus those caps, those 8 percent across-the-board reductions, are barreling down the road towards this institution, Mr. Speaker, and picking up speed every day.

Now, we can either tell the American people that all is well and let's go ahead and spend the maximum amount possible--but, oh, watch out; here come those across-the-board cuts that nobody planned for--or we can do the responsible thing, and the responsible thing is to plan for that contingency. I say ``contingency.'' I dare say, Mr. Speaker, it's almost a certainty that we're not going to find a way around those across-the-board cuts but that we can find a way around them with the budget that this institution passed. With the numbers that this institution passed, we can replace those revenues--replace that spending that was going to be saved with across-the-board cuts--with targeted cuts, with targeted cuts to programs that we in this body agree on.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't come to this body to do across-the-board cuts. There is good spending and there is bad spending. I didn't come to this body to use the meat ax to go after everything. I came to this body to set the priorities that my constituents sent me here to set. Far from being an abomination of the process, this House-passed budget, this House reconciliation bill that's coming at the end of this week--and yes, this first appropriations bill, the FY 2013-cycle--is the way this process is supposed to be done.

I rise in strong support of this rule, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume to say I've just gotten the sad news that our friends on the Senate side hadn't just stuck it to us by not passing a budget last year and didn't just stick it to us by not passing a budget this year, but have just stuck it to us one more time by failing to move forward on the student loan legislation there.

I don't know what to do down here, Mr. Speaker. I mean, on the one hand, my colleagues say--rightfully so--that they don't want us just running on our own down here, doing our own thing all the time, pretending as if the Senate doesn't exist. On the other hand, we've dealt with the student loan issue--we've preserved rates at their current low levels--and the Senate can't get its work done. I don't know what more we can do.

Folks are prepared to go over for a vigil outside the Senate Chamber. I want you to put me on your invitation list. I'll go by there with you, and we'll see what we can do to shake things up over there, but those 6-year term limits are not quite as effective at motivating action as are 2-year term limits here on the House side.

Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today isn't actually about student loans. You might not have believed that in listening to the last speaker. It's about the Commerce Department; it's about the Justice Department; and it's about science funding in this body. Now, the good news is we're going to be able to deal with all of these issues one by one by one.

I came to this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, in wanting to move away from the 2,000-page bills that I'd seen in past Congresses. I came to this Chamber in wanting to deal with one issue at a time, in wanting to deal with things so you didn't have to vote for all or nothing but so that you could vote for the individual items that you actually believe in and vote against those items that you don't believe in. That's the process we have today.

This is the first of a dozen different bills that are going to come down through this Chamber, and folks will be able to offer amendments line item by line item. If I didn't say it before, Mr. Speaker, I want to say it now: that that's actually what can happen here. This isn't a ``take it or leave it'' proposition today. This rule, again, I can't take all the credit for. I was actually tied up in the reconciliation markup yesterday. My friend from Florida was actually as responsible as anyone for bringing a rule to the floor that would allow every single line of the underlying bill to be considered by the 435 folks in this Chamber.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, you have a subcommittee, and that's a small group of folks who knows a lot about the issue on which it works. This is the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee over there. Then you have a full committee, and the full committee has a lot of really smart people who know a lot about their topic here. In this case, that's the Appropriations Committee, the full Appropriations Committee, and, of course, they both passed that out by a voice vote.

If you're like me, Mr. Speaker, if you serve on the Budget Committee and on the Rules Committee, you don't ever get a say in appropriations spending. There are a lot of really smart guys on that subcommittee and a lot of really smart men and women on that full committee. But what about my say? What about the 920,000 people I represent, Mr. Speaker? And that's the solution that the Rules Committee brought out last night.

They said you have not gotten your say yet for the Seventh District of Georgia, Mr. Woodall, but you will get it during this process--and not just you, but you and you and you and you. Every single Member of this House, by virtue of the fact that they were elected by American citizens back home, will have the opportunity to come to this floor and have their voices heard.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't a tough decision today. This is one of the proudest decisions we get to make in this House, and that is to have its membership work its will and report out the very best bill that we can, send that over to the Senate, and see what happens next.

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

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

I actually had this conversation with some schoolchildren in my district over the break, as I'm sure everybody in this body did. They call it a break, Mr. Speaker. The truth is, it's a district work period. You're working every bit as hard down in your home State as you are here and probably harder back home.

I was talking to young people and I said, Does anybody here have a parent that just let's them eat anything they want to, drink all the soda they want, eat all the candy they want? There wasn't a single hand that went up. Apparently, parents had some discipline incorporated in the lives of each one of these children. I asked, Who thinks their parents love them? The answer was every child in that room felt loved by their parents. They didn't get everything they wanted all the time, there were limits to it, but they felt loved.

Mr. Speaker, we're in the business of spending other people's money. It's not my money; it's not my colleague from Florida's money. It is other people's money in this body. Not only are we spending every penny of the money that they send us, Mr. Speaker. We are borrowing even more. If you think about it, we talk about how we borrow 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is we collect every penny that America is willing to give us, and we borrow 66 percent more. Communities back home aren't operating under that kind of funny mathematics. They understand they can only spend the money that they have. Families back home aren't operating under those kinds of funny mathematics. It's only here.

So in the case of these programs--again, student loans are in absolutely no way at issue in the underlying bill, and they are absolutely in no way at issue in this rule. But just to touch on that topic for a moment--and we had the Speaker of this House come down and give a passionate plea for votes in support of the very provision that is being discussed here today. Not only did he speak on behalf of those provisions; this Chamber passed it.

We talk about the ticking time bomb. That's the ticking time bomb in action in the Senate. This body has acted. Now, what did we do? I happen to be one of those folks who took out student loans, Mr. Speaker. So I know a little bit about the student loan process. I happened to take mine out from a private institution. We were using competition to keep the marketplace regulated in those days. Now the Federal Government is the only place you can go for a student loan. That was courtesy of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Again, it was heartfelt. They believed in their heart that it was going to be a better program if only the Federal Government ran it instead of letting private financial institutions who lend money for a living manage it.

But 6.8 percent is the below-market rate that's available for folks who borrow Stafford loan money. You may have had a Stafford loan, Mr. Speaker. Other folks out here might have had a Stafford loan. But there are two kinds of Stafford loans. There is the Stafford loan that you pay interest on after you've borrowed the money. Imagine that, you borrow the money, you pay interest on it. Then there is the Stafford loan that's called the subsidized Stafford loan. That's a much smaller piece of the pie, Mr. Speaker.

We have the loans that families have to go out and get on their own to help pay for their children's education. We have savings that folks are going out and spending on their children's education. We have grant programs that are scholarship programs all that are out there to help with education. We have the PLUS program out there, which is a loan that parents and students can take out together. Then, in addition to all those programs, we have the Stafford loans, which, again, some of them are loans you pay interest on immediately and some of them--a very small fraction of them--are loans that are subsidized while you're in school.

This conversation we're having here today is about whether or not this subsidized Stafford loan, that was over 7 percent when I borrowed it--it's 6.8 percent in normal times; but the rate was reduced to 3.4 percent by my colleagues. This conversation is about whether or not that rate should be allowed to return to normal levels.

Again I say to folks, there is no money that's coming out of anybody's pocket in this room. This is America's money, America's money that we're borrowing, that we're spending. If we want to borrow that money to cut artificially low rates in half, make them artificially lower, we absolutely can. Not only can, we did. We talk about this as if it is something that might happen one day. We did it. It was 2 weeks ago. I was down here on the House floor. In fact, I sat right over there. I remember the vote happening. It's done here.

Did we pay for it, Mr. Speaker? We did. We paid for it with a program that I would characterize as a slush fund. It is $15 billion that exists over there in the Health and Human Services Department. It came out of the Affordable Care Act. The President looked at it and said, You know what, that really was too much of a slush fund. He cut it by almost a third. Now we said, You know what, perhaps we should go after the rest of it because accountability is an issue here, Mr. Speaker.

We hear folks talk about prevention and cancer and women and children. I wish that's where the money went. I went and got the list of where those projects are, Mr. Speaker. In my part of the world, it was a $2.5 million grant to the county I grew up in to help with obesity training in schools. I'm in favor of that. I think we ought to absolutely work on obesity. I hope my home school district is already working on those issues. In other parts of the country, New York, for example, this is money that went to lobby in favor of soda taxes. That's right. This money that is being described by my friends on the other side of the aisle as critical to protecting the health of women so that they can get breast cancer screenings was spent in New York City to lobby in favor of job-killing taxes for my home State of Georgia.

This is not about women and children, Mr. Speaker. This is about unaccountability when you start handing out slush funds to bureaucrats. In Philadelphia, it was to lobby against cigarettes. Is that something we ought to do? Well, golly, we can go out and do that on our own every day. Does the Federal Government need to borrow from our children and our grandchildren to help Philadelphia lobby against cigarette taxes? In California, it's going to put up signs so folks can find the local parks in the name of obesity training, Mr. Speaker. Do we need signs to help us find the local parks? We have them in our community. I thought they had them in other communities. Do I need to borrow from my children and my grandchildren to put up more signs for parks? Mr. Speaker, we don't.

This is not a priority that the American people stood up and voted for. This is a slush fund that is used by bureaucrats to focus on whatever their priority of the day is. And what's so disappointing is that this responsible government endorsed by a vote of this full House, is being described by my colleagues as an assault on women's health. It is offensive to me.

There are so many things that we legitimately disagree about. Go back where we began, Mr. Speaker. We disagree from the heart about so many directions in this country. There is not one person in this body--not one--that wants to put women's health at risk. Not one.

This is about responsible government and cutting out the waste, cutting out the low-priority spending, cutting out the dollars that come from taxpayers' pockets in my district to spend for job-killing legislation in New York.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to have a full debate on this, a full debate. Every Member of this body will be able to bring their voice to the floor. I look forward to that full debate. I believe in this country. I believe in this institution. I believe that full debate is going to take us exactly where we need to be.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend from Massachusetts that there is only one bill in this institution that abolishes not just the oil company tax credits that he wants to go after, not just all the corporate welfare that he wants to go after, not just all the benefits and exclusions and exemptions that the wealthy in this country utilize to lower their tax bills. There is one bill in this Congress that abolishes every single special exemption, deduction, carve-out, and giveaway in the entire United States Tax Code. It's H.R. 25. I'm the sponsor of that legislation. I join you in your desire to eliminate all those special interest tax breaks and deductions. I welcome your cosponsorship of that legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

As am I.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for joining me here for this debate today. And there really are some things that we disagree about here in this body at large. But one thing we don't disagree about is the importance of bringing open rules to this floor to debate appropriations bills.

This appropriations bill that we're bringing under this rule, Mr. Speaker, is a 1 percent reduction from the levels the President has proposed. As we hear folks talk about the doom and the gloom and the kicking of children and the punishing of women--1 percent. There's a long, hard fall to the bottom coming all right, and it's coming in the American economy. And I'll tell you who gets hurt the most in a bad economy: it's the poorest and the weakest among us. We all know it.

We're asking for 1 percent less than what the President proposed in the name of taking a small step in the right direction. You could have gotten me for 20 or 25 percent less, just to be

clear. You could've gotten me on board if we'd gone 20 or 25 percent less. But this body is trying to move in a responsible fashion.

There's only one budget that's passed in this town, Mr. Speaker. The President's budget didn't pass. It got zero votes last year in the Senate. It got zero votes this year in the House. It didn't even get introduced last year in the House. There's only one budget in this town that has passed. That's the one that came out of the open process that we had right here.

We can take our toys and go home or we can try to do our appropriations bills under the one proposal that has garnered a majority vote in this entire Nation. I vote for the latter. And a vote for this rule is a vote for the latter.

Let's go ahead and start that process. Let's go ahead and do for the American people what we promised them we would do; and that is, operate this institution so that everybody has a voice, and at the end of the day we move our very best legislation forward.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 643 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

section:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

4816) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the

reduced interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans, and

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Education and the Workforce and the chair and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion

of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee

shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the

Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to

no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day

the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the

Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration

of H.R. 4816.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, I thought, not to speak personally, but as I listened to the gentleman from Florida, as I have listened to Members as they've taken the floor today, I thought I'd like to share a story with the American people, Mr. Speaker, and it's my own story.

I went to college at Wake Forest University. I remember the day I was accepted, I was so excited. My parents were excited, too, but we knew, as a family with six children, my father having served in the United States Air

Force for 30 years, that they wanted for me what they wanted for all of us, and that was the chance for the American Dream in a different way than they had.

We knew that in order to do that, that it would take a combination of academic scholarships, grants, loans, and savings to put together what it would take to receive a college education, and so that's what we did as a family. I stand here today to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it gives me great sadness to know that Republicans on the other side of the aisle would have student loan interest rates increase, double, by July 1 without acting in this Congress.

Today, very sadly, what we did was we said to families--and particularly to women, girls who want to go to school--that you have a choice: We'll either double your interest rates to 6.8 percent beginning in the first year of your college loan or you can have preventive health care services. Imagine for the young women across this country that their choice is preventive health care services or the ability to go to school on a student loan, have that loan, the interest rate low, and then pay back that loan over a period of time. What a horrible choice.

Now, we've listened earlier as people talk about building the American Dream and climbing the ladders of opportunity to success, but that ladder has rungs. One of the rungs of that ladder, as my family well knew when I became a freshman in college, is the opportunity to get a college education, to do better than the previous generation. It's what we want for all of our children.

I went to school on student loans, and I went to school on student loans at a time when, between undergraduate school and then law school, I effectively had almost $100,000 in student loans. A quarter of that, about $25,000 of that, was paid out to some bank that made a profit.

Instead, what we have done as Democrats is we, in 2010, passed a package of reforms for student loans, lowered the interest rate of student loans so that it was affordable, made those loan payments affordable and manageable, made sure that when you were coming out of school, if you had a job that didn't pay you as much as you needed or wanted, that your student loans would be able to be managed and at an interest rate that was affordable. That's not what I had, but it's what we were able to give our young people today.

It's what Republicans in this Congress have decided to take away. So, then in 2007, we passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. It provided relief to students from high interest rates by lowering those interest rates. When I came out of undergraduate school and law school, I had this array of student loans that had different interest rates. Little did I know that when I tried to consolidate those loans, I actually ended up paying the higher interest rate.

Today, when students are graduating from college under what Democrats did in 2007, we actually, in this Congress, made sure that the interest rates would be affordable, that students would then be able to manage them, and that they would be able to pay their loans back. So I want to tell you something that I'm not really proud of, and that's that I also got in trouble paying my loans back. I didn't make as much as I needed to pay those and to balance my other responsibilities. It was difficult, but over a period of time, because the program, in fact, was affordable, because I knew that we all had--my neighbors--we all had my back, that I could pay those student loans back over a period of time.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, just 1 month before I was elected to Congress, I paid my last student loan? I can still remember that day in January writing that check to pay the last of my student loans. Do you know how proud I am to have been able to do that? The reason is because I knew that when my son was going to college, we were doing the same things that my parents did when I went to college, collecting the savings and academic scholarships, but also putting together a package of loans that would be affordable for him to go to school.

It's what we do. It's sort of that contract that we have from one generation to the next generation. I borrowed for my student loans; I paid those student loans off. My son borrowed some for his student loans and is now in the process of paying those off.

But let's look at what Republicans would have us do. First of all, we know that if we don't act by July 1 that interest rates will, in fact, double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent for 7 million students across this country. Already, students across our country bear nearly $1 trillion in student loan debt, and they struggle in this difficult economy, as many are struggling, to pay those loans. But think what would happen if the interest rate on those loans was allowed to increase to 6.8 percent, to effectively double that interest rate.

Well, what does that mean for your average student? Well, Mr. Speaker, what it means is that a student on average coming out with $23,000 in debt would have to pay roughly an additional $11,000 over the course of that loan period to make up for that additional interest. This makes no sense whatsoever.

I think that students across the country must be wondering what it is that Republicans are doing here in Congress that would have them double their interest rate, especially when we're talking about a part of our population that's done everything that we've asked of them. They succeeded in high school. They're going on to college. They are coming out with a promise of a hope for a good job and to be able to do better than the previous generation. And we're saying to them--Republicans in this House are saying to them, instead, we want to double your interest rate. We want you to pay not just the $23,000 that you owe, but an additional $11,000 in interest.

More than that, what we've heard from some even on this House floor is that there are many on the other side of the aisle who don't believe that we should have a federally subsidized student loan program at all, education for those who are wealthy who can afford it, but for middle class families, not the ability to get a student loan and to pay that loan back in a manageable way over a period of time.

So we stand united as Democrats and say we are not going to sacrifice middle class families and stack them up against women's health care. We want to make sure that we pay for these lowered student loan interests by ending a corporate tax break. That seems fair enough. Yet, Republicans on the other side of the aisle will simply not be reasonable and agree with what the overwhelming majority of American people agree to, and that is that we should have student loans that are available and accessible to middle class families.

So I'll have more to say on this, Mr. Speaker, but at this time, I would like to recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, new to the Congress, who will join me in this discussion about student loans and student loan interest, Ms. Bonamici.

I thank the gentlelady from Oregon, and I was just reminded as I listened to her that in her State of Oregon, something on the order of 119,000 students will see an increase of about $93 million in interest rates if this takes place on July 1.

In my own home State of Maryland, 103,400 students would see an increase in interest rates if the rate is allowed to go up from 3.4 percent now to double at 6.8 percent, and in Maryland, that would be to the tune of $80 million. These are extraordinary numbers, and that burden would be borne by those to whom we've said, you've done the right thing, you've gone to college, you've paid for your college, and now you're going to be able to repay your loans, but we want you to pay additional student loan interest because the Republicans have refused to act without also taking away preventive health care.

These are really extraordinary numbers, Mr. Speaker, and I think when the American people hear about the danger that is afoot come July 1 with the increase in student loan interest, middle class families all across this country will be completely outraged.

With that, I'd like to yield a few minutes of time to my colleague from New York (Ms. Clarke).

I thank the gentlelady from New York. And I just wanted to point out to her, as she well knows from New York, that 422,000 students, if this is allowed to happen on July 1, would see an increase of interest rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. For those 422,000 students in New York, that would mean $340 million in increased interest rates.

So I think we can see all across the country and, just really, Mr. Speaker, would like to urge our students out there and our families to think about what this would mean for them, 7 million students across this country doing exactly what we ask them to and facing a doubling of interest rates on July 1.

I notice that we've been joined today by my colleague from Ohio, who's going to help us understand also what's happening in the State of Ohio--the home of Ohio State, where I know a lot of students must be paying attention to the fact that their interest rates will double on July 1.

Mr. Ryan.

I'd like to thank the gentleman. And I'm reminded as he's speaking that there are middle class families in Ohio and all across this country for whom this isn't just about feeling good about making sure that young people can go to college. It's about making certain that our middle class families aren't just struggling, but they're really surviving in this economy and in the economy going forward.

I was reminded again that in Ohio 379,000 students would see an increase of about $294 million if this increase in student loans is allowed to go forward. And I think about those students at Ohio State University, at Oberlin College, at Xavier. I could name a lot of them.

I remember, as a second grader, living on Wright Patterson Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio, and there was not a moment in second grade that my parents didn't impress on me that one day I would go to college. My mom and dad didn't know how I would go to college, but they knew that I had to go. And at the time I was such a fan of all those great Ohio universities.

But I also knew that were I to go then or to go now, that in addition to our savings and to academic scholarships, and maybe even Pell Grants, I would also need to take out student loans. And that's the situation that students in Ohio and across this country face, in realizing that on July 1, without action by this Congress, Republicans and Democrats owe it to middle class families to make sure that those student loans don't increase. Everything else is increasing. Let's not increase the interest rate on student loans. And I thank the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. Yet again, here we are, we're talking about a situation where, since January, the President and congressional Democrats, since January of this year, have been urging Republicans to please act so that we don't see an increase in student loan interest from 3.4 percent, a doubling, to 6.8 percent.

And here we are in April; and April is a time when many families, young people have received their notification that they've been accepted into college. They've received maybe notification of a scholarship opportunity.

They also know that their families may have to dig into their savings, or they'll have to get a job; and then they begin to think too about applying for and receiving that student loan so that it puts together the full package of what's needed to go to college. Those are the decisions that here, in April, families all across this country are making. And they're making those decisions, not knowing whether this Congress is going to fail to act that would result in an increase and a doubling of student loan interests, that would cost students not just the $23,000 in debt that they're likely to graduate college holding on to and needing to repay, but an additional $11,000 over the course of that loan, over the history of that loan and the repayment. I think it's really shameful.

I know that there are some in this country who didn't have to worry about how to pay for college. I know that there are some in this country who didn't have to wake up and know that they had to get into a work-study program, or do like I did, wait tables in addition to going to class, in addition to receiving loans, in addition to receiving scholarships to pay to go to school. But that's the exception in this country; it's not the rule.

The overwhelming majority of students across this country who go to college, who want to do better because their parents want them to do better than they did, have to do a combination of things in order to afford college, whether it's a 4-year institution or community college and getting those skills to put you into the workforce or an apprenticeship program. This is the situation that our students and their families are facing.

With that, I'd like to yield time to my good friend from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island and just want to point out to him, as I've pointed out to others of my colleagues here, and thank you so much for your eloquence, not just about what those loans mean to individual families, but what they mean as an economic imperative for the 21st century. As Democrats, we recognize that.

I would note that in the great State of Rhode Island, we have an opportunity for 43,000 students in your State, Mr. Cicilline, to make sure that students aren't facing an additional $34 million in increase because of what might happen on July 1.

As Republicans and as Democrats, we can do something about this. We don't have to get to a point where we're saying to students for the future that we really don't care about you. We don't care about the fact that we helped you do and be all that you can through high school, but now we're going to dump you when it comes to going to college.

So I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Up until today, the Republican majority has simply refused to acknowledge that this hike would affect millions of students and families, 7 million students across this country. Perhaps today after a reversal by the assumed Republican Presidential nominee, we voted on a bill that would finally address the issue. But it's so sad that they did that at the expense of health care for working families.

No one understands that more than the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, my friend and my neighbor. I'd like to take a moment to recognize her and her leadership. If I recall, she taught at a law school and understands those students who really struggle to get through and make sure they're doing what they need to do academically, but that they're able to pay for a quality education; and I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I want to thank the gentlewoman and thank her especially for her leadership.

As you were speaking, I was doing a little calculating. I went to undergraduate school at Wake Forest University. I had academic scholarships and some student loans, and I also waited tables in order to pay for my expenses. Had I not been able to get those student loans, having only the combination of academic scholarships and waiting tables, I would not have been able to have afforded to go to school. I came out with student loan debt from undergraduate school, and then I worked for a time, saved a bit, and went to law school. But even out of law school, I still couldn't pay all of my living expenses and all of my tuition without also taking out student loans.

When I finished law school, the combination of my loans from undergraduate school and my loans from law school totaled about $75,000 plus. Over the period of time that I paid that back, I paid back a total of about $100,000 because of the combination of interest rates over the period of time. I paid my last student loan payment almost 1 month to the day before I was elected in my primary election in coming to Congress.

My mother raised six children. We knew almost from the time that we could speak a word that we would go to college. My father was in the United States Air Force. He served for nearly 30 years. We lived all over the country and around the world. They worked really hard, but with six children on a military income and retirement, they knew that they wouldn't be able to fully pay out of savings--what savings with all those mouths to feed?--in order for us to go to college. They wanted their children to go to college. They wanted their children to have the kind of opportunities for the future that they did not have for themselves.

My story, though it happened some time ago, is the story of American families today, whose young people are preparing to graduate from high school. They're preparing for high school graduations over these next couple of months. They want to go to college, and many of those students right now, today, in having received those April notices of college admissions and financial aid determinations, know that through some combination of savings and loans and Pell Grants and work and work study that they will put together the puzzle pieces of a college education so that they can afford it. Parents and students all across the country are making this decision.

For those students who are coming out of high school in this season, July 1 is our deadline. July 1 is our deadline to ensure that interest rates will not double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent because, by August 1 and late in August, those students will have to pack their trunks and their bags in order to go away to college. We owe them the commitment to know what their obligation is going to be for the repayment of those student loans and to know that they will not be faced with a doubling of interest rates over the course of their period of time in college.

Let's think of what this means to them. What it means is that we're saying to our students, we want you to study engineering and science and math and technology. We want you to come out of school and to be teachers and to be inventors and innovators and entrepreneurs. But we are unwilling to

make sure that you're able to do that by giving you the tools that you need for success.

One of those things for some students across this country--for many students, for 7 million students--is the ability to get student loans that are affordable, and to have some sense that over the period of time that they're in college and they graduate college and the economy is better and they get jobs that they will be able to repay those loans so that some other generation of students can also go to school and do the same thing.

So why am I passionate about this? I am passionate about it because it's my story, and because it's the story of middle class families all across this country who know that they want to do better, who struggle to do better, and who experience the rug being ripped out from under them because we want to ask our middle class families to either double your interest rates or sacrifice your health care. Those are the choices we're asking our middle class families to make. In today's economy, there is not a greater predictor of individual success than a good education. This is a fact. But if it's a fact, then we need to make the investment that makes that fact a reality for our students across this country.

Right now, as many have pointed out on this floor, the unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half of the national average. That means that, when you graduate, even if you have student loans that are affordable and can be repaid, you have some opportunity to do that because you will have done better, and you will have had the opportunity to do better than the student who only gets a high school education. The incomes for those who graduate from college are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma.

Higher education, whether we're talking about a 4-year institution or a 2-year institution at a community college, is the clearest path that we have to middle class success. If we are going to build a ladder of opportunity for the American people, then one of those rungs has to be student loans and another rung is a Pell Grant; another rung is job training; another rung is to make sure that our families are eating and that our children are immunized. There are many rungs. And this Congress has an obligation to make sure those rungs of that ladder are available to the American people.

Democrats and Republicans both say they want to build a competitive workforce, but let's be clear that it's the Democrats--my colleagues here in the Congress--who time and time again actually stand up for the students with the skills that will be needed to comprise that competitive workforce.

So I look at the things Democrats have done over this period of time. We've increased the maximum Pell Grant from $4,050 in 2006 to $5,550 in 2010. We created the American Opportunity Tax Credit that provides a maximum of $2,500 in a tuition tax credit to eligible families and students. We created income-based repayment to ensure that graduates can manage their loan repayments during stressful economic times.

I remember when I came out of undergraduate school and law school and really wanted to work in the public-interest sector, and I did. But I wasn't paid as much as some of my colleagues who were going into law firms and other kinds of practice. Would that I could have paid my student loans back based on my income.

Well, that's the kind of opportunity that we've provided for students for the future. We've provided loan forgiveness for graduates who actually go into public-interest careers, who go into teaching careers after 10 years of loan payments. We've required schools to have an online calculator so that students and families can estimate their costs based on their family's financial situation. We've supported Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions. This is the way that Democrats have supported middle class families and poor families in their ability to achieve the American Dream. I would only ask that my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle do the same.

With that, we have about 5 minutes left to continue our conversation with the American people. So I will yield just a moment to the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I thank the gentlewoman.

Now I would like to recognize for a moment the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I thank the gentleman, and I thank all of our participants today in calling attention to the fact that Democrats have proposed ending tax subsidies for oil and gas companies so that we can use those savings and actually help to pay for need-based college loans where they are and to help pay down the deficit.

Republicans are cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and they're throwing that debt onto students and families.

To be clear, this is not a partisan issue. It's a student issue; it's a family issue; it's an American issue. It's about our competitiveness in the economy. And I want to call all young people across this Nation of all political persuasions to reach out to their Members of Congress and say, stop the increase on student loans from doubling from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, costing millions of dollars to students across this country.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4480, the so-called Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, what is really a death and destruction act, an act that will directly lead to the death of American citizens from various health-related causes-- including cancer--and destruction. It is the destruction of not only our environment, but of our quality of life, including our quality of life in my home State of Colorado that is such an important part of driving our economy forward and creating jobs.

Here we are where several controversial, highly partisan bills have been packaged together. There are seven bills. While there is an attempt to dress this up as a jobs package, it's really a wish list for the oil industry that has no chance of becoming law. It's a huge giveaway to the oil industry at the expense of the health of American families, the health of our environment, and our enjoyment and recreational opportunities and economic opportunities on public lands.

Instead of allowing improvements to this drastic death and destruction bill, the House majority has blocked many amendments offered by Republicans and Democrats alike. Under this restrictive rule, commonsense amendments were blocked, including an amendment I offered that would have directed a study on the impacts of oil shale development on agricultural and municipal water usage. My colleague from California, Representative Napolitano, offered a similar amendment in committee.

Those of us in the West, where farmers, ranchers, and community leaders consistently keep us abreast of water issues--and water is our most precious resource--know that we need some commonsense and objective data with regard to how energy production impacts resources, particularly our most precious resource: water.

What lies at the heart of this death and destruction bill today is simply a false premise. It's the false premise that somehow the United States is failing to make good on its natural energy resources.

The fact is, as a result of President Obama's all-of-the-above energy strategy, our Nation's dependence on foreign oil has fallen drastically, and crude oil production in the United States is at an 8- year high. President Obama has increased production of crude oil substantially over the Bush administration lows. The President's policies are demonstrating that we can have an approach to energy in the United States that boosts oil and gas

production and invests in the next generation of cleaner, job-creating, renewable energy technologies, such as wind, solar, and geothermal.

In contrast to the President's all-of-the-above approach, which will lead to reductions in gas prices and a sustainable energy future for our country, this death and destruction bill before us today is an oil- above-all approach. This death and destruction bill hands public lands that we all value over to the oil and gas industry and undermines the laws and rules that have made our air and water cleaner and safer over the past 40 years.

One of the scariest provisions in this package would gut important health-based standards provided for in the Clean Air Act established on a bipartisan basis in 1970. The Clean Air Act-based standards are especially important for protecting children, the elderly, and others who are susceptible to harmful air pollution.

Many nonpartisan public health and medical organizations have recognized that this bill would override clean air standards that have protected American people and families from harmful pollution in the past 40 years. That is why on this bill, which the majority purports deals with energy, we've heard from pediatricians, we've heard from doctors, we've heard from health care providers that this would lead to death, as well as the destruction of jobs, as well as the destruction of our environment and recreational opportunities.

Another controversial partisan provision in this bill would open up vast quantities of public lands to drilling. The bill sets an arbitrary requirement on the Department of the Interior to offer oil companies at least 25 percent of onshore areas that industry nominates each year. Let me say that again. The Department of the Interior wants to open up more lands to industry, even though oil and gas companies hold more than 25 million acres of public lands on shore where they're not producing oil and gas. In addition, these companies are sitting on 6,700 drilling permits that have been approved that they are not using. They need to explore lands where they already hold energy leases.

This is not a sensible energy policy. It's called an old-fashioned land grab and an old-fashioned water grab. They're coming after our land in the West, and they're coming after our water in the West. We're not going to take it sitting down.

Another extreme provision is that this bill would overturn the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to elevate energy production above other public land uses. My constituents in Colorado are tremendously concerned that somehow oil production would trump job- creating activities, including hunting, fishing, recreation, grazing, conservation, mainstays of jobs and the economy in my district that would be overridden in the name of oil, which would destroy jobs and destroy the health of Colorado families and families across the United States.

Another provision in this bill turns the review of applications to drill into nothing more than a rubber stamp. The bill says that if the Secretary of the Interior doesn't make a decision within 60 days, it's automatically approved. It will be automatically approved with no process.

At the same time, many of the proponents of this bill are attempting to gut the budget of many of the agencies that need to review these applications, effectively ensuring that no application can properly be dealt with and evaluated within 60 days, and therefore they would all be automatically approved regardless of the impact on people's health or economic opportunities and jobs.

Now there are so many troubling provisions in this bill. Another one--and this one would likely violate our Constitution, which we began this session of Congress by reciting very publicly in this body--it would limit a citizen's right to participate in the discussion of leasing and drilling by making all dissenters pay a $5,000 fee.

Now imagine you are a Coloradan, an Arizonan, a Pennsylvanian, a Texan who's concerned about drilling near your home or near your school or near your ranch. Now under this death and destruction bill, opening your mouth would cost you $5,000. Free speech would no longer be free, if this bill passes.

Madam Speaker, public lands are just that, public. We all own a share of them. We all benefit from them. They're not the private playground of oil and gas companies. They're owned by all Americans. And all Americans should have a say in how they're used, not just Americans who cough up $5,000.

Well, this bill would grant the oil and gas industry's wish list by opening up public lands and rolling back public health safeguards, hurting health and killing American families. But one thing this bill will not do is lower the price of gasoline. Economists agree: this bill has no impact on the price of gasoline.

There are actually now more drilling rigs in operation in the United States, thanks to President Obama's leadership today, than the rest of the world combined. In addition, the number of drilling rigs has doubled, doubled since 2009. President Obama's leadership has doubled the number of drilling rigs since 2009.

Now research going back more than three decades shows that there is very little correlation between the volume of domestic oil and the price of gasoline at the pump.

Go ahead and tell the American people that we want oil and gas companies to drill anywhere they like with no regard for public health. Is that the message that we want to send? This bill, this death and destruction bill, would not only lead to the deaths of Americans but would destroy jobs, destroy economic opportunities, and destroy recreational opportunities. It's nothing short of a Federal land grab and a Federal water grab.

Representing my constituents in Colorado, I encourage my colleagues to say, ``Heck, no,'' on both the bill as well as the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

If we defeat the previous question, I'll offer an amendment to this rule that will allow the House to consider the Stop the Rate Hike Act of 2012, legislation that would keep the student loan interest rate low and reduce the deficit. If Congress fails to act, more than 7 million students across this country will see their student loan interest rate double come July 1, just around the corner. It's outrageous that at this time of slow and painful economic recovery the majority continues to refuse to work on this issue in a bipartisan way.

To discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, this is a rare time when we are talking about energy, when we are hearing from the Academy of Pediatrics, the Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Public Health Association, the National Association of City and County Health Officials, and a number of other signatories on this letter which says, very simply, that we should make sure that the EPA can determine whether our air is safe to breathe and not do it based on how much it costs to reduce air pollution.

June 18, 2012.

Dear Representative: The undersigned public health and

medical organizations

write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 4480, which

includes dangerous provisions that would block and delay

important public health safeguards under the Clean Air Act.

Gutting the Clean Air Act will not address rising gas prices,

but it will needlessly weaken the Clean Air Act's life-saving

protections and delay much-needed air pollution safeguards.

Title II of H.R. 4480 indefinitely delays three overdue air

quality safeguards, including standards for tailpipes

emissions and gasoline sulfur content (Tier 3), air emissions

standards for petroleum refineries and ground level ozone

standards. Most egregiously, H.R. 4480 also repeals the

health premise of the Clean Air Act.

In 1970, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress

agreed that to adequately protect public health, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must set air quality

standards to protect health with an adequate margin of

safety. These standards are based on the best available

health science. This system has worked for more than 40 years

to let people know if the air is safe to breathe, and

motivate action to improve air quality when it is not safe.

EPA must retain this authority to establish health-based

ambient air quality standards.

The Clean Air Act fully considers cost and feasibility in

determining how to meet air quality standards. States and EPA

consider these factors during the implementation process as

strategies are implemented to meet air quality standards.

Just as a doctor does not diagnose a patient based on the

cost of treatment, EPA should not determine whether the air

is safe to breathe based on how much it costs to reduce air

pollution.

The Clean Air Act is one of the nation's premier public

health laws. Since its establishment in 1970, the aggregate

emissions of criteria air pollutants decreased 71%, while

Gross Domestic Product increased 210%. Given the enormous

contribution of the Clean Air Act to public health, we urge

you to reject all efforts to weaken and delay it. Please vote

NO on H.R. 4480.

Sincerely,

American Academy of Pediatrics.

American Heart Association.

American Lung Association.

American Public Health Association.

American Thoracic Society.

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

Health Care Without Harm.

National Association of City and County Health Officials.

National Environmental Health Association.

Trust for America's Health.

Madam Speaker, I'm proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.

Madam 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.

And here we are. While we're debating this death and destruction, oil above all bill, the clock is ticking on student loan payments that will cost middle class families millions and millions of dollars.

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

I would like to inquire of the other side if he has any remaining speakers.

Very good. Then I'm prepared to close, and I will yield myself the balance of the time.

Now, this rule only provides for consideration of certain amendments. Why are the Republicans so concerned with letting the House work their will on such an important bill?

Now, a number of these measures have been brought forward by Representatives from Colorado. I want to be clear that these are policies that are not universally supported in Colorado and that many of us believe that the policies contained in this set of bills would destroy jobs as well as the quality of life and health of not only Colorado and the West, but the entire country.

In Colorado, we've created a balanced approach to energy policy that's worked. In some areas we lease, some areas we use for other purposes, some areas we protect. Many Colorado small business owners agree, our parks and public lands are critical not only to the economy and job growth, hiking, fishing, hunting, the outdoor industry, but also to our quality of life and our health.

This job-destroying Federal landgrab, Federal water grab bill would put tens of thousands of Coloradoans out of work and destroy the quality of life for our entire State. This bill puts the wish list of the oil and gas industry above all the other users of public lands, above the interest of hunters, above the interest of fishermen, above the interest of hikers, above the interest of tourism, above the interest of skiers, above the interest of conservationists. This bill is out of touch with the citizens of Colorado and will destroy jobs in Colorado and throughout the country.

Look, companies are able to drill. They've been drilling the last 40 years. President Obama's leadership has led to twice the number of drilling wells. Our energy production is at an 8-year peak from oil and gas, and we continue to increase our energy production on public lands, and there's a responsible way to do it.

But we need a balanced approach that doesn't throw out the safeguards and protections that protect the health of children and the health of families, to protect our jobs in the outdoor industry, that protect our jobs in the recreation industry and protect our quality of life across the Western United States, and laws that protect our water and laws that protect our air.

This bill, this series of omnibus death and destruction bills, simply fails that test. The American people deserve more than the death and destruction, oil above all omnibus package that's being offered here today. While millions of Americans are waiting in the unemployment lines, we need a bill that creates jobs rather than destroys jobs.

An increased concentration of toxic chemicals can harm the health of American citizens and Coloradans. Now there is great promise and opportunity in technology that will allow companies to drill with less of an impact on

human health and the environment. That's why we have a regulatory framework. It is to ensure that there is incentive to make sure that American families are safe.

This package of job-destroying bills that has been brought before us today would harm our sensitive lands and constitute a Federal land grab and Federal water grab, all without lowering the price at the pump and destroying tens of thousands of jobs in the process.

This death-and-destruction bill is simply not what this country needs to move forward. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose the bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and to defeat the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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.