Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire of the Speaker how much time remains on both sides.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to be clear: while this amendment helps empower social entrepreneurs and charter school founders and charter school management organizations to serve more kids, it in no way addresses the major underlying flaws of this piece of legislation. The piece of legislation and the underlying bill as a whole are an enormous step backward for accountability and transparency and, as amended on the floor, have taken an even further step back. For instance, with the Scalise amendment, which takes away all reporting requirements with regard to teacher quality, not only removing a Highly Qualified Teacher concept, not only abolishing any intervening accountability measures, but actually gets rid of the ultimate accountability of performance-based measures which are included in the initial Kline bill after 3 years, but have now been stripped out entirely. I have a bill, along with Susan Davis, the STELLAR Act, that would implement a similar concept of providing accountability for teachers. In addition, the watering down of standards--I believe a better name for this underlying bill, in fact, would be A Race to the Bottom, because that's exactly what it risks producing in terms of districts not accounting for kids with disabilities, in terms of districts adopting standards that are not college and career ready. I deeply appreciate working with Representative Petri from the majority on this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I certainly enjoy talking about charter startup funds and chart school programs on the floor of the House at every opportunity to educate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle with what Ranking Member Miller and Chairman Kline already know about the important contributions that public charter schools have made to serve at-risk kids across the country. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as well as the underlying components of both the base bill as well as the Democratic substitute, is an opportunity to highlight the many successes that charter school and public school choice have brought to average students across the country. Before I came to Congress, I founded two charter schools, and I served as superintendent of a charter school that serves English language learners and has four campuses across Colorado and New Mexico. I am pleased to offer this amendment, which would ensure that charter schools are able to use Federal funds in a more flexible manner to ensure strong school foundations. The Charter Schools Program is a critical lifeline in supporting public charter schools across the country. I want to thank Ranking Member Miller and Chairman Kline for working with me to support the replication and expansion of the very best charter schools and the emergence of new, transformational public charter school models that we can all learn from across public education. As a recent Stanford CREDO study found, charter schools that are successful in producing strong academic progress from the start tend to remain strong and successful schools over time, proving that this is a durable phenomenon. Unfortunately, we have heard from countless school principals that they don't have the flexibility to spend these startup grants on the areas that would actually help them the most, the areas that are most impactful for their students and faculty. My amendment, which I am offering with Congressman Petri, would allow charter schools that receive Federal funding through the Charter Schools Program to use their grant dollars for more vital and important startup costs, like professional development, teacher training, instructional materials, and minor facilities costs. I remember when we were starting a charter school and we weren't able to use some of the charter startup funds on things like chairs and tables because they were considered capital equipment, and yet those were a real cost. And before the official enrollees start, you have to have chairs on that first day when kids arrive. This amendment will help make that happen. This amendment also allows per-pupil revenue to be more portable in following the child by providing an assurance that when students are enrolled part time in one school and part time in another, the districts are able to share per-pupil revenue. This is important because, increasingly, kids are taking advantage of online programs offered by school districts as well as charter schools. This kind of hybrid education--sometimes entirely within a public school, sometimes within a charter school and a public school--and empowering the parents to be able to share and have a kid involved with both programs can, for many families, mean the best of both worlds, being able to have the social environment of the school along with the advantages of online learning at home. This assurance will provide States with an incentive to provide more innovative funding models that expand learning opportunities and encourage hybrid education and the personalization of education for every child, including competency-based education. Finally, this amendment would provide an assurance that charter schools are doing substantial outreach to low-income and underserved populations. We know that some high-performing charter schools are already leading on this issue, but we want to ensure that they continue to lead the way in providing access and choice for more families, and that all charter schools can do more to serve those who need the most help. I want to thank Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for working with me on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this amendment that I was pleased to work on with Representative Brooks, which would clarify that Federal funds can be used for computer science education, particularly when it comes to teacher preparation and professional development to make sure that teachers have the skills and knowledge that they need to make sure that their students can receive the instruction they need to have jobs in the 21st century. This amendment is based on the Computer Science Education Act, which Representative Brooks and I introduced earlier this year. In today's knowledge-based economy, it's more important than ever to ensure our education system meets the demands of the 21st-century workforce. However, there's a fundamental mismatch between the jobs of the future and the skills that are available in many schools today. One of the places that we haven't kept up is computing and computer science. There will be an estimated 1.4 million computing jobs by 2020, and it's one of the top 10 fastest growing major occupational groups. We will have even more jobs than we have computer science students to fill them. Without high-quality teachers to introduce students to computer science, our Nation's students won't even have the opportunity to have some of these jobs and explore this emerging and exciting field; and many of these jobs, frankly, will go overseas. I'm pleased that Ranking Member Miller has included computer science in the definition of STEM subjects in the Democratic substitute, which I strongly support. This amendment would make a corresponding change to the underlying bill to ensure that computer science will be treated similarly to other important academic areas. I think it highlights a commonsense adaptation of the way that we structure our professional development and expenditures to better align with the real need for making sure that kids have more exposure to computer science. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which would provide flexibility and help prepare our Nation's students for the jobs of the future. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, even though I'm not opposed.

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I discussed with Mr. Scalise in the Rules Committee yesterday, I think this amendment is just a terrible, terrible idea. It would remove any and all requirements and proof of teacher effectiveness. Effectively now, we have a measure called, Highly Qualified Teacher. We agree, most of us, that there are flaws in that, and it is an input- based criteria rather than an output-based criteria. I cosponsor a bill with Susan Davis, the STELLAR Act, which would ensure that States have high-quality teacher evaluation systems in place after 3 years. We were worried, frankly, about what would happen during the 3 years. I offered and withdrew an amendment to at least have some basic reporting during this 3-year transition period. What the Scalise amendment does is it gets rid of the end result of that 3-year period. It says we are going to go through an indefinite period with no reporting, no metrics, no assurance of quality. Need I remind the gentleman from Louisiana that our U.S. taxpayers are, in part, paying the salaries of many teachers that are partially funded through IDEA special ed funds or through title I free and reduced lunch funds, not to mention the fact that these are the teachers, the most important person, and it is ruining the educational outcome for the child--the most important person in making sure the kids succeed. Here we are not only saying, look, I was worried about this 3-year transition period, but saying, forever, from now on, no reporting, no requirements on whether a teacher is high quality or not, no evaluations. Look, it is hard to get evaluations right. I was in the private sector and we did employee evaluations every year and decided if some employees should be promoted if some didn't have a place in the organization. Do you know what? It is always hard, and there is no 100 percent right. But to somehow say you shouldn't do it, you shouldn't evaluate your employees, is completely the wrong answer. Any private company that engages in that strategy is going to go out of business, just as schools that engage in that strategy in districts--and if the Federal Government encourages it and allows it as it does under this amendment--will be to the detriment of kids and do nothing more than actually make it less likely that good quality teachers will be in the classrooms for kids. So I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this amendment.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the ranking member for his time and his staunch advocacy on this. I express my appreciation to Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, as well, for bringing forth this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, this underlying bill has an accountability hole so huge an entire school bus of children will fall through it. In many school districts, 12 to 15 percent of kids have some kind of IEP or are receiving some special ed services. Essentially, absent this amendment, there's no accountability assured for those kids. In fact, a disproportionate share of the Federal investment is for kids with IDEA. We've never met the 40 percent promise that we've made. IDEA and, of course, free and reduced lunch are two of our larger funding streams. If anything, we as custodians for the taxpayers should be interested in more accountability, not less accountability, for students with learning disabilities, not to mention the moral dimension and the surety that families across our country want that the learning needs of all children will be met. Absent this amendment, the underlying bill has a perverse incentive for school districts to do what they used to do for years before the current law was implemented and that is sweep problems under the rug, define success down, and effectively allow schools to have some students that they don't have to account for success for in any way. This amendment is absolutely critical to restore meaning to an accountability system that otherwise allows for gamesmanship and exclusion of the families that need it the most.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I'm offering an amendment that will reduce the funding level for the W76 by $13 million, back down to what the agency requested. The W76 is a 1970s-era submarine-launched ballistic missile that was first introduced into the stockpile by the Navy in 1978. This bill actually increases funding by $13 million to increase funding levels above those required by the New START Treaty. If the New START Treaty levels are in effect, it requires us to have 1,550 nuclear weapons--plenty to deter any nuclear threat, plenty to obliterate any enemy, plenty to end life on Earth as we know it. Even if we were to reduce our stockpile to 1,000 nuclear weapons, the Arms Control Association stated that it would save over $39 billion. Now, this amendment doesn't even come close to going that far, but this puts that in perspective. If we reduced our number of nuclear weapons from 1,500, enough to obliterate any enemy and destroy life as we know it on Earth, to 1,000, enough to obliterate any enemy and end life as we know it on Earth, it would save $39 billion. This amendment very simply reduces funding by $13 million, back to what the agency itself requested. It doesn't detract from nuclear preparedness at all. These missiles are a continuing relic of Cold War policies that spend billions of taxpayer dollars every year. And it's a great opportunity for Congress to save taxpayer money while maintaining our national security. In fact, the current bill actually spends millions more than the military needs, and passage of my amendment will encourage a focused, agile, lean military policy. In fact, a total of $1.8 billion is projected to be spent on W76 by 2016. That's a lot of money to support a very dated set of preparedness. My amendment makes a small dent in that by reducing the funding back to what the agency itself has requested. When we have these kinds of opportunities to maintain our national security and create savings for our country and reduce our budget deficit, we need to take it. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists has argued that while the W76 is important for national security, we could ``probably reduce the refurbishment production by half and still retain enough W76 warheads on the submarines for a credible retaliatory capability.'' Again, my amendment doesn't even come close to the marker that was set by Hans Kristensen. It simply returns funding to the level that the agency itself has asked for and reduces funding by $13 million. The GAO has been critical of the cost, schedule, and risk involved with the W76 program. It is an area that is ripe for a relatively minor cut like this, which will help reduce our budget deficit by $13 million. My amendment would create $13 million in savings for taxpayers while maintaining our national security. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. The primary goals of the extension program extends the life of the original warheads from 20 to 60 years, addresses the aging issues, and refurbishes the system in a managed fashion. However, all these goals are accomplished under the funding levels that have been requested by the agency. And yet here in Congress, we're second-guessing the agency's own funding requirements and saying let's give you more money, take a few million more, take a few million more--a few million more while we cut ARPA-E, a few million more while we cut science programs, a few million more while we shortcut our own Nation's renewable energy future. And yet here's a few million more, $13 million more than an agency is even requesting, to maintain nuclear deterrents at the level of 1,550 nuclear weapons, and maintaining these particular W76 warheads from the 1970s, deployed by submarines, that we don't even need the $13 million to accomplish. So, again, I think this is some commonsense savings. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this smart cut, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 2609, the fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations Act. Having this bill on the floor this week is another example of how we, as a body, our Congress, has its priorities wrong. It's why Congress has an approval rating of 12 percent. Rather than fixing our broken immigration system and replacing it with one that works for our country, rather than doing something about the fact that student loan rates just doubled for students that are incurring new loans, here we are sacrificing our renewable energy future while simultaneously increasing spending for new and unneeded nuclear weapons far above even the sequestration level of funding. It's no wonder this institution has the disapproval rating that it does. This legislation is fundamentally flawed. It underfunds programs that not only grow our Nation's clean energy sources but also create jobs, promote emerging technologies, and maintain critical infrastructure. Yet, while making these cuts, it increases weapons activities by $97.7 million above the 2013 enacted levels. Here we have a bill that prioritizes unnecessary weapons and defense programs at the expense of our Nation's innovation and international competitiveness. The underlying bill slashes program funding for a valuable program called the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E. Yesterday, in our Rules Committee, both the ranking member and the subcommittee chair agreed that they were fans of this critical program; yet it cuts funding by $215 million below last year's funding level. ARPA-E was modeled after DARPA, the Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which has led to so many great, innovative technologies that improve our security as a country. In its few short years of existence, ARPA-E has funded 285 projects in 33 States that promise to transform the energy future for our country. ARPA-E's rigorous program design and competitive project selection process show that our taxpayer dollars are being used wisely, and the program has paid off. Since 2009, at least 17 ARPA-E programs have leveraged the government's small initial investment of approximately $70 million into what is typically $500,000, $1 million, or up to $2 million in private sector capital. I was a founder of several startup companies before I came to Congress, and I understand the value of risk-taking and the role the government has in promoting innovation in basic technology. I represent a district with two major research universities that receive a combined Federal research investment of about $700 million. Many of these basic technologies which we as a country invest in lead to the jobs and the companies and the consumer technologies of the future. And what could be more critical than putting our Nation on a path to sustainable energy development? Just this last February, I met with an ARPA-E project team from my district. Within the first year of receiving ARPA-E funding, this University of Colorado project team has demonstrated important energy yield improvements and cost-reducing potential in solar photovoltaic power systems. That's an example of an ARPA-E project that will help boost our economic well-being as a country and lead to our energy independence and national security far more than a few more unneeded nuclear missiles. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that this program is essential to protecting our energy future; and that's why this program, ARPA-E, has been lauded by Democrats and Republicans alike, as it was in our Rules Committee yesterday evening. Mr. Speaker, this bill also disproportionately cuts from science and clean energy programs while bolstering wasteful spending for fossil fuel subsidies, continuing to have our country subsidize oil and gas, to subsidizing nuclear weapons, while making cuts in our energy future. By maintaining these fossil fuel subsidies while cutting clean energy research, we're prioritizing fossil fuels over innovative technologies that actually hold the key to our clean, sustainable energy independence. While I appreciate that this bill has some decreases to the amount of Federal subsidies going to the fossil fuel accounts compared to last year--and I think it's high time that we end these subsidies to one of America's most profitable industries--the report language from the committee seems to be searching for a reason to spend our precious taxpayer dollars at a time of sequestration and at a time of deficits. How can we spend more on fossil fuels when we should be spending less? In addition, this bill needlessly increases the funding for weapons activities and defense programs at a time when we're winding down our involvement in two wars that have been very costly in lives and dollars in this last decade. That's why I'm offering an amendment with Representative Quigley that would reduce the B61 Life Extension Program back to the agency's request level, which would save $23.7 million in taxpayer dollars and reduce the deficit. This bill actually increases funding by over $20 million for these ongoing missile programs in an era where Americans should expect our government to be more transparent about how this money is invested. While some of these missiles represent a strategic commitment we have to our NATO allies, there have been growing concerns raised by the Air Force's own Blue Ribbon Review Panel about the effectiveness and security vulnerabilities of the B61. That's why the price for this program has continued to rise dramatically and confidence in the missile program has dropped. In fact, some of our NATO allies, like Germany, have actually called for the B61s to be removed from their borders. Again, given our fiscal constraints, it's a time of choices. It's not to have it all, but I think we need to ensure that taxpayer money is not wasted on programs that fail to sufficiently protect our national security and that in fact some of our allies don't even support. Another unneeded increase in this funding bill, throwing more government money after more government money, is for the W76 Life Extension Program. The current bill requests $248 million--$13 million more than the administration requested--because of a fear of a lack of nuclear deterrence capability if we reduce our stockpile below the levels required in the New START Treaty. To put that in perspective, the START Treaty requires us to have no more than 1,550 nuclear weapons. Isn't that enough, Mr. Speaker? How many times can we completely obliterate not only our enemies but the entire world with 1,500 weapons? Even this lower stockpile of nuclear weapons is, frankly, a relic of our foreign policy during the Cold War and can be drastically reduced. Unfortunately, this bill increased it. In fact, the Arms Control Association identified over $39 billion in savings to the taxpayer if it reduced our nuclear weapons stockpile to 1,000 nuclear weapons--more than enough to deter any threat to the United States, more than enough to obliterate humanity from the planet. We can save $39 billion by going down to 1,000 nuclear weapons. These are some of the many reasons why I oppose the underlying bill. I'm very supportive of this rule coming forward from our committee that will allow for a full and open debate. I hope that many of these ideas that I have presented, as well as other ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle, will prevail so the end work product of this House is something that Democrats and Republicans can join together in supporting--something that no longer sacrifices our renewable energy future for yet more and more nuclear weapons today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I was going to comment to the gentleman that the committee work product, the bill before us, is a highly flawed bill. I certainly hope that the open process and the will of the House will significantly alter and improve upon this bill. We will find that out in the days ahead. It is my honor, Mr. Speaker, to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a former colleague on the Rules Committee (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. To further address the student loan issue, this body did pass a bill to prevent the increase in the student loan rates that just occurred. However, that bill--a very similar bill--failed in the Senate. So the Kline bill failed in the Senate. So, too, a Democratic bill to provide a 2-year extension of the student loan rates also failed in the Senate. So at this point, the victims of all this are students in our country who are going back to school and will be forced to borrow at twice the rate--6.8 percent--if Congress can't get its act together. And that's why if we defeat the previous question, I'll offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2574, the Keeping Student Loans Affordable Act, sponsored by Representative George Miller, Representative Ruben Hinojosa, myself, and several others, which would undue the recent doubling of student loan interest rates. It's that simple. While we work towards a market-oriented solution along the parameters President Obama has spelled out, making sure we have the protections in place like caps for students everywhere, we need to at least make sure that students returning to school this fall are not borrowing at a rate twice the rate of last year. To discuss this bill, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), my colleague on the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. POLIS. Again, to respond to that, the bill that the House passed failed in the United States Senate. So, too, did a 2-year delay in keeping the student loan rates low; that has failed in the Senate. So we can simply say, oh, we're just not going to do anything and let student loan rates double, or we can take it upon ourselves in this body to try to find a new way. That's what the Democrats and Ranking Member Miller have put forward, a way to say, look, we couldn't agree on 2 years, we couldn't agree on a long-term solution. Let's give us a 1-year window where the kids coming back to school in a month aren't going to be borrowing at twice the rate that they were last year. We have the chief sponsor of the bill here to speak about it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I thank the gentleman. I just know that there have been less speakers on the other side, and I was hoping that we might be able to use some of the ``all kinds of time'' in a bipartisan way. The gentleman from Texas was not accurate in saying that the House bill awaits action in the Senate. It had a vote in the Senate; it did not pass. So, too, a 2-year extension did not reach the cloture vote. So, again, here we are. We can either start blaming each other--the folks on the other side of the building--or we can actually do something and get to work to keep student loan rates low for America's college students. And of course Democrats are open to tying something into market-based rates; President Obama even proposed such. So, if that's what the gentleman wants to do, let's engage in a discussion about that. In the meantime, let's pass a 1-year extension so the rates don't double-- which they already did 2 weeks ago--when the kids come back to school in the fall. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a leader on this issue and a colleague of mine on the Education and the Workforce Committee. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POLIS. We're not aware of any at this time. There might be one more coming, but if they're not here, I'm prepared to close.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, we wonder why this body has an approval rating of 12 percent. Instead of tackling issues that Americans want us to tackle--like finally fixing our broken immigration system, which, by the way, a bill received more than two-thirds support in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans. It's hard to get two-thirds of anybody to agree on anything, and yet 70 percent of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform, two-thirds of the United States Senate. Let's bring that bill up and pass it. Student loans? Sure, we can cast blame on the Senate. We can cast blame on whomever we feel like. But the fact is American families are borrowing at 6.8 percent instead of 3.4 percent--now, this fall, student loans. So we can either just say, okay, it's not our fault, we passed something, let's go home, or we can actually try to reach a solution. If we can defeat the previous question today, we can bring Representative Miller's bill right to the floor to allow a 1-year window for Congress to work this out and keep the student loan rate at 3.4 percent and prevent our next generation of college kids from having their backs broken under the weight of high-interest student loans. Mr. Speaker, with regard to this bill--again, not the bill that America wants us to be discussing; instead, a bill that cuts our renewable energy future, puts even more money into nuclear weapons--I can't support this committee report on the energy and water spending bill. I hope that through this process the will of the House changes this bill dramatically. If not, then we're simply making the wrong decisions for our energy future. The bill slashes critical funding that would create jobs, grow our economy, lead to energy security, and increase our competitiveness. At the same time, the bill adds spending to increase our nuclear weapons stockpiles. How can we expect to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists if we cut the nuclear nonproliferation activities by $600 million under this bill? While the bill increases funding for our weapons programs and continues funding for fossil fuel subsidies, it guts many of our renewable energy programs, like ARPA-E, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and investing in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This bill threatens to increase our reliance on foreign oil, reduce job growth, increase pollution, and damage the health of American families. If we don't act to reverse this legislation's deep cuts to science programs and energy research, the United States will have many, many missiles armed with nuclear warheads, but we will fall behind our global competitors who are investing heavily in renewable and next- generation energy technologies. I strongly urge that we defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.