Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Quigley for bringing forward this important amendment. There has been growing concerns, in fact, raised by the Air Force's 2008 Blue Ribbon Review regarding the effectiveness and vulnerabilities of the B61s. The B61 bomb was originally developed and placed in Europe during the Cold War for Cold War-era threats. Today, according to General James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military utility of the B61 is ``practically nil.'' Let me repeat that: According to General James Cartwright, the military utility of the B61 is practically nil. Despite the lack of utility, the price tag continues to rise. As it rises, some of our allies, like Germany, have called for the B61s to be removed from their borders. There is no reason that we should spend more and more taxpayer dollars on programs that aren't even needed or wanted by our NATO allies and don't contribute to our national security. These missiles are a kind of saving opportunity that we need to take advantage of. Given our fiscal restraints, we need to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on programs that don't protect our national security. This amendment is simple: it cuts the B61 program back to the agency's own request level, saving $23.7 million. To me, this is about as much of a no-brainer of a cut that we can find. Let's do it. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on the Quigley-Polis amendment.

Mr. POLIS. I know my colleague from Georgia will be speaking on this shortly. I appreciate him and Representative Schiff working on this amendment, and I will be very brief to voice my support for Congressman Woodall and Congressman Schiff in their efforts to restore some of the funds in ARPA-E. As we discussed, the underlying bill cuts ARPA-E by 81 percent. We live in times of fiscal austerity. We have the sequestration. We know it's time for cuts. Eighty-one percent is clearly singling it out. What this amendment does is restores $20 million in funding to ARPA- E. Even $20 million goes a long way when we're talking about ARPA-E. We're talking about early-stage investments. It could be $500,000, $1 million, $2 million--very high leverage, very high return. And $70 million is not enough to fund the program. But, yes, it will make great strides even at this funding level, because investment in early-stage companies is all about risk-taking. That's why the government has a critical role in promoting innovation and making sure that we do the basic research to even get it ready for tech transfer, to get it ready for venture capital, to get it ready for the private sector to commercialize it. In order for ARPA-E to be successful, investors need to see that the government is willing to invest in risky, but high- reward, projects that can truly alter the course of energy independence for our country. So I strongly salute Representatives Woodall and Schiff for bringing forward this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this as a step forward, and I deeply appreciate everybody on both sides of the aisle who said great things about the ARPA-E project and how it can help lead to energy independence. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, you know, the funding priorities of this bill are simply upside down. This bill prioritizes nuclear weapons funding over research for innovative technologies that will lead to energy independence and launch a future for sustainable energy and job growth in our country. This bill before us underfunds programs that not only will grow our Nation's clean energy sources but also will promote jobs and emerging technologies and maintain critical infrastructure. At the same time it makes the cut in the ARPA-E program that you've heard so much about here today, the bill increases weapons activities by $97.7 million above the 2013 enacted level. As I mentioned earlier in my Rules Committee discussion time, this past February I had the privilege of meeting with an ARPA-E project team from my district in Colorado, a joint project between the University of Colorado at Boulder and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which demonstrated significant energy yield improvements and cost reduction potential in solar photovoltaic power systems. The team leaders were very excited about the challenges in clean energy, and there are examples of projects like this which ARPA-E has helped fund, and would not even exist without ARPA-E, across our country that are leading and will lead to countless benefits for consumers and for our national energy security. But despite the success of ARPA-E, which was even acknowledged by the subcommittee chair and ranking committee member before our Rules Committee yesterday, the underlying bill disproportionately cuts from clean energy programs, 81 percent cuts, while bolstering wasteful spending for weapons. We need to restore the ARPA-E funding to the President's budget levels. That's why Mr. Garamendi and I are offering this amendment to provide $329 million in funding to ARPA-E. This amendment is offset with a corresponding cut to the NNSA Weapons Activities account. This amendment provides an amount of support that ARPA-E needs to ensure that our country keeps moving towards energy independence and can sustain job growth. I strongly encourage my colleague on both sides of the aisle to support the Garamendi-Polis amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call upon this body to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Moments ago, I was at a mock graduation of hundreds of Dreamers. These are young, de facto Americans, Americans who are as American as you or I, grew up, played on the sports team, were cheerleaders, in some cases valedictorians in their high schools, and yet they lack the paperwork to prove that they are Americans. They are as American in their hearts as any of us and have so much to give to the great country in which they grew up. And yet they are prevented from doing so by the failure of this body to act. I applaud President Obama's deferred action program, at least a temporary solution to allow these young de facto Americans to have the paperwork they need to get a job or get a driver's license. But there's no certainty there. What becomes of them in 2 years, in 4 years? How do they know that the time that they spend investing and earning a college degree will be able to pay off with a good job down the road? It's time for this body to take up action on the Senate bill or pass a comprehensive House bill. We have a unique window of opportunity to do something very important for our economy, creating jobs for Americans, important for our national security, and important for the future of our country.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. In addition, Colorado did legalize recreational use of marijuana. It also separately has legalized industrial hemp. There are more States that have legalized industrial hemp than have done anything with regard to recreational use of marijuana or even medicinal use of marijuana. All very different issues, and States are taking them up as we speak.

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

Mr. POLIS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. This is, of course, germane. It was ruled in order by the Rules Committee. There's no issue with the committee of jurisdiction. I yield 1 minute to the cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 1794, George Washington, our founding father, wrote to his gardener that he should ``make the most of the hemp seed and sow it everywhere.'' He wasn't alone. Thomas Jefferson grew hemp. Betsy Ross even made the first American flag out of hemp fiber. In fact, here is a flag right here that's made entirely from hemp. Today, U.S. retailers sell over $300 million worth of hemp-related goods. It's not just flags. Hemp is found in over 25,000 products from lotions to soaps, to protein bars, to auto parts, to fuel. Yet somehow it's caught up in a completely unrelated drug war that prevents American farmers from growing this crop and forces us to import it from other countries. Our institutions of higher education can't even grow or cultivate hemp for research purposes. Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment, which I'm offering with my good friends Mr. Thomas Massie and Earl Blumenauer is simple. It would allow colleges and universities to grow and cultivate hemp for research purposes. Our amendment would only apply in States where hemp cultivation is already legal, such as my home State of Colorado. I recently had an exchange with the premiere agriculture research university in my district, Colorado State University. This is an area that they want to get into it, but they feel that they're prohibited; and their attorneys are telling them that unless we can make this change, they can't actually do research on what has great potential to be an important crop for Colorado. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear about something because there's been some misleading information that's been put out there by the Drug Enforcement Agency. Hemp is not marijuana. I'm very disappointed to hear that the DEA is circulating misleading talking points that claim that somehow hemp could be used as marijuana. At the concentration levels specified in our amendment, it is physically impossible to use hemp as a drug. Let me emphasize that. It is physically impossible to use hemp as a drug. Voters in my home State of Colorado and across the country have made it clear that they believe industrial hemp is an agricultural commodity, not a drug. Our colleges and universities are the best in the world. This is a modest step to simply allow them to research the potential benefits, downsides, strains to grow of this important agricultural commodity. There's been technology in France that allows tracers to be put in to ensure that it doesn't get contaminated with anything that includes narcotics. There's lots of research that can be done, and this amendment is a very simple and pragmatic step to do it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. There is a new fire near Bailey, Colorado. In addition, just in this last week, the Black Forest fire has already destroyed 500 homes and killed two Coloradans. Last year was an unusually devastating year for wildfires, where there were 67,000 wildfires across the country. Look, this Emergency Watershed Protection Program is absolutely critical for communities that are impacted by fires. That's why our entire delegation from Colorado--Democrats, Republicans--led by Mr. Gardner and I are all cosponsors of this amendment. I'm proud to offer this commonsense amendment which would simply require that the Secretary of Agriculture give priority consideration to emergency watershed project funding for projects that prevent and mitigate the impacts of catastrophic wildfires. It simply establishes that as a priority. For those of us who come from communities that have been impacted, we see firsthand the need for these funds to help protect drinking water, to help prevent erosion, to minimize potential hazards that can cause additional threats to people and property long after the fires have been extinguished. Now, we know we can't stop wildfires, but we can take measures to reduce their impacts on our communities both before and after the wildfire. To be clear, this amendment doesn't prevent emergency watershed protection funding from being used for other types of disasters--and it will. It just stipulates that in the wake of severe fire emergencies, the Secretary of Agriculture will give priority to considering emergency watershed projects that impact these areas. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Gardner-Polis- Lamborn-Coffman-Perlmutter-DeGette-Tipton amendment--I don't think I've ever said all of our names before. I say to the gentleman from Colorado, our entire delegation is standing strong behind this amendment. I hope that we adopt amendment 119, the Emergency Watershed Protection amendment.

Mr. POLIS. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. POLIS. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, in my district in Colorado, and in other States across the West and Northwest, our trees, in my district, primarily lodgepole pines, have been plagued by pine beetle. Dendroctonus ponderosae has infected our trees. They're killed by a related fungus. We have entire mountainsides for miles and miles where trees are dead and are now beginning to rot. It's really transformed, sadly, the landscape of Colorado. The reason for the rise of the beetle is that we haven't had cold enough winters over the last several years to kill off the larva in the winter. It requires a certain number of days below a certain temperature. So, again, this is not about preventing the spread of pine beetles. We have some ability to do that in small areas on private land. They can wrap trees, but we don't have a cost-effective way to do that across large areas. What we do need to do, though, is once the trees have been killed, they represent a tremendous risk for forest fires, particularly when they're near power lines and other sensitive areas. So what my amendment does is it adds language that makes it easier to access Federal land. In the West, much of our land, as the Chair knows, is owned by the Federal Government, and there's been varying difficulties in getting on to the Federal land, being able to make sure that they do mitigation where necessary, take down pine beetle infested trees near power lines, near watersheds, near populated areas, a very important but more active part of forest management. Frankly, we'd love to find economically viable uses for the pine beetle kill. I have a desk in my office that's made from pine beetle kill. We also use it for biomass and other purposes. But many of it is back-country areas, and they're on Federal land. And so this amendment is simply an amendment that allows a lease on lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, an expedited way that we can engage in some of the necessary clearing and forest maintenance to prevent the pine beetle kill from causing ancillary damage. There is similar language in the Senate bill. I'm hopeful that we can work with Kristi Noem from South Dakota and others to achieve this important goal, increasing access to Federal lands for purposes of mitigating pine beetle damage. We plan to continue to work on this issue, one of the top priorities from my district. At this time I withdraw my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, this is a very simple amendment to reduce funding for the advanced procurement of 14 Ground-Based Interceptor missiles that simply don't work and are inefficient, and for the refurbishment of the costly Missile Field 1 at Fort Greely, Alaska, until the Department of Defense can certify to Congress that these programs have been adequately tested and work. It's simply a question of making sure that something works before we spend additional money on it. The missile defense program was designed to intercept limited intermediate and long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles before they re-enter the Earth's atmosphere. But Congress needs to ensure that these missiles are effective before we continue to provide the Department of Defense with a blank check. Congress needs to verify every penny of taxpayer money we spend. We have a time of tradeoffs, and of course it's nice to be able to support every program, but during this time of deficits and sequestration we need to make sure we are vigilant to ensure that the money we spend on the Pentagon actually results in the maximum amount of heightened national security. Since 1997, this weapons system has missed its target more than half the time. My amendment would limit the funding for the procurement of 14 Ground-Based Interceptors until the missiles have had two successful tests before 2015. Very reasonable. If it doesn't have two successful tests, why are we investing enormous amounts of taxpayer money in it? So, two successful tests before 2015, certified by the Secretary of Defense to Congress as having the full confidence of the Commander of the United States Northern Command, and then it is allowed to move forward. Now, opponents of this amendment--and I saw a Dear Colleague letter go out talking about how there are long-range missile threats from North Korea and Iran--there's no question, there is complete agreement about the dangers to this country, the dangers of a nuclear Iran, the dangers of a nuclear North Korea. What we're talking about here is the last thing we want to do is trust in an untested and unsuccessful missile to deter very real threats. We need a real threat deterrent system, not something that doesn't work. And my amendment simply requires that this is working. My amendment would also limit funds for the missile refurbishment project in Missile Field 1 in Alaska. This field was never intended to be operational. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen in 2011 said: Missile Field 1 was originally designed as a test bed, so it lacks required hardening and redundant power, and has significant infrastructure reliability issues. There have also been reports of mold and leaks at the facility, and refurbishment would come at a tremendous cost to taxpayers without significantly improving the security that America has. I urge Congress to demand that these programs work, that the programs we fund actually keep our families safe and are proven to work by certification by the Secretary of Defense. We need to get our fiscal house in order, we need to make tough choices, and we need to make sure that our expenditures on national defense improve national security. And simply demanding that our costly missile defense system is actually capable of keeping our homeland safe is a very reasonable amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I'd like to inquire of the Chair how much time remains.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, it's a very simple amendment. We, through our Chaplaincy Corps, need to support, and do support, various faith and philosophical beliefs among the men and women who bravely serve our country. We already support some nontheistic beliefs. For instance, we have Buddhist chaplains. Buddhism is a nontheistic faith tradition. And what my amendment would simply do is allow chaplains who are certified or ordained as secular humanists and ethical culturists or atheists to also be able to support the brave American and women who serve in our military. Roughly 23 percent of the men and women in our Armed Forces either have no religion, or are atheists; but there are no chaplains that currently are able to represent this important and growing demographic. Under current law, the Armed Forces only allow chaplains who are granted an endorsement by an approved religious organization and have received a graduate degree in theological or religious studies, precluding many of the seminaries and other institutions that can provide certification to nonreligious chaplains that could provide much-needed services, particularly to the roughly quarter of our servicemembers who have stated that they have no religious beliefs or are atheists. There's no reason why the only faith tradition and philosophical tradition in our military without chaplains does not have any kind of support to address their health concerns. Now, I've heard some say that, well, all members of our military, even those who are non-observers, are able to see psychiatrists or counselors for support. But that's a very different need than the spiritual needs and the philosophical needs that people have. First of all, when someone sees a psychiatrist or counselor, it has a certain stigma that can be attached to it that doesn't exist when you're seeing a chaplain. It also doesn't enjoy the same confidentiality that a chaplain visit does, and the information discussed with a therapist can actually have an impact on the chain of command in terms of negatively impacting the servicemember's future military career. So, again, the groundwork has already been laid with regard to nontheistic faiths like Buddhism, where we have active chaplains in our military. Many universities already have secular humanist chaplains, these including American University here in Washington, D.C. Other militaries have this as well. Our allied militaries in Belgium and the Netherlands have humanist chaplaincies. And, again, it's a very simple concept and, I think, something that is long overdue to ensure that all members of the military, regardless of their faith background, whether they're believers or not, whatever their philosophy is in life, they have access to the chaplaincy to support their spiritual needs. And, of course, nonbelievers have spiritual needs just as believers do. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.