Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, the ongoing war in Afghanistan is, quite simply, the wrong war in the wrong time and in the wrong place. Intelligence experts agree that a terrorist threat to our Nation does not emanate from within the borders of the nation of Afghanistan. There is a very real terrorist threat to the people of this country; but by its very nature, it is a stateless menace. It is a menace that is likely to use as its base of operation wherever anarchy prevails and wherever the rule of law is lacking. We cannot effectively combat this threat by occupying one country after another after another. It is true that, when we occupy a country, al Qaeda and other terrorist operations will likely flee for other areas; but there are unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, plenty of areas of the world that provide hospitable footholds for al Qaeda, which is why a more effective strategy this Nation is currently also engaged in--but which to a certain extent is not complementary to the heavy-handed occupation strategy--is that of more light targeted operations and intelligence gathering and operations against terrorist operatives wherever they are. To be bogged down in one particular nation state, one that is host to a negligible number of al Qaeda operatives--it has been estimated that there are only 50 to 100 al Qaeda operatives--is simply counterproductive to the goal of keeping the American people safe. Beyond being counterproductive, Mr. Chairman, this is money that we can't afford. This amendment, which I strongly support, will cut $90 billion from the occupation of Afghanistan, allowing $10 billion to be used to safely bring the conflict to an end and to maintain a lighter footprint of military operations to ensure that al Qaeda does not regain a stronghold within the borders of Afghanistan. It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that the current strategy is not working. The expenditures in Afghanistan currently are $100 billion. That is more than $1 billion per al Qaeda operative within the borders of Afghanistan. Most of al Qaeda's operations have moved across the border to Pakistan, and they have gained a foothold in Yemen. Meanwhile, we remain bogged down in a costly war without any clear end game that can be articulated by the people on the ground. When we enter a military scenario, it is critical to define what success looks like. The nation-building operation undertaken with regard to the occupation of Afghanistan does not have a clear outcome that is reachable. The situation there will not be better in 6 months or in a year or in 2 years or in 3 years. It is time to stop sending American taxpayer money that we don't have to a war that does not further the security interests of the American people. That is why I am a strong supporter of the Nadler-Lee-Stark amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, which is a broad, sweeping measure, not only against important protections for students, which I'll elaborate on, but it also leads to potential exposure for taxpayers and taxpayer money. This amendment would not only eliminate the ability to have the critical gainful employment regulation, some element of quality control to make sure that after receiving sometimes very expensive education somebody's actually more employable, but it would also undo existing transparency that's already approved and published, to disallow basic information on student outcomes, including graduation rates as well as loan default and payment rates. Now, the reason this is such an important matter to Congress is that this is a critical matter for taxpayers. Taxpayers have been paying the cost for excessive loan default rates of poorly performing for-profit colleges. Specifically, for-profit higher education institutions received $24 billion in title IV loans and Pell Grants in 2009, accounting for about a quarter of the Federal college loan dollars, despite them comprising only about 10 percent of the higher education institutions. Meanwhile, students from the for-profit colleges have loan default rates after 3 years about twice the rate of all college defaults and rising to 25 percent. Now, these are averages. That doesn't matter. What matters is: Does it work? Does it work for kids? Are they getting their money's worth? Are taxpayers getting their money's worth by helping people attend these institutions, or are we graduating students with a mountain full of debt, no more employable than the day they walked into that door. To make the matter even worse, in 2009, the average tuition of the for-profit institution is $14,000 per year, compared to $7,000 per year for average 4-year universities and $2,500 for community colleges. Now, again, what I would look at would be the return on investment. Are they providing twice the value of a 4-year or community college? The data says no. Are they providing six times the value of community colleges and making somebody employable in the future? The answer, by and large, again is no. That's why the Higher Education Act authorized the Education Department regulations that this amendment would block. I strongly support the process that the administration has gone through, including the process on the rule on gainful employment. The administration has not turned a deaf ear to the industry, to the legitimate concerns of quality operators. The first rule that they put out there was--I think they've acknowledged had some room for improvement. They've been working daily in conjunction with the responsible players in the for-profit education industry to establish a real playing field to ensure that we are not doing these students and taxpayers a disservice through this program. GAO has detailed the issues in its report last summer, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights wrote to the U.S. Education Department a couple of weeks ago that the rule will benefit minority students, as they disproportionately enroll at for-profit schools, overpaying for poorer quality education, as compared to the public counterparts. The proposed rule is a reasonable way to ensure gainful employment for students, and I applaud the administration for taking on this difficult battle for minority students, to ensure basic transparency and to protect taxpayer funds. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I move to strike the last word in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chairman, this spending bill is simply unacceptable on many levels. This is a bill drafted for a sound bite, not sound policy for the American people. Handcuffing the EPA is proof of that fact, and I have and will continue to oppose those attempts and propose amendments where possible. This CR arbitrarily kills jobs, hurts the public health, and is a slap in the face to protecting our environment and clean air. This CR will set our country back decades by curtailing scientific research simply because Republicans don't like what the science says. Worse yet, it puts our children's health at risk by handcuffing the EPA's ability to simply police polluters. The American public needs real solutions and thoughtful policies, not sound bytes. This bill is a backhanded way of achieving a policy objective. Just because the Republican Party doesn't like what the overwhelming science is telling us and they've stopped time and time again any meaningful reform, now they're attempting to legislate in a spending bill. This bill simply continues the false logic often employed by Republicans: underfund an agency, then complain about its ineffectiveness, then call for further cuts because the program didn't have the funds to work in the first place. Madam Chairman, the EPA is working hard to protect us from pollution in a responsible way that spurs the economy. This CR prohibits any funding from being used to carry out the EPA's power plant pollution safeguards, the rules that target the largest power plants and prevent them from polluting our air. The rules also spur economic growth. A recent study by MIT found that nearly 1.5 million jobs could be created by simply letting the EPA ensure that over time power companies move towards cleaner power plants. That's 1.5 million jobs cut by this CR. Furthermore, this provision only harms an industry by giving it increased uncertainty and not allowing them to plan for the future. In some cases, it might even lock up permits from going to companies that are a normal part of business. We don't need sound bites; we need sound policy. The Clean Air Act guards the most vulnerable Americans, those with asthma and other lung disease, children, older adults, people with heart disease and diabetes, from the danger, the real danger of airborne pollutants, including threats from mercury, carbon dioxide and methane. Each year, the act prevents tens of thousands of ill health effects, including preventing asthma attacks, heart attacks and, yes, preventing premature death. This year alone, the Clean Air Act will save more than 160,000 lives, according to estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency. Forty years of evidence shows that these health benefits come not only without harm to the economy but with benefits to the economy. Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has cut emissions by 60 percent. At the same time, the economy has grown by more than 200 percent. Madam Chair, I implore the majority party to stop making grand gestures attempting to bully the EPA. Let it do its job of protecting your family and my family from dangerous pollution. Let it do its job to keep our air and our water clean. This CR is a polluter's dream and a public health nightmare. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman of California (Ms. Chu), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this Patriot Act really speaks to our very core identity as Americans. How do we balance what makes it special to be an American--with our unprecedented levels of rights that we enjoy, our privacy as individuals, our civil liberties--and reconcile that with staying safe in an incredibly complex world? I think it is critical for any of us who are concerned about the unchecked growth of this state, those of us who seriously believe in protecting the rights and liberties of Americans, to seriously look at these issues and debate them. A ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill is the first step towards accomplishing that. The House was in session late into the night, as it likely will be again tonight, on a very important topic: cutting spending. I've put several suggestions forward. I appreciate this process which has enabled Members to come up with how we are going to cut. There have been a lot of great ideas that have been submitted through amendments. I would submit that this Patriot Act and balancing our civil liberties with our security is as important a topic with regard to what it means to be an American as is making cuts in our budget. I voted against the adjournment resolution yesterday. I think that, if we were in session next week and put the time into solving the issues under the Patriot Act that we're putting into making budget cuts, we would be able to come to a consensus that protects our civil liberties and that also keeps Americans safe from the threat of terrorism. The majority argues that we must pass this extension now without any process. It has also been alluded to that there were not hearings in the last Congress. There actually were. The Judiciary Committee held two hearings on the Patriot Act in 2009. It has been said, Oh, there hasn't been time to hold hearings in this Congress because the Judiciary Committee just constituted itself. Well, they found time to hold 10 hearings on items that have not even come to the floor. So surely there would have been time for one hearing on an item that everybody knew was going to expire and needed to be dealt with. Those of us who joined Congress in the last session as well as our new Members this session, many of whom are on the other side of the aisle, have not had any classified briefings on how this authority that has been given to the Federal Government has been used. How can we exercise meaningful oversight with regard to these three provisions of the Patriot Act, and the Patriot Act in general, if we are not given the benefit of finding out exactly how these broad powers that have been given to the Federal Government have been used? If this passes today--and I expect it might--it is critical that we take the next 90 days to make sure that Congress can properly execute its oversight upon the next need for renewing the necessary provisions of the Patriot Act. There is a window of time that will afford the Judiciary Committee to do its work in a bipartisan way, which is to include other Members through a classified briefing to find out how and when the powers under the Patriot Act have been used, so that Members of this body can make an informed decision, an informed decision about how to move forward in 90 days in protecting our rights as Americans and in protecting our security as Americans. The two are not irreconcilable, and we cannot sacrifice what makes it special to be an American in the name of security--or the terrorists will have won. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill. I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to respond. Absolutely the Patriot Act can be used to investigate and find out private records from innocent Americans, and we say that because section 215 can be used for any information relevant to an investigation. It doesn't need to be from the subject of an investigation. It can be Internet records, what they buy at a bookstore, what they get at a library. The Judiciary Committee has had time to have 10 hearings this year. It is just none of them have happened to be on this particular topic. Apparently it is not important enough to discuss. How are we to know whether violations have occurred if we don't have the benefit of a classified briefing before making this vote? Saying no court has found or there haven't been reported violations, well, that is because all of this is hush-hush and secret, as some of it needs to be, and I would agree. But for us to execute our oversight function, you can't just simply say there haven't been abuses because we don't know about them. We have to find out about what has been going on under this law and execute our judgment as an elected body representing our country to decide whether there have or haven't been abuses. I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, again, I would hope and I know that the gentleman and the chair of the Rules Committee's intentions and goals, as are the Speaker's, are more transparency in this Congress. And I don't think it's particularly helpful to cite what may be a failure of the Democrats to deliver on reforming the Patriot Act and say, therefore, we don't have to succeed either in reforming the Patriot Act. I want to discuss the importance of this vote. We all agree that this affects our national security and the civil liberties of Americans. And yet, unfortunately, from a process perspective, we have reverted back to getting this through first on a suspension vote, then on a long-term extension, and now on a short-term extension. Again, there is no doubt that the short-term extension is favorable to a long-term extension from those of us who have legitimate concerns, and I think there is even a bipartisan consensus that these concerns are legitimate about the overreach of the Patriot Act. We will have, as a result of this, a 90-day period to try to work through, in a bipartisan, way some of our concerns and make sure that we protect what is special about being Americans. We had an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee late last night, which was the second emergency meeting for this bill alone. Again, I think we all knew coming into this Congress that these provisions were set to expire. There would have been time for the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings and even a markup with regard to this bill, because they have held hearings with regard to other bills. They were constituted. They held hearings on immigration, on abortion, on other topics. And I think that, regardless of where one stands on this bill, it rises to the level of importance for American citizens that we do strike the right balance between security and protection of civil liberty. If House Republicans are going to honor the promise of openness and transparency, we must make sure that they do schedule the hearings and markups that are necessary to have a proper debate of this bill. Now, this new version before us today, the short-term CR, provides a window for that; and I am hopeful that the chairs of the respective committees of jurisdiction and subcommittees will be able to offer some assurances to members of both parties that are concerned that this 90-day period will be used to improve upon the bill, to hold hearings on the bill, and offer classified briefings for Members so we can determine exactly how these authorities have been used. Only after the initial effort to push this bill through under suspension failed did Republican leadership bring it to the floor under a closed rule. New Members have not even had a classified briefing, nor have I, the Members from last session, so it's hard for us to understand exactly how these authorities that are delegated are being used. It is clear that there's bipartisan support to improve this law. In fact, even as we speak, the Senate is debating several versions of the long-term reauthorization bill, and I think there's a very legitimate and important security concern in support of long-term reauthorization so law enforcement can plan accordingly and have long-term planning with regard to exactly what powers and the balances they have with protecting civil liberties they will have. I think we can all agree a 90-day extension is not the right answer. It's not the right answer for law enforcement. It's not the right answer for protecting our civil liberties. It may be an answer that affords us a chance to get it right, and I would call upon members of both parties to work hard to do that. Apart from the procedural flaws with the process, the Patriot Act is a bill that really has been plagued with abuse since it was first passed. After 10 years of public record, there are some clear sections of the law that need to be improved. And yet here we are again. Instead of debating those sections of the law and finding solutions we can agree on, we are facing an up-or-down vote on this bill with very little debate. This reauthorization fails to provide the administration with the tools and predictability it needs to fully protect and defend our Nation. The administration supports a permanent reauthorization and has asked for a real one, and I think they are willing to work with us in this body on improving the Patriot Act. So this bill fails both to please the advocates pushing to reform the Patriot Act and also fails to provide for the administration, whose job it is to protect our country. Again, we ask why is the Republican Party jamming this bill through here, today, instead of debating a real bill that would improve our national security. This bill before us today specifically reauthorizes three provisions of the Patriot Act. Section 215 allows the government to capture any tangible thing, any business record that might be relevant to a terrorist investigation. That can include medical records, a diary, even, in one case, books that have been checked out of a library. There was a library where somebody checked out a book about Osama bin Laden, and who that person was was reported on. In the past, these orders were limited to certain classes of businesses and records and also required that we show specific facts that pertain to an agent of a foreign power. And if the Patriot Act is stripped away of those basic requirements, that's something I think that every American who values privacy should be concerned about. This section 215 goes against the basic constitutional notions of search and seizure. We began this session of Congress by reading the Constitution on the floor of the House, and this really comes at the very core identity of what it means to be an American. The government, under our Constitution, is required to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before they can infringe upon an American's privacy. We should seriously consider making changes to this section instead of blindly giving the government the ability to secretly spy on its citizens. Section 206, the second provision of the bill, allows the government to conduct the roving wiretaps. These allow the government to obtain surveillance warrants that don't even specify a certain person or an object that's going to be tapped. Another problem with this is the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution, which again I'm sure all my colleagues are familiar with, having read it on the floor of the House. It states that warrants must specify the person and places to be seized and searched with particularity. This is to make sure the executive branch doesn't have unfettered power to decide single-handedly who and how to search private citizens and seize their property. The Founding Fathers were concerned and worried about the possibility of a central government authority issuing general warrants that would give it far-reaching power to spy on its citizens and intervene in their private lives. That's an American value that we share today, and I think it's critical to craft protections for our privacy as Americans that can be consistent with the need to secure our country before authorizing the government such overwhelming power. The final section would be the lone wolf provision, which allows secret surveillance of noncitizens in the U.S. These are foreign citizens who are here legally, even if they are not connected to a terrorist group or foreign power. So, again, this authority is only granted in a secret court. So from our perspective in Congress, without having had the benefit of a classified briefing, it's very difficult for us to exercise any meaningful oversight on a provision when we're not aware of how or if it's been used. My friends on the other side of the aisle have said in numerous debates that they are worried about the growth of government. Yet, in spite of the recent rhetoric about how the government is trying to take control over our lives, this bill, their fifth bill under rules since taking control of the House, actually gives the government the ability to spy on innocent Americans. No wonder so many Republicans joined Democrats in voting against this bill earlier this week. I encourage my colleagues to continue standing strong for civil liberties. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill, it's important to talk about what this bill would do and how the Patriot Act really cuts to the heart of what it means to be American, that sensitive balance that we have between protecting what makes it special to be an American, our rights as individuals, our civil liberties, balancing that with the need for national security. I am opposed to the rule and the bill. We need to have law enforcement make sure that it has the provisions it needs to combat the very real threat of terrorism. However, the Patriot Act strikes that balance in the wrong way. But rather than actually debating the merits of the provisions and coming up with solutions that I think we can agree on with both sides of the aisle, as we have done in the past, the Republican leadership is forcing this through without the proper debate or transparency. In spite of their plethora of promises to change the culture of Congress, here we are without a single hearing on this topic, without a classified briefing for Members so we know what has and hasn't been done under the Patriot Act. Specifically, we are discussing the continuation of three provisions of the Patriot Act. We have the lone wolf provision, which relates to foreign nationals in our country that are not specifically connected to a foreign terrorist network or foreign government or represent a security threat. We have the roving wiretap provision, again particularly problematic in how it's been designated where you don't have to even designate whose phone you are tapping or the area in which the phone is being tapped. All that has to be shown is that it might be a phone that is used by somebody who might be considered a suspect by someone without any oversight with regard to that matter. There's nothing to restrict it from being used to tap the phones of an entire neighborhood, an entire block, an entire city. Has it been used for that? I don't know, because we haven't had yet a classified briefing on this matter. I certainly hope, and it's been stated in our prior debate on this, that it was the intention of our colleagues on the other side to hold hearings and a classified briefing prior to the 90-day period in which this expires.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. I object.

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment with my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a strong advocate for commonsense policies. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply changes the date by which the bill rescinds obligated funds. By moving the date to the end of the fiscal year, September 30, it allows for everyone, from local government to innovative clean-tech companies, the ability to plan for the rest of their fiscal year and not have grants yanked from under their feet. We should not change the rules on people in the middle of the game. It really calls into question the reliability of the Federal Government. There are so many grants in the queues of these agencies. And calling all funds unobligated after February 11 will be devastating to local communities and small businesses that are just looking for long-term stability throughout the rest of the fiscal year. Changing the rules after the fact is never a strong, good practice. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is pro-business, pro-infrastructure, pro-local government, and deserves to be supported. The amendment is also fiscally responsible and meets the House budget rules. My State of Colorado provides an example as to why this date should be changed. Colorado was awarded a $10 million TIGER/TIFIA Challenge grant through the Recovery Act that expands one of the most heavily used and heavily congested highways in our State, creating jobs, fostering economic development, multi-modal transportation, the lifeblood of my congressional district and the greater State of Colorado. This $10 million investment helps leverage additional funds in the area, creating $276 million in employment income and over 7,200 jobs. To date, only $900,000 has been obligated. And because the CR rescinds all unobligated funding across the board, without thought to details or individual projects, we risk never seeing the remaining $9.1 million that they were promised. And because of that, they could lose $300 million in local funding contingent on the stability provided by the TIGER grant. For the businesses and residents in Colorado, this is simply ridiculous and just doesn't make sense. How could we rescind a small government grant--not an earmark. We have moved away from earmarks, and I supported that. But what they get replaced by are grants and merit- based opportunities for our projects to compete for Federal funds. How could we rescind a grant which, through local and State ingenuity, they have already leveraged $300 million in local, State, and private funding? That is not fiscally responsible. I am hopeful that this was merely an oversight by the committee, and I hope that they will work with me to address this issue. The process to leverage $10 million into $305 million takes time. Colorado was awarded the TIGER/TIFIA Challenge grant in February 2010, and Colorado and other States were challenged to think bigger and do more with less; but Colorado was the only State to accept that challenge. Many of the other funds have already been obligated under TIFIA. So because they are doing what we wanted them to do, being creative and leveraging the capital, unless we make this change they could be punished. Colorado's U.S. 36 application did not anticipate a TIFIA loan, but Colorado and the U.S. 36 embraced the challenge. The application is in, and the obligation is expected by September of 2011, consistent with the intention of the challenge grant in the first place. Mr. Chairman, in addition, my amendment would ensure that the long process of applying for a loan guarantee at the Department of Energy-- not a grant, simply a loan in this tight credit market--would not mean projects already in the queue would be thrown out. How can we tell a private company to spend time and money applying for something, have it awarded, and then turn around and take it off the table? That's simply bad for business. Similar programs at the World Bank and IMF treat the loan authority authorized by Congress as obligated funds once they are appropriated. We owe it to our small businesses and local governments to provide predictability with regard to Federal funding streams. As we move toward grant-based programs, it's critical that people trust and believe that the Federal word is good. I believe that these provisions in the CR run contrary to that, and I ask my colleagues to work with me to address this issue. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, Americans' top priority is creating jobs. But six weeks into the 112th Congress, the Republican leadership has yet to bring a single, solitary jobs bill to the floor. Once again, we are here today to exercise one of our primary constitutional responsibilities as members of Congress--to pass appropriations legislation to fund the many basic and essential programs the federal governments, on which millions of Americans rely. Today is an incredible opportunity, for Republicans and Democrats to work together--to bridge the gap between parties and talking points--and pass a bill that meets our shared goals of creating jobs, building our infrastructure, and strengthening our economy. Sadly, the Republican leaders have brought to the floor a continuing resolution that jeopardizes American jobs and our economic future by rolling back investments that will help our private sector grow and put people back to work. It thoughtlessly makes extreme cuts to appease an extreme wing of their party, at the expense of the American people. Education Mr. Chair, building an excellent public education system that provides each and every child the opportunity to succeed is the single greatest investment we can make to secure our nation's future--an investment that I have devoted much of my life to support and achieve. From Preschool to K-12 to Higher Education, Republican cuts would undermine our global economic standing by denying opportunity to students, who depend on the government for their education. As President Obama said in his state of the union address, it's not just about ``how we cut'' but ``what we cut.'' Education is an investment in our future, and we can't sacrifice our future. But Republicans--through this CR--seem willing to sacrifice our future to meet their arbitrary campaign pledge. They want to drastically reduce quality preschool for poor children with a $1 billion cut in Head Start, which has shown positive results. For K-12 students, Republicans are proposing to dismantle a wide range of essential school supports--literacy programs; teacher improvements; math and science partnerships; arts in education; parent education; counseling; and graduation promotion. Their proposal would also slash special education services and college preparation. And many more students would be blocked from going to college if the Republicans had their way--with about half a billion dollars less for Pell grants for disadvantaged youth. Education is how America can reclaim our edge in job creation, in business leadership, in providing a livable wage, and in economic innovation. Destroying this promise by attempting to balance the budget on the backs of poor children and youth is both unwise and unjust. By cutting to the heart of the learning needs of America's children and youth through these extraordinary and nonsensical measures, Republican lawmakers clearly don't understand the meaning of investing in our future. Environment This CR arbitrarily kills jobs, hurts the public health and is a slap in the face of environmental protection. The CR will set our country back decades by curtailing scientific research, simply because Republican's don't like what the science says. It puts our children's health at risk by handcuffing the EPA to police polluters and simply keeps us addicted to foreign oil and discourages clean energy innovations. This is sound bite politics at its worst, the American public needs real solutions and thoughtful policy. The CR prohibits any funding from being used to carry out the EPA's power plant pollution safeguard rules. These rules are tailored to only the biggest polluting power plants, ensuring average Americans and small business aren't affected by any regulations. The Clean Air Act guards the most vulnerable Americans--those with asthma and other lung disease, children, older adults, and people with heart disease and diabetes--from the dangers of airborne pollutants, including the threats from growing carbon dioxide pollution. Each year the Act prevents tens of thousands of adverse health effects, including asthma attacks, heart attacks and even premature death. This year alone, the Clean Air Act will save more than 160,000 lives, according to preliminary estimates by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Yet Republicans plan to starve this life-saving agency of its funding based on purely ideological reasons. Immigration The CR would cut all funding for immigrant integration. Republicans claim that they support legal immigration and want to reward immigrants who waited in line and did things the right way. But then they go and cut funding to critical programs that help those legal immigrants become proud American citizens and better integrated into our communities. If Republicans really want to support legal immigrants, they wouldn't cut important programs that emphasize the value of learning English, learning American history and civics, and becoming U.S. citizens. Regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on, these are commonsense programs that we can all support. It would also cut overseas refugee assistance and admissions and domestic refugee assistance funding. These cuts would severely diminish our country's ability to help refugees across the globe. The victims would be some of the world's most vulnerable people: refugees fleeing religious persecution from Iran, political persecution from Burma, etc. We are the global leader in refugee resettlement. This is a proud American legacy and it makes us a shining beacon for the world. Haphazard cuts like this endanger refugees, but also America. If Republicans truly claim to be committed to deficit reduction, then why as they cut millions from beneficial programs like head start and LIHEAP, do they continue to increase defense spending? Until Republicans get serious about controlling defense spending--the largest part of the discretionary budget--they will never achieve their goals of reducing our deficit. Local/US 36 Mr. Chair, at the state and local level, my home state of Colorado is getting slapped in the face by this CR. A year ago, US 36--the highway that connects Boulder to Denver--was awarded a $10 Million TIGER/TIFIA Challenge Grant through the recovery Act--to expand one of the most used and heavily congested highways in the state, creating jobs and fostering economic development. The $10 million federal investment helps leverage the additional funds in the area, creating $276 million in employment income and 7,200 jobs. The project impacts 191,000 corridor employees--10% of the state's employment. To date, only $900k has been obligated, and because the Republican CR rescinds all `unobligated' ARRA funding across the board without thought to details or individual projects--the many state, regional, and local transportation groups that have invested in the project will never see the remaining $9.1 million they were promised. For the businesses and residents in my district--this is a slap in the face. Colorado's US 36 Corridor project won the TIGER Award because it was one of the most innovative projects in the country. Mr. Chair, Rome wasn't built in a day and we can all agree that we should not be punishing innovation. Mr. Chair, the President's budget release yesterday is an excellent example of cutting back in nearly every aspect of the federal government, while investing in the future. We must tighten our belts and make hard choices and tough changes. But we cannot do so at the expense of growth and innovation. With cuts like these, Republican leadership has made it very clear that they're not interested in helping families to get ahead in this economy. Instead, they're holding our economic recovery and global competitiveness hostage in an attempt to meet an arbitrary spending goal, to appease the fringe of their party--the same people who advocate for cutting the Department of Education and privatizing social security. The Republican's continuing resolution before us today is sound bite politics at its worst. The American Public need and deserve real solutions and thoughtful policy. We can and must do better. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule for this CR as well as the underlying CR to prevent the irresponsible impact of this Republican spending bill. Mr. Conyers, the Majority introduced H.R. 1, the ``Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011,'' which will make immediate and drastic cuts to the federal budget.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Colorado's U.S. 36 corridor won the TIGER award because it was one of the most innovative projects in the country. Mr. Speaker, Rome wasn't built in a day, and we can all agree that no State or community should be punished for being innovative. The American public needs and deserves real solutions. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule for this CR, as well as the underlying CR, to prevent the irresponsible impact of this Republican spending bill.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, America's top priority is creating jobs. But here we are, 6 weeks into the 112th Congress, and the Republican leadership has yet to bring a single jobs bill to the floor. Once again, we're here today to exercise one of our primary constitutional responsibilities as Members of Congress, to pass appropriations legislation to fund the many basic and essential programs of the Federal Government on which millions of Americans rely. Today is an incredible opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to work together to bridge the gap between parties and pass a bill that meets our shared goals of creating jobs, building infrastructure, and strengthening the economy. Sadly, the Republican leadership has brought to the floor a continuing resolution that jeopardizes American jobs and our economic future by rolling back investments that are necessary and important to help our private sector grow and help create jobs. This CR thoughtlessly makes extreme cuts to appease an extreme wing of the other party at the expense of the American people. This CR arbitrarily kills jobs. It would set our country back decades in scientific research simply because Republicans don't like what the science says. Worst of all, it puts our children's health at risk by handcuffing the EPA's ability to please polluters. The Clean Air Act guards the most vulnerable Americans, those with asthma, lung disease, children, older adults, people with heart disease and diabetes, from the dangers of airborne pollutants. Each year the act prevents tens of thousands of adverse health effects, including asthma attacks, heart attacks, and even premature death. This year alone, it was estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that the Clean Air Act will save 160,000 lives. Yet Republicans plan to starve this lifesaving agency of its funding. Mr. Speaker, building an excellent public education system that provides each and every American the opportunity to succeed is the most important investment we can make in our future. As President Obama said in his State of the Union address, it is not just about how we cut but what we cut. Education is an investment in our future, and we can't sacrifice our future. But Republicans, through this CR, seem to be willing to sacrifice our future to meet an arbitrary campaign pledge. By cutting to the heart of the learning needs of American children and youth through this extraordinary and nonsensical measure, Republican lawmakers clearly don't understand the meaning of investing in our future as a nation. Mr. Speaker, at the State and local level, my home State of Colorado also receives a slap in the face from this continuing resolution. A year ago, Highway 36, the highway that connects Boulder to Denver, was awarded a $10 million TIGER/TIFIA Challenge Grant through the Recovery Act to expand one of the most used and heavily congested highways in our State. The $10 million Federal investment helped to leverage additional funds in the area, creating $276 million in employment income and 7,200 jobs. This project impacts 191,000 employees, 10 percent of our State's total. This CR would rescind $9.1 million in funding without thought to details or consequences upon which the rest of the funding is built. This is a critical grant for Colorado that we were promised and received leverage.

Mr. POLIS

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