Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 3923, the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange Act. This legislation is the result of a long-term effort by the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District in Sugar Loaf, Colorado. This exchange will be of great benefit to those volunteer firefighters and the communities that they serve. The Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District and the U.S. Forest Service have always worked closely with each other since the fire district's inception in 1967. The Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District volunteers are key first responders to both wild-land and residential fires as well as car accidents and health emergencies within the communities and the public lands that they serve. In its fledgling start, the fire district's physical home was established in an existing building on U.S. Forest Service land through a special use permit. Three years later, a second building was constructed under another special use permit, both in important locations for accessibility to the few main roads in the mountainous areas. This bill today would exchange the small amount of Federal land on which these facilities exist with private land that has been purchased by the fire district for this transfer, land that is better suited for the scenic and recreational services of the local public lands. While the U.S. Forest Service and these special use permits have been incredibly valuable during the over 40-year history of the fire district, it is now important that the fire district has the autonomy to better self-direct its future, invest, and ensure the modernization of its facilities. Currently these buildings are without even the most basic amenities, like running water and restrooms, and their location on public land has precluded them from making modernizations. As the surrounding communities have grown considerably in the past few decades, these buildings have taken on added responsibility as community meeting centers, making it even more important that they be updated to accommodate this new rule, and this bill will allow for them to be updated and modernized. I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Hastings, as well as Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva and the gentlewoman from Guam, for their hard work on this effort. It is an important measure for the local communities of my district, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on this measure.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I rise today in support of the rule and in opposition to the Obey amendment. Funding for teachers and for education is my top priority here as a Member of Congress. I am a cosponsor of a bill to provide $23 billion in funding for teachers. It breaks my heart that we're only talking about $10 billion today. But what is critical to achieve success--to find $10 billion, to find $23 billion--is keeping those who advocate resources on the same page as those who advocate reform. Resources and reform. That is the promise of the Obama administration. That is the platform that I ran on. That is what will transform millions of American lives to help break the vicious cycle of poverty that holds too many families as slaves and replace it with the virtuous cycle of opportunity and hope. Programs like Race to the Top, programs like funding innovative new charter schools, programs like innovative ways to fund teacher salaries. These are the programs that are being cut by this proposed amendment. I hope that the Secretary continues to work with us here in Congress to find ways to pay for teachers' salaries, but we need to do so in a way that doesn't have the threat of a Presidential veto and can garner strong support in this body. Funding teacher salaries is my top priority, and I would vote for anything to do that. I don't feel that going after the reform aspects of the President's education budget is a constructive way to build a majority to be able to fund teacher salaries. So I hope that we will continue that important work. And I personally will be voting against the Obey amendment.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. I rise today in support of the rule and in support of the Lee amendment to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan. There is a real terrorist threat to our country, but that threat does not emanate from Afghanistan. It emanates from al Qaeda, a stateless menace, a menace that will organize and set up wherever we are not. The ongoing and indefinite occupation in Afghanistan is not a constructive step towards the battle against a terrorist threat to this country. In fact, through the civilian casualties, we only increase the pool of potential terrorists every day that we continue this occupation. I strongly support this concept of allowing our funds only to be used for the orderly withdrawal of American troops from the country of Afghanistan. The mission, the challenge we have put before our men and women, is nearly a difficult and impossible challenge: To try to build a cohesive nation state out of a tribal nation, out of dealing with people in our own employ who are of dubious moral character and continue to engage in the opium and drug trade to finance their related activities. There is a difference between the ongoing battles and insurgency in Afghanistan and the terrorist threat to this Nation. We should spare no expense in going after terrorists wherever they are, engaging in aggressive intelligence-gathering operations and taking out the ability of terrorists to train. But the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan is not a constructive step to that end.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to regional stability, to Israel, and to our national security, and above all, to the world. Passing strong sanctions against the Iranian regime is a critical step that we must immediately take in order to protect the world against this threat. Ahmadinejad is not a rational actor. Congress must do all in its power to deter Iran from getting nuclear weapons and persuade the regime to halt their nuclear program--as the international community has repeatedly demanded. Iran has rejected the Administration's attempts to engage diplomatically; if we wish to avoid either military action or accepting a nuclear-armed Iran, we must incapacitate the regime's ability to pursue these weapons through tough sanctions. The United States and our allies are at a critical juncture in our efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran continues to reject international proposals that would provide their regime with the resources to have a safe and secure civilian nuclear power program, but limit the Nation's ability to build the world's most destructive weapons. Iran now has enough low-enriched uranium that, when further enriched, could be used to fuel two nuclear weapons. This is why Congress has acted swiftly to counter this threat and why the President also supports enacting new sanctions. While Congress has taken the lead on crafting this bill, preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons has been one of the Obama Administration's top priorities. Under the President's leadership, the U.N. Security Council recently passed a new round of strong sanctions that will help to cripple Iran's nuclear weapon program. As proof that the administration's commitment to diplomacy is working, the U.N. resolution included support from China and Russia, who before had hesitated to press Iran to stop its nuclear program. In addition to the U.N. sanctions, the European Union is also currently in the process of instituting its own sanctions. This powerful package of new sanctions that was developed by House and Senate Democrats would substantially augment these ongoing multilateral efforts by the U.N. Security Council, the European Union, and others. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. This bipartisan legislation will provide us the necessary tools to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran, a nation that continues to sponsor terror, endanger our allies, and threaten our troops in the region. The sanctions are tough, focused, and results-oriented. This important step is critical to countering the threat of a nuclear Iran.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. Corporations are not human beings. Corporations may employ and be owned by human beings, all of whom in their individual capacity enjoy their constitutional rights, but corporations themselves are not alive. Their mothers can't die of cancer. Their sons can't be sent off to war. Corporations are political zombies, knowing only the pursuit of the flesh of profit, which is fine in an economic context, which is the economic reason that corporations exist. But in the political context, there is negative civic value to such advocacy, especially without the reasonable restrictions that were tossed out by the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. In a capitalist system, when government gives politically connected corporations an advantage over their less politically connected competitors, everyone suffers, and it undermines the confidence of liberals, conservatives, all citizens. That's why the DISCLOSE Act is so urgently needed: to provide safeguards, disclosure about the flood of special interest money into our elections, and to protect the free speech of individual Americans.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. This last weekend, I was part of a delegation to Campeche, Mexico, as part of the U.S.-Mexico parliamentary exchange. This was the 49th annual U.S.-Mexico parliamentary exchange, and I rise today to emphasize the importance of the U.S.-Mexico relationship. Our topics included three major areas: We talked about border security, what we need to do on both sides of the border to improve security, to reduce the flow of drugs from Mexico into the United States, and reduce the flow of weapons from the United States into Mexico; We talked about how to expand our economic partnership to create jobs in both nations. Mexico, depending upon how you measure it, is our second or third largest trade partner, and we continue to grow our trade; And finally, we talked about immigration. However frustrating it is for the United States to deal with this issue, it's even more frustrating for Mexico to see many of their best and brightest fleeing northward. And the Mexican Government resolves to take action on this issue. Likewise, it's critical for our country to replace our broken immigration system with one that works for the United States.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. This disaster of great proportion is indicative of the culture of deregulation and the influence of the special interests in the oil industry and the prevalence of those interests within the Bush administration, embedded into the regulatory structure. These interests within the Department of the Interior fought tooth and nail Secretary Salazar's attempts to bring balance back to the oil and gas industry. They fought with claims of severe economic hardship. Well, as the gentleman from Virginia talked about, I think the people of the gulf coast will be experiencing severe economic hardship, much worse than anything that these oil companies were worried about. All actors involved with this unmitigated disaster have taken steps to try to limit their own liability. BP and Transocean have tried to spread their profits among shareholders. They've been giving dividends. They have been trying to decentralize their coffers, already scheming to get themselves off the hook and to put taxpayers on the hook. These oil companies are now trying to maneuver to get taxpayer bailouts for their own bad practices and their own failure to prevent what was a preventable disaster. The use of highly toxic dispersants have exacerbated the damage, leading to underwater plumes of oil. It turns out that the emergency response plan of BP was riddled with errors, had falsities. It even listed people who were no longer alive as points of contact in the event of a disaster. We need, and I'm sure we will have, a full public accounting of the fallacies and the flaws in the planning process with BP and their contractors that have led to this disaster, and it's critical for our Congress to make sure that these maneuvers to get off the hook for their own failure to prevent this catastrophe will not meet with success and that the responsibility will reside with BP and their contractors. NEPA requires an assessment of environmental impact for any major project on Federal lands, but loopholes were placed in that policy in 2005, including a categorical exclusion, saying that oil drilling doesn't have any risk and, therefore, shouldn't need to do an environmental assessment. The Deepwater Horizon was granted a categorical exclusion in 2007 under the Bush administration. Ironic, because NEPA was first initiated in 1968 as a response to an oil spill offshore, yes, off the coast of California, stripped of the very provisions that are one of the main reasons for its passage by the Bush administration. We as a Congress need to address the statutory side, and I know that Secretary Salazar is working hard to fight the entrenched interests from the oil and gas industry that seek to influence the actions of the Department of the Interior. I thank my colleague from Virginia for helping to raise this important issue.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. In 1993 the passage of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a result of a political process, not a military one. Today we can rectify that and continue with this process under way where the military consults with and listens to men and women and stakeholders in the military in deciding how to modify this policy and removing the statutory requirement for this policy and allowing the military to do the right thing to improve military readiness and enhance the protection of our country.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the effort to legislatively repeal the statute of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and leave it up to the military to implement their own policy recommendation. First of all, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the only law in the country that requires people to be dishonest about their personal lives or face the possibility of being fired. It's a law that's not only hurtful to the men and women who currently serve in our Armed Forces, but it's a law that's hurtful to our national security as Americans. George Washington, our Nation's first Commander in Chief, is enshrined in American history for telling his father, I cannot tell a lie. Yet more than 200 years later, this shameful law mocks Washington's words and makes lying required operating procedure for our military's rank-and-file. Today we have the opportunity to end this law. I'd like to address some of the remarks from the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Georgia. This proposal and this compromise have been endorsed by Admiral Mullen, as well as Secretary Gates. Absent this statutory change, which we are doing consistent with our congressional time line of the defense authorization bill, the military would find itself in a position to be unable to implement its own recommendations. This simple change today will remove this statutory albatross from around the neck of the military and allow them, the military, the Secretary of the Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to implement the policy that best enhances military readiness and best allows them to improve morale and unit cohesion within the military. Absent an action today, their hands will be tied, and they will be unable to implement their own recommendations that take into full account the opinion of the men and women who serve the officers and the stakeholders within the military. The vast majority of Americans, including majorities of Republicans, independents and Democrats, recognize that on the battlefield it doesn't matter if a soldier is lesbian, gay, or straight. What matters is they get the job done for our country. Don't Ask, Don't Tell hurts military readiness and national security, while putting American servicemembers fighting overseas at risk. To date, it's forced out over 13,000 well-trained, at taxpayer expense, and able-bodied soldiers out of the military. It's time to repeal this law, and I applaud the leadership of my friend, the honorable Congressman and veteran, Patrick Murphy, in his efforts to do so. By allowing the Pentagon to conduct a careful study of the implementation of the repeal, this amendment is a fair balance between ending the discriminatory policy and respecting the opinions of our military leaders.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady from Florida. I am here tonight to talk about the Jewish history in the West and in Colorado. Colorado was still an untamed wilderness when gold was discovered near Pike's Peak in 1858. The 59ers, fortune hunters from across the country, came to our State, growing the population and building a diverse economy. Jews, too, were part of that quest. Over the millennia, our Jewish people have suffered many exiles, often wandering and migrating from one country to another, frequently meeting with hostility and hardship. It was in that spirit that Jews immigrated to the American West, where we established viable communities and maintained the Jewish heritage, despite great obstacles. The unpredictability of gold mining and a growing demand for supplies encouraged many of the Jewish 59ers to establish small business in new towns and mining camps throughout Colorado. Over the next two decades, Jews settled in Leadville, Cripple Creek, Aspen, Trinidad, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Central City, and Denver. One of the first Jewish pioneers was Fred Zadek Salomon, who arrived in Auraria in June of 1859. He founded and became manager of the first general mercantile company in Colorado. The two were later joined by a third brother, Adolph Salomon, who became the first Jewish elected official in Colorado as a trustee of Greeley, Colorado. Another one of our famous early Jewish Coloradans was Frances Wisebart Jacobs, who was born in 1843 and died in 1892. She was born in Kentucky to Bavarian immigrants, but she moved to Denver when she was young. She helped organize and was president of the Hebrew Ladies' Benevolent Society, and she joined with the city's Congregationalist ministers and Catholic Archdiocese to create a multifaith charity organization. She also left her mark on tuberculosis relief, which Denver later became known for, as one of the first people to conceive of a free hospital for the medically indigent tuberculosis victims, for which Denver later became known. Frances Jacobs is memorialized as one of 16 Colorado pioneers and the only woman and the only Jew in a stained glass window in the Colorado state capital rotunda. In 1994, she was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame, and in 2000 she was awarded the Denver Mayor's Millennium Award. From its humble beginnings, the Colorado Jewish population has grown; in our generation, with immigrants from the east coast, as my parents from Brooklyn and Peekskill, New York, moved to Colorado in the 1970s, along with many of their fellow Jews, and more recently immigrants from California, Jews finding a new home in my hometown of Boulder, which when I was young and growing up, had one synagogue. It now has six synagogues. The town of Denver, with a longer and more established Jewish community, also continues to thrive with the Jewish cultural and religious life across the region. I rise to proudly recognize the role of Jews in the development of Colorado and the Rocky Mountain West.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. There are many issues before Congress, both great and small--all of tremendous importance. One of the issues that there's an outcry among the American people for us to deal with is immigration reform. Whether people are conservative or liberal, left or right, Republican or Democrat, we agree that what we are doing now does not work. We have a large population living, working here illegally. We don't have adequate enforcement of our borders, verification of who can work. Now, within our efforts to solve immigration, to replace our broken immigration system with one that works and reflects our basic American values of, if you follow the law and learn English, you're welcome here, within the comprehensive House immigration reform bill that I'm a cosponsor of there's a provision to create jobs for Americans to help make immigration work for us rather than immigration be a cost for us. Today, there are investors and foreign entrepreneurs who raise venture capital, ready to start their companies, who can't get the visas to come to this country and start their companies here. And then we wonder why these businesses in China and England and India are so successful. Well, some of them actually wanted to set up shop in this country. The House comprehensive immigration reform bill contains a startup visa provision that would allow an entrepreneur, be they a French entrepreneur, an Indian entrepreneur, that is backed by an investment that has raised several hundred thousand dollars, we would allow them to come here and start their company here as long as they hire five American citizens. This bill will likely create at least 50,000 jobs. And that's just a start. Because, you know what? Some of those companies hiring five people today could be the next Google, could be the next Yahoo of tomorrow, and employ tens of thousands of Americans. Yes, America has an immigration challenge on a whole host of issues, but we also have an immigration opportunity--the opportunity to attract the best and brightest from around the world to help make America more competitive and provide jobs for America here at home. It's insourcing instead of outsourcing. Our current immigration code works against us and forces companies that want to hire Americans and be based here to instead set up shop overseas. Through comprehensive immigration reform we have the opportunity to change that. In the House bill there's a startup visa provision. Senator Kerry has introduced that as well in the Senate. We need to encourage not only financial capital to flow into our country, but also human capital to create jobs for American citizens here at home. And that's an important lens to look at any piece of legislation through. I, for one, am thrilled that the House comprehensive immigration reform bill will create tens of thousands of jobs for American families. And that's one of the reasons that I'm a proud cosponsor. I yield back to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. Like many Members of Congress, I listen to, I visit the small businesses in my community in Colorado. Small businesses are really the backbone of our country. When I visited one of our small towns like Lyons, Colorado, last month, I did what I call a Main Street tour where I stop and introduce myself at many of the local businesses. I have a small business advisory council. I am not alone as a Member of Congress in hearing from the businesses in our district that one of the biggest impediments to their growth and allowing them to hire people is the lack of credit that they have from their banks. Their traditional borrowing that they have been able to do to fund their activities, whether it is against accounts receivable or future revenue flows, they find themselves cut off and unable to access those credit lines because of the tightening of credit. There is a swing in the pendulum. Credit was, in all honesty, too loose 3 years or 4 years ago. It has now swung to the other extreme, as it tends to do, and has become too tight. That has become an impediment to job growth. There are businesses in my district that, if they had access to credit, they would be able to grow and expand and hire more people. Now, when you talk to the banks, the banks in my district and everywhere, they say there is a number of reasons for this. One is increasing capital requirements that the Federal Government is imposing to reduce the rate of bank failures, a very legitimate policy interest. Others include other regulatory reasons that the banks feel that they are having to reduce the amount of money they are effectively able to lend out. But it is something that we need to solve, Mr. Speaker, because it will create jobs for Americans, small and midsize businesses across our country. There are a number of solutions that people are talking about in this body. It includes the Federal credit facility to small businesses through the banks, includes some actions on the regulatory front, and it includes an idea, a bipartisan idea that I have introduced, H.R. 4877, which would provide an incentive for private money to flow into the equity line of these community banks to get them lending again. Now, a bank, like any business, has many kinds of capital. So when you deposit your money with a bank, they can certainly loan against that money, but it is not as leverageable as equity capital. If a bank actually sells its shares, they get money in that they can lend against with much higher leverage. So what we can do is provide an incentive for people to invest in community banks; for community banks to go back out to their communities, to their boards, to say, You know what? We need to sell some more shares of our community bank to raise some more capital. And that capital can be deployed in a very powerful way in lending to our small businesses. So for any investment in the community bank under H.R. 4877 during an 18-month period when we want to incentivize this investment--and much of it will occur very quickly, I might add, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, and held for 5 years, then the investors would not have a capital gains tax. There would be an exemption from capital gains on that investment in the community bank. What will this do? It will get the attention of the people that we want to get the attention of, existing investors at banks, private equity funds, and others who could be doing anything with their money. They could be sitting on the sideline with their money. They could be investing in businesses of any sort. This will get their attention to say, Hey, there is a special incentive, because of the public good that comes from a robust community banking sector and the lending that will help stimulate the demand for a whole host of businesses and help businesses grow, to put your money into community banks. Many community banks will recapitalize. By the way, this might even prevent some bank failures by allowing community banks on the margin to recapitalize within the bounds of solvency rather than becoming insolvent or having to be bailed out. There is, rightfully so, great frustration with what has been seen as collusion between the government and big banks; what has been seen as a bailout and what is a bailout of bad behavior. Why not incent a private investment in these banks before we start talking about using taxpayer money for this or that or the other? Let's see what investors out there are willing to do when given the chance to invest in our communities, invest in our banks, and help them extend credit widely to the small businesses. This is truly one of the highest leverage areas that small businesses have come to me and other Members of Congress and said, If only we can get the banks lending again. Well, we can, Mr. Speaker. With H.R. 4877, we have the opportunity without the use of taxpayer money to get an infusion into our community banks and get them lending to our small and medium businesses, commercial property across this country, to help get the economy going and create good jobs for Americans. I yield back to my friend from Virginia.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the immigration opportunity for our country. Yes, not the immigration problem, but the immigration opportunity. Truly, the human potential and the human capital that wants to come to our shores and work hard and contribute to the productivity of our country is an important asset to our Nation. The countries with an immigration problem are, frankly, where the best and brightest are trying to leave to come to our country to work hard and create jobs for Americans. One of the components of the House comprehensive immigration reform bill is my Startup Visa and EB-5 Reform Act that would make it easier for foreign investors and entrepreneurs to come start their business here in our country, guaranteeing that they create jobs for Americans. If we pass the EB-5 reforms as part of comprehensive immigration reform, it will create over 50,000 jobs for American citizens here. These are companies that otherwise will set up overseas in other countries. We're not letting them come here. Let's make our immigration system work for us. Let's create jobs for Americans here at home.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. I commend Chairman Gordon on his hard work and his leadership on this important legislation. This bill is the product of our Nation's understanding that economic prosperity and international competitiveness is the result of American innovation and forward thinking. I'd also like to address the comments made by my colleague from California, as well. As the gentleman from California is aware, there is in fact widespread violation of Federal laws that are out of touch with reality with regard to immigration. We don't know who is here, what they're doing, where they are going. The America COMPETES Act, of course, is not the proper legislative vehicle for addressing that, but I do encourage my colleague from California to join me and many others in sponsoring comprehensive immigration reform, which will ensure, going forward, no one works in this country illegally and that we have a way of tracking who is here and enforcing the rule of law across this Nation. I want to take this opportunity to thank Muftiah McCartin of our Rules Committee. She is our Rules Committee staff director--the only Rules Committee staff director that I have known in my time in Congress who, as you know, is leaving us. On many occasions, Muftiah has trekked to the fifth floor of Cannon, where my office is, and advised my staff and me on important issues and parliamentary procedures and asked us our questions and concerns and addressed them promptly. Of course, when I found out today in these remarks that she had been here 34 years, I began to think it was a different Muftiah than the one I know that is retiring. I find it hard to believe that our Muftiah McCartin has worked in this wonderful building for 34 years. Perhaps that time is calculated because she frequently works until midnight, or even until 3 in the morning. I have borne witness to that. Perhaps for every year she works, it's counted as 2 years time in, because that's the only logical explanation that I was able to figure out for how she could have possibly worked in this body for 34 years and is moving on to other opportunities. Her dedication to this body, this institution, this committee, both in her current job and previous jobs, is something that I hope we all strive to emulate with our accomplishments on committee and the House floor, which are really a great testimony to her commitment of many years. As a freshman member of the Rules Committee, she's repeatedly assisted me and our colleagues on the sometimes Byzantine legislative processes and has worked tirelessly to ensure that our Members and districts have been able on walk away with success. Thank you, Muftiah, for your service. You will be sorely missed.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to live up to a challenge that has been put before us by the people of our country, by the people of Arizona, and by the people of my State. That is the challenge to replace our broken immigration system with one that works. As I've traveled across my district, I haven't found a single constituent on the left or on the right who is happy with the state of immigration today in this country. There are over 10 million immigrants in this country who are working illegally, who are frequently undermining wages for working families, and who are taking away jobs from Americans. We need to pass comprehensive immigration reform to ensure that this number doesn't grow to 15 or 20 million and so, in fact, we have no one who resides in this country illegally. We will require registration and will make sure that people follow the law. We will restore the rule of law to this Nation. I am a proud cosponsor of the House comprehensive immigration reform bill, which will accomplish that. I call upon my colleagues in the Senate to introduce a bill based on the 25-page outline that they released last week, which would ensure, once and for all, that we will hear the voice of the American people come together to solve our immigration problem.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1305.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1305 provides for consideration of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour and 30 minutes of general debate, with 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority members of the Committee on Natural Resources and 30 minutes controlled by Representative Velazquez of New York. The rule makes in order those amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules. The amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the Rules Committee report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule is a fair rule. There were 35 amendments submitted for this bill, 13 of which were found to be nongermane. Of the remaining amendments, eight are made in order under this rule--three offered by Republicans and five offered by Democrats. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act. I'd like to thank Speaker Pelosi, who has been an unrelenting champion of this important issue; and Leader Hoyer, whose strong support of this bill helped bring the resolution to the floor. I also want to recognize Resident Commissioner Pierluisi for sponsoring the bill and Chairman Rahall for his leadership on this issue. This bill is based on the most fundamental democratic principle, the rule of self-determination. Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory for over 100 years; yet during that time, Congress has never bothered to determine whether Puerto Ricans are actually satisfied with the status quo. H.R. 2499 aims to fix that by offering fellow citizens this basic right. Puerto Ricans have been American citizens since 1917. During that time, they've contributed to our country's culture and economy while also serving proudly in the Armed Forces to defend our Nation. In fact, Puerto Rico has historically ranked alongside the top five States in per capita military service in defense of our Nation. Yet, in spite of the contributions Puerto Ricans have made to this country, they do not receive all of the benefits that are due to them as American citizens. Their representative in Congress is a resident commissioner, who works tirelessly to advance their interests, yet has limited voting rights, instead of several Congresspeople with full voting rights the Puerto Ricans deserve. While they pay many taxes, Federal programs treat Puerto Rico less than equally when compared to the 50 States. As I mentioned before, while they have courageously served in the military, and in fact at a higher rate than many other States, they do not yet have the right to vote for President of the United States, the Commander in Chief. It's imperative that Congress act to right these wrongs which Puerto Ricans have had to live through for so long. The Puerto Rico Democracy Act would do that. If enacted, this bill would authorize a plebiscite process which would offer Puerto Ricans the chance to vote on the future of their island. The plebiscite would ask the unambiguous question: Are you satisfied with the status quo? If a majority of Puerto Ricans vote ``yes,'' then the government of Puerto Rico would be authorized to hold regular plebiscites every 8 years to ensure that voters continue to have the opportunity to express themselves democratically over time. If a majority vote is against the status quo, if they decide that they are tired of their being treated as second-class citizens, the plebiscite will ask them to choose between nonterritorial status options: independence, statehood, and free association. This plebiscite represents the straightforward expression of self-determination and direct democracy that would allow Puerto Ricans to express their wishes to Congress. I, for one, will support the express wishes of the Puerto Rican people as a Member of Congress representing Colorado. Like any important piece of legislation, this bill has some critics. You will hear from them today. Opponents have claimed that the bill favors statehood, and they take issue with how the plebiscite is being constructed. It's not only fair but imperative that voters, our fellow Americans, be given the opportunity to express whether or not they approve of their current status quo that is disenfranchising Puerto Ricans. I urge and encourage my colleagues to support the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi), the sponsor of the bill.

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

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

Mr. POLIS. In response to the gentleman from Georgia, we live in a Federalist system. States have the ability to determine what languages are recognized in an official capacity. I think it would be misleading to the people of Puerto Rico in the context of a vote to insinuate that there is a Federal tyranny with regard to language. We live in an affiliation of States, a Federalist system that reserves power for the States. I know that the gentleman from Georgia has generally been a standard bearer of the rights of States and the prerogatives of States and, in fact, the ongoing battle against the overreach of Federal powers, and this is certainly an example of that. States have the ability to decide what languages to print things in-- language or languages--certainly the ability to set the language that their own State legislature meets in. This would be an example of an overreach of the Federal Government were they to dictate that.

Mr. POLIS. I will yield briefly.

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, I think it's a very appropriate discussion to have. It's a discussion at the State level; and I know that some States have done precisely that. But, again, this would be an example of an overreach of the Federal Government where they would actually be involved with dictating to States that here you must speak Spanish, here you must speak French, here you must speak English, although certainly the gentleman has argued there are many at the local and State level that have advocated those policies on behalf of particular States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. With due respect, it is really the American people who have kept the fire under this issue. The American people do not want Congress to continue to ignore our broken immigration system. What would ignoring immigration do? What if we just said we're not going to deal with it, you know, that there's too much to work on? We've got, you know, health care. We've got energy. Why bother doing immigration? You know what? Failure to act on immigration reform will mean that we will likely have twice as many illegal immigrants in 10 years than we have now--twice as many. Instead of 10 or 12 million, we could be talking about 20 or 25 million. The longer we wait, the bigger the problem gets. The goal of immigration reform needs to be to eliminate--to bring to zero--illegal immigration. If immigrants who have been living in our country illegally want to become taxpaying American citizens, they need to pass a background check, pay extra taxes, work towards citizenship, learn English, register. We need immigration reform that is both principled and pragmatic. We in this country have the right to decide who lives in our country and who doesn't, but we haven't been exercising that right. We've been allowing millions of people to live here without knowing who they are or what they are doing. Yet we continue to refuse to take action, and we do so at our own peril. Yes, we should hear very clearly from Arizona and from other States that they are demanding action of the Federal Government. There is no good solution for a county or a State. I sympathize with our cities, our counties, and our States which are dealing with the failure of a Federal policy to protect our borders--Federal policies that undermine the rule of law and our national sovereignty, but it falls to the United States Congress to act to fix our broken immigration laws. People should not be able to cross the borders or to overstay their visas without permission, and businesses should not be able to exploit cheap labor off the books, undermining jobs for American citizens. We in Congress have a unique opportunity now to take action. The American people are tired of excuses. They are tired of demagoguery. They want a solution that works and that ensures that we will have zero illegal immigrants in a year and in 10 years and in 20 years rather than seeing an increase from 10 or 12 million to 20 million or to 25 million or to 30 million. What does ``national sovereignty'' mean if you don't even know who is within your borders or what they're doing or whether they're criminals? Why are we putting over 300,000 of them up at expensive hotels at over $100 a day at taxpayer expense? Is that part of the solution? It doesn't sound like part of the solution that the people of Arizona want. It doesn't sound like part of the solution that the American people want. Obey our laws, learn English, pay taxes, and welcome to America. We need to replace a broken system with one that works. I call upon my colleagues in this Chamber and in the United States Senate on both sides of the aisle to stop playing political games with an issue that the American people are crying out for a solution on and to act and bring forward a real solution along the lines of the proposal that was introduced in the Senate today, along the lines of the House comprehensive immigration reform bill to demand that Congress move towards fixing this problem, restoring security to our borders, sovereignty to our Nation, preventing the undermining of the rule of law that this Nation was built upon, and strengthening our economy and providing jobs for American families. Madam Speaker, I hope that my colleagues join me in moving forward immediately on comprehensive immigration reform to fix our broken laws and replace it with a system that works and is enforced.

Mr. POLIS. I appreciate Mr. Ellison bringing up employer verification. One of the key components of the Senate outline requires biometric employment verification. So this is not a Social Security number that could be used by somebody who is 6 foot 1 and 52 one day and someone who is 5 foot 3 and 42 the next day. This is a real biometric ID. No later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this proposal, the Social Security Administration will issue biometric Social Security cards that will be fraud resistant, tamper resistant, wear resistant, be machine readable, contain a photograph and an electronically coded microchip processor which possesses a unique biometric identifier for the authorized card bearer. It could be a fingerprint, eye scan. We are going to be serious about knowing who can work and who is not legally employable. We need to be serious about making sure that it is the right person that we are talking about. Again, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of violations of this area of employment law every day in this country, and we are not even remotely serious about cracking down on those. That is why we urgently need, why Arizona and the rest of the country has called on Congress to address this issue and why we only ignore them at our own peril. We are joined by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) who, in her time here, has already become a champion of comprehensive immigration reform and making sure that we can fix our broken immigration system. I am glad to welcome Congresswoman Chu from California.