Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself a minute to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from California. I agree with much of what you said, particularly when you said we don't need a pay-for. I agree with you that to a certain extent the gains are illusory. Yes, they're used as a pay-for; yes, there's a shell game; yes, on paper it looks like so much money. There's times that you and I might both disagree with the CBO, for instance, and this might very well be one of those. But the answer, and I hope my friend from California agrees, is not instead of doing no pay-for or perhaps allowing an amendment under this rule that would allow us to eliminate the pay-for, the answer is not to raise taxes on the middle class. With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the Republicans are breaking a promise that they made to the American people, a promise not to raise taxes. The new majority came in promising a growth agenda. Instead, under the guise of giving administrative relief to small businesses--relief that we all agree is necessary and the majority of this body last session voted to provide with a different way of paying for it--the Republicans are now increasing taxes on middle class Americans and punishing workers. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have also broken their promise to this body. The people's House was promised an open legislative process. Over and over, the leadership has told the American people they want to create an open process, create jobs, and lower taxes. Yet here we are debating the second closed rule of the week on a bill that calls out for new and better ideas, a bill that in its current form will increase taxes and punish employees. We all agree that the 1099 reporting provision of the Affordable Care Act needs to be fixed. Just last Congress, we brought a bill to the floor to do that. H.R. 5982 would have repealed the 1099 requirements. But the measure failed because our Republican friends did not believe that ending incentives for companies to outsource jobs overseas, which is the way we paid for fixing this administrative burden at the time, would protect American jobs and wouldn't raise taxes on individuals. They didn't believe that that was the correct way to offset the legislation. Instead, in this Congress, they are seeking a tax increase on middle class families as somehow preferable as a way of paying for something we all agree is important rather than ending incentives to shift American jobs overseas. Now, we won't get into an argument about semantics. There will be those who somehow argue that this is not a tax increase. Well, if it looks and smells like a tax increase, it is a tax increase. A tax increase by any other name would smell as bitter. Indeed, under this bill, hundreds of thousands of American families will receive an extra bill from the IRS to the tune of $3,000, $5,000, particularly middle class families, families earning $80,000 a year and $90,000 a year. The heart of what makes up the American middle class face the largest tax increases under this bill. This bill would raise taxes, harming workers that should be protected. As the Joint Committee on Taxation points out, the Republican proposal would increase taxes for a family of four by an average of $3,000 a year. And, yes, that is a bill from the IRS. That is taxes. T-A-X-E-S is what the Republicans are seeking to increase under this bill. Let me give another real-life example. One of the issues we want to correct with regard to the 1099 bill and work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to find a good way to pay for, is that currently people who have rental property are going to be classified as being in the business of renting property, and being subject to additional paperwork under the 1099 provision. So this could be a family of four earning maybe $60,000 a year in salary; they earn another $20,000, $25,000 from a rental property. They work hard. They keep up that property. Maybe it was formerly a family home, or maybe they saved up over 10 or 15 years to buy it. With the 1099 paperwork problem, we are saying hey, you put a new refrigerator for $600 in that rental home, you have to fill out additional government paperwork that makes you responsible for taxes on that, okay? That's what we want to save people from, Republicans and Democrats. We're saying: You know what, we don't want to burden that family. You make $60,000 a year, you're getting $20,000 from a rental property, we don't want you to jump through hoops to put a new refrigerator in your rental property. But you know what? To that family, they say we don't want to do that extra paperwork, but if it's between that paperwork and paying a $5,000 bill to the IRS, I'll do the darn paperwork. I'll do the darn paperwork. Who are we trying to help here? Who are we talking about helping? If they don't want the help, if this is actually harmful, who are we talking about helping? According to Families USA, House Republicans wish to decimate what remains of the safe harbor that protects individuals and families from substantial tax penalties. The Affordable Care Act provides built-in flexibility to consumers and protects them by capping the tax penalty if the monthly premium credit received during the year exceeds the amount of credit due based on unexpected income or family status. So again, how can unexpected or unplanned for income or family status change? It could be a bonus, it could be a raise at work, it could be a divorce, or it could be a marriage. There are a number of ways these things change and put people in a higher category where the IRS will be sending them, because of this bill, $3,000 to pay, $5,000 to pay. That's what American families are going to be on the line for. These provisions of the Affordable Care Act recognize that forcing middle income individuals to repay the entire amount would dampen their willingness to sign up for insurance in the first place. It would penalize them if they found a new job, or penalize them if they received a raise. This process of reconciling the actual income versus tax credits is often called a true up. Now, last December, as part our bill to prevent the SGR payment cuts from going into effect, we changed the true-up policy for the better. We converted it to a graduated income approach to protect those with middle income levels and enable us to ease away from the cliff that people face when they reach the 400 percent level. Now, let's talk briefly about health care reform. I know there is a lot in health care reform that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't agree with, but I like to think there is some they do agree with as well. One of the most important provisions of health care reform from a market perspective is the incentive it gave middle class families to work and get off of government health care. Let me explain. Before this House and the country took up health care reform, there were many families that were right at the cutoff point for Medicaid, okay. Let's say they are earning $10 an hour. If they got a raise to $10.50 an hour, they might lose thousands of dollars in government benefits. And I've met constituents who've said this. They've said: Look, I'm earning $9.50 an hour. I can't even take a raise at my job. I can't work another 20 hours a week at a side job because I actually lose money. So the government was telling them they couldn't work harder. The government was telling them we're going to trap you into a cycle of dependency. The government was telling them if you earn any more money, we're cutting off your health care. We replace that in the Affordable Care Act with something that I like to think has support from both sides of the aisles, and that is a sliding scale of reductions. So there is an actual incentive to get off of government health care, to get off of Medicaid, to better yourself and take that 50 cent raise, realizing you may not keep all 50 cents, you might lose a little bit. But, you know what, we're going to let you keep 30 cents of that, and 20 cents will go to decreasing your government benefits. And eventually you've weaned yourself off of government aid entirely and you're able to support health care. That is another misconception. It's not that people want to receive Medicaid or government health care; what they want is to be able to afford, to earn enough money to afford to have private insurance. That's the goal here. The Affordable Care Act helps them get there. This would strip that provision back and provide a disincentive for families making $75,000, $80,000 a year, depending on the size of the family, to work harder. America was built on a strong work ethic. We all, on both sides of the aisle, have a strong awareness of the market-based system we live in and the power of incentives. We should provide an incentive for middle class families to earn more, not earn less. Why do we penalize those who succeed? Why are the Republicans seeking to raise taxes on middle class families who are seeking to do a little bit better? We should encourage them to get that second home and make some rental income, to work another 10- or 20-hour-a-week job so they can send their kids to a good college. That's what this body should be discussing. Yet instead, we're about to present to the middle class in this country an enormous tax hike. Now to fund something we all agree, and that is why if this was an open process, as Republican leadership has repeatedly promised, we could come together around better ways to pay for it. Okay, you didn't like the way the Democrats proposed paying for it last year. And you know what, by the way, a lot of those pay- fors wound up in statute anyway paying for other bills, but let's work together to do that. Consistent with the cut-go proposal, let's make cuts in government expenditures somewhere to pay for closing this 1099 loophole. Let's not put it on the backs of middle class families earning $80,000, $90,000 a year, those who are least able to pay for a tax increase. You know, I was proud to support the continuation for 2 years of the Bush tax cuts at the end of last year, and let me tell you why. I think it would be unthinkable to raise taxes on families making under $250,000 a year. Now, I supported letting them expire for families making over $250,000 a year. You don't take pleasure in that, but it was because I felt we needed to do that to close the deficit. We couldn't leave that revenue on the table. But I felt it was so important to make sure that families making $80,000, $90,000, $100,000 a year didn't get a tax increase that I was willing to support no tax increase for millionaires as well as part of the package. And yet here we are in the third month of the Republican Congress with an enormous tax increase on those Americans who can least afford it, the very families who are making $80,000, $90,000 a year who form the backbone of the American middle class, facing a $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 tax increase because of the way the Republican majority has chosen to pay for what we all agree is a worthy cause: reducing paperwork for small businesses and home renters. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. This is not, as my colleague from Florida indicated, about fraud. The law has strong penalties for fraud already. Now, there's agreement to close this extra paperwork on the 1099. What we are supporting is an open process that would allow the majority to work with the minority to find a way to pay for solving this increased administrative overhead without raising taxes on American families. With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. The inquiry is regarding the underlying bill.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a question of how cleverly--or perhaps deviously--the majority party constructed the rules of the House with regard to a test as to whether presenting a family earning $80,000 a year with a bill for $3,000 from the IRS is a tax increase or not. It would take some pretty fancy tap dancing to say that a $3,000 or $4,000 bill from the IRS to a middle class family is not a tax increase. If it looks like a tax increase, if it smells like a tax increase, it is a tax increase. And it is contrary to the rules of the House to allow a tax increase in this kind of bill. Now, I understand there's some fancy dancing and semantics around it, but I think the American people and the voters of this country have a great deal of common sense with regard to this matter. When you get a $3,000 bill from the IRS that you have to pay--and if you don't pay, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle liked to point out during the debate on the health care bill, you could face going to prison-- that's a tax increase. That's a tax increase. What this bill does is tell hundreds of thousands of middle class families, particularly right on that cusp--we talk about this 400 percent of poverty rate, again, that's an arbitrary level, but it's a real level for families; it's X dollars. Now it depends on the size of the family and it depends on the State, but we're talking $80,000, $90,000 a year, right in that range. You earn, as my friend from New York pointed out, 250 bucks more, the IRS sends you a bill, $3,000, $4,000, $5,000; and if you don't pay it, you face going to prison. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to my friend from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Look, in a climate of a fragile economic recovery, the last thing we want do is punish people for getting a raise or earning a few extra dollars by working an extra job. Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to help small businesses, and that's something we all agree with. I ran a small business before I was elected to Congress, and there is great support from both sides of the aisle to making sure that we reduce the 1099 reporting requirements for small businesses and people who happen to have a rental home. But this is a situation of thanks, but no thanks. Thanks for saying I don't have to fill out an extra form because I bought a $600 refrigerator for my rental property, but no thanks because you are giving me a $5,000 bill from the IRS. This Republican proposal undoes a bipartisan agreement that passed overwhelmingly last Congress. Under this Republican pay-for, an average middle class family could find out in January that they have to come up with $12,000 by April to send to the IRS with their tax return, or they could face going to prison. An extra $100 in overtime here and a $500 holiday bonus there could send a working family towards tax court. During the last Congress, the Republican Party complained of being left out of the process; and while we didn't always have an open rule, every major piece of legislation came to the floor under a structured rule. Members of both parties come to the Rules Committee and have their amendments vetted. Now, why aren't we through this rule offering the good idea that the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) offered? He said why don't we remove the pay-for from this bill and simply disagree with CBO and see if we can pass it on that ground? Why are we not allowing the amendment from my friend from New York, who offered an amendment that would repeal the middle class tax increase proposed in this Republican bill? The Crowley amendment would protect the middle class and maintain the bipartisan agreement that we had last year. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the 1099 provisions in the Affordable Care Act need to be addressed. There has been excellent points made in that regard from Members from both sides of the aisle, but this is not the way to do it, not on the backs of the middle class, not with a tax hike during a recession. Republicans are proposing a substantial tax hike for the middle class. Not only is that bad policy, but it's also a violation of the pledge that many of them signed committing to oppose all tax increases. A tax increase is a tax increase. When you get a $3,000, or $4,000, or $5,000 bill from the IRS that you have to pay the IRS, it's called a tax increase. A tax increase. There is nothing else to call it. No fancy dancing, no fancy words can change the fact that a bill from the IRS is a tax increase. And families making $80,000, $90,000 a year will receive substantial tax increases under the Republican version of paying for this bill. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Mr. Crowley's amendment to the bill. That amendment simply says that nothing in the bill will apply if it would result in a tax increase on anyone whose income is less than 500 percent of the Federal poverty line. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. POLIS. I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, usually when something is killed, it stays dead. But just like in a bad zombie movie, some bad earmarks refuse to die and return to life time and time again as wasteful spending. That's what's happened with this bill and what this amendment corrects. There isn't an American taxpayer out there who hasn't heard of the Bridge to Nowhere. The Bridge to Nowhere has become synonymous with government waste. What Americans may be shocked to find out is a significant portion of the $454 million that Congress provided through eight separate earmarks in SAFETEA-LU is still available in Alaska to build these bridges. We fix that with this amendment and eliminate these return-from-the-dead earmarks with this amendment to save taxpayers money and restore credibility to Congress. Although Congress has tried to stop these bridges to nowhere by giving Alaska the authority to use its earmarked funds on other transportation projects, Alaska has still used $71 million of Federal funds provided under SAFETEA-LU to continue work on two bridges to nowhere. Sadly, Alaska's earmarked bridges to nowhere, like zombies eating the brains of taxpayers, refuse to die. Frankly, like most Americans I thought Federal funding for the bridges to nowhere was a thing of the past. ABC News reported in 2007 the Bridge to Nowhere is gone. This bridge had collapsed even before it was built after an onslaught of angry editorials, furious anti-pork citizen groups, and caustic jokes on late-night TV. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this zombie has climbed from its grave and is terrorizing American taxpayers to the tune of $180 million in deficit spending to build two bridges, one of which is a bridge that from an engineering perspective is comparable to the Golden Gate Bridge to an island with 50 people. Now, but wait, we are not calling it an earmark because we have abolished earmarks in this Congress. So, instead, we are taking Republican earmarks from previous sessions of Congress and calling them something else. Is that the new spending plan? Is that how we are going to balance the budget? Now, many Republicans in this body have used the bridges to nowhere as an example of wasteful spending. My colleague and friend from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) stated that ``while some earmarks fund worthy projects, there are some, such as the infamous `Bridge to Nowhere' that are wasteful uses of taxpayer money.'' My friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence) said, ``All spending bills passed in 2007 included some 11,000 earmarks. Those earmarks included wasteful spending for items such as a $20 million ferry are in Alaska benefiting just 40 people. That, of course, followed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere earmark from the 2005 highway bill.'' So here we have a wasteful expenditure that not only had its origin as an earmark but has been used by fiscal hawks from both sides of the aisle as the very example of a wasteful earmark. If Alaska wants to build a bridge to nowhere or a road to nowhere or a road to somewhere, bridge to somewhere, go ahead and do it, just do it without Federal tax dollars. My colleague from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) said: ``Taxpayers are tired of their hard-earned money paying for things like a Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, fruit fly research in France and a hippie museum in New York.'' Well, this bill doesn't fund a fruit fly museum in France or a hippie museum; but unless we act by passing this amendment, it will allow $183 million of taxpayer money to be spent for bridges for nowhere, wasteful spending we can't afford. Despite claims that the Bridge to Nowhere earmarks were eliminated, Alaska spent over $71 million of Federal money. You know, in 2006, when the Republicans lost their majority and entered the minority, Mr. Cantor, the leader, said Republicans have become ``a party of the Bridge to Nowhere.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, it looks like too little has changed. Unless this amendment passes, the Republicans once again will become a party lost on the Bridge to Nowhere. This motion rescinds all remaining funds, about $183 million provided for the planning, design and construction of the two bridges under SAFETEA-LU. In addition, the amendment prohibits the use of funds to finance these bridge projects. This is a very simple choice. There is no politics in this. We are not changing other parts of the bill, trying to catch people up. We are not putting up a vote to trap people for 30-second spots to say they are for pornography, like has been done in previous sessions while the bill is gutted elsewhere. What we are simply providing is a clean vote on the Bridge to Nowhere. According to the CBO, this motion will reduce the deficit by $160 million by eliminating funding for these two bridges, nothing else. Listen, for us to have the credibility as a Congress to make the tough cuts we need to balance the budget, to work together to pass a CR that cuts spending, to reduce spending in future years, Congress must have moral standing. Continuing to provide funding to be used for these bridges, the infamous Alaska bridges to nowhere, which most Americans like me thought were already dead, is not the way for Congress to build trust with the American people. So we have a choice today. We can vote to continue these most egregious earmarks; or we can stand by our words, our vows, and our values and vote for this amendment and finally put an end to wasteful spending and pet projects. Let me close with some words of wisdom from my colleague from West Virginia, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito: ``The days of members slipping in 'the bridge to nowhere' in the dead of night are over.'' I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to shine the light of day on this insidious example of pork, remove it from the bill and pass the House amendment. Summary In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) provided a total of $454 million for the construction of two bridges in Alaska--the Gravina Island bridge and the Knik Arm bridge--through eight separate earmarks in the law. Since 2005, the public, media, and Members of Congress have questioned the merits of these projects and condemned the use of scarce Federal surface transportation funds to finance these projects, commonly referred to as the ``Bridges to Nowhere.'' SAFETEA-LU provides $223 million of Federal-aid highway funds for the Gravina Island bridge. The $304 million bridge under consideration, which rivals the Golden Gate Bridge in size and scope, would serve an island of 50 people, who can access Ketchikan, Alaska, via a five-minute ferry ride. In addition, the act provides $231 million of Federal-aid highway funds for the Knik Arm Crossing project. The Knik Arm bridge is a project to build a 1.6-mile long bridge, 790-foot tunnel, and 18 miles of connecting roads at a cost of approximately $1.6 billion, including approximately $740 million for phase 1 of the project. Despite claims that the ``Bridges to Nowhere'' earmarks were eliminated, Alaska has spent more than $71 million of Federal SAFETEA-LU funds to proceed with these bridge projects and accompanying access roads over the past six years. The Motion to Recommit rescinds all remaining funds-- approximately $183 million--provided for planning, design, and construction of the Gravina Island and Knik Arm bridges under SAFETEA-LU. In addition, the motion prohibits the use of any funds provided under the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 to finance these bridge projects. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Motion to Recommit will reduce the Federal deficit by approximately $160 million over the next 10 years. These earmarks also contribute to Alaska's high rate of return for its gas tax contributions. Over the six-year period of SAFETEA-LU (FY 2004 through FY 2009), Alaska received an average $5.20 for each dollar that the State contributed to the Highway Trust Fund. Gravina Island Bridge Gravina Island is a small land mass (21 miles long and 9.5 miles wide) located in Ketchikan Gateway, Alaska. According to the latest Census data, the island has a population of 50 people. Ketchikan International Airport is located on the island. The island can be accessed by a five-minute ferry ride across Tongass Narrows from Ketchikan, and an average of 10,000 vehicles per month use the ferry crossing. A ferry arrives and departs every 15 to 30 minutes. Alaska received a total of $223 million in SAFETEA-LU to finance the construction of the Gravina Island bridge and accompanying access roads. Although Congress expanded the eligible uses of the earmarked funds in legislation subsequent to SAFETEA-LU, Alaska continues to be able to use these funds on the bridge and access road projects. In 2008, Alaska completed construction of the Gravina Island Highway to provide access to the proposed bridge. Alaska used $37.6 million of Federal funds provided under SAFETEA-LU for the project. Given that the bridge does not exist at this point, the road currently leads nowhere. According to the Alaska State Legislature Budget and Audit Committee, Alaska has specifically reserved $75.9 million of the remaining SAFETEA-LU funds to improve access to Gravina Island and is currently conducting a supplemental environmental impact statement that includes construction of a $304 million bridge as an alternative. According to the Federal Highway Administration, $125.8 million remains available for expenditure from the amounts provided in SAFETEA-LU for the Gravina Island bridge. Knik Arm Bridge The Knik Arm Bridge project proposes the construction of a 1.6-mile bridge across Knik Arm connecting Anchorage with the borough of Mat-Su, along with 18 miles of access roads to the bridge, at a cost of approximately $1.6 billion, including $740 million for construction of the bridge in phase 1 of the project. In 2003, Alaska established the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority to construct the bridge. On December 15, 2010, the Federal Highway Administration approved the Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision to construct the 8,200-foot bridge, 790-foot tunnel, and 18 miles of access roads. Alaska received a total of $231 million in SAFETEA-LU to finance the planning, design, and construction of the Knik Arm bridge and accompanying access roads. Although Congress expanded the eligible uses of the earmarked funds in legislation subsequent to SAFETEA-LU, Alaska has used $45.4 million of Federal funds provided under SAFETEA-LU for the project. According to the Federal Highway Administration, $57.4 million remains available for expenditure from the amounts provided in SAFETEA-LU for the Knik Arm bridge. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. One of the most critical issues to my constituents and Americans across the country, there is crying out for Congress to take action with regard to illegal immigration. This Nation has over 15 million people who are here illegally, and yet I don't hear one word about comprehensive immigration reform. Comprehensive immigration reform has strong majority support in polls from Republican voters, from Independent voters, and from Democratic voters. Comprehensive immigration reform would finally establish real border security, real employment verification, and require that people that are here illegally register, pay a fine and get right with the law. It is common sense for America, and it's time for Congress to take action on this critical issue. Lately I've heard that we might be discussing mandatory E-Verify. That would make the problem worse. E-Verify encourages a black market in Social Security numbers. We need real employment verification with fingerprints or eye IDs so we can identify who's there and don't simply contribute to a black market in Social Security numbers which can be bought and sold, only increasing crime in this country. My constituents are calling on Congress to take action on comprehensive immigration reform. I urge my colleagues to bring this important issue forward.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman from Georgia said let us do more to save money, and yet this rule shuts down the process and doesn't allow amendments from the minority, including one by Mr. Dicks that saved over $1 billion and would have reduced the deficit by over $500 million. And yet again, through this closed rule, we are unable to do more, thanks to this restrictive rule by the Republican majority. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself as much time as remains. Mr. Speaker, we all share the goal of reducing the deficit. But if we are serious about deficit reduction, we need to look at defense as one of the line items. I am a member of the Spending Cuts and Deficit Reduction Working Group, and I have worked with my colleagues to identify more than $70 billion in savings that could be used for deficit reduction. If Republicans truly claim to be committed to deficit reduction, then why, as they cut millions from programs like Even Start and LEAP, do they spare defense spending? The short term CR carries forward the 2010 defense budget, but the policies, priorities, and levels proposed for 2010 no longer apply. Our current military expenditures support bloated troop levels and bases across Europe that quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, are relics of a bygone era. Rather than fighting the demons of the past, we need to focus on the very real threats of the present and future. Who are we fighting? The Nazis, the Soviets, the French? It's time for us to rethink our defense spending. It's clear that the current strategy is one that we cannot afford. The expenditures in Afghanistan are $100 billion. It's been estimated that there is only, at most, 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. That's a spending level of $1 billion per al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan. Most of al Qaeda's operations have moved across the border to Pakistan, and they have also gained a foothold in Yemen. Meanwhile, we are bogged down in a costly war with no clear end game. Let's get serious about balancing the budget. Let's find savings in every agency, including the Department of Defense. Until we get serious about controlling defense spending, the largest component of the discretionary budget, we will never achieve our goals of reducing the deficit. This CR claims to only cut earmarks, but in reality we are playing a shell game. This continuing resolution states that earmarks have no legal effect, which means that agencies have not been funding these programs. It means the Department of Homeland Security, for example, will have $264 million less to prepare and respond to threats and disasters and protect our ports. Two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, Members from both sides of the aisle proposed amendments to enact even more cuts. My friend from New York (Mr. Nadler) proposed cutting funding to Afghanistan so that we could have a responsible withdrawal, saving $90 billion. My friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake) proposed a very reasonable cut to the Department of Defense's operation and maintenance budget so that we could get rid of funding for unneeded boards and commissions. I have also heard from many of my Republican friends that we want to go back to 2008 levels. Well, my colleagues from California, Mr. Stark and Ms. Lee, proposed to do just that with the defense budget. Let's get real on deficit reduction and lead the way with real cuts that actually balance the budget. The President is proposing real change for public education through funding for the Investing in Innovation and Early Learning Challenge funds. We see none of these solutions in the proposed CR. As we look to agree on a budget for the rest of the fiscal year, it's critical that we have meaningful resources for our public schools, particularly at a time when they are under increasing budget pressure from districts and State cutbacks. Education of our children in their youngest years is a research-proven return on investment. We have no second or third chance with kids. They are only young once. By ending literacy support for our children and restricting proven school improvements in repeated short-term CRs, we run the risk of opening the door to a spending agenda that eliminates jobs. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we give the markets and businesses the predictability that they need with regard to the ongoing operations of government. A 2-week continuing resolution simply fails to do that. We will be back before this body, again, to do it again regardless of the outcome today. But I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can work across the aisle to put together a real long-term solution to keep the Federal Government open. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire if the other side has any remaining speakers.