Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked long and hard on a number of these bills. In my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly: the good that these bills can do to free up our capital markets, but the bad and the ugly of issues that are more substantial to job creation and the fiscal integrity of our country, which this Congress continues to ignore. First, to respond to my colleague from Texas who several times blamed one particular party in the Senate for advancing these bills, I would just like to remind my colleague that many of these bills are sponsored by Democrats in the Senate. It's not Democrats or Republicans in the Senate; it is the Senate that needs to pass this. And as we know, the Senate requires 60 votes. So I would hope that the gentleman from Texas would amend his future remarks and call upon the Senate to pass the JOBS Act rather than just the Democrats in the Senate, of course recognizing that Republican votes are needed to reach the necessary 60 votes to advance any legislation.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill here today is a good bill, an important bill. It's not a job solution for our country. It's not a jobs bill. In fact, I think the frustration of some is that to a certain extent it represents the spinning of the wheels that has typified this Congress in that most of these bills have actually already passed this House. That being said, if packaging them together and passing them again and trying to put pressure on the Senate to pass it is a constructive step towards making them law, then let's do it. I think a strong bipartisan vote of support will help do that. President Obama said he will sign this bill. I call upon my colleagues of both sides of the aisle to support these bills. These bills help free up our capital markets in positive and constructive ways by allowing small investors the same opportunities as large investors, allowing companies a little bit more flexibility on remaining private over who their investors are, allowing small and mid- cap companies easier access to public marketplaces. This in turn makes it easier for venture capitalists and angel funders to invest in start- up companies, knowing that there's a better prospect of an exit should they succeed at smaller mid-cap stages. We all know there's a number of contributing factors to the decrease in public offerings that have occurred over the last 10 years, a trend that I think is beginning to reverse. One of those aspects--certainly not the only aspect--is the excess regulation that we abolish through this act. Other things include simply the appetite of the capital markets for public offerings at any given time and other legal and administrative risks that are not dealt with in this bill that perhaps call for additional legislation. This is not by any stretch of the imagination a recovery or a jobs bill, but these are very constructive steps that, again, cycling our wheels, yes, we've already passed. We are passing two new ones as well. Let's package them together; let's put pressure on the Senate to send them to President Obama's desk where he has said he will sign these bills. But let us not, in our effort to continue to push these important pieces of legislation for capital formation, forget that our country faces even more important critical risks before us. We need to get serious about growing our economy, and we need to work hard in a bipartisan basis to implement real tax reform legislation, tax reform that would create a more competitive Tax Code, allowing companies to reinvest in their growth rather than taking their money in an arbitrary way or encouraging them to distort the economic reality and the allocation of resources by having certain tax preferences for industries that may be in or out of favor of government officials. Let's allow companies to invest in their own growth and encourage private sector job creation and have real corporate tax reform as the President has proposed and the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Camp, has proposed and many on both sides of the aisle have proposed. I call upon our House to move forward a bill that will fundamentally make American businesses more competitive and that, Mr. Speaker, we can call a jobs act. What else can we call a jobs act? We can call a jobs act doing something about our national deficit, the fact that the current fiscal integrity of our Nation is at stake if we do not take action. Over the next 10 to 15 years, yes, our Nation faces an immense financial crisis. We need a balanced approach, a big, bold and balanced approach, as has been outlined by both the Gang of Six and the Bowles-Simpson Commission. There are a number of people on both sides of the aisle who have been calling for real deficit reduction, and yet this House has not reduced the deficit and has continued to pass and operate, in fact, under a budget that simply continues these record deficits for the next 10 years. Providing that certainty around the fiscal integrity of our country-- to allow for long-term borrowing, to ensure that businesses have access to capital and predictability over time--will, again, do more to create jobs and grow our economy than will freeing up the capital markets around a few key areas that these bills accomplish. So, yes, these bills are an important step in the right direction, including the only one truly new bill before us--the others have already been passed by this House. This is a good package, a good package which is a first start to rebuilding our economy. But even after they're enacted, there is nothing that instantaneously happens. They have to be implemented, and credited investors have to start buying private securities and start-ups. It will be several years before this can translate into actual job growth, which it will, and produce meaningful results. Again, corporate tax reform and showing some interest among this body in actually balancing our budget deficit would send an indication now to the marketplace that would immediately lead to job growth. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the previous question into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I rise today to urge this body, the United States Congress, to join my constituents' call and meet my constituents' call for comprehensive immigration reform. My constituents across the ideological spectrum, from those on the right, who decry the rule of law, the undermining of the state of law and the affront to our sovereignty, to those on the left, who decry the tearing apart of families and the injustices of the inhumane treatment of people in our immigration system, we are calling out to fix our broken immigration system and replace it with one that works. There are upwards of 10 to 15 million people residing in this country illegally. We owe it to the citizens of our country, conservative, liberal, and everywhere in between, to make sure that there are close to zero people living in this country illegally and pass comprehensive immigration reform, as both President Bush and President Obama have called for on a bipartisan basis. My constituents demand action now. I call upon Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Utah how many speakers he has remaining.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the service of David Timothy Dreier to this House of Representatives and to this country. There will be many more opportunities prior to his departure to acknowledge his work for his country, but our chairman today announced that he will be retiring at the end of this session. Chairman Dreier said: We all know that this institution has an abysmally low approval rating, and the American people are asking for a change in Congress. So I am announcing today that I will leave Congress at the end of the year. I would like to reassure my chairman that the change the American people, my constituents, and our country had in mind was not, in fact, his retirement. That will be a tremendous loss to this body. David Dreier is a proud institutionalist, somebody who has capably served the country, has been a friend and mentor to me, first as ranking member and now chair of the powerful Rules Committee, and somebody that I've had the opportunity and the privilege to work with on a number of bipartisan issues around trade and U.S.-Mexico relations. His retirement will constitute the loss of not only a wealth of knowledge but of a tireless and dedicated and honorable public servant, and I hope that he continues to find opportunities to serve the public, as he truly has much more to give and is too young to call it quits. I hope that, at the end of this session, his retirement from this body will be a new beginning for our chair. I rise today with great concern over this bill's impact on my home State and its number one resource and scarcest resource in issue, water. You know, we have an old saying in the West that ``whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting.'' I think, Mr. Speaker, we're going to see some of that fighting here on the floor of the House tonight, and I would argue that this isn't the appropriate venue to settle inter-California disputes that have long been settled through case law and settlements. Water fights are long, expensive, tiring, but, you know, they've led to an established and workable framework within which States and localities have operated for years. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not just about California. This bill has far-reaching implications for nearly 17 other States, including my own State of Colorado. This bill would override the century-long legacy whereby the Bureau of Reclamation respects each State's legal ability to control, appropriate, use, and distribute irrigation water. Because of this, more than several dozens letters from stakeholders in opposition to this legislation, including the nonpartisan Western States Water Council and the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Oregon, have all been received by the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter in opposition from my home State of Colorado. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO, August 19, 2011. Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, House Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington,

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a former member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui.

Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. Mr. Andrews mentioned that, rather than discussing this, why aren't we tackling the big issues of the day, such as gas prices? Well, my colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop) has a proposal to do just that. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) to talk about his proposal.

Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I will yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the previous question amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. POLIS. My colleague, Mr. Bishop, has brought forth something that I think is an important national issue that my constituents have certainly been calling me about. And I know that there has been concern from across the country about rising gas prices. If we defeat the rule and the previous question, we will be able to immediately bring forth Mr. Bishop's bill and the discussion about price gouging and gas prices. Mr. Speaker, this bill sets a dangerous precedent for preempting State water rights, leaving other States vulnerable to this kind of Federal interference. This bill is opposed by the State of California, California's two U.S. Senators, the leaders of both State legislative houses, commercial and recreational fishing associations, water districts, local governments and the California Bay Delta Farmers. This bill overrides a bipartisan local settlement to restore the San Joaquin River that ended 18 years of costly litigation and uncertainty. This bill guts the review process for water projects in California's Central Valley and eliminates science-based protections for many species required under both California law and the U.S. Endangered Species Act. There is simply no reason to support legislation that has a myriad of unintended consequences. It is an attack on certainty, and it is an attack on issues that should be decided, frankly, by States and stakeholders. H.R. 1837 would eliminate desperately needed protections for fisheries, threatening thousands of fishing jobs and millions of dollars in income that sustains families, as evidenced by the impact seen during the first-ever closures of California's salmon fishery in 2008 and 2009 due to collapsing runs. This bill is a recipe for lawsuit after lawsuit, an attack on a century of State leadership on water law and a dismissal of the consensus agreement that the people of California have reached without the needless meddling of this body, without those from other States being called upon to settle a California matter of water. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a solution in search of a problem, a bill that ends up creating more problems for more people than the problem it's trying to solve. Simply put, this bill is cutting off the nose to spite the face; and my State, along with 17 others, stands to get harmed over in the process, particularly by the dangerous precedent of Federal second-guessing of local water rights. If this bill were really about the delta smelt, then it should be drafted more narrowly. If this bill were really about jobs, then take into account the jobs of the salmon industry which the bill would decimate. Take those concerns to local stakeholders and to the State of California and work out a solution that is in the best interests of California citizens. Unfortunately, this bill is not about real problems. It's about scoring political points and advancing sound bites. I urge my colleagues to join me on a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill and defeat the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, Congress should be the taxpayers' advocate to root out waste, fraud, and abuse wherever it occurs; and this is particularly true when it comes to student financial aid. Both of my amendments pertain to this category of making sure we have the right structure in place to in one case incentivize and in another case have a strategy to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. Every dollar we lose to fraud and waste is a dollar that's not invested in our young people, a dollar of deficit spending, of government spending that is not producing the desired outcome of education or youth preparation of our workforce for jobs in the 21st century and improving our economic strength. If we are eliminating some of the basic protections that are categorically applied under the bill, it's very important that we require institutions that are failing students to prove their value. And if schools have a chronically low graduation rate, a low completion rate or a high loan default rate they, in fact, should be required to be recognized by the State in which they are operating as a backstop against fraud, waste, and abuse to ensure that the students' complaints and questions are at least heard by their own State if they believe that they have been treated unfairly or unjustly by a college or university. That's what my amendment would do. It would provide an incentive for colleges and universities to produce better outcome for students. In both of my remarks, I am going to be talking a little bit about Carnegie units and how we determine time. Frankly, this bill is a very limited piece. What we need to do more broadly when we reauthorize the Higher Education Act is really look at outcome-based measurements for learning in higher education. I think the Secretary, with his rules regarding gainful employment, provided some useful indicators around outcome-based measurements. There are many others that we should look at. That part of what we need to accomplish is freeing good-performing institutions up from the input restraints, the input barriers. If they can effectively teach something that normally takes 2 hours in 5 minutes, that institution should be rewarded for that and encouraged to do that. What a great way to invest our taxpayer money in some innovative institution of higher education that has figured out how to get 2 hours of legacy Carnegie credit into 5 minutes of rapid instruction. What a wonderful accomplishment, and I am hopeful that that and more can be accomplished. My amendment would provide an incentive for colleges and universities to produce better outcomes. Where they are not performing, they would be subject to their State. Where they are performing, they would have the additional flexibility under this act, and I think that that's something we should encourage in higher education. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk. It's amendment No. 5.

Mr. POLIS. No.

Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 5.

Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk. The amendment is numbered No. 3.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chairman, in what other government program would we somehow say it's all right to keep fuddling taxpayer money without accountability. Specifically, my amendment would retain State authorization requirements for institutions that have below-average graduation rates, below-average annual completion rates and above- average loan-default rates, free up the good-performing institutions to experiment and not holding them accountable to the Carnegie units that continue to reach out and prevent innovation in the education sector. I believe the regulations are reasonable and a relatively low burden on colleges. I think by providing this incentive we could make sure that universities and institutions of higher education that are good custodians of our public dollars are freed up to engage in the kind of innovation that can produce a 21st-century workforce and drive education innovation into the new century. Those that continue that have below-average graduation rates, completion rates, and high default rates will make sure that there is a recourse, a recourse with their States, for those institutions. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.