Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I have an amendment at the desk. This will be amendment No. 5.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I think that, again, my amendment would provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate alternative higher- education settings. The reason we're talking about rules and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse is not somehow the government is going someplace that's unwarranted; but these are Federal student loans, these are Federal programs we're talking about. We do not want taxpayers to be ripped off, and we do not want students to be ripped off. I believe that directing the Secretary to come up with an alternative plan to the one we're stripping out would go a long way toward accomplishing that. And I agree with the gentlewoman from North Carolina. Fundamentally, many of these issues need to be discussed during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act; and I hope that she will join me at that point, yes, on freeing up the inputs-based measurements, but equally, if not more important, making sure we hold the recipients of taxpayer- funded programs accountable for the outcomes. And there is no perfect outcome-based measurement--we know this from K 12 education as well--but even a mediocre one is better than none. And I think it will fall upon this Congress to do that. I think that this bill facilitates that discussion; but should it become law, I would certainly hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can join me in supporting this commonsense directive to ensure that waste, fraud, and abuse do not enter the system along with freeing up innovation and thoughtful new ways to educate kids. I urge my colleagues to join me on voting ``yes'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I think that the gentlelady from North Carolina has put together a good bill. It has some good parts and some bad parts. I am very hopeful that she will accept this amendment. I believe that the intent of the bill, specifically around making sure that we don't have an overarching implementation of Carnegie units--and again, where does this stem from? It stems from a U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General report that found that there is not an established definition of credit hour or minimum requirement. The Secretary, working within those constraints, tried to provide a definition. I don't think that is a productive road to go down, so I strongly support the general thrust of this bill. But where we need to move is toward outcome-based measurements. We have this same discussion in K 12 education as well. And the conclusion that I've come to, and I've come to the same conclusion in higher education, is we need to free institutions up with regard to the inputs to promote innovation and make sure that we hold institutions accountable for the outputs where taxpayer money is at stake. One component of the bill that I hope the gentlelady from North Carolina can work with me on in accepting this amendment, and I think it is a very pragmatic amendment that would improve the bill, since we are removing many of the specifics that currently combat waste, fraud, and abuse--and I don't think we want to combat waste, fraud, and abuse by applying an overly rigid hour-is-an-hour standard with no wriggle room because what we care about is whether kids are learning, not whether they spend 5 minutes or 2 hours doing it. I've talked to folks who use apprenticeships, who use online education, and we should hold them accountable for results where there is taxpayer money at hand, but at the same time we want to make sure that there's a backstop for what I think folks on both side agree exist, which is waste, fraud, and abuse in the system. What my amendment would do is replace the specifics of these regulations with a directive to the Department of Education to come up with an alternative plan that protects taxpayer dollars and students' rights. This would make sure that we can deal with many of the issues raised by the inspector general, not by providing an overly arching and rigid definition of time that's a necessary part of education but, rather, by requesting and requiring that the Secretary come up with ideas that are consistent with the future of education towards combating waste, fraud, and abuse. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment gets to the heart of what sustains our western communities from Colorado to California to New Mexico to Montana--our water and our land. My amendment is the answer to concerns from my constituents in Colorado, outcries from farmers, from ranchers, local communities, from sportsmen, from recreationists, and from many others who know this bill threatens their livelihoods, and my amendment corrects that component. This bill contains a troubling oil shale provision. Now, it was originally included to help pay for the bill's overall cost, but it was found to provide no revenue. So how can something help pay for a bill when it provides no revenue? With the CBO score confirming it receives no revenue, there is, therefore, no reason to include it. We might as well simply take up any random natural resources bill. And, in fact, the whole discussion of oil shale certainly deserves its own discussion. And since it is not going to help pay for our highways, I would urge my colleagues, even if they are supportive of this end product, to remove this from this bill. Let me be clear, my amendment has nothing to do with one form of energy over another. You'll probably hear people from both sides of this argument talk about the potential for oil shale in the future. It's not about dirty or clean forms of energy; it's simply about common sense. If the technology doesn't exist and it won't bring in revenue, why is it being considered as a revenue provision for an unrelated infrastructure bill? We've all heard of former Presidential candidate Herman Cain's 9 9-9 plan, but the oil shale section of this bill is a zero-zero-zero plan-- no revenue, no jobs, and no energy. It mandates we lock up land at fire-sale prices to those who are connected enough to make bids for a technology that doesn't even exist and would threaten jobs, would threaten water in western Colorado, and threaten our western way of life. My amendment simply strikes that section, leaving revenue for the overall bill unaffected, and keeps our western lands and waters as they currently are, outside of what's supposed to be an infrastructure and transportation bill. Now, you might hear some hold up Estonia as an example of oil shale development, but by all accounts, Estonia oil shale has been an economic disaster. Even Jim Bartis with the RAND Corporation said: ``To our knowledge, oil shale in Estonia is not even used to produce transportation fuels.'' You'll also hear that we're the Saudi Arabia of various energy resources. Now, I continue to question the wisdom in looking to Estonia and Saudi Arabia for leadership in energy independence for our country. Even industry insiders know that a provision like the one contained in this bill is simply the wrong thing to do. Jeremy Boak, a professor who heads the industry-sponsored Center for Oil Shale Technology at the Colorado School of Mines, said that he's doubtful that any firm would even bid on commercial leases, leaving them to speculators. He also said: ``It isn't obvious to me yet that we need to be putting a bunch of commercial leases out there because no one has a commercial process yet.'' That's something that industry admits. There's no feasible, cost- effective commercial process for extracting oil from shale. We're talking about a potential technology, one that will have profound implications on water, profound implications on land use, and, yes, profound implications on national energy policy, but it's a technology that doesn't exist. This component of the bill, if we don't remove it, will simply remove speculators rather than those who can actually play a meaningful role in providing for our energy independent future. I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Perhaps my friend and colleague from Colorado isn't aware that there already is extensive experimentation about the potential of oil shale to meet our energy needs. In fact, there are millions of dollars spent every year in research that industry itself has invested in this technology. Furthermore, there are 3 million acres of oil shale lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming that are under State, private, or tribal leadership and have been for decades. In fact, several large companies alone already control 200,000 acres of oil shale lands. There are a couple of sites in Colorado where they're looking to try to develop cost-effective methods. In fact, by the end of 2012, there will be nine active Federal research and development leases. No one has figured out a cost-effective way to develop these areas. Again, this is not about the research. In fact, after the second round of bids in early 2009, when the Obama administration affirmed the Bush administration's decision regarding a second round of R&D leasing, there was a significant reduction in industry bids. Industry itself was even less interested in trying to figure out this because it's been a nut that they've been unable to crack for nearly 100 years. This amendment is not about the environment. It's about common sense. Mr. Chairman, I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. POLIS. Well, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strongly support this commonsense amendment to preserve our land, our jobs, and our water in the West.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I have to say, after hearing my colleague from Florida, I'm a little bit confused about where he stands. Certainly, his arguments were many of the same arguments that I and others have been making. In fact, Ranking Member Slaughter proposed in committee yesterday to strike suspensions authority specifically so the gentleman from Florida could offer his bill as an amendment to the bill and so we could have a discussion about this blind trust issue. I think that would have been a better way to have brought it to the floor. Yet the gentleman from Florida voted ``no'' yesterday to the provision that he is effectively trying to argue for on the floor today. He concluded his remarks by confirming that he plans to vote for a rule that fundamentally doesn't allow him to do what he thinks needs to be done to restore ethics and integrity to this body. So I think that that is an example of the type of contradictions that we're hearing, but I would urge the gentleman to be convinced by his own arguments so that he might join me in opposing the previous question and in opposing the rule. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, an original sponsor of the STOCK Act, Mr. Walz.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in opposition to this structured rule. This is yet another example of this Congress' remarkable ability to take commonsense measures and churn them, through partisan posturing, into measures that not only put in jeopardy broad, bipartisan support from this body, but significantly weaken them and reduce the quality of the work product for the American people. This rule that we're debating does two things. We'll have the opportunity in a moment to talk about the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act, an underlying bill that I strongly support, one that would empower the President of the United States to use the line-item veto on unnecessary expenditures to help reduce our deficit, subject to an en masse approval vote of the United States Congress. It fundamentally addresses some of the constitutional flaws with a broad line-item veto, which has been attempted in the past, that many Governors currently wield. So it's, I think, a good-faith effort by both sides to come to something that the American people think is common sense. Congress should not be able to force the President to spend money in areas that are unnecessary, that are earmarks, that are special interest expenditures. The President can then highlight those, bring them back to Congress, subject to an up-or-down vote. The bigger problem with this rule is the other component of this rule, which prevents Members from offering amendments that would strengthen the STOCK Act--a very significant piece of reform legislation offered by Mr. Walz and my Rules Committee colleague and ranking member, Louise Slaughter, which I proudly cosponsor. This bill, the STOCK Act, has been subject to a lot of media attention of late. It would ban insider trading in Congress, again, a commonsense approach and something that I think has broad, if not universal, support on both sides of the aisle. But a little bit of history of how we got here and why this particular rule many on our side and I myself see as an attempt to water down many of the critical provisions of the STOCK Act and make it less meaningful in responding to the public outrage about perceived behaviors that can occur, both among the Members and the staff in this body, as well as on the executive side of government. This bill has been introduced, the STOCK Act, by Representative Slaughter for 6 years now. I've been a cosponsor since last year. It has rapidly picked up cosponsors in the last year, including close to 100 cosponsors from the other side of the aisle. It's a strong bipartisan piece of legislation with strong support. First, this bill, the STOCK Act, was blocked by the majority leader. Now it's being rewritten behind closed doors and without the input of Mr. Walz or Ms. Slaughter. We don't know what this so-called STOCK Act will contain. We have reason to believe it will water down a number of provisions of the STOCK Act. It's my understanding that at least the version of the STOCK Act released last night removed the requirement that political intelligence firms register as lobbyists. Now, what are political intelligence firms? They are firms that are hired by those who do financial transactions and effectively bet on stocks going up or down. Hedge funds, et cetera, would hire these political information firms to try to figure out, using their connections, what Members of Congress and, just as importantly, committee staff and staff members are thinking, and timing, with regard to hearings and the introductions of bills. Now, in an open system, obviously, discussion among people is certainly fine, but the issue is whether they have to register as lobbyists. Lobbyists have a registration process that critically includes who their clients are to provide visibility and transparency into who their clients are. Political intelligence firms do not need to register under current law. They would be required to register under the STOCK Act. But under the version, the weakening of the STOCK Act that Leader Cantor posted to the Web site, they would no longer be required to register. In fact, specifically, from the Web page of a political intelligence firm, it says that they, in fact, relish this ability to operate in secrecy. Quoting from their Web site it says: ``providing the service for clients who do not want their interest in an issue publicly known.'' So again, there is this, I think, commonsense loophole that the American people are outraged over that allows people to avoid registering as lobbyists who are in the business of developing relationships with Members and their staffs for the purpose of seeking inside information for financial gain. And I would strongly recommend that any serious STOCK Act include a registration requirement around political intelligence firms. We also won't have the opportunity in the House, as the Senate did, to make the STOCK Act stronger and to strengthen the bill through the amendment process. Under this particular version of this rule that we're debating, there will be zero, zero amendments allowed--no amendments from Republicans and no amendments from Democrats to strengthen the STOCK Act. Now, even the Senate, which is hardly known for its legislative efficiency, was able to consider amendments and get the bill done and passed because of its bipartisan support. We should do so in the House under an open process, or even a controlled process, 10, 15, 20 amendments. I know Members across both sides of the aisle have ideas about how to reduce the perceived inequities and conflicts of interest that exist, both among Members and appointees, and on the executive side of government. We owe nothing less to the American people. So I am terribly disappointed that this rule will not allow for any strengthening of the STOCK Act and, quite to the contrary, actually deals it a severe weakening blow by removing political intelligence. Furthermore, we don't know, at this point, what exactly will be in this STOCK Act that potentially could be under consideration tomorrow. Contrary to the promise that the Republican majority made to the American people about having time to read bills, it's my understanding that an initial version was posted last night. It's my understanding that a subsequent version weakening the STOCK Act was posted just an hour ago, which I don't think any of us have had the opportunity to read. We fear that this could be changed again; and, yet, under this rule, this Congress could be called on to act on this tomorrow, to vote on this tomorrow, with no opportunity to strengthen the bill, no opportunity to prevent the watering down of the bill by the majority leader of this body, which is occurring behind closed doors as we speak. Now, again, while I cannot support the rule for those reasons, I want to also discuss one of the underlying bills that this rule will bring to the House, which is the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act. This act is an important step, albeit a small step, a small but constructive step, towards the cause of deficit reduction and eliminating the wasteful spending and earmarks that have too often been the hallmark of this Congress and past Congresses. Now, Members on both sides of the aisle have disagreements about this bill. When you have a bill that impacts legislative prerogative, that's likely to be the case. I know some are concerned about constitutionality, generally, of line-item veto bills. I believe that this bill was carefully crafted to take into account those valid constitutional arguments about the separation of powers and the prerogative of the legislative branch. This legislation strikes the correct balance between the Framers' intent to place the power of the purse in the hands of Congress, which retains, under this bill, the ability to approve or disapprove of any Presidential line-item veto, with the need to cut out wasteful spending that piggybacks on larger, must-pass legislation which, whether it's an omnibus or an appropriations bill, we know that this body has been unable to produce, cleaner, leaner spending bills. And I think it can be a constructive step to enlist the help of the President of the United States in removing unnecessary and indefensible pork from spending bills. I would also add that this bill is a welcome change for many of the other so-called budget-reform bills that have been brought forward by the House Budget Committee. The House Budget Committee has brought forward bills to pretend that inflation doesn't exist. They've brought forward bills to have funny scoring, trick scoring, dynamic scoring, rather than the usual objective process of the Congressional Budget Office. But you can't pretend the deficit away. You can't pretend the deficit away by assuming there's no inflation. You can't pretend the deficit away by putting in wacky numbers that are whatever you feel like, based on your biases. So this bill is really the first budget bill that is a constructive step towards actually controlling spending, something that I've often heard Members of both parties pay lip service to, but this body has done relatively little to address that notable goal of budgeting our budget. However, there's a lot more to do. I've always maintained, as have many on my side of the aisle, that rather than talking about balancing the budget, rather than talking about what we want to do, and rather than trying to change the rules, let's balance the budget. The supercommittee had an opportunity to do that with a balanced approach. The President of the United States has called for a balanced approach to balance the budget. The President of the United States has convened the Simpson-Bowles Commission to outline specific plans around ending our budget deficit and returning our Nation to fiscal responsibility. That bill, from the Simpson-Bowles Commission, there were no bills that have been taken up by this body that would fundamentally address the very real budget problems that we face. And to be clear, we cannot simply pass this Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act and say, problem solved, game over, let's go home. A constructive step towards balancing our budget, yes, but a small step, a baby step, a potential step in the right direction, but one that, by no means, should get Congress out of the responsibility of acting responsibly in a balanced manner to balance our budget, right our fiscal ship, ensure the long-term integrity of Social Security and Medicare, and balance our budget deficit. We need to use a balanced approach to budget challenges. The approach needs to be comprehensive and bipartisan. I would like to maintain some hope and optimism that perhaps the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act would be a small first step towards a larger collaboration between the two parties to tackle the issues of the day. While not, in and of itself, the real progress we need to actually solve the budget item, the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act will assist lawmakers in targeting wasteful government spending. Unlike previous attempts at a line-item veto that have been ruled unconstitutional, the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act respects the careful system of checks and balances that our Framers established. Under this bill, the President can highlight unjustified government spending that's wasteful, and the President can then identify those items, but it has to come back to Congress to affirmatively approve, by majority, any cancellation of expenditures in those areas. Let them be debated and defended on their merits, rather than slipped in to thousand-page bills in the dark of night. Further, the President's withholding authority is limited. The President can only hold back on spending for 45 days after the appropriations bill has been enacted. I think this bill can be a step towards putting our Nation on a path towards fiscal discipline and a balanced budget. I am aware that there are those on both sides that, for constitutional or legislative prerogative reasons, feel differently than I do. But I think a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill would be a small positive step towards combating the runaway spending that has characterized not only this Republican Congress, but prior Congresses controlled by both parties. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on the political intelligence provisions that are included in the STOCK Act written by Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Walz as a standalone bill. This bill will help shine sunlight onto political intelligence firms and require that they register as lobbyists. This provision already has the support of a majority of the Members of this body--285 Members, including 99 Republicans. The fact that the Republican leadership has weakened and watered down the STOCK Act by stripping out this provision we'll be considering this week is both shameful and wrong. It's clear that this House needs to act, and it will be my hope that we defeat the previous question and I'm able to offer this amendment. I am honored to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee and the sponsor of the STOCK Act.

Mr. POLIS. I would be happy to yield an additional minute to the gentlelady from New York.

Mr. POLIS. Yes, I do. I have one further request for time.

Mr. POLIS. It's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. POLIS. I yield a total of 1 additional minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. POLIS. I am prepared to close.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. The Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act is a fiscally sound way for both Congress and the President to reduce wasteful government spending and ensure that American taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. This legislation will help in a small way to address our budget crisis. Again, I want to be clear that the Expedited Line- Item Veto and Rescissions Act does not solve our deficit, does not restore fiscal discipline and fiscal integrity to our country, but is a step in the right direction that will produce savings that will all be applied to deficit reduction under this bill. The bill is a balanced measure, and I know that there is some support and opposition from both sides of the aisle. I encourage my colleagues to seriously consider supporting this small, but important, step forward. The country's budget situation is dire. The supercommittee's failure and the threat of sequestration underscores the need to address our fiscal policies head on. The worst possible outcome is that we pat ourselves on the back and say ``job well done'' while this country faces record deficits of trillions of dollars over the next 10 years. We need a big and balanced budget compromise to reduce our Nation's debt. Passing the bipartisan Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act will be a small step and keep us on track to help restore fiscal integrity to our country; but we need to remind ourselves that it is only a small first step toward addressing our budget problem. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to extend the unemployment insurance and middle class tax cuts to reach a big, bold, and balanced solution to our Federal budget situation along the lines of the President's commission. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I would inquire if the gentleman from Florida has any remaining speakers.

Mr. POLIS. I will yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I know that significant issues still remain with the Civilian Property Realignment Act in its current form. The gentleman discussed the potential savings from this bill. To be clear, this is a transfer of items that are already in the asset column of the Federal Government. It's not the creation of new value or new money out of nothing. It simply turns assets into cash. We need cash. We have a large deficit to cover. It makes sense to sell excess properties, but this money doesn't come from nowhere. Once those properties are sold, those will no longer be on the ledgers of the Federal Government. Now, it does save significant operating capital and maintenance of these unnecessary properties; but, again, I think common sense would indicate that if the commission costs $20 million to set up, with the various people involved with this process, we should specify where that money is coming from in the bill. And I think that there would be a way to do that on a bipartisan basis. Given all the concerns that remain with this bill regarding how it's paid for, the homeless situation, and the NEPA, the environmental review protections, we should be engaging in an open process, not one that limits and shuts down debate. The American people are frustrated that this Congress refuses to consider bipartisan-supported balanced bills that would stimulate job growth in our country and restore fiscal responsibility. We can only reignite the American Dream and reinvigorate our economy by strengthening the middle class and encouraging innovation. President Obama has introduced a package to spur small business growth and start- ups, which includes many of the proposals previously offered by Members on both sides of the aisle with bipartisan support. And yet, to the dismay on many on my side of the aisle, this Congress has yet to consider these measures that will strengthen the middle class and help small business grow. I do applaud the majority for beginning to take up the process that President Obama has put forth in his fiscal year 2012 budget of selling off excess Federal property. There just remain a few I's to dot and a few T's to cross to ensure that this important piece of legislation can garner the support of the bipartisan majority in this body. There remains much work to be done on the large issues, including enacting a comprehensive jobs plan, extending the payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance, ensuring seniors have access to their doctors under Medicare, comprehensive tax reform, and putting our fiscal house in order by passing a bold and balanced plan to reduce the deficit. Selling off excess Federal assets and making sure that the Federal Government doesn't own or have to maintain or operate more than we need to is a small, but critical, piece of the overall equation. This Congress has the opportunity to get it right through a deliberative process. But because the majority has restricted debate on the underlying bill, I cannot support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the structured rule. While the unemployment numbers are now at their lowest point in 3 years, the American people know that our economy is still teetering. That's why it's important for Democrats and Republicans to come together around commonsense proposals. This underlying bill, the Civilian Property Realignment Act, stemmed from President Obama's proposal in his FY 2012 budget, and I'm glad that Congress is beginning its deliberative process on this important issue. Currently, the Federal Government owns and manages over 1 million Federal buildings and structures--including many in my home State of Colorado--which costs over $20 billion a year annually to operate and maintain. This bill seeks to ensure our government is a better steward of taxpayer dollars by improved utilization and management of surplus properties and the elimination and monetization of unnecessary assets to reduce our deficit. Building on President Obama's proposal contained in his FY 2012 budget, this bill sets up a process to consolidate, sell, or exchange Federal Government assets it no longer needs. Sounds like common sense, but it hasn't been done yet. As the President identified, an estimated 14,000 buildings and structures are currently designated as excess properties. In essence, this legislation attempts to do with Federal Government property what the Department of Defense has successfully already done with its base closure and realignment program--BRAC--for military installations, an attempt to remove politics from the process so that effectively our Federal holdings can be streamlined and that money can be raised from properties that are no longer necessary for the operations of the Federal Government. To accomplish this goal, this legislation sets up an independent Civilian Property Realignment Commission, which would recommend which Federal properties should be consolidated, sold, exchanged or redeveloped. The commission's downsizing recommendations would be subject to approval by the President and then by Congress before they could be implemented en masse. The underlying legislation should be a strong bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, there are a number of last-minute considerations which are causing some contention between the two parties. And I understand that some language has been added, including contentious riders that were added without a hearing or a meeting of the Democratic side. The current language, therefore, includes some offensive provisions that will jeopardize support on my side of the aisle, including a measure that would change Federal law to eliminate the preference homeless shelters receive, as well as a provision that waives compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, part of the ongoing Republican agenda to gut environmental protections, but in this case, a policy waiver that has nothing to do with trying to manage our Federal property. The Federal public comment process needs to be in place when assets are transferred because they have important roles in communities. Whether it's urban, suburban, or rural, our comment process is a critical piece of ensuring that all stakeholders are taken into account. If there's a flaw with the NEPA comment process, or NEPA, fix it elsewhere, but not in the context of a bill that's supposed to streamline Federal Government holdings and allow us to sell off excess property. Another problem with this bill is that the new programs funded under this bill are not funded. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill would cost $68 million over the next 5 years. Now, some on the other side might argue that $68 million isn't much money, but as a matter of principle it should have an offset. This violates the CutGo protocols and is an example of the majority spending money without saying where it's going to come from. So to be clear, this bill in its current form would increase our deficit by $68 million. I think it would be relatively easy, in a bipartisan manner, to figure out where we can find $68 million elsewhere in the budget to offset this so it doesn't go directly to the deficit. In addition, the rule before us restricts the number of amendments to be considered and limits debate. During the Rules Committee last week, Democrats asked for an open rule so that all Members could offer amendments. A majority on that committee rejected an open process in favor of this restrictive rule. The ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Representative Cummings, offered an amendment to ensure provisions of the Homeless Assistance Act would continue to apply. This was a germane amendment that would be allowed on the floor if this were an open rule, and yet it is blocked by this restrictive process. That's one example of an amendment that was actually brought to the Rules Committee and dismissed by the majority. But what if this debate inspires a Member to offer other practical, commonsense amendments, including offset ideas to ensure that this doesn't increase our deficit? Under this process before us, that Member's amendment will not be allowed, no matter how good or how bipartisan or how universal the support is for that amendment. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds before further yielding. Every Republican that has spoken on this issue voted for a budget that included $5.1 trillion in deficit spending over a decade, more deficit spending than any 10-year period in the history of our country. They also, as part of that budget, voted for raising the debt ceiling by $8.8 trillion. They voted to do it, Mr. Speaker. They voted to raise the debt ceiling from $14.3 trillion to $23.1 trillion by 2021. Yes, Mr. Speaker, every Republican in this body, except for four, and zero Democrats, voted to double the national debt over the next 10 years. I'm proud to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. The 10-year figure for that deficit from the CBO itself, $5.1 trillion in deficit spending. And again, the same Republicans who spend $915 billion here in December are again saying now that the credit card bill has come due, they somehow don't want to pay it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).