Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. May I inquire of the gentlelady if she has any remaining speakers?

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. POLIS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. POLIS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) to respond to the gentlelady.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, there were several amendments offered in Rules Committee to make this bill better. To help reduce the budget deficit, my colleague, Mr. McGovern, introduced an amendment ending $40 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry. As the gentlelady said, that has nothing to do with the price of gas. Getting rid of subsidies to oil companies doesn't make gas more affordable. But the question is: Why are we giving money to oil and gas companies at a time when we have a national deficit? Why don't they pay taxes like every other company? I was a small businessman before I got here, and the companies that I was involved with had to pay taxes. What I don't understand is why economically a tax subsidy is any different than an expenditure subsidy. And economists across the ideological spectrum would agree corporate welfare is a government giveaway, whether it appears on the tax line or the expenditure line. Specifically, with regard to any tax breaks to the oil and gas industry, Mr. McGovern's amendment, which is, unfortunately, ruled out of order for this bill, would end the section 451 credit for producing oil and gas from marginal wells, the section 43 credit for enhanced oil recovery, the section 263 provision allowing the existing expansion of intangible drilling costs, and a number of other provisions that in effect give oil and gas companies a lower tax rate than other companies in this country. Why don't we use that money to reduce the deficit? Why don't we use that money to bring down the corporate tax rate overall, as is a key component of corporate tax reform, which I strongly support and discussed with Mr. Brady in our Rules Committee yesterday with regard to the other bill which moves in the wrong direction with regard to bringing down our tax rates and having a simpler Tax Code? Mr. McGovern has offered a similar amendment to save the U.S. Government $40 billion to reduce our deficit to several different bills in the past, including through an appropriations bill, an energy bill, a tax bill. Every single time the Republicans have said, Oh, it's not germane to this bill. Every single time they voted the McGovern amendment down. Clearly, this is a proposal that's worthy of discussion. If it's not a tax discussion and not an energy discussion, not an expenditure discussion, what kind of discussion is it? And why can't we be talking about reducing the deficit here on the floor of the House instead of continuing to spend unnecessary money on subsidies? It's funny how the majority party waives rules when it's convenient for their agenda but refuses to apply a consistent standard to an amendment that is worthy of consideration by this House. At the same time oil companies have record profits, we're continuing to subsidize oil injection, extraction, exploration, drilling, manufacturing, pricing, and inventory valuing by creating price floors, offsetting taxes, providing generous credits and deductions, providing tax shelters, and allowing the valuation of inventories at deeply discounted prices. If we are serious about deficit reduction, let us take this opportunity to vote down this rule and allow for the discussion of the McGovern amendment. We need to close these loopholes and allow for real deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment to the rule in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on H.R. 14, a bill brought forth by Representative Tim Bishop and Representative Corrine Brown containing the text of the Senate transportation bill, S. 1813, which passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 74 22. To discuss our amendment to the rule, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, my former colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4348, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II. Transportation policy has been and should be bipartisan. In fact, it's largely considered nonpartisan across our country, where mayors and county commissioners rely on and expect certainty from Washington with regard to necessary investments in infrastructure and mass transit. Yet, instead, here again, with this bill, politics has been injected into a process that has long been both bipartisan and an engine of our economic dynamo that ties our country together through our transportation infrastructure. Instead of creating jobs and advancing our economy, here we are with a bill that offers further delays, crippling States' and localities' ability to plan and fund projects and put Americans back to work. The bill before us provides yet another short-term extension, the 10th extension since the last highway law expired in 2009. The facts on the ground aren't changing. Whether we extend this for 2 months or 3 months or 1 month, we'll be back here again with the same facts on the ground, the same looming fiscal crisis at the Federal level, the same need for infrastructure at the State and local levels. So what facts are new? And what's the justification for such a short- term extension? As we stand here today to vote on another transportation extension, 50 percent of our roads have been identified as in disrepair; 70,000 bridges are structurally deficient and potentially dangerous. We need to make investments in our Nation's highways and transit projects--that much Republicans and Democrats can agree on--to bring our infrastructure into the 21st century. Yet, instead, this short-term bill before us represents another missed opportunity to make these critical investments for our country's future. The impact of voting on another short-term extension is not insignificant. As a former small business owner myself, I know very well the importance of certainty in business planning. Rather than providing States with the confidence they need to pass long-term projects planned for them and plan their highways, and for construction companies to gear up, this bill prolongs the uncertainty, which only increases costs, contributing to the deficit and contributing to taxpayers getting a worse deal for their investment at the State and local levels. The underlying bill only allows States and localities to plan for one short construction season. What guidance do they have for the next construction season? How can bidders and contractors offer their best pricing when they don't even know if there will be a paycheck after this building season? As the bipartisan National Governors Association has said, a string of short-term extensions will only increase uncertainty for State and local governments and the private sector. Yes, this approach will actually increase costs, rather than decrease costs. We should be voting, instead, on the bipartisan comprehensive transportation bill that the Senate has already passed that, if this House brought to the floor, I'm confident would pass and that President Obama would sign. It passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 74 22. The Senate bill maintains critical investments in our highways and public transportation, improves accountability through asset-management plans, and establishes performance measures so States are accountable for using their funds efficiently. Extremely disappointing is the transportation policy, an issue that has long been bipartisan in its support, which has turned into a political football in this Congress. The House majority has continued to offer partisan bills that would weaken our economy and create uncertainty. This time, the majority has crafted a transportation bill by linking it to unnecessary and unrelated politically motivated riders. It is a completely unrelated Christmas tree of a bill that we see before us with elements that have nothing to do with our transportation and infrastructure. Almost as appalling as the riders in the bill are the restrictive rules before us. This rule only made in order three Republican amendments, completely shutting out all Democratic, and even some Republican, ideas. When it comes to transportation policy, this body should be considering amendments under an open process that allows Members of both parties to bring forward their ideas to save taxpayer money and to invest in infrastructure. Unfortunately, thoughtful amendments were not made in order in this process, including some that I will discuss later in the debate. Because this rule and the underlying bill represent some of the worst partisanship that I've seen in the 3 years I've been here, I strongly oppose them both. I urge my colleagues in the House to reject this approach, to reject this rule, to reject this bill, and to bring up the Senate bill and to bring it quickly to passage in the House so that we can send it to President Obama in order to reauthorize transportation in a bipartisan way, one that reflects our values as Americans. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. The House cannot hide behind smoke and mirrors, behind wasteful pork--from Alabama to the Yukon.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Florida. We're in an unusual situation here where the same people on the other side of the aisle who decry the regulation of what insurance providers have to provide to those they insure across State borders and who want to interfere with our requirement that insurance companies not be allowed to discriminate based on preexisting conditions, on the other hand they say we need to replace the State tort systems, all 50 of them, with one overarching Federal approach with regard to malpractice. So whereas there is no Federal role in protecting patients from being dropped by their insurers, from preventing insurance companies from excluding individuals because they had childhood asthma, because they're a breast cancer survivor, and in many cases even because they have a child, while there is no Federal role for that, somehow there is a Federal role in micromanaging the way in which somebody who was wrongfully injured by a botched procedure can seek recourse. I ask my colleagues, not only where is the consistency, but how can we reconcile this with our values as Americans?

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I will certainly extend the courtesy to the gentleman. If the gentleman in his closing wants to yield some time to his speaker, I will not object to that.

Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Texas has any remaining speakers.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we'll offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up Mr. Bishop's bill, H.R. 1748, the Taxpayer and Gas Price Relief Act and that would simply do it, in addition to this bill, with broad bipartisan support. I know there is also broad bipartisan concern about gas prices, a very substantial issue that many on my side of the aisle, Mr. Bishop included, would like to do something about so that American consumers have more of their money to take home. So to talk about his proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), an author of key provisions of this bill.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, again, just as many of them are sponsored by Democrats as by Republicans. It will take votes from both sides to get to 60 votes. I think they can do that. And many of these bills before the House have had 400 votes, 90 percent of this body. Hopefully, they will command similarly large supermajorities in the Senate, comprised of both Democrats, many of whom sponsored these bills, and Republicans, who may be opposed to certain elements but hopefully, in the name of moving the country forward, will pass this JOBS Act. Here's what this bill will do. First of all, it's not a JOBS Act, per se. The JOBS name is an acronym. It actually is called Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBSA, but I guess JOBS sounds better. But what it really affects is capital markets. It is really a capital market bill. It is a good bill. It has several components that have already passed the House. My colleague from Texas outlined several of them. I want to explain why they are so important. First and foremost, it makes it easier for many small companies to go public. It rolls back some of the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations that were put in place in 2002 for small and medium-cap companies. Again, when you're looking at the compliance cost of Sarbanes-Oxley, they don't scale with the business. So it's de minimis for a $10 billion business, but it's substantial and, in fact, a deterrent to accessing the capital markets for a $100 million or a $300 million business. So this, in fact, rolls them back in a very thoughtful way. And I would further call for reexamination, of course, of the requirements for businesses of all sizes, but this will allow many small and mid-cap businesses to access the public capital markets. In addition, it allows people to invest in start-ups, a concept that's called crowdfunding, which is very exciting. Of course, heretofore, essentially, investing in start-ups has been restricted to what are called accredited investors. Now, an accredited investor is not just some investor that goes through some process of getting accredited; it's basically somebody who's wealthy. They have to be worth several million dollars; and then, all of a sudden, they're accredited. Now, we all know that some wealthy people are poor investors and some are good investors. One's wealth has nothing to do with how accredited or how good an investor one is. And families who are worth $100,000 or families that are worth $300,000 are perfectly within their rights under current law to go to Las Vegas or Atlantic City and bet their entire lifesavings on one roll of the dice; and yet they're not allowed, under current law, to invest in start-ups. So, we, with this bill, would allow families of all means to invest in start-up companies, some of which will work out and some of which will not. American families will enter this being aware of the risks. But, again, it is their money, they earned it, they've paid taxes on it, and they should be able to invest it and/or gamble it as they see fit. Another thing we do under this bill is increase the number of shareholders that is required for mandatory registration with the FCC from 500 to 1,000. This is very important because many companies use stock options, which is a good practice. It gets the employees to own part of the company, to own part of the fruits of their labor, and to have some of the upside on the equity. But companies have effectively been limited on this because once they have 500 shareholders, they're forced to file as public. So we're allowing them to stay private longer, as the need fits them, and not have to scale back on their option policy with their employees. Inevitably, some of those options get exercised, and employees become outright owners over time. This would prevent them from being forced into a backdoor IPO. In addition, we, again, allow community banks to raise additional capital. We remove some of the requirements around that. Community banks are important lenders in our community; and that's an important step, as well, towards allowing capital to flow more freely. So, in sum, the several bills, most of which have already passed this House, that we are packaging in the JOBS Act, this act that we're doing here today, are good bills that will free up the capital markets. And, yes, in the medium and long term, there will likely be some jobs created, because where will that capital go? It will flow to businesses that will encourage job growth. This is not something that happens overnight, but this is something that happens as a fruit of the investment. Some of these start-ups that are funded through crowdfunding might, in fact, be employers of 1,000 people in 5 years or 10 years. And that's what's so exciting about the potential of these mechanisms to create value in the economy. But what are we not doing? And what would be a real jobs bill? In my opinion, there's really several things that are holding back our private sector recovery. First and foremost is our budget deficit and the questions about the fiscal integrity of this country. This Congress continues to avoid taking action on a default scenario under which debt as a percentage of GDP would rise from about 70 percent where it is now to about 200 percent of our GDP by 2040, a far worse situation than many of the fiscally beleaguered nations in Europe that are currently undertaking bailouts. This is widely known on both sides of the aisle, and, in fact, the solution is widely known, as well. There are several that have been presented. There's a bipartisan group that emerged from the Senate, including Democrats and Republicans, that proposed a plan to reduce the deficit as a percentage of GDP down to 1.9 percent by 2021. There's been a similar effort on behalf of the Bowles-Simpson Commission, again, to rein in fiscal spending so that debt as a percentage of GDP would be 35 percent instead of 200 percent by 2040. This Congress has not advanced either and, in fact, quite to the contrary, has passed an operational budget that only serves to continue these deficits through the next 10 years. Again, giving fiscal certainty around the integrity of our Nation would do a lot more to free up capital and improve the flow of capital and credit markets and create jobs than these relatively minor, but still important, bills that we're considering here today. The other reform that would create a lot more jobs in this bill, and I think would better be called a Jobs Act, if they could come up with a fancy acronym for it, is business tax reform. I'd like to submit to the Record a recent report from the White House and the Department of the Treasury on a framework for business tax reform. Introduction America's system of business taxation is in need of reform. The United States has a relatively narrow corporate tax base compared to other countries--a tax base reduced by loopholes, tax expenditures, and tax planning. This is combined with a statutory corporate tax rate that will soon be the highest among advanced countries. As a result of this combination of a relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate, the U.S. tax system is uncompetitive and inefficient. The system distorts choices such as where to produce, what to invest in, how to finance a business, and what business form to use. And it does too little to encourage job creation and investment in the United States while allowing firms to benefit from incentives to locate production and shift profits overseas. The system is also too complicated-- especially for America's small businesses. For these reasons, the President is committed to reform that will support the competitiveness of American businesses--large and small--and increase incentives to invest and hire in the United States by lowering rates, cutting tax expenditures, and reducing complexity; while being fiscally responsible. This report presents the President's Framework for business tax reform. In laying out this Framework, the President recognizes that tax reform will take time, require work on a bipartisan basis, and benefit from additional feedback from stakeholders and experts. To start that process, this report outlines what the President believes should be five key elements of business tax reform.

Mr. POLIS. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous question. These are important bills, and I strongly support the underlying bill. I encourage its passage, and again encourage my colleagues to be fully aware that, by passing this bill, we are not creating a single job. Yes, by pressuring the Senate and by getting the bill to Obama's desk, it can eventually lead to the enhancement of our capital markets and some job creation, but this doesn't get us off the hook. Passing this bill and not balancing the budget deficit, as this Congress is currently doing, as well as passing this bill and not reforming our Tax Code by making it more in line with the international standard, is not a recipe for American competitiveness or jobs. In fact, this bill alone, if it means the absence of balancing our budget and the absence of making our Tax Code competitive, is just an anti- jobs bill. You can't bail out a sinking ship. This country needs fundamental change. We need to balance our budget deficit. We need corporate tax reform. We need individual tax reform. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take those items up. Yes, it is a small positive measure to help free up capital flow, particularly for start-ups and small- and mid-cap companies. Let's pass this jobs bill now. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I am happy to yield. Will the gentleman amend his remarks?

Mr. POLIS

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