Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS. Just one point. I think what the gentlelady said is that the Senate will have to vote on it, not that they have to pass it, just to be clear.

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

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, this continuing resolution is a first step, all right. It is a first step towards bankruptcy with token cuts. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS. Again, the cut is actually somewhere in the $15 billion to $20 billion range, according to both The Wall Street Journal and the AP.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I again want to bring it back to the hypothetical American family, small business we're talking about, because the $1.399 trillion figure is boggling to most people. So lop off the zeros there and say, hey, I have a small business, I'm an American family, I will lose $139,000 next year. Let me tell you, is losing $137,000 the next year a step towards solvency or a step towards bankruptcy? I would submit, Madam Chair, ask any small business man in America or small business woman, losing $137,000 instead of $139,000 is a step towards bankruptcy. Just like that family, we in the United States Congress, we in this country need to come together and make hard choices about where to find additional income, where to cut expenditures, how to get this budget out of red and into the black. That's the difference between where the Democrats stand and the proposal of our friends on the other side. And another difference: A Democratic President has actually balanced the budget. That's a claim that the other side can't make for more than a generation. It is clear that the Republicans are not serious about the deficit. If they were, this would be a different bill. Again, this is what we're talking about: Taking our Nation another step down the road towards fiscal insolvency and leaving a legacy of debt for the next generation. Rather than holding the line on spending, the majority is feeding the beast. And yet, what do the Republicans cut rather than rooting out waste at the Pentagon? They cut $1.6 billion from the EPA's effort to protect public health and keep our air and water safe; $950 million from Community Development Block Grants to strengthen neighborhoods and create jobs; $815 million from FEMA grants that help communities prepare for disasters; $10 million to keep our food safe. When you look at the winners and losers in this budget, it becomes clear what the majority party does and does not value. And they clearly do not mind leaving the next generation a legacy of deficits and debt. What we're doing in this continuing resolution is increasing the favorite government spending of the majority party, running up the deficit, continuing big tax cuts for special interests while slashing the effort to educate our children, ensure access to health care, keep our air and water clean--oh, and while they're at it, taking away a woman's right to choose. This is where we could be by working together, Democrats and Republicans. This process, this rule and this bill, are not examples of working together to solve our budget crisis. We can do better, we must do better. To save America from bankruptcy, we must do better than sound and fury signifying nothing. We need to work together to make the cuts we need to make, to increase the revenues we need to increase, and to examine our entitlement programs to put our Nation on proper fiscal footing for the next generation and remove the mounting burden of debt that faces the next generation of Americans. I don't see how anyone can argue that somehow reducing--again, at the family level, a $139,000 loss to a $137,000 loss, while it might be a fine thing to do, leaves that family in every bit as dangerous and precarious a fiscal situation as they were before--ask any small business man or small business woman in this country. And after passing this continuing resolution and keeping our government in business another year, we're just punting further down the field about making the cuts we all know we need to make to balance the budget, return to a surplus, and help remove the next generation of Americans from the legacy of debt that is threatening to crush them. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. I appreciate the gentleman from California's willingness to look at defense spending. I know the gentleman from Kentucky mentioned we're in three wars. Perhaps part of the answer is to be in two wars or one war or, God forbid, perhaps we can be at peace again in our lifetime. Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, Medicare is a guarantee that senior citizens, regardless of their economic circumstances, will have the medical care that they need in their twilight years. Medicare plays a critical role in removing doubt from people's minds that if they have an ailment and are otherwise uninsurable in the marketplace, as many are, that their needs will be met. Not to say that the program doesn't have its problems. We periodically need to do a ``doc fix,'' and we have to find a way to pay that in the long term. There are real issues with regards to the reimbursement rates and making sure they are adequate so seniors can get their care. But the answer, Madam Speaker, is not phasing out Medicare. There is a need to mend it, not end it. I think by improving the quality of care for seniors and ensuring that seniors have access to preventative care, we can help decrease overall health care costs without abolishing and phasing out Medicare, as is contained in the Republican budget proposal.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This is not a good-faith effort to keeping the government running. Last night in the Rules Committee, Democrats offered an amendment that would have kept the government open for one week at current levels. Instead of allowing for an up-or-down vote on that measure, Republicans are attempting to force through another bloated spending bill. Under this continuing resolution, critical government services would face draconian cuts--hundreds of millions of dollars--while defense spending would jump 1.5 percent over last year's level. This means drastic cuts to education, law enforcement, and health care. Meanwhile, the greatest source of waste and overspending in the federal government--the Pentagon--gets even more money. Cuts to discretionary spending alone will never close our budget gap. But leaving defense spending off the table, which comprises roughly half of all discretionary spending, is counterproductive. Those domestic cuts won't balance the budget but they could stymie economic recovery now and harm our ability to compete globally in the years to come. Even our Defense leaders recognize that Pentagon spending restraint must be part of debt reduction efforts. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mullen stated that ``our national debt is our biggest national security threat.'' He also noted that the past decade's doubling of the Department of Defense budget has led to undisciplined spending. Secretary Gates concurs, stating, ``We can't hold ourselves exempt from the belt-tightening. Neither can we allow ourselves to contribute to the very debt that puts our long-term security at risk.'' An array of bi-partisan non-governmental groups analyzing our debt crisis have studied our defense budget and identified reductions in annual defense spending in the $70-100 billion range. The recent bi- partisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, often called the Simpson-Bowles Commission, called for ``substantial defense reductions over the next 10 years.'' They have recommended various cuts that would lead to $60 billion in savings from security spending in the first year. In fact, if we implemented the Commission's recommendations, we would save $100 billion dollars from defense spending in 2015 alone. Instead of following the lead of fiscally responsible efforts such as the Commission, Republicans have decided to increase defense spending and slash only domestic discretionary spending. To get a sense of how unbalanced this is, we would have to cut $14.5 billion from defense spending, in order to equal the cuts to domestic spending. Reasonable military spending reductions can be made without sacrificing national security or undermining our troops. The Department of Defense must be held accountable for ensuring that tax dollars are not wasted and military spending should be scrutinized to find meaningful reductions in outdated or unworkable programs. Anyone who denies the Defense Department is one of the largest sources of waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government probably thinks the Pentagon has four sides. It's clear that Republicans are not serious about the deficit. If they were, waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon would be as much of a focus as anywhere else in the budget. But rather than holding the line on spending, the Majority is actually feeding the beast. And they're playing political games with this continuing resolution rather working with the president to avert a government shutdown. It's not fiscally responsible or morally responsible, so I will vote no on the bill.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman. I am the last speaker for my side, and I yield myself the balance of my time. I would like to submit into the Record a Nature editorial entitled, ``Into Ignorance: Vote to Overturn an Aspect of Climate Science Marks a Worrying Trend in U.S. Congress.'' Madam Speaker, time and time again we've heard our colleagues cry wolf and make outlandish claims about what the Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to do. But the American people aren't fools. They know that every time the EPA stands up to big polluters, big polluters claim the sky is falling. That's exactly what happened when the EPA tackled the acid rain problem. Polluters claimed new safeguards would end their industries, increase the price of consumer goods, and cause massive job loss. In reality, acid rain has been dramatically reduced and the limits on pollution were met faster and at roughly a tenth of the cost that industry estimated--all without driving consumer prices up. A recent MIT study even suggests that implementing the EPA safeguards we are debating today would create 1.4 million jobs as companies invent, build and install newer and cheaper pollution control tools and renewable energy. Rather than discussing ridiculous and already disreputable and refuted claims of cow flatulence and other elements that aren't even considered by the EPA, let's discuss science and the facts. Republicans have claimed that the EPA has found carbon dioxide to be dangerous, the same gas we exhale. They say, how can carbon dioxide be dangerous? In reality, the endangerment finding was based on sound science and found that as climate change increases, so does ground- level ozone, longer pollen seasons, and more mold allergies. These affect health problems like asthma and heart disease. Once again, Republicans were oversimplifying a serious problem to support their big polluter buddies at the cost of public health. Science will guide us in the right direction, and science is a blind goddess. It doesn't care what we want science to say. What matters is what good science done actually says. The supporters of this legislation want to present a false dichotomy that somehow protecting the environment would hurt job creation. Instead, the exact opposite has been proven to be true. Since 1970, the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act have been shown to outweigh all costs associated with the law, and the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act are expected to reach nearly $2 trillion in 2020--exceeding costs by more than 30 to 1. That's why a number of business organizations representing over 60,000 firms wrote to President Obama and congressional leaders urging them to support the EPA's mission and to reject efforts to block, delay or weaken implementation of the Clean Air Act. In their letters, the groups note that studies consistently show that the economic benefits of implementing the act far exceed the costs of controlling air pollutant emissions. The EPA's rule is strictly tailored to only the country's biggest power plants and industrial polluters. These safeguards apply to about 700 of the top polluting power plants and oil refineries, facilities that need new permits, anyway, under current law. It's been proven countless times that we can protect the environment and public health and grow and strengthen our economy at the same time. To say otherwise simply ignores the facts. Madam Speaker, I want to make sure that no one is misled by the title of the bill we're considering, the Energy Tax Prevention Act. The only amendment that would have actually prevented energy taxes was offered by my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and was denied even a floor discussion and debate or a vote under this rule. The only thing this bill is taxing is our patience. As serious issues confront America, including the government shutdown, the majority seems intent on legislating by false bumper-sticker slogans. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider Senate bill 388. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, I want to be clear that we can in this body take up and pass Senate bill 388 if we can defeat the previous question, and this will go directly to the President's desk. There is still time. I think the American people don't know that if government shuts down at the end of the day Friday as it might--it seems increasingly likely--Members of Congress will still continue to receive their paycheck. I had a tweet from one of my constituents that said, ``If there is a government shutdown, are Congressmen and Senators considered essential employees?'' I responded that we had a bill, Senate bill 388, that would make sure that Members of Congress don't get paid in the event of a shutdown, but Speaker Boehner refuses to bring it to the floor of the House in spite of passing the Senate unanimously. My constituent responded, ``Maybe if the rulemakers had to live by the same rules they created, a solution would come faster. Gridlock is not governance.'' Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentlelady mentioned science. One of the expert witnesses the Republicans called for last week's congressional hearing on climate science was Professor Richard Muller of Berkeley. Now, this was a physicist who had gotten into the climate skeptic game. And I have to say, the climate skeptic game is a very lucrative one for people. Anybody who finds a way to deny climate change sells lots of books, gets booked on the conservative talk show circuit, and does very well for themselves. And yet, despite the intensive economic pressure for climate scientists to deny climate change, 99 percent have stayed true to the scientific method; and the conclusion of the vast majority is that climate change exists. Now, Professor Muller reported that his group's preliminary findings were that the global warming trend is very similar to that reported by prior groups. Now, this took some courage. Because of his belief in science, no doubt it hurts his own earning potential. I think he had been doing very well as a climate skeptic. Now he is somebody who has put his scientific principles above his own economic need. What science tells us is not always convenient. Every climate scientist that I know wishes that they could say that there is no danger from climate change, wishes there was no danger from carbon emissions. Nobody wants to be a harbinger of disaster--what a terrible thing to be--and yet they value the integrity of the scientific process. [From the New York Times, Apr. 3, 2011] The Truth, Still Inconvenient (By Paul Krugman) So the joke begins like this: An economist, a lawyer and a professor of marketing walk into a room. What's the punch line? They were three of the five ``expert witnesses'' Republicans called for last week's Congressional hearing on climate science. But the joke actually ended up being on the Republicans, when one of the two actual scientists they invited to testify went off script. Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley, a physicist who has gotten into the climate skeptic game, has been leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation. And climate deniers--who claim that researchers at NASA and other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and distorted the data--had been hoping that the Berkeley project would conclude that global warming is a myth. Instead, however, Professor Muller reported that his group's preliminary results find a global warming trend ``very similar to that reported by the prior groups.'' The deniers' response was both predictable and revealing; more on that shortly. But first, let's talk a bit more about that list of witnesses, which raised the same question I and others have had about a number of committee hearings held since the G.O.P. retook control of the House--namely, where do they find these people? My favorite, still, was Ron Paul's first hearing on monetary policy, in which the lead witness was someone best known for writing a book denouncing Abraham Lincoln as a ``horrific tyrant''--and for advocating a new secessionist movement as the appropriate response to the ``new American fascialistic state.'' The ringers (i.e., nonscientists) at last week's hearing weren't of quite the same caliber, but their prepared testimony still had some memorable moments. One was the lawyer's declaration that the E.P.A. can't declare that greenhouse gas emissions are a health threat, because these emissions have been rising for a century, but public health has improved over the same period. I am not making this up. Oh, and the marketing professor, in providing a list of past cases of ``analogies to the alarm over dangerous manmade global warming''--presumably intended to show why we should ignore the worriers--included problems such as acid rain and the ozone hole that have been contained precisely thanks to environmental regulation. But back to Professor Muller. His climate-skeptic credentials are pretty strong: he has denounced both Al Gore and my colleague Tom Friedman as ``exaggerators,'' and he has participated in a number of attacks on climate research, including the witch hunt over innocuous e-mails from British climate researchers. Not surprisingly, then, climate deniers had high hopes that his new project would support their case. You can guess what happened when those hopes were dashed. Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and piously declared himself ``prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.'' But never mind: once he knew that Professor Muller was going to present those preliminary results, Mr. Watts dismissed the hearing as ``post normal science political theater.'' And one of the regular contributors on his site dismissed Professor Muller as ``a man driven by a very serious agenda.'' Of course, it's actually the climate deniers who have the agenda, and nobody who's been following this discussion believed for a moment that they would accept a result confirming global warming. But it's worth stepping back for a moment and thinking not just about the science here, but about the morality. For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you're going to assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right, you'll be doing a great deal of damage. But what we had, instead of high seriousness, was a farce: a supposedly crucial hearing stacked with people who had no business being there and instant ostracism for a climate skeptic who was actually willing to change his mind in the face of evidence. As I said, no surprise: as Upton Sinclair pointed out long ago, it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. But it's terrifying to realize that this kind of cynical careerism--for that's what it is--has probably ensured that we won't do anything about climate change until catastrophe is already upon us. So on second thought, I was wrong when I said that the joke was on the G.O.P.; actually, the joke is on the human race. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, it's a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' question. If there is an additional statement the gentleman would like to make, I would be happy to have him explain it on his own time. My time is limited and I have many speakers. But I would be happy to enter into a dialogue with him on his time or allow him to respond to whether or not the EPA has the ability to impose a tax. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, it's hard to figure out where to start with regard to refuting some of the statements that were made. First of all, again, with regard to the information regarding methane emissions on the EPA Web site, there is a difference between a statement of fact and an action, and part of what the EPA does is it provides good scientific facts. They, EPA itself, concedes and says they don't have the authority, nor should they have the authority, to monitor emissions from livestock. So they will publish good information. I don't refute the information the gentleman said, and I hope they publish more useful information about the impact of livestock, but they are not seeking to regulate it. The gentleman said they are going to tax cattle. Again, very clearly, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, said the EPA does not have the ability to impose a tax. I would ask my colleague from Texas a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' question: Does the EPA have the ability to impose a tax?

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 1 minute to respond. I know the gentleman from Florida mentioned the cow flatulence in our committee meeting last night, and it sounded like a topic that bore looking into. I did have a chance to look it up in the interim, and Fox News had reported the prospect of EPA regulating cow and livestock gas. However, it never existed. FactCheck.org, which I looked it up on, dispelled the myth and EPA itself actually came out with a statement that said not only is there no such regulation that it discussed or was in the works, but even EPA admitted it's not under their authority to regulate that in any way, shape or form. So it is a false accusation with regard to the issue regarding livestock. Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a former member of the Rules Committee and a former member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. He has racked up quite a few former memberships.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up Senate bill 388, a bill that prohibits Members of Congress and the President from receiving pay during government shutdowns. It is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a sponsor of a bill to do the same, Mr. Moran.