Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of NOAA's Climate Competitive Research, Sustained Observations and Regional Information program, which was unfortunately cut by $26 million from the President's Fiscal Year 2013 budget request in the Commerce, Justice, Science FY13 Appropriations bill. While I appreciate the funding included in this bill for NOAA's satellite programs, NASA, NIST, and NSF, and thank my colleagues who supported these programs, I urge them to work with me to restore the $26 million cut in this important climate research program. In March, I joined 28 of my House colleagues in writing to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Science and Justice in support of the full budget request for this program. NOAA's competitive climate program contributes to local, regional, national, and global weather and water outlooks. These are relied upon by key decision makers in cities and States throughout the country in areas such as agriculture and power generation. The State of Colorado is not only the home to world-class research institutions whose researchers are supported by this funding, but it is also a user of this information for vital natural resource governance decisions. The southwest has experienced persistent drought conditions over the last three decades. Temperatures in Colorado have increased two degrees during the same time, a trend that will likely persist. Colorado has also experienced earlier snow melting, which desiccates our reservoirs, contributing to increased demand for water for personal and agricultural use, and increased flooding risk. The agricultural community, water resource managers, and power suppliers across Colorado rely on the monitoring, observation, and analysis supported by this funding line to inform decisions that directly affect the health of the economy. The importance of this need was recognized in a Memorandum of Understanding between the Western Governors Association and NOAA to provide climate information to western states to help them mitigate disaster situations stemming from flood, drought, and fires. This Climate Competitive Research, Sustained Observations and Regional Information program also supports critical ocean observing systems, as data has shown that the highly dynamic relationship between oceans and the atmosphere affects weather and climate shifts over land. It also supports satellite calibration and validation which inform the most accurate satellite observations. Importantly, many American businesses rely on this funding to create and manufacture environmental observing equipment. I recognize that we must make difficult choices in our current fiscal environment. Supporting this program will continue our investments in research, observations, and modeling to help States and businesses manage environmental risk and reduce future expenses from natural disasters. I urge my colleagues to consider restoring funding to NOAA's Climate Competitive Research, Sustained Observations and Regional Information program before this spending bill is enacted into law.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills: H.R. 4970, the Cantor-Adams bill, and H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act. Before we discuss the unprecedented rule for the Cantor-Adams bill, which has really turned what has traditionally been a bipartisan issue into a political football--to the detriment of women across our country--I would like to say a few words about the National Defense Authorization Act, which is also included in this rule. I am really dismayed that the Defense authorization bill that House Republicans have brought before us undermines the bipartisan agreement which was reached just last summer. The bill funds defense spending at $8 billion over the levels set in the Budget Control Act and $3 billion over the President's budget request--again, more deficit spending in this Republican bill before us under this rule. As our deficit spirals out of control, we need to tighten our belt and balance our budget. Instead, this bill doubles down on 10 years of ballooning defense budgets, which have played a major role in our deficit. This bill continues to kick the can down the road toward balancing our budget and leaves an only bigger hole that the Republican tax-and-spend policies continue to dig, putting our Nation deeper and deeper into debt. Additionally, this bill ties the hands of our military and law enforcement by requiring in statute to keep military detainees in Guantanamo, handcuffing any President, Democrat or Republican, and preventing him from coming up with a plan for what to do with these individuals. This bill panders to our fears by insisting that the detainees remain in Guantanamo interminably. It tries to tell generals how to do their jobs and sets a timetable for troop levels in Afghanistan rather than does our normal civilian process. Finally, I am disappointed by the political posturing included in the bill. The NDAA used to focus solely on setting defense policy and protecting our Nation. Unfortunately, the Republicans have decided to use this bill to also push political wedge issues. There is language in this bill prohibiting the use of military facilities to conduct same- sex marriages even in States that allow same-sex marriages. It even prevents gay and lesbian chaplains from marrying members of the military to other members of the military. Further, I am deeply disturbed that, in a bill that governs our national security, language was included that would increase our dependence on foreign oil and that would undermine our long-term energy security interest. This bill's exemption of the Department of Defense from complying with section 526 of the 2007 energy bill hurts water and recreational interests in my State and harms research and development and investment in renewable energy. Now, sadly, as disappointing as it is to see political posturing in the Defense authorization bill under this rule, it is truly horrifying to see the political posturing in the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, which under this House version would likely lead to more violence against women. The Violence Against Women Act has a long bipartisan history. Both sides have traditionally sought to protect all victims of domestic violence, not just some. Sadly, this bill before us undoes much of the work that previous Congresses have done and accomplished on this issue for no reason when we have a bipartisan Senate version of the bill that protects all women from the abuse of partners. Why would we exclude certain women in this country? If a woman is in a lesbian relationship, should she not be protected if she is a victim of domestic abuse? If a woman doesn't have the documentation to be in this country and is here illegally, should she not be protected under this law? VAWA protects women who are actually convicted of other crimes. If a woman stole a car and served time, was convicted of that crime, she is still protected from domestic abuse under VAWA. Yet nonviolent offenders of our civil code, like undocumented immigrants, would no longer be protected because they would effectively face deportation after 4 years for testifying against the perpetrators of their abuse, making it much less likely that they would bring the perpetrators to justice and end the vicious cycle of domestic abuse in their families. The majority in the House has offered no explanation for their refusal to allow us to take up the Senate bipartisan bill. My colleague Virginia Foxx was noncommittal in her response about whether we would be taking up the Senate bipartisan bill. If she doesn't know the answer--and I certainly take her on her word--I would hope that somebody on the other side would come to the floor and say, Can we take up this Senate bipartisan bill? And if not, why not? And if so, when? It passed the Senate with 68 votes, Republicans and Democrats. This is the time to stand up and see if our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are serious about responding to the insidious domestic violence crimes that occur every day throughout this country. Frankly, that could start by the defeat of this bill, allowing for an open process in considering this bill on the floor of the House. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

Mr. POLIS. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and allow the Senate bill that has passed with a bipartisan majority, that actually expands protections for all women, to be considered by this body. Here, Madam Speaker, is the face of somebody affected by the Violence Against Women Act from Colorado. Her name is Sara. Sara came to our country illegally. She was brought illegally, unbeknownst to her, by her American husband. Once in the United States, she was abused. She was isolated. She was effectively kept a prisoner in her own house by her husband. The first time she was violently beaten by her husband was when she went on a walk because her husband claimed that she had disobeyed him. She was trapped in a relationship where she was abused, sexually as well as verbally, for 14 years. She finally escaped with her son to safe transitional housing called Alternatives to Violence in Loveland, Colorado. Once there, she learned English and obtained temporary legal status through a U visa provided under the Violence Against Women Act. Today, I'm proud to say, Madam Speaker, she's a United States citizen and works as an advocate for other immigrant victims of domestic abuse. Stories like Sara are inspiring and reinforce the reason that so many of us feel passionately to join across party lines to ensure that no domestic victim is left unserved. This Cantor-Adams bill offers us a false choice between weakening and undermining protections in the Violence Against Women Act or maintaining the status quo. The American people understand that a vote for the Cantor-Adams bill is a vote to roll back protections for all domestic and sexual violence victims and puts the safety of our most vulnerable domestic violence victims at risk. Immigrants, Native Americans, lesbian, gay, and bisexual victims all have historically faced many barriers to reporting sexual violence. But instead of removing those barriers, this bill, under this closed rule, creates new ones. Lesbian and gay survivors face particular obstacles in accessing the criminal justice system. Lesbian and gay survivors are often reluctant to report abuse, and when they do finally seek assistance, they frequently don't receive the support they need across lifesaving services and resources. Studies tell us that gay and lesbian couples experience domestic violence at roughly the same rates as the general population. It is no surprise that less than one in five gay and lesbian victims of intimate partner violence receives help through a service provider. This bill fails to provide the same vital protections for gay and lesbian families that have been overwhelmingly approved in the Senate bill. During the Judiciary markup, I offered an amendment to restore these protections, but unfortunately, it was voted down. This closed process prevents the ability of Members of the House to even consider or vote on adding these protections back in. Had the House Republicans allowed amendments on the floor today, I would have offered two amendments that I offered--along with my colleagues Representative Jackson Lee, Representative Lofgren, Representatives Deutch and Chu, all who were leaders in the Judiciary markup--which would have eliminated these atrocious provisions from the bill. Some of the most egregious anti-immigrant provisions would destroy incentives to cooperate with law enforcement. People like Sara, who bravely came forward to report domestic violence, would face deportation after 4 years. Why would somebody come forward and report something if it would ultimately lead to her own deportation? All women deserve to be protected from domestic violence--even women who have committed crimes, even women who have had civil violations, like violating our immigration laws, even women who are lesbians. All women deserve to be protected by the Violence Against Women Act, and that is what this bill is about. The Senate bill, which passed on a bipartisan basis and included a report from well over a dozen Republican Senators, included these provisions. Abuse is abuse, whether it occurs against immigrants, whether it occurs against gay and lesbian Americans, or whether it occurs against Native Americans. Yet, under this bill before us, a Native American woman who is living on a reservation and who is raped and abused by a nontribal member lacks protection and remains at risk of serious sexual and physical violence by her abuser. Under this underlying bill, gay and lesbian survivors and victims will struggle to get protective orders or will be turned away from service providers just because of their sexual orientation or gender identities. Just as alarming, this bill removes protections that currently exist for some of our Nation's most vulnerable populations: battered immigrant spouses, restricting the ability of U visa holders to apply for permanent resident status and forcing them to face deportation. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bills and to defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this closed rule to make in order the bipartisan Violence Against Women bill that passed the United States Senate with 68 votes as an amendment offered by Representative Conyers, Representative Moore, and Representative Lofgren. If the House passes that, it will proceed to President Obama's desk. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. Though we disagree on the bill, we can both agree that this is a terrible rule. And I encourage my colleagues to follow the leadership of the gentleman from Iowa in opposing this rule. I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady if she has any remaining speakers.

Mr. POLIS

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

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

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

Mr. POLIS. I rise today for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy about the importance of computer science in a balanced program of science, technology, education, and math. I thank the chairman for including extensive language in the committee report on STEM education, but I would like to highlight today some specific needs in the critical area of computer science. More than 1.5 million high-wage computing jobs will be created by 2018--the largest growth area across science, technology, engineering, and math. Yet few computer science classes are available to students; and when they're offered, they're typically only electives. Many States don't have proper teacher certification programs for K 12 computer science and don't clearly connect the certification to content. In recent years, the number of computer science bachelor degrees in the U.S. actually fell from 60,000 to 38,000, even as computer science breakthroughs are transforming our economy. I have legislation--the Computer Science Education Act--that focuses on this issue, but there are other steps as well. First, I believe it's important that Federal STEM education programs explicitly incorporate the broad definition of science, technology, engineering, and math reported by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. This definition helps make sure that STEM is sufficiently interpreted and not too narrowly to cover just math. Second, to ensure that there's a comprehensive pipeline for science from K 12 all the way through to the workforce, it's essential that NSF and other Agencies identify our Nation's highest STEM-related workforce needs and use that information to prioritize STEM-related subjects in our schools. I very much look forward to working with the chairman to address these issues as this bill continues to move forward through the appropriations process. I'm grateful to the chair for this conversation and his perspectives on all these critical issues, and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

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

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. Just for a brief question, the gentleman's home State of Iowa does allow same-sex couples to marry, and I would just like to ask in reference to the first part of your remarks whether your home State of Iowa in any way, shape, or form, whether civilization is in jeopardy or if any of the things that you mentioned in the early part of your remarks have, in fact, hurt your home State of Iowa?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very strange amendment, as my colleagues have pointed out. We are obviously a very diverse country. Some States allow same-sex marriages; others do not. Some have civil unions. My home State of Colorado is currently discussing this issue in the State legislature. It is certainly very contentious, and I wish them well in coming to a speedy resolution. What this amendment does is simply contravene something that doesn't occur. It talks about funds being used in contravention to the Defense of Marriage Act. There are no such funds. This administration, as the last administration, has followed the Defense of Marriage Act. Certainly out of political convenience, I would say would that it were, if only this administration had been granting immigration rights or inheritance and survivorship rights to committed same-sex couples that were married in the States that have them; but it is simply not the case. Now, I understand that there might be fears that perhaps some day a future administration might seek to violate the law in this area, but I think it shows a fixation to try to single out this area. I mean, a future administration or any administration might try to violate the law in any one of any number of areas. But to have a fixation on and support for a government takeover of the institution of marriage is a very dangerous precedent. And I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would help preserve the integrity of marriage in this country and its importance to all families, including mine, and my colleague from Massachusetts and many others. We do not currently use any funds in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act. There are a number of us in this body who seek to repeal this act. This House as a whole has not repealed this act. It very much has the rule of law. But just like other laws, the administration and the executive branch are charged with implementing that law. I think it is a bizarre step to single out one particular area of law with many, many, many laws that the executive branch operates under and say we don't want them to violate this law when there is of course no evidence, no sign, no indication that any administration, Democratic or Republican, has any desire to violate this law. The decision not to defend this law is unaffected by this amendment. To be clear, if this amendment passes, it has no bearing on the administration's decision not to defend the undefensible, namely, the government takeover of marriage that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to support. Marriage is a very personal relationship between two people who are in love. And, of course, it's precise definition is up to each State in terms of who they allow and under what conditions they allow to marry. And to have the Federal Government enter this debate is very contrary to the definition of marriage itself and frankly debases the thousands of same-sex marriages that have occurred in this country. So again, while this amendment would do nothing and certainly wouldn't jeopardize the administration's decision not to defend the undefensible, namely, the government takeover of marriage, I still urge opposition to this measure because I think it is bizarre to single out one particular area or one particular type of marriage that some Members of this body may not personally approve of. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from California for bringing forward this amendment. This amendment is absolutely critical for Colorado. We have a legal regulatory structure for medical marijuana and for the many businesses and nonprofits that are active in providing patients with medical marijuana, and yet they live under a constant fear, a constant fear of selective enforcement from the Attorney General or from the DEA. I had the opportunity in the Judiciary Committee to question the Attorney General with regard to this issue, and he acknowledged that the only possible enforcement--because of the large-scale use of medical marijuana in the States where it is legal--would be selective enforcement. And that is a very dangerous precedent and a very dangerous power to hand an Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and the DEA. I have heard from the other side of the aisle in different contexts many comments critical of the current Attorney General. But regardless of who is sitting as Attorney General, do we want to have an Attorney General that has the ability at any given time to engage in selective enforcement against a large group of people, whomever he or she wants to prosecute? What if the select enforcement is politically motivated? What if we have an Attorney General that decides he or she doesn't like the Tea Party or doesn't like the Occupy movement? What if they then force the States to give the records that they keep of who has the medical marijuana licenses and then go after the people with whose politics they don't agree? It's a very, very dangerous road to go down, a dangerous power to give to the Federal Government. This is a very real and important issue. Drug abuse is a terrible problem that plagues our country and plagues Colorado families. We can reduce drug abuse and reduce access to minors of both marijuana as well as other drugs by making sure that we regulate them appropriately. In Colorado, medical marijuana dispensaries are regularly audited. They are required, under State law, to have video cameras keep track of who comes and goes. Minors are not allowed to enter the premises. It is, of course, the underground illegal corner drug dealer that will sell to the 15-year-old, not the legal State-regulated dispensary. We have limited law enforcement capabilities, as highlighted by my colleague from California (Mr. Schiff), and to go after patients and their caregivers rather than drug smugglers and Mexican drug cartels does a huge disservice, not only to law enforcement, but also to the many, many victims of the drug war, both from collateral damage as well as those who fall victim to the drugs themselves. It's critical, at a time when our Nation continues to battle with narcotic use, that our limited resources are focused on the real problem. The real problem is not the 68-year-old cancer patient. The real problem is not the business or the nonprofit that operates under a legal State regulatory system in providing these essential services in our communities in accordance with State and local law. This amendment is common sense. I hope that colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join in passing this amendment. And I understand that for many of our colleagues, they don't have legal medical marijuana in their States, and that's fine. No one is saying that they should or they shouldn't. It's up to the residents of each State to decide how they want to treat the criminal aspects of regulating marijuana use. What we're asking is, for those of you who come from States who don't have legal marijuana, consider that some States might think about it a little differently. Consider that some States have, in fact, authorized dispensaries and authorized a system to ensure that it stays out of the hands of minors, to focus their State law resources on harder drugs and ensuring that minors don't have access to marijuana or other drugs. And consider that that is their prerogative, just as it is your prerogative in your State to continue to approach marijuana usage as a criminal issue. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important amendment, to focus our limited resources and allow legal businesses and legal caregivers to operate without the fear of a DEA agent busting in their door. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from California for their hard work on this issue, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

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

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).