[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 61 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2147-H2156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3523, CYBER INTELLIGENCE SHARING 
 AND PROTECTION ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND 
  THE RULES; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4628, INTEREST RATE 
                 REDUCTION ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 631 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 631

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, 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. 3523) to provide for the sharing of certain 
     cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information 
     between the intelligence community and cybersecurity 
     entities, 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 and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the 
     bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 112-20. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. 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.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of April 27, 2012, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to the following 
     measures:
        (a) The bill (H.R. 2096) to advance cybersecurity 
     research, development, and technical standards, and for other 
     purposes.
       (b) The bill (H.R. 3834) to amend the High-Performance 
     Computing Act of 1991 to authorize activities for support of 
     networking and information technology research, and for other 
     purposes.
       (c) The bill (H.R. 4257) to amend chapter 35 of title 44, 
     United States Code, to revise requirements relating to 
     Federal information security, and for other purposes.
       Sec. 3.  Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4628) to 
     extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate Federal 
     Direct Stafford Loans. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4.  The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time 
     before 6 p.m. on Wednesday, May 2, 2012, file privileged 
     reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2013.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). The gentleman from Florida 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. NUGENT. 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. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. 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

[[Page H2148]]

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. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bills: H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and 
Protection Act, or CISPA, and H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction 
Act.

                              {time}  1240

  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

[[Page H2149]]

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.

                              {time}  1250

  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. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding 
to me.
  I rise in support of the rule and the cyber bill that it brings to 
the floor, as well as the other cyber bills which the House will 
consider today and tomorrow.
  Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by acknowledging the leadership of the 
Speaker and majority leader for setting up a process for a thoughtful 
examination of the many issues related to cybersecurity. They recognize 
that not only is it a significant national security threat, it's a 
threat to our economy and to jobs. But at the same time, what we are 
trying to protect, at least 85 to 90 percent of it is owned and 
operated by the private sector. So one has to tread carefully in this 
area, and we have tried to do so with the limited legislation that is 
before the House today and tomorrow.
  I also want to thank the members of the House Cybersecurity Task 
Force, who put in a great deal of time and expertise in sorting through 
these issues and making recommendations: Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Chaffetz, 
Mr. Coffman, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Hurt, Mr. Latta, Mr. Lungren, Mr. 
McCaul, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Stivers, and Mr. Terry. Of course, a number of 
Members have worked on these issues for several years, including a 
number of those I've just mentioned, as well as Mr. Langevin, Mr. 
Ruppersberger, people on both sides of the aisle.
  Finally, I also want to take a second to thank the staffs of the 
various committees who have worked on this issue, as well as Josh 
Martin and Michael Seeds of my office, as well as Jen Stewart, the 
Speaker's national security adviser, whose guidance on substance and 
process was invaluable.
  Mr. Speaker, we will have ample opportunity to debate the merits of 
the individual pieces of legislation, but I think it's important at the 
beginning just to step back and say: Why all this hubbub about 
computers? What does all that mean?
  Well, I think we should start with the point that cyber--and that 
includes networks that are connected to the Internet and networks that 
are not connected to the Internet--but cyber is deeply ingrained in 
virtually every facet of our lives now, from the time we get up until 
the time we go to sleep and all the times in between. We very much 
depend on cyber, and anything you very much depend on can, and often 
does, become a vulnerability.
  We know of at least three different kinds of vulnerabilities these 
days. People can reach through the Internet and steal information which 
businesses, large, medium, and small, have produced. It happens every 
day in this country. Intellectual property is ripped out of the 
possession of those who produce it. And every time people steal 
information, they cost us jobs; they are stealing jobs as well. So our 
economy is directly affected by the difficulty in protecting the 
information that we, as individuals and businesses, store on our 
computers.
  In addition to that, though, information can be destroyed on our 
computers or it can be manipulated, or the computers themselves can be 
manipulated so that what we intend to do or what we want to do is not 
possible. If, for example, you have a lot of bank records that are 
destroyed or other such important records, then it can have a huge 
effect on our economy as well as our security.
  But going beyond stealing information, destroying information, we now 
know it's possible to reach through the Internet and other networks to 
have physical consequences in the real world, to flip a switch, to open 
a valve. It's the sort of thing that happened with the Stuxnet virus in 
Iran. But there are physical consequences to doing so. So that's part 
of the reason

[[Page H2150]]

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

  Real death, potentially, and destruction can occur all because of 
things going on the Internet. That's the reason a lot of people talk 
about a cyber 9/11 or a cyber Pearl Harbor.
  I know it's tempting to think all that's hype, but the truth is that 
over the past decade--and especially over the past couple of years--the 
number and sophistication of threats has grown much more rapidly than 
our ability to respond. And it's especially our laws and policies that 
have not kept up with the growing sophistication of threats.
  So the bills that we have before us this week, four of them, try to 
begin to take a step to close that gap between the growing threat and 
laws and policies. They don't solve all the problems, they don't try 
to, but they are a step in the right direction.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute, if he needs 
it.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I would just point out two other things, briefly:
  One is, again, one criticism one hears is that, well, you don't solve 
this problem or that problem, and that is absolutely true. These bills, 
all four of them, don't solve all the problems in cyberspace. But we 
shouldn't let the pursuit of the perfect answer prevent us from 
accomplishing some significant steps in the right direction, and that's 
what these bills do.
  The second point I'd make, as the gentleman from Florida mentioned, 
is three of these bills were reported out of committee by voice vote. 
The information-sharing bill was reported out 17 1. I believe that it 
has been made better since then. New protections are there. A host of 
restrictions on how the information can be used and privacy protections 
have been added and will be added with the amendments to come.
  So I think this deserves the support of all Members on both sides of 
the aisle, and Members on both sides of the aisle should take credit 
for taking a step to make our Nation more secure.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today to oppose the rule and the underlying bill, despite my 
genuine concern for cybersecurity.
  I believe that despite some positive changes by the chairman and 
ranking member it still fails to adequately safeguard the privacy of 
Americans, and that is why I am the one that voted against it in 
committee.
  We absolutely can combat the serious threat by cyberattacks and still 
ensure that we are protecting not only our computer systems, but also 
the civil liberties of Americans. As the Obama administration wrote 
yesterday in opposition to this bill, ``cybersecurity and privacy are 
not mutually exclusive.''
  I am particularly concerned because this legislation has the 
potential of exposing personal information of customers that may be 
shared both with the government and between companies. The Obama 
administration writes that the bill ``lacks sufficient limitations on 
the sharing of personally identifiable information between private 
entities.''
  I offered an amendment to simply require companies to make reasonable 
efforts to remove information unrelated to the cybersecurity threat 
which can be used to identify specific persons. Even with this basic 
standard for compliance, the big private companies refused to make the 
effort, and my amendment was not made in order.
  Further, the bill allows the U.S. military to directly receive 
cyberinformation on Americans. By allowing companies to give 
information to the NSA or other military agencies, this bill threatens 
the long-held American tradition that the military does not snoop on 
U.S. soil against U.S. citizens. So I also offered an amendment to 
require that information to be received only by civilian agencies, 
ensuring a layer of protection between citizens and the military.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Unfortunately, my amendments, together with all other 
privacy amendments, will not be considered today.

                              {time}  1300

  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule and the 
underlying bill. We can and we will have the opportunity to do better.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule and to the 
underlying bill in its current form. I greatly appreciate the 
nonpartisan work on the issue by Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member 
Ruppersberger. They've worked in a refreshingly collaborative fashion 
on this bill and on the work of the Intelligence Committee, generally.
  Yet, I find I cannot support the bill in its current form due to my 
concerns about its impact on civil liberties and the privacy of 
Americans. While amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee that 
would address these issues, including an amendment I jointly submitted 
with Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Hastings, none of these amendments were 
made in order in this rule.
  I share the view of the sponsors of the legislation that 
cybersecurity is a serious issue that requires congressional action. I 
also believe that information-sharing is an important piece of 
responding to the cybersecurity threats, though it is, by no means, 
sufficient alone without other elements such as hardening critical 
infrastructure against cyberattacks.
  I'm disappointed in the rule because the problems with the bill are 
eminently fixable and, in fact, multiple amendments, including my own, 
were submitted that would improve the bill.
  Yesterday afternoon, the White House issued a Statement of 
Administration Policy saying the President's senior advisers would 
advise him to veto the bill if it came to him in the current form 
because of the lack of protection for civil liberties. As the 
administration's statement said: ``Cybersecurity and privacy are not 
mutually exclusive.''
  I believe we can and must protect ourselves from cyberattack and that 
we can and must preserve our privacy. This is eminently doable, but we 
are not there yet.
  My amendment, which was not made in order, would have accomplished 
four tasks. First, it would have made DHS, a civilian agency, the 
primary coordinating agency for information-sharing.
  Second, it would require rules to minimize the sharing of personally 
identifiable information. The amount of personally identifiable 
information shared would be the least amount needed to combat the 
cybersecurity threat, and no more.
  Third, it would narrow the uses of cybersecurity information to 
cybersecurity purposes, specific national security threats, and certain 
other serious crimes.
  And, finally, it would more specifically define cyberthreat 
information to make sure that we don't sweep up information we don't 
intend to and don't need.
  In conclusion, amendments like this one would have improved the bill 
and better balanced the need to protect ourselves against cyberthreats 
with the equal imperative of preserving the privacy of the American 
people.
  I am disappointed that the House won't have the opportunity to vote 
on those amendments; and, as a result, I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
rule.
  Mr. NUGENT. 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. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the rule. I 
think the number of amendments that they've made in order is consistent 
with Speaker Boehner's policy of running an open House.
  Unfortunately, one of those amendments that was not made in order is

[[Page H2151]]

the Barton-Markey amendment on privacy. I am going to vote ``no'' on 
the underlying bill because it does not protect the privacy of the 
individual American citizen.
  We do have a real threat, a cyberthreat, in this country. This bill 
is an honest attempt to deal with that threat; but absent explicit 
privacy protection against individuals, to me, that is a greater threat 
to democracy and liberty than the cyberthreats that face America.
  So unless they pull the bill and they revise some of the privacy 
protections, I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on the bill. But on 
the rule, I do think we should vote for the rule.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this rule and the underlying bill.
  At the beginning of this Congress, expectations were high for 
meaningful progress on cybersecurity. Speaker Boehner even established 
a task force within the Republican Conference to come up with 
recommendations.
  But a funny thing happened on the way to Cyber Week. Key Republican 
task force recommendations were abandoned. They abandoned measures to 
approve data breach notification laws, formalize DHS' cyber-role and, 
more importantly, enhance the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure 
networks.
  These omissions from Cybersecurity Week were no small matter. We all 
have critical infrastructure in our districts, be it a pipeline, a 
power plant, an airport or even a dam.
  Top national security officials, both in the Obama and Bush 
administrations, have briefed us on the significant cyberattacks to 
critical infrastructure. They have told us that voluntary information-
sharing is simply not enough.
  In fact, the CSIS Cyber Commission, the Republican task force, and 
NSA Director Alexander have all said that Congress must do something to 
proactively address critical infrastructure vulnerabilities.
  But House leadership ignores these voices. Instead, it has decided 
that information-sharing alone is enough to fix the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, this boils down to a simple question: Who do you trust?
  Turning to H.R. 3523: What does it do?
  In an effort to improve our cybersecurity, this bill would erode the 
privacy protections of every single American using the Internet. Put 
simply, this bill would allow any certified business to share with any 
government agency, who can then use this information for any national 
security purpose and grant that business immunity from virtually any 
liability. None of these amendments authored by the Intelligence 
Committee would change that truth.
  Further, the Rules Committee decided to block consideration of 
amendments submitted by me and other like-minded colleagues to address 
the fundamental privacy flaws in this bill.
  If my colleagues want to do something on cybersecurity, then vote 
``yes'' on any or all of the suspension bills to be considered today; 
but do not vote for H.R. 3523. It would set back the privacy rights 
that our constituents have enjoyed since the beginning of the Internet.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. This legislation might as well be called the Cyber 
Insecurity Bill because it fails to address the reality of cyberthreats 
already facing our Nation. And if this bill had a privacy policy, it 
would read: you have no privacy.
  They would not even allow the Barton-Markey privacy language to be 
put in order to debate out here on the House floor.
  Let's talk about what the bill does not do. Although the bill would 
allow the government to tell nuclear power plant operators that a new 
version of the Stuxnet computer worm could cause widespread Fukushima-
style meltdowns in this country, would this bill require the industry 
to take even a single step to protect American nuclear reactors? No.
  Would this bill require industry to even tell the government what it 
is doing to protect against a cyberthreat nuclear meltdown? No.
  Would this bill require industry to even tell the government when it 
had experienced an actual cyberattack? No.
  Now, let's talk about what this bill would do. Could companies share 
personal information about consumers with other companies, even if that 
information had nothing to do with cybersecurity? Yes.
  Would companies be free from liability if they share that personal 
information of every American? Yes.
  Could the government use personal information to spy on Americans? 
Yes.
  In this last Congress, Fred Upton and I wrote the GRID Act, which 
passed by voice vote on the suspension calendar 2 years ago.

                              {time}  1310

  It would have said to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Do 
you have the authority to mandate grid security standards against an 
attack coming in from Iran or from China?
  This bill does nothing to protect against the threat at the 
electricity grid system in this country that could lead to nuclear 
meltdowns. This Republican Congress still refuses to bring up the real 
security we need against a cyberattack. We have an all-volunteer Army 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, brave men and women, but they follow orders. 
We must give the orders to the electric industry and to the other 
industries to protect this country against a cyberattack. This bill 
does not do it.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House 
adopts this rule, we will bring up H.R. 4816, Mr. Tierney's bill, to 
prevent the doubling of student loan interest rates, fully paid for and 
then some, reducing the deficit by $7 billion by repealing tax 
giveaways for big oil companies.
  To discuss our student loan bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that this House take action to stop the 
need-based student loan interest rates from doubling at the end of 
June. If we defeat the previous question, the House will have an 
opportunity to take up a bill that I have filed and introduced that 
will keep those interest rates at 3.4 percent for 1 year.
  My Democratic colleagues and I recognize the importance of being 
fiscally responsible, so our bill is completely paid for. We pay for it 
by ending unnecessary tax subsidies for big oil and gas companies. 
These are the same companies that took home $80 billion in profits last 
year. Exxon pocketed nearly $4.7 million every hour.
  We have to make choices here in Congress. Our side of the aisle 
believes that it is a fair and reasonable choice to eliminate an 
unjustified subsidy to hugely profitable industries so that 7 million 
students, including some 177,000 in my Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
alone, will not see an increase in their student loans. Our side of the 
aisle believes that encouraging middle class students and their 
families to be able to pay for college educations should be a bigger 
priority than continuing tax subsidies for Big Oil.
  Now, the other side of the aisle has been tremendously late to this 
issue. I know the presumptive nominee for the Presidential race has 
changed his mind and has come around to believing that this is 
important--a practice that he does on a regular basis. They've come 
around to the side of knowing that we should keep these interest rates 
low, and we welcome that; but the fact of the matter is that they have 
decided to make the wrong choice in how we're going to pay for it.
  The bill that is expected to come to the House floor tomorrow 
includes a short-term fix for the student loan issue, but it will do it 
at the expense of women and children. What is it with my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle with the knee-jerk reaction of,

[[Page H2152]]

every time they have to do something, they take a gratuitous swipe at 
women's health benefits and women's health choices? Their bill would 
end funding for breast and cervical cancer screenings for women, and 
their bill would end funding for child immunizations. Their bill makes 
the wrong and the reckless choice.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this motion so that we can consider my 
bill for a vote on the floor, a bill that makes the right choice, that 
makes sure we keep the rates low, that makes sure the oil companies get 
rid of that subsidy they no longer need or should have.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the 
ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, Mr. 
Miller.
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of the Tierney motion, the legislation that 
he and Mr. Courtney of Connecticut introduced yesterday in the 
Congress.
  For years now, the Democrats have stood on the side of lower interest 
rates for families and for students. We have paid for 4 years of that 
starting in 2007. We took the money and the subsidies away from the big 
banks, and we recycled that on behalf of students and their families in 
order to lower the cost of college and to make it more affordable for 
those families seeking college educations for their young children.
  The fact of the matter is that the Republicans fought that effort. 
They're fighting that effort today. Actually, they were fighting it 
yesterday, and they changed their minds. After almost a unanimous vote 
on their budget--the Ryan budget, the Republican budget--to allow 
student interest rates to double, they have now changed their minds. 
That's important. That's good. We need to make sure that the rates 
don't double on July 1.
  How are you going to pay for that?
  We want it paid for. We don't want to do what they did last week and 
provide $46 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and add it 
to the deficit--$46 billion in new deficit spending in 1 year. So the 
Speaker says, well, he's just going to take it out of the slush fund. 
Really? The Speaker of the House thinks that the prevention fund is a 
slush fund? The Speaker of the House thinks that birth defects and the 
funding to mitigate birth defects is a slush fund? Does the Speaker of 
the House really believe that a screening program for women with 
cervical and breast cancer is a slush fund?
  No. This is a matter of life and death for young children who get 
immunized out of the prevention fund. For women who get this screening, 
we know what the early detection of breast cancer means for women and 
their survivability rates. This isn't a slush fund; but what they're 
asking you to do is to repeal this fund that goes to communities all 
over this country in order that people will have access to this kind of 
preventative care.
  Yes, they'll say, but you took some money out of this fund to do the 
payroll tax reduction for the middle class. Yes, but we didn't repeal 
the fund. They're taking $10 billion out of the fund and repealing it 
and putting women and children at risk. That's not a slush fund, Mr. 
Speaker. That's immoral.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, our second President, John Adams, once 
said:

       Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes 
     or the dictates of our passion cannot alter the state of 
     facts.

  As to how we got here on the student loan bill, here are the facts. 
Unlike what was stated by the proponent of this rule, on January 24, 
the President of the United States stood on that podium and challenged 
Congress to block the increase of rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 
percent. The Republican majority has done nothing over the last 3 
months to respond to that--no bill, no hearing, no markup. In fact, 
they passed the Ryan budget, which locked in the higher rate at 6.8 
percent and doubled down and went after Pell Grants for needy students 
who need those grants to pay for college.
  The politics has changed. That's the fact.
  What happened here, and the Speaker's reversal over the last 24 
hours, which we welcome, is now being paid for by a grotesque pay-for 
which goes after women and children rather than going after the folks 
who can afford to pay for it--the oil companies, the gas companies that 
made $137 billion in profits last year.
  Support the Tierney motion and oppose this rule.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have cosponsored legislation 
with my colleagues Mr. Courtney and Mr. Tierney in order to keep 
student loan rates from doubling in 65 days.
  Right now, millions of high school seniors are deciding where they 
are going to attend college. At kitchen tables across the country, 
students are making decisions that will impact the rest of their lives. 
So, today, I find it hard to believe that Republicans have decided to 
pit public health against higher education. By introducing this 
misguided, deeply partisan bill, it is clear that my Republican 
colleagues aren't taking the responsibility to families very seriously. 
It is unconscionable that this body would be playing politics with our 
children's futures.
  With the same urgency that Republicans rammed through a $46 billion 
tax cut to millionaires and billionaires, I am sure we can find a 
responsible way to prevent piling on even more debt on our college 
students. I urge my colleagues to vote for the defeat of the previous 
question and to adopt a bipartisan, bicameral solution that can be 
quickly signed by the President.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if 
he has or is expecting any additional speakers.
  Mr. NUGENT. I do not.
  Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving us this 
opportunity to talk about a choice we have here today.
  Everybody knows that what is essential to a democracy is the 
education of our children, of investments in the future so that people 
can reach their own personal self-fulfillment and provide for their 
families but, also, so that our country can be competitive in the 
global economy. It is a very important part of the American Dream.

                              {time}  1310

  Democrats believe in imposing ladders of opportunity where people can 
have the opportunity to succeed if they want to work hard, play by the 
rules, take responsibility.
  An important rung of that ladder is education. We all know the impact 
that the GI Bill had on America's great middle class, growing America's 
great middle class, the education of our returning veterans to our 
country, enabling them to have more education than their parents, and 
that has been the way it has always been in our country's history, the 
enduring theme of reigniting the American Dream.
  So we have a challenge before us, because the clock is ticking on a 
July deadline. At that time, left to the budget of the Republicans, the 
Ryan-Republican-Tea Party budget, there would have been a doubling of 
interest rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. We've been having this 
debate for a while on how we could stop that doubling from happening. 
Republicans told us they were tired of hearing about the interest rate 
debate.
  Until now, thanks to President Obama taking this issue public so that 
the American people understood what was at stake here and that the 
doubling of interest rates would deprive some people of even going to 
college and be more costly for many others. In fact, 7 million students 
would be affected, and that means at least 20 million people, assuming 
they have an average of two people in their families.
  So this has a direct impact on many people in our country. It's a 
bread-and-

[[Page H2153]]

butter issue. It's a kitchen table issue where people talk about how 
they're going to make ends meet, and one of those ends is the education 
of their children.
  So all of a sudden Republicans in the House have seen the light. 
They're willing to reverse a vote that they took not more than a week 
ago--100 percent of them voted for the Ryan budget, which would allow 
the interest rates to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Thank God 
they have seen the light. Thank you, President Obama, for shedding some 
light on this, and now they say they're for stopping that.
  But how do they want to pay for it? They want to take it from their 
favorite target--women's health. I don't know why it hasn't dawned on 
them yet that the health of America's women is very important to the 
health of America's families.
  So they want to take the funds from women's health and then also 
childhood immunizations. That's very important. Immunization of every 
child in America is very important to every other child in America. 
That's where they want to take the money from.
  The motion that we have here today is to say instead of taking the 
money, instead of robbing Paula to pay Peter, we should be taking the 
money from the tax subsidies that go to Big Oil in our country. That's 
what we should be doing. Isn't that a better show of what our values 
are, that we value the health of our women and our children?
  To make matters worse, not only are they suggesting that we take the 
money from the prevention fund, the immunization and screening for 
breast cancer and cervical cancer and other women's health issues, not 
only are they saying we should take the $6 billion from there, they're 
saying we should take the additional $5 billion that would be left in 
the account and repeal it. We're taking twice as much money as we need 
for the student loan bill because we're going to use this as an excuse 
to do away with this prevention initiative that affects women's health 
so directly. It's outrageous. We prefer tax subsidies for Big Oil 
rather than the health of America's women.
  Once again, they're targeting women's health.
  So, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so we 
will have an opportunity to at least put before the House an 
alternative that says give us a choice to choose between whether we 
want to pay for our young people's education by removing some of the 
subsidies to Big Oil or we want to take it out of women's health.
  The very idea that the Republicans would deny us a vote to do that 
speaks very clearly about how focused they are on targeting women's 
health as something that they want to cut.
  So, again, I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, which would allow the House to vote on a Democratic bill that 
reduces the interest rates, keeps them at 3.4 instead of raising them 
to 6.8, which is in the Republican budget. If we cannot do that, I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived, way-out-of-whack 
statement of values that we would make women's health pay for 
children's education when we should be doing both.
  So ``no'' on the previous question--we're not allowed to at least 
even take a vote--``no'' on the bill, and let's admit that we can do 
better than that.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment of Mr. Tierney's bill into the record along with extraneous 
material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gingrey of Georgia). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Tierney's bill will not only provide the House, as was 
passionately argued by the leader, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Tierney, the 
opportunity to decide between women's health or special tax breaks for 
oil and gas companies, but will also reduce the deficit by $7 billion. 
The time of record deficits when restoring the fiscal integrity of our 
Nation is critical to our competitiveness in job creation. I hope that 
this House acts boldly by defeating the previous question and allowing 
us to vote on reducing the deficit by $7 billion.
  With regard to CISPA, it simply strikes the wrong balance between 
security and liberty. Information-sharing is important. I think a 
bipartisan consensus can be reached. And while I appreciate the spirit 
with which CISPA was offered and members of both parties worked on it, 
the bill is so far from perfect, we need to continue to work on it and 
defeat this rule and allow more amendments.
  Any American who values his or her privacy should be concerned by the 
implications of this bill trusting Big Government and secret agencies 
with our most personal information. The reality is that CISPA 
represents a massive government overreach in the name of security. We 
need accountability and we need oversight. We can't have secretive 
agencies accountable to no one with vast powers over American citizens 
on our soil.
  For these reasons, I oppose the underlying pieces of legislation. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the previous question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. 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.

                              {time}  1330

  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

[[Page H2154]]

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

                              {time}  1340

  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.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 631 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       Amend section 3 to read as follows:
       Sec. 3.(a) 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

[[Page H2155]]

     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.
       (b) Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in subsection (a).
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NUGENT. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 631, if 
ordered; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2240, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 179, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 182]

                               YEAS--241

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--179

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

[[Page H2156]]



                             NOT VOTING--11

     Davis (KY)
     Filner
     Holden
     Marino
     McHenry
     Paul
     Rangel
     Slaughter
     Sullivan
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  1405

  Mr. BILIRAKIS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 182, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 185, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 183]

                               YEAS--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--185

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Davis (KY)
     Filner
     Holden
     Marino
     McHenry
     Paul
     Rangel
     Sessions
     Slaughter
     Sullivan


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1414

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 183, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________