Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that I believe really strikes at the heart of the issues that were raised by the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, and that is the need for sound, objective, and transparent decisionmaking by our Federal agencies. I think we all recognize how important it is to bring in outside experts to inform Agency policies and protocols. Not only does this allow the engagement of Americans who are practicing in their fields into a process that will impact their livelihoods, it also ensures that the Federal Government can reach out to access the very best scientific knowledge, including experts with a depth and variety of knowledge that we wouldn't have access to through our own internal resources. With the EPA's Science Advisory Board in particular, that means an independent review of technical information that is used to ground Agency proposals and regulations. The efforts of this bill to seek relevant expertise outside the Agency, however, without this amendment, are limited by its failure to include academics, science, and research- based institutions in its solicitations for Board membership. That is what this amendment corrects. Not to specifically solicit Board membership in these fields, as we do in others, would be a huge mistake on our part. Institutions within my district alone house some leading global experts in public and environmental health. Joe Ryan--a current member of the EPA's Science Advisory Board and a professor of environment, engineering, and applied sciences at CU Boulder--leads his field in the study of ecological, health, economic, and sociologic impacts of natural gas development on surrounding communities. Professor Ryan's work is data driven, thorough, strongly objective, and would be of great help to policymakers, as is the work of James White, an institution at CU Boulder since he started the INSTAAR Stable Isotope Lab back in 1989. Since its opening, Professor White and the INSTAAR Stable Isotope Lab have produced groundbreaking evidence regarding the rapidity of shifts in climate change and their origins in internal planetary adjustments. Without the work of professors like Joe Ryan and James White, we would be decades behind in our understanding of environmental science and public health priorities, and the work of the EPA would suffer as a result. In April of last year, Colorado State University professor Diana Wall was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a prestigious group of global thinkers. Professor Wall pioneered our understanding of soil biodiversity. As a result, it drew global praise for its unprecedented findings. Professor George Wittemyer, also at CSU, recently produced the first verifiable estimation of the impacts of the ongoing ivory crisis on Africa's elephant populations. His findings, subsequently distributed and utilized globally, amount to significant breakthroughs in the field. These professors, like these and many others, are critical to progress not only within the realm of their academic interests, but throughout the daily lives of American families in helping to prevent the eroding of our public health and our global environment. That is what the amendment I offer today is all about. By soliciting the input of academics and research scientists who base their work on independent and transparent aims, we advance the expertise of the EPA and ensure that a variety of decisionmaking information is available. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, who objected to the motion? I did not hear an objection.

Mr. POLIS. Point of parliamentary inquiry. If I receive unanimous consent for a sixth request, am I not able to give that request under the rules of the House?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady from New York. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is simply kicking the can down the road for 3 weeks. The facts on the ground don't change in 3 weeks. Guess what, President Obama is still President of the United States in 3 weeks. Guess what, Harry Reid is still the minority leader with enough votes to prevent something from reaching the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. All we are doing is giving the Republicans yet another chance 3 weeks from now to remind the American children of undocumented parents that they want to deport Mom and Dad and to remind DREAMers, aspiring Americans who grew up here and know no other country, that they should be deported to a country they don't even know, haven't been to, and might not even speak the language of. That is not the way to win friends and influence people. Look, when you are going to people in an election cycle, it doesn't matter how great your agenda is. It might be great for their economics and their pocketbook; it might be great for their values. But you know what, if you are trying to deport Mom and Dad, you are not going to get past the front door. Yet here we are, sending ourselves on a cycle where every 3 weeks, every 2 weeks, every 6 weeks, apparently, the Republicans want to remind American children that they want to deport Mom and Dad. Apparently the Republicans want to remind young people who grew up here, who know no other country, who might want to serve in our military, who might be a cheerleader or on the football team at high school with your kids, Mr. Speaker, that they, too, should be deported to a country that they don't know, where they speak a language that they might not even speak. That is just simply not a winning electoral strategy, and it is contrary to our values as Americans. It is against family values. It is against the values of our Nation, as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. Those two can be reconciled through sensible, comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our broken immigration system. And yes, it is broken; and yes, President Obama's first steps don't completely fix it; but together, we can make it work.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. While not perfect, the Democratic substitute is a lot better base bill than the Republican version. It does a better job getting accountability right, expanding and replicating what works in public education, and changing what doesn't work in public education.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this amendment, in our small way, helps Congress change the culture, which all too often is too competitive between charter schools and school districts. I have talked to district administrators and to heads of literacy for districts who hadn't been to and didn't know about innovative literacy programs going on in charter schools in their own districts. Again, there is plenty of blame to go around. I have talked to charter schools that aren't aware of their own district's initiatives for professional development or for STEM education in the lower grades. By working together, even at times when it takes swallowing one's pride, I am confident that both public charter schools and district-run schools will benefit in the long run, most importantly, benefiting the students that they serve. I call upon my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, I think what you are saying is if the Republicans shut down the Department of Homeland Security, the only thing the Department will be able to do is to process the paperwork for undocumented immigrants, and they won't be able to fulfill their functions keeping our Nation safe. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, it looks like we are going to talk about education. Now, that is a very important topic. I agree with my colleague, Dr. Foxx, and I am glad that none of the time that we have been trying to fund the Department of Homeland Security has in any way detracted from this important debate. I think the point that has been made is that here we are, barely more than 24 hours from compromising the security of our country. Yes, of course, the education debate is critical; but couldn't we take a moment to approve one of those unanimous consent requests? Probably in the time it took to hold them all, we probably could have had a vote on the bill which would have passed and actually prevented a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. Again, we are here to talk about the rule under which H.R. 5, the bill that reauthorizes ESEA, will be considered under. Now, this effort and this bill--and ESEA is very near and dear to my heart and my career experience. Throughout my career, Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity and been blessed to have been involved with education policy and on the ground in a number of different ways and levels. I served as chairman of the Colorado State Board of Education. I launched a network of public charter schools for English language learners. I cofounded a charter school for homeless youth and youth in transitional housing. I have sat for several years on the House Education and Workforce Committee. My district is home to Colorado's two flagship universities, CU Boulder and CSU in Fort Collins. On a more personal level, my son C.J. is approaching the age where he is going to begin school this fall. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that, throughout my career, education has always been my top priority because I have personally seen the difference that it can make in people's lives, from early childhood education and quality preschool and kindergarten, all the way through adult education programs to help make sure that adults have the ability to have good jobs in a changing workforce. Almost every day, one of my constituents contacts my office about education. Just last week, I met with several principals to talk about the need for good, professional development in schools. Last week, I heard from a parent that is concerned about the culture of overtesting in her son's school. Just yesterday, a constituent of mine told me about her own upbringing and success in Colorado schools. Today, we are considering H.R. 5, the Student Success Act. This bill would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education--by the way, Mr. Speaker, if you can't handle the gavel, I will be happy to take it myself. Put more simply, this bill is about the Federal role in education policy. Now, there are a lot of problems with No Child Left Behind. I think that is something we hear from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, something that all of us have heard in our constituencies, from families, from teachers, from School board members, pent-up frustrations at the lack of change in almost 15 years of a policy that had several failings that we knew about right away--whether it is the flawed and superficial mechanism of AYP, or Adequate Yearly Progress, whether it is the frustrating paperwork and bureaucracy that it puts sometimes ahead of education. This is a very important piece of legislation, and it should be treated seriously. Unfortunately, this House hasn't held a single hearing on education before moving forward with this bill. The Chamber and the committee haven't held any hearings on this important legislation. When asked, the chairman, Chairman Kline, said that: Well, the committee held hearings before in several other years. But this is a different Congress. There are new Members. Our own committee has new members who have never gotten to witness a single hearing on education before moving through with an incredibly important piece of legislation. I will be part of this debate in the coming hours if this rule passes regarding the amendments around this bill, the content of the bill itself. As my north star, what I look for in a successful reauthorization of ESEA and replacing No Child Left Behind with the Federal education law that makes sense is really threefold. Number one, we must get accountability right; number two, we must expand and replicate what works in public education; and, number 3, we must change what doesn't work in public education. Let's talk about getting accountability right. Unfortunately, this bill falls short in this regard. It has an enormous loophole that threatens to drive underground and remove the accountability for kids with disabilities. That is why this bill is opposed by a number of groups that represent children with disabilities, special education teachers, and all those who are concerned about how the 12 or 13 percent of children in our schools that receive special education services succeed. What mechanism is that loophole? Well, here is what it is. There is a number in ESEA, No Child Left Behind, 1 percent. That is a cap on the number of kids that are allowed to be given an alternative assessment. Now, clearly, there will be some kids that can't have an ordinary assessment, some of the most severe-needs special education kids. It doesn't even matter that much what that number is, as long as it is reasonable, whether it is half a percent or 1\1/2\ percent, whether it is three-quarters of a percent or even 2 percent. What is important is that it is uniform and it reasonably approaches the kids that are unable to take the test. What this bill does is it removes that cap altogether. It says States can administer alternative assessments that are not included in the mainstream accountability program to whomever they want--meaning a State that might not be teaching or serving kids with special needs could simply say: All kids receiving special education services and IDA services, all 12 percent of our district or our State, will take this other assessment that will not be incorporated in the mainstream accountability. That is what the special-needs community fears, and it is a very reasonable fear because, look, we are elected officials, Mr. Speaker. I think some of our friends and perhaps people who are not our friends have become Governors of other States. Former Members of this body have become Governors. Guess what, Governors aren't too different than people in this body. They like to look good. They like to look like they are successful. They don't want to create a dataset that shows that they are failing kids. It is much easier to dumb down the standards and exempt children from the testing, and that is the second part of accountability that this bill gets wrong. It allows for a dumbing down of the standards. One of the great steps that No Child Left Behind and the President built upon with his Race to the Top initiative is that States need to have college and career-ready standards. There is a mechanism in place to make sure that those standards are certified by institutions of higher education within a State, meaning that if you graduate a high school with a diploma, you ought to have the academic skills needed to succeed in college. If not, what does a high school diploma even mean? Unfortunately, what this bill does is it takes out that backstop of college and career-ready standards, as certified by the public institutions of higher education in the State, allowing another glaring loophole for States to define success downward to make themselves look better. Now, let's talk about replicating and expanding what works. On that account, this bill does somewhat better. Now, I wish it included our innovations in education amendment which we offered in committee and, again, on the floor that, unfortunately, was not allowed. It is a very highly leveraged way to invest in high-promise programs that work. It does have some excellent language around replicating and expanding successful public charters schools, as well as several amendments that would strengthen and build upon that language as well. Finally, with regard to what doesn't work in education and changing it, this bill also falls short. We need to invest in real change in schools that aren't working. One thing that this bill guts are the teeth behind the turnaround models in turning around our low performing schools. There is no guarantee that these investments would be data driven or that they would work to ensure that some of our most persistently low performing schools would improve and allow children a chance to succeed. Now that this bill might be coming to the floor, Members should at least have the opportunity to amend and improve the bill. Now, in our Rules Committee meeting yesterday, I supported an open rule for amendment to H.R. 5. Frankly, there was a lot of bad amendments offered to this bill that were blocked. There were also a lot of good amendments that were blocked. Now, there were 44 amendments that are allowed to be considered under this bill, and I am grateful that two of the five amendments that I offered will be voted on here today as well, as well as the Democratic substitute that our committee ranking member, Mr. Scott, put forward as supported by the Democrats on our committee. Mr. Scott's substitute ensures that the spirit of the ESEA, as Federal civil rights legislation, is maintained and built upon. One of the amendments that I will be talking about later would encourage charter schools to work closely with public schools to collaborate and share best practices, tying into the second principle of ESEA reauthorization: expand and replicate what works in public education. Another one of my amendments would allow States to use funds for the creation and distribution of open source textbooks, resulting in significant cost savings for the States. It is simply an allowable use and can save many districts and charter schools money. In addition, I want to highlight another few amendments that were very important that will be allowed under this bill. Representative Susan Davis' amendment would amend the definition of school leader and ensure that principals are receiving the full amount of professional development as the funds are available to them. Mr. Castro's amendment seeks to improve the college and career readiness of homeless youth. These are just a few of the amendments from my Democratic colleagues that I look forward to supporting today. Now, although these amendments were in order, there were also several positive suggestions that would have been improvements to the bill but, unfortunately, won't be coming to the floor under this rule. For instance, an important amendment by Representative Langevin would have required States to have college and career-ready standards, addressing that glaring loophole in the base Republican bill. Unfortunately, that amendment wasn't brought to the floor. Another example is a colleague of mine presented an idea which is on the tips of many of our tongues--and, frankly, I would have liked to have seen defeated on the floor of the House, but it wasn't even allowed a vote. Representative Salmon offered an amendment that would completely eliminate Federal testing. Now, I think it would have been great for this Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to defeat that amendment and make a powerful statement that we believe in accountability. Yes, we believe that where taxpayer money goes, taxpayers deserve transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, we won't have the opportunity to make that statement. A number of other amendments that would have improved the bill or would have provided an opportunity for Members of this body to do their work have, unfortunately, been prevented under this rule. I look forward to discussing the merits of the rule and the merits of the bill. I have a number of colleagues who have joined us on the floor to join us in this discussion as well, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield to myself for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to amend H.R. 125 to include language allowing for the House to debate and have an up-or-down vote on H.R. 861, the Homeland Security funding bill.

Mr. POLIS. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a number of colleagues try to bring it up. I have tried to bring it up. I hope that the Chair will advise whoever has the ability to bring it up to bring it up.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Since we are 2 days away from the Department of Homeland Security shutting down, compromising the ability of the Border Patrol, the TSA, and the Coast Guard, who does have the authority to call up H.R. 861, the Department of Homeland Security funding bill?

Mr. POLIS. The records of the House that I have indicate that there are 192 Members of the House that are cosponsors of funding the Department of Homeland Security, and my records further indicate that zero are Republican. Point of parliamentary inquiry, do your records agree with mine?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, upon further parliamentary inquiry, how many of H.R. 861's cosponsors are Republican?

Mr. POLIS. How many cosponsors does H.R. 861, the Department of Homeland Security funding bill, currently have?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, a lot of my colleagues have made unanimous consent requests. I, too, would like to make a unanimous consent request, and I yield to myself for that purpose. I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would ensure that Border Patrol agents, TSA screeners, Coast Guard members, and Secret Service agents would continue to be paid for protecting the American people.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, with barely more than 24 hours remaining before the Department of Homeland Security shuts down, my colleague has an idea that he would like to propose to address that. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, in just over 24 hours the Department of Homeland Security will run out of funding. Fortunately, I have a colleague who has a solution to this impasse. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for bringing forward this very important amendment that really cuts to the heart of one of the most important changes from No Child Left Behind. Mr. Chairman, as you know, No Child Left Behind had a concept called adequate yearly progress. It is a bit of a misnomer because it was anything but progress. It was a static picture of where students were. With this new bill reflected in H.R. 5 and the Democratic substitute, the goal is to look at student growth. Now, unfortunately, the Republican bill absent the Meeks amendment leaves student growth optional. The core piece of Federal education policy, from both a civil rights perspective and an education perspective, should be to ensure that for every child in our country there is accountability for the academic growth of that child each year. That is the key tenet of transparency and accountability that this amendment would restore to the underlying bill. I strongly believe that if we can pass this amendment, it would remedy one of the major inequities and setbacks in this bill. At least No Child Left Behind had universal goals, even if the goals were off the mark.