Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson). (Ms. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. POLIS. I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 4 days, the Federal Government will run out of money. We must ask ourselves, how did we get into this dire situation where we are 4 days away from critical Federal services being closed and our Federal Government being unable to meet its obligations. Today we are racing the clock to avoid this shutdown in large part because we have squandered the past 2 weeks debating H.R. 1, a ridiculous spending bill that contained some cuts so extreme it had no realistic chance of ever being passed into law and left other areas of the budget that both sides have generally agreed need to be cut untouched. H.R. 1 also had every bit of social legislation from the Republican majority, including gutting the ability of EPA to protect our air and our water and defunding Planned Parenthood and family planning, so that it had a threat of a Presidential veto and faces no realistic prospects of passage in the Senate. So rather than working with Democrats in the House and Senate to craft a real long-term CR that would preserve the gains of our economy and invest in our future, Republicans have squandered the past few weeks to pass their out-of-touch and unrealistic spending bill that would prove devastating to our economy, our safety, our health, and, yes, our values. Their draconian spending bill would destroy 700,000 jobs, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's and former adviser to Senator John McCain. And as Goldman Sachs said, their long-term CR would ``stall the economic recovery and reduce U.S. economic growth.'' In fact, just this morning more than 300 economists from across the country warned against the massive GOP spending bill, stating that, ``as economists, we believe it is shortsighted to make budget cuts that eliminate necessary investments in our human capital, our infrastructure, and the next generation of scientific and technological advances. These cuts threaten our economy's long-term economic competitiveness.'' Mr. Speaker, today's continuing resolution meets our shared goal of preventing a Federal Government shutdown, but at what cost? And for how long? We are committed to reducing the deficit beginning with an aggressive attack on waste, fraud, and abuse. Every Member in this body owes it to our constituents to responsibly cut spending and balance the budget without sacrificing jobs or weakening our economy. Time and time again, the Republican leadership has told us that they want to proceed in an open and transparent fashion, and yet here we are again, facing another closed rule, shutting down amendments from both sides and stifling the legislative process and good cost-cutting ideas from both sides of the aisle. In fact, yesterday in the Rules Committee, my colleagues took a party-line vote to block an amendment from the top ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Dicks. Mr. Dicks' amendment would have cut more funds than the Republican bill and, at the same time, restored funds for education programs. In the spirit of the urgent need for cost-cutting and balancing the deficit, I think this body should consider ideas from both sides of the table and allow a rule that allows for discussion of the Dicks amendment and other ideas to cut costs even further than this CR allows. This CR may succeed in keeping the government open from March 5 through March 18, which I think we all agree is necessary. But we also all know that 2 weeks is not nearly enough time to negotiate a long- term solution to the enormous spending challenges we face, especially when the Constitution guarantees the President 10 of those days to decide whether to sign or veto the bill. The other side had discussed, at the end of last session, the need to have stability with regard to what kind of taxes people and businesses can expect over time. And at the end of last session, we passed a bill that set predictability for 2 years so people and businesses know what their taxes will be. Well, the other side of that coin is we need predictability and stability around appropriations and the general activities of government. It is stifling to the economy and stifling to job creation for people to be uncertain as to whether the largest enterprise in our country, the Federal Government, will or won't be solvent in 4 days' time. This is my third year in Congress and already the fourth time I've managed a rule on a short-term CR. The shortened timeline set out by this CR sets the stage for a devastating shutdown crisis every 2 weeks that will bring legislating to a standstill, impede hopes of long-term economic growth, and create enormous overhang on the markets because of this great uncertainty that is of our own creation. We are also undermining, through this CR, Mr. Speaker, investments in our own future. Take the cuts to literacy programs, for example. Building an excellent public education system that ensures that each and every child has an opportunity to succeed is the most important investment we can make in our Nation's future and developing our human capital which helps keep America competitive. This is an investment that I have spent much of my life to support and achieve--on the State Board of Education, as a founder of a charter school, and now here in Congress. What we see now, however, from the proposed short-term CR is the elimination of the Striving Readers Fund, which supports literacy for students from preschool through 12th grade. With American students' reading scores stagnating for the past 30 years, this proposal makes no sense. Striving Readers is the only targeted Federal literacy funding for preschool through 12th grade. And particularly at a time of State and local budgets cuts, these resources are more important than ever. Now, we can agree that Striving Readers should be improved. In fact, I am working, along with Congressman Yarmuth, to provide the LEARN Act, which would ensure that teachers and students have innovative strategies and data-backed tools to improve reading and writing. The administration's proposal would build on the progress of the Striving Readers program. President Obama said in his State of the Union address: It's not just about how we cut, but what we cut. Republicans have mistakenly claimed that the administration also wants to eliminate Striving Readers, but they neglect to mention that the administration's 2012 budget proposes instead to revise, improve Striving Readers. The goal is not to reduce and eliminate Federal support for literacy; it is to consolidate and make more efficient Federal support for literacy, to strengthen literacy performance expectations, scale up innovative methods of teaching reading, writing, and language arts. In fact, nearly all States, 44, have applied for the first $10 million in the Striving Readers allocation that was available and have developed State literacy plans as a result. My home State of Colorado has been awarded $150,000 for these important projects. Literacy is the foundation of learning. It is the gateway to other content areas that are increasingly important in the global society, like science and math. Destroying the foundation of literacy is cutting off our Nation's own legs. Education is an investment in our future. By pulling the rug out from under our schools and children, Republicans seem willing to sacrifice our future prospects as a Nation. Education is how America can reclaim our edge in job creation, bring jobs back to our shores, become better business leaders, and provide a livable wage for working families. We all agree that cuts must be made. But as the Romans said, caveat emptor, may the buyer beware. By agreeing to cuts in repeated short- term CRs, we run the risk of opening the door to a spending agenda that arbitrarily kills jobs, hurts our communities, completely undermines education reform, and we do nothing to promote the stability of the Federal Government that markets require to allow businesses to thrive and grow. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

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

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. I join the gentleman from Washington in praising the gentleman from California, the chair of the Rules Committee, with regard to the modified open process that this body was able to undertake. But again, with regard to this particular bill before us, what the gentleman from California said is that the Democrats would be allowed to offer an amendment that would spend more but not allowed to offer a substitute amendment that would spend less. The Democrats, in fact, don't have a desire to offer forward a substitute amendment that spends more. We do have a desire to offer a substitute amendment that Mr. Dicks came forward that does spend less. The rule doesn't allow for that. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. H.R. 1 cannot be looked at as a serious budget document. Now, it's not about the cuts--$61 billion, $70 billion, we can come to a number that we can agree. And by the way, you can't come to a serious number without making sure that defense is also on the table. But what we have with H.R. 1 is a bill that loads up every piece of the far-right social agenda in one bill, from restricting a woman's right to choose, to preventing government from protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink. So if we want to have a discussion about a serious budget document and serious cuts, that's one thing. If we want to have a far- right dream list, that's another. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with the people of various Arab countries that have risen up to throw off the yoke of tyranny that has oppressed them for too long. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for us to let our idealism trump our cynicism; a time for hope, not fear. I understand that there are people who are worried about the realpolitik of how developments might lead to changes in the world, but most Americans, Mr. Speaker, have deep and abiding sympathy for any who have democratic aspirations across the world. We support, as a country, the aspirations of all people to be heard in their government. The only just government is one that governs by the consent of the governed. For too long, Mr. Speaker, too many Arabs and too many people across the world have suffered under unresponsive and tyrannical leaders; and now is a time for hope, to change that and create a new Middle East that better supports democratic values.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, we all share the goal of reducing the deficit. If we are serious about deficit reduction, we need to look at defense as one of the line items. My amendment would save hundreds of millions of dollars by reducing our troop count in Europe. Instead of having over 80,000 troops in Europe where they are no longer needed, we would reduce the amount of troops in Europe to 35,000. This would allow the Department of Defense to save money by closing bases in Europe that don't have any strategic rationale. Deploying our troops out of Europe and closing these bases is an excellent way to help reduce expenditures and save money. My amendment would only cut 7,500 troops which would save $278 million. An additional 35,000 troops would be available for deployment to actual theaters where we have a strategic interest. So it would enhance our preparedness at the same time as saving money. This step would save $278 million and improve our national security. Reducing our troop levels would save money, personnel costs, housing expenses and the cost of stationing troops abroad. On top of these savings, my amendment will allow us to close bases across Europe that, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, 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 the future. We are no longer in a battle with the Nazis. We are no longer in a battle with the Soviets. The need for these bases was understandable in a different geopolitical context. But what is their justification now? The U.S. taxpayer did not sign up to defend wealthy European democracies from imaginary threats forever. These bases cost U.S. taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. I fail to understand why we're wasting money to maintain bases where they aren't needed. Our European Allies are some of the richest countries in the world. Why are we subsidizing their defense spending? Our European allies have enjoyed a free ride on the American dime for years now. Today, they spend on average only 2 percent of GDP on defense, while we spend between 4 and 5 percent. There's no reason for us to subsidize European defense while every other aspect of our government we are looking at for cuts. I understand that many of the troops stationed in Europe have in the past been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. My amendment is consistent with that. Currently 13,000 troops stationed in Germany and Iraq are deployed in our theaters of operation. My amendment would allow for that to continue. It allows for 35,000 troops, well within the number that are currently deployed in actual theaters where we have a strategic interest. Nor does my amendment signal any kind of weakening of our commitment to NATO. With modern technology, we can move troops and weapons quickly across the globe when needed. My amendment would still allow for 35,000 troops to remain in Europe so they can do joint exercises with NATO. It is time for us to rethink our defense spending. We are not under threat in Europe. Maintaining a network of bases in Europe is not a rational or effective response to the terrorist threat, nor is it fiscally responsible. These cuts are not my idea. They are based on recommendations from the Sustainable Defense Task Force, a bipartisan project organized by Congressman Frank, Congressman Paul, Congressman Jones, and Senator Wyden and backed by a number of credible organizations, CATO Institute, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Center for American Progress, Center for Defense Information, National Security Network and others. Even Donald Rumsfeld believes it is time to change our policy. This is his quote from his recent book: ``Of the quarter million troops deployed abroad in 2011, more than 100,000 were in Europe, the vast majority stationed in Germany to fend off an invasion by a Soviet Union that no longer existed. I believed our troops had to do more than serve as security blankets for wealthy allied nations.'' When even Donald Rumsfeld admits that this policy doesn't make sense and isn't cost justified, we must seriously reconsider our policy maintaining bases in regions that are clearly peaceful and pose no threat. Let's get serious about balancing the budget and find savings in every agency, including DOD. Reducing our military presence in Europe is low-hanging fruit. This will save money. The time is now. The time was last year. The time was 3 years ago. After the fall of the Soviet Union, there fails to be a strategic rationale to maintain our current troop levels or expenditure levels in the European theater. My amendment will save taxpayer money and improve military preparedness for conflicts in zones where America has a strategic imperative to fight the global war on terrorism. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. The gentleman from Ohio mentioned that the troops are an effective deterrent. I would simply ask, who are we deterring from attacking Germany and Italy? Might I inquire as to how much time remains on either side.

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

Mr. POLIS. Since he didn't want to answer on my time, I will be happy to yield my 20 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio, and again, who are we deterring from attacking Italy and Germany?

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, again, the gentleman cited that they would be a deterrent, so I was just trying to clarify who we were attempting to deter. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. There are over 20 million acres of Federal land in Colorado. I want to be clear with, of course, great respect to my colleague from Ohio. This is not in any way, shape or form a giveaway to our counties. This is land we cannot tax, we cannot develop, we cannot benefit from. In fact, PILT payments are insufficient. They're too low to compensate for the burden of having all this land that's not part of our local tax base. It is a burden. In fact many of our counties have to actually spend money maintaining this land because some of the Federal infrastructure isn't sufficient as well. There is nobody who's making out like a bandit from this and it's all we can do to justify the fact that the Federal Government owns a lot of land.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with the chair and the ranking member to ensure that the administration has all the tools they need to make sure that the limited resources they have for expansion or replication of models that we know work are used in the highest-leveraged way possible. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California, ranking member of the Education Committee.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, this amendment would help increase the ability of the administration to leverage the resources they already have to support expansion and replication of charter schools that have shown to be effective. Basically, this amendment will remove a regulation that prevents subgranting and doesn't allow charter school grants to be done through intermediaries, which are generally venture philanthropy organizations like New Schools Venture Fund and Charter School Growth Network. These organizations have proven that they can help guide charter schools and CMOs, organizations that manage one or two charter schools and help build them into successful, multisite organizations that support student success. These venture philanthropy organizations use the same model in the nonprofit sense--I want to emphasis they are nonprofits--as venture capital does in the private sector and support excellence in the charter schools that are part of their portfolio. They encourage rigorous evaluations. They provide strategic guidance to board membership. One of the issues we frequently have with charter schools is lack of quality governance. These intermediaries actually can help establish quality governance, which is such an important determinant of whether a charter school is successful or not. They can provide flexibility and provide specific interventions as needed. When something isn't working, they can help. Finally, it will empower the administration to help be able to work through venture philanthropy organizations to better leverage Federal funds. If you have X dollars in Federal funds, they can combine that with two-X or three-X in private philanthropic capital they have raised to have a more meaningful impact on student achievement, to help expand and replicate what we know works with regard to charter schools.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I think that this amendment is typical of many of the proposals from the other side of the aisle that paint with a broad brush the entire Federal Government. This is a complex world. A President needs an ability to govern. The President relies on many of these executive positions to effectively govern this country. It is not a Democratic or Republican thing. It is about having an effective executive and effective administrative branch. That doesn't mean that there is not common ground; and while I certainly oppose this amendment, I would love to work with the gentleman and others to look at these positions one by one. We have discussed a proposal to eliminate the drug czar, for instance. The drug czar's office spends $21 million a year, and yet drug use has gone up since its inception, illegal drug use. There are ways that we can work together, but a blatant removal of the ability of a President to effectively govern the country is not a wise measure, and one that I rise in opposition to. I encourage a more thoughtful discussion that could in fact lead to the elimination of some of these so-called czar positions. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I would simply like to conclude that with the passage of the Nadler-Lee-Stark amendment as part of an underlying continuing resolution will allow America to focus on the real stateless terrorist threats to our Nation by preventing us from being bogged down in one particular occupation in a country that has no significant al Qaeda presence. I yield back.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.