Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Again, my colleague from Georgia mentioned that there are no Democrats behind this initiative. Again, Democrats were not consulted or talked to to ask for their support or input into this initiative. And you won't find much support for a proposal that would increase the deficit by $100 billion over 10 years. The Democrats and our Democratic plan are seeking to decrease the deficit by trillions of dollars over that same period rather than increase it by $100 billion as the Republican plan does. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I have an article entitled, ``Debt Ceiling Impasse Rattles Short-Term Credit Markets,'' again from The New York Times, discussing how this uncertainty that is not being caused by external factors but is being caused by us, by politicians, by people here in this body, is rattling those who lend our country money. And that's why this plan before us today will increase the deficit by over $100 billion over 10 years. In addition to those spending cuts, it will cost taxpayers more in interest payments if it jeopardizes our credit rating. [From the New York Times, July 28, 2011] Debt Ceiling Impasse Rattles Short-Term Credit Markets (By Nelson D. Schwartz and Azam Ahmed) The reverberations of Washington's impasse over a debt deal are already being felt in the short-term credit markets, a key artery of the economy that daily supplies trillions of dollars of credit. Over the last week, big banks and companies have withdrawn $37.5 billion from money market funds that invest in Treasury debt and other ultra-safe securities, the biggest weekly drop this year. Meanwhile, in the vast market for repurchase agreements, in which many financial firms make short-term loans to one another, borrowers are beginning to demand higher yields. These moves underscore how companies and big financial institutions are beginning to rethink their traditional view that notes issued by the United States Treasury are indistinguishable from cash, even though many experts say they think it is unlikely that the government would miss payments on its obligations. The $37.5 billion drop, reported Thursday in a weekly survey by the Investment Company Institute, echoed what other analysts were seeing. In the first three days of this week, investors pulled $17 billion from funds that invested only in government securities, a reversal of the daily inflows of $280 million for much of July, said Peter Crane, the president of Crane Data, which tracks money market mutual funds. ``It's big, no doubt about it,'' he said. ``Seventeen billion isn't a run, but it's definitely indicative that investors are shifting their assets. If this were to continue for another week or two, it would be very disturbing.'' Though lawmakers have been clashing all week on proposals to cut the deficit and raise the debt limit ahead of an Aug. 2 deadline set by the Treasury Department, bond markets have largely shrugged off the risk of a default or a downgrade of the Washington's AAA credit rating. Interest rates on longer-term Treasuries have held steady, but the yield on notes coming due next week, after the deadline, has moved sharply higher in recent days. The yield on Treasury bills coming due Aug. 4 jumped five basis points to 15 basis points, a significant move for a security that carried a yield close to zero earlier this month, said Jim Caron, head of interest rate strategy at Morgan Stanley. ``It's a tell-tale sign of something that could reverberate if it spreads to other markets, and all the uncertainty with the debt ceiling is the functional equivalent of a tightening,'' Mr. Caron said. ``I don't think there is a default risk at all but the market is saying it's not going to take any chances.'' While money market fund managers say they are not seeing a sizable wave of redemptions yet, they are setting aside more cash, leaving it at custodial bank accounts in case investors demand their money back. At Fidelity, the Boston-based firm that has $442 billion in money market assets, managers are avoiding Treasury bills that come due on Aug. 4 and Aug. 11, however unlikely a technical default may be. ``We are positioning our portfolio to respond to a downgrade or a default and we are positioning the fund to respond to redemptions,'' said Robert Brown, president of money markets at Fidelity. Mr. Brown would not say how much cash was being kept at hand, but said ``it's a higher balance than one would expect to see.'' In the commercial paper market, where companies raise funds for their short-term borrowing needs, buyers are also seeking shorter-term paper. In the last week, investors have shown signs of wanting quick access to their money, with financial borrowers raising on Wednesday only $1 million in notes that come due in 81 days or more, according to the Federal Reserve. That is down from $479 million on July 22. At the same time, the amount of commercial paper issued with a duration of just one to four days rose to $920 million, from $771 million. ``Investors are scrambling to bolster their liquidity profile,'' said Chris Conetta, head of global commercial paper trading at Barclays Capital. ``They understand that a default or downgrade could be a big, systemic event.'' In the repurchase market, known as the repo market, borrowers take loans and in exchange hand over a little more than the equivalent loan amount in securities. Because of their risk-free status, Treasuries are highly favored as collateral, estimated to account for about $4 trillion in the repo markets. The fear is that if the United States credit rating drops, the value of those treasuries could respond in kind. Borrowers would then have to post more collateral to obtain their loans, effectively raising the cost of borrowing. That could ripple into the broader market, raising interest rates on all types of loans, analysts warn. ``The repo market is a pressure point because it can have an impact on overall credit availability, which bleeds through to mortgage rates,'' said Robert Toomey, managing director at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. ``Treasuries become a little less attractive if they are more expensive to finance.'' The overnight repo rate, which started the week at about three basis points, was about 17 basis points Thursday evening, according to Credit Suisse. That means that to finance $100 million overnight in the repo market it would now cost about $472 per day, up from about $83 on Monday. ``It's a bigger deal than a lot of people recognize,'' said Howard Simons, a strategist at Bianco Research, a bond market specialist. ``If you downgrade the securities you have to put more up for collateral and that affects pretty much everybody out there who has held these in reserve. I don't care if you're a bank, insurance company, exchange or clearinghouse.'' To be sure, most observers say the ripples in the repo market will not be anything like those felt in the fall of 2008, when creditors lost faith in the ability of banks to pay back their short-term loans. That caused a problem for companies like General Electric, which struggled to finance its daily operations as a result. Back then, the sharp drop- off in repo lending helped bring the financial system to its knees. ``I think people are looking at the U.S. as the cleanest shirt in the dirty laundry pile,'' said Jason New, a senior managing director at GSO Capital Partners. ``To me, the downgrade is not dropping a boulder in a still lake. This is dropping a pebble, but nevertheless there are still ripples.'' I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. POLIS. The gentleman from Georgia mentioned that the President hasn't introduced a bill. I would just like to point out that the President of the United States cannot introduce a bill in the House or Senate. The President can sign a bill. In fact, in this particular case, he said he would veto this bill because it increases the deficit, it risks increasing it by over $100 billion. I would like to submit for the Record a study that shows the difference in interest rates between AAA and AA ratings, which demonstrably shows, in fact, that if this bill is passed here today with only a 6-month extension, it would likely cost taxpayers over $100 billion. AAA or AA? In Which Club Do We Want To Belong? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10-Year AAA Ratings bond yield (%) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Australia.................................................. 4.92 Austria.................................................... 3.39 Canada..................................................... 2.93 Denmark.................................................... 2.99 Finland.................................................... 3.13 France..................................................... 3.25 Germany.................................................... 2.76 Hong Kong.................................................. 2.26 Luxembourg................................................. 3.29 Netherlands................................................ 3.14 Norway..................................................... 3.24 Singapore.................................................. 2.10 Sweden..................................................... 2.75 Switzerland................................................ 1.45 United Kingdom............................................. 3.04 USA........................................................ 3.00

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this smoke-and-mirrors bill before us today actually stands to increase--yes, increase--the deficit of the United States of America by over $100 billion. Let me walk the Speaker through the math here. This is why credit ratings matter: countries that have AA credit ratings--this is a group of them--pay an average interest on their sovereign debt of 3.75 percent. Countries with a AAA rating--this is a 10-year bond, but it would carry across 3-year, 5-year, 30-year in similar degrees-- countries with AAA pay 2.98 percent. That's 1.75 percent, almost a 2 percent difference between AAA and AA. In passing this bill today, which only has a 6-month extension, we are jeopardizing our AAA rating that will be incredibly hard to ever earn back. And in addition to paying 2 extra percentage points on your variable rate home mortgage that middle class families can't afford, 2 points more on your credit card debt, 2 points more on your car debt, in addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the government, the biggest borrower in the country, will pay more interest on the debt. Over 10 years that 1.75 percent difference, which is just taking the average between AAA and AA, costs over $100 billion a year in extra interest on the debt. Over a 10-year period, over $1 trillion of additional interest paid on the Federal debt. So what are we doing? Cutting $915 billion and risking adding over $1 trillion in additional expenditures. This smoke-and-mirrors effort before us today risks increasing the Federal deficit at a time when we all know we need to decrease Federal spending, we need to decrease our deficit. The last thing we need is to set motion forward to actually up our interest rate, jeopardize our credit rating because of the short-term nature, and increase the interest payments on our Federal debt. I encourage my colleagues to look at these numbers and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, our country is facing an incredibly important moment as critical decisions need to be made regarding the national debt and our long-term deficit and how to constrain spending. Members on both sides of this aisle recognize the reality that we need to restore fiscal responsibility in our budget. However, Mr. Chairman, in times of national importance, we need to stay focused on what our country needs and what's best for the American people and avoid the temptation to play politics, as this bill does. Far too much has been carried out by the majority party under the guise of cutting the deficit and fiscal responsibility when it's actually policy-making to implement a hard right, radical, anti- environmental agenda which can actually cost more money in the short, medium, and long term. Mr. Chairman, the cuts proposed by the majority in this bill have nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. They have everything to do with implementing radical anti-environmental ideology. The bill makes sweeping cuts to critical programs that protect the public's health, reduce our expenditures for health care, protect our environment, and keep industry from running over the public and consumer rights. Yet at the same time it does that, Mr. Chairman, this bill actually increases spending on programs that are little more than handouts and subsidies to oil and gas companies and mining companies, in particular, one that the government waste watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has called ``the granddaddy of Federal subsidies.'' This isn't about saving taxpayer money in this bill; it's about slashing environmental protections while giving handouts and subsidizing the dirtiest, most influential industries. There's more pork in this bill than in an Iowa hog lot. This is supposed to be a spending bill that attempts to balance various budget priorities against one another. It's not supposed to be a grab bag of provisions demanded by the Nation's worst polluters, energy companies, and other special interests who receive handouts under this bill. Yes, this bill would do away with the Clean Water Act, putting the rest of us in danger because mountaintop coal mining companies and factory farms want it. This bill does away with key provisions of the Clean Air Act, undermines protections of our public lands, and repeals the Endangered Species Act to satisfy a few at the expense of the many. The bill will put more toxic mercury, arsenic, and lead into our air and put our children's health at risk by blocking standards to cut toxic air pollution from cement kilns, allow more soot pollution in our air, block EPA from moving forward with carbon pollution standards for new vehicles after 2016, jeopardizing a process projected to create up to 700,000 new jobs and save 2.4 million barrels of oil every day by 2030. States would also be blocked from moving ahead with their own clean car standards, threatening the health of America's children, elderly citizens, and other vulnerable populations by blocking EPA's ability to limit dangerous carbon pollution from power plants and other large stationary sources. This bill also expedites uranium mining in the Grand Canyon, gives special legal exemption to grazing on public lands, eliminates endangered species protections for animals from big horned sheep to grey wolves, and more. Yet it increases spending for the 1879 mining law and other elements that actually threaten to endanger our environment and are an additional handout to Big Oil. Mr. Chairman, this bill isn't a serious funding proposal. It's a polluter's wish list of subsidies, handouts, and pork. The majority can call it what they will, but don't say that this bill serves the cause of cut-cutting while it lards up programs that are little more than a subsidy to wealthy mining and drilling interests. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Richmond

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the rule; again, a rule that is not an open rule that allows for different amendments to be brought forth under this rule, as we have done with other appropriations bills. I also rise in opposition to the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, when Americans think of Congress, they likely picture our beautiful Capitol Building, its iron dome, the rotunda filled with so many tourists each day, and so many sites on the National Mall and around the Capitol complex. But that is really just the physical infrastructure that we all live in and around. What really makes Congress function, or fail to function, are its people, its human capital, the staff that we have on the Hill that help keep Members informed and able to effectively operate in an increasingly complex world. The bill before us risks squandering Congress' human capital. The bill cuts the legislative branch by 6.4 percent below 2011 and 9 percent below 2010 funding levels. What that means is the hardworking and underpaid and overworked men and women who staff our offices and our committees, giving long hours--frequently giving up their weekends. They'll be working through next weekend, Mr. Speaker. And I think there are very few jobs where they are actually thrilled to be informed that they actually have the weekend off. I know that not only myself but my staff rejoiced in leadership's decision to allow us not to work this weekend. I think that is a bar that most people assume they won't be working on weekends. Well, we assume in many cases we are, and we are actually very happy when we only have a 5-day workweek. That's the type of dedication that brings people into this line of work. This cut will result in layoffs and pay cuts for members of the staff. And I would like to point out, it doesn't ask anything of the highest paid people here, the Members of Congress. We make $174,000 a year. I am a cosponsor of a bill to reduce that by 5 percent. But here we are, cutting salaries for people making $30,000 and $40,000 a year without cutting the salaries of any of us who make $174,000 a year. Again, I think that's just wrong. I think it's consistent with the Republican agenda of preserving tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year and making hardworking middle class families earning $80,000, $100,000 a year dig deeper and pay more by cutting student loans and programs that they benefit from. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that that Legislative Branch appropriations bill is consistent with that in that it asks great sacrifices and at a time that we all agree our country has to cut back. But it asks great sacrifices of those making $30,000, $40,000 a year and takes nothing away and demands nothing of those who are earning $174,000 a year, namely, the Members of Congress themselves. Another concern about this bill is, instead of strengthening security in the wake of violence against Members, including the events in Tucson several months ago, instead of investing in inspectors, they've slashed, under this proposal, every operation under the legislative branch except for Capitol Police, but including the Sergeant at Arms Office. Again, this represents a potential physical threat to Members at a time when, unfortunately, our national discourse has become more divisive than ever. This bill also cuts the Library of Congress by 8.5 percent. I want to explain, Mr. Speaker, what the Library of Congress does and how we, as Members of Congress, rely on them. They are our objective research service. My staff and I, along with other Members of this body, rely on the Congressional Research Service. We get experts on issues on the phone, bring them to our offices to gain their expertise on complicated appropriations, budget issues, the peace process in the Middle East. This information is a vital part of producing sound legislation. They are our only objective source of information. By reducing their ability to supply Members of Congress and our staff with quality information, we only empower the lobbyists and the other exclusive purveyors of information in this town who will give less objective information than Members of Congress and their staffs will have to increasingly rely on, rather than the Congressional Research Service. The Government Accountability Office is cut by 6.4 percent. I want to point out that the GAO saves money. Again, every $1 we spend at the GAO results in $4 of savings. This is an office charged with finding savings and excess on duplicative expenditures. So by cutting their ability to do that, we actually increase wasteful spending elsewhere in the budget. It's the congressional watchdog. Taking away funding from the GAO means taking away methods on how we can alert policymakers to emerging wasteful spending and wasteful programs throughout government. GAO is proven to protect taxpayer dollars. It was GAO that warned Congress about problems in the savings and loan industry. It was GAO that warned Congress about the dangers of deficit spending. If there's a looming issue that's not getting public attention but threatens public dollars, the GAO needs to be there to do thoughtful research and help Congress understand these issues. I am also very concerned with the cuts to the Congressional Budget Office, the 6 percent cut. The Congressional Budget Office is critical to reducing our deficit. To cut Congressional Budget Office spending now, at a time when we are coming up with trillion-dollar plans to reduce our deficit, would prove that the majority does not value proper accounting or prompt consideration of important policy proposals. We want to make sure that what we are passing has cost savings, reduces the deficit, and cuts spending, and the taxpayers are protected. We also want to make sure we pass legislation as expediently as possible. And if we're cutting off funding to the Congressional Budget Office and we expect layoffs, I'm not sure that we have the taxpayers' best interests at heart. There were also amendments that were brought forth in the Rules Committee that, if we had an open amendment process, we would be able to include; but, unfortunately, they were not made in order under this particular rule, including a bipartisan amendment by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Representative Schweikert. The amendment would have provided $100,000--not of new money but rededicated from another account to name one of our rooms in the Capitol Visitor Center the Gabriel Zimmerman Meeting Room. Who is Gabriel Zimmerman? He is the first congressional staff person in this country's history to die in the line of duty. He was with Representative Giffords in the January 8 tragedy in Tucson, Arizona, that struck this country and shocked our Nation and really tore through the fabric of the congressional community. Representative Schweikert and Representative Wasserman Schultz came together to provide a fitting memorial for a member of our congressional family that died in the line of service. Gabe Zimmerman was a loyal, dedicated public servant; and he made the ultimate sacrifice to this country as the first congressional staff person murdered in the line of duty in the history of our country. This distinction wouldn't have cost taxpayers any money and would have recognized not only the devoted service of Gabe but also of the thousands of other staff people on Capitol Hill and I think would have been appropriate, particularly at a time when every Member's office will be involved with pay cuts and layoffs as a result of the 6.5 percent cut, to show that beyond the dollars, the giving of your life and the dedication of the staff that help keep us well informed in making decisions in the best interests of the country is appreciated by the institution of Congress as a whole. I therefore oppose the rule, as well as the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Now, again, I know how my colleague from Texas and my colleague from North Carolina have discussed how tough these economic times are and how Congress needs to tighten its belt, and that's true. But where is the actual belt-tightening for Members of Congress ourselves? What are Members being called upon to sacrifice? Did we cut our own salaries to help spare layoffs for staff people making $25,000 a year? No. And how about the many Members of Congress who proudly talk about living in their offices. Are they going to start paying rent? They're essentially living rent free on the government dime. They use electricity, water and other taxpayer-paid-for resources. We have Members of Congress who are squatters in government buildings. And as a businessman, I can tell you that if I owned a piece of commercial real estate and decided to start saving money or rent by living in my office, I would be violating the law. So don't tell us that you're being frugal by living in our office. You're living free at the taxpayers' expense, any Member who does that. And how about the cars that Members lease? I don't know too many Americans who have jobs that give them a free car to use however they choose, but Members of Congress have that benefit. And many abuse it with car leases that cost as much as $1,000 a month or more. Now, I appreciate there is an amendment on this issue, but those car leases should be eliminated in this bill, not capped at $1,000. Members would still be permitted to have cars that cost $950 a month paid for by taxpayers, at the same time we're slashing salaries of staff people making $25,000 or $30,000 a year. In difficult economic times, it makes sense to cut back on everything. It makes sense to cut back on our own perks before laying off hardworking employees. Congress chose not to do this with this bill, and the closed process associated with this bill does not allow us to bring these proposals forward. When it comes time to cut, the majority has said hit the little guy, leave the big guy alone, hit the person who can least afford to go without. Talk about shared sacrifice right up until it involves giving up something that benefits you or your friends. If you vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker, please do not tell me that you're willing to make the hard choices about the budget for the good of the Nation. You have made the easy choices. This bill cuts Members' day-to-day abilities to effectively represent constituents while leaving all of the perks of office untouched. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on both the rule and the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. It's particularly ironic that this session of Congress opened with a recital of the United States Constitution which really just, in the vote yesterday, has been debased. And our democratic Republic has been debased to an extent that I certainly have not seen in this body prior under either party. Let's talk about exactly what was attempted yesterday in this constitutional amendment that would have essentially passed as part of a resolution. It's one thing to say that we want to eliminate Medicare. The House worked its will through the Ryan budget, phasing out Medicare for those who are under 55 years of age. The people of this country will have the opportunity to change that. We saw an election in upstate New York where I think and most people think that the people of this country soundly rejected the effort to eliminate Medicare. But regardless, that's what elections are about. I know that in the last election, Democrats didn't fare too well. A majority of this House was elected that wanted to phase out Medicare for people under the age of 55. Likewise, in the next election, if people run on that, a majority might arise in this body that supports keeping Medicare solvent for the next generation. What was attempted yesterday was circumventing the public will by inserting into the United States Constitution exact fiscal policy that essentially wouldn't allow Medicare to exist in any form similar to what it is today. It would actually specify an exact percentage of the gross national product that the public sector can contain in our governing document. This is unprecedented. Who hears of putting numbers, 19.7 percent, 19.5 percent, 20, 21 percent--we're talking about the percentage of the economy that can be public sector versus private sector. Who knows what the ideal percentage is? That's what elections are about. That's what we fight off every day here on the floor of the House. Some will say we should have it a little bigger; others will say we should have it a little smaller. The people of the country have their say. To somehow take that out of the realm of public discourse and insert that into our governing document is unprecedented. It castrates the United States Congress. It castrates and eliminates our ability to make public policy, for better or worse. I had an exchange with one of my colleagues on the Rules Committee as we were bringing this to the floor the other day. I said, This is such an absurd concept. Imagine for a minute that there was a Democratic majority and we were saying, You know what, we want to put in our Constitution that public expenditures have to be at least 22 percent of GNP or--but it never even crossed our minds. There is no Democratic proposal like that because it just doesn't make any sense. That's what elections are about. And yet here the Republican majority is trying to insert into our governing document--the one that they say that they have great respect for, the one that they began this session of the House by reading-- inserting exact formulated fiscal policy regarding the exact size of the public sector, taking that ability away from the voters of this country, taking the discussion away from the deliberative bodies of the House and the Senate, taking it out of the hands of an election for President of the United States, removing the fundamental issue of what role government should play from political debates. That is grossly undemocratic. It should be an insult to all of us who value our democratic Republic, who value our democratic institutions. However flawed, our representational system of democracy is the most effective in the world. The people's voice will be heard. By taking away the people's voice and castrating the United States Congress to specific policies prescribed in the Constitution, we remove the ability of present and future voters of the country to have their voices heard. Regardless of where anyone comes down on the policies, regardless of what percentage of the GNP you think it should be, I hope that most Americans believe that it's a fundamental value to have a say in our system of governance and to have these debates and to have them be part of the public discourse, and that was proposed to be taken away completely by a bill that passed yesterday in this body by a majority vote from the Republican side.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill before us. Mr. Speaker, I support a balanced budget amendment, but what the majority has brought before the House is not even close to a balanced budget amendment. This is a political exercise designed to soothe the feelings of the most radical conservative elements in the House and debase our Constitution and our democracy in the process. Cut, cap, and balance is simply an attempt to slash, burn, and deny responsibility for the deficit and debt limit crisis and distort the nature of our democratic Republic, reducing the ability of Congress to represent the will of the voters of this country and rendering elections and the public will meaningless. If we're going to enact a balanced budget amendment, it should be pragmatic. It should be modeled after the type of approach that most States have. States have to balance their budget. Families have to balance their budget. Why shouldn't the United States Congress? Like many people on my side of the aisle, I could support language that would require and enshrine that total outlays do not exceed total receipts. That's what it means to balance a budget, as families and businesses across America know. Instead, the proposal before the House is a recipe for tying the Nation's budget policy in knots and handing power over the budget process to a minority of the House Members or unelected Federal judges. It would make the entire Congress cease to function as a representative body by locking them into arbitrary percentages that were set without a single hearing or any process in our United States Constitution as a public expenditure share of GNP. If you require a supermajority for even the smallest possible increase in revenue, you've essentially ensured that all the major pieces of legislation that Congress has passed would never have passed. If this amendment were in place in 1965, Congress never would have passed Medicare. In 1993, we wouldn't have passed President Clinton's deficit reduction plan and balanced the budget, or the 1997 balanced budget agreement under President Bush. Furthermore, the spending caps that this bill sets for spending are completely arbitrary. They're pulled out of thin air. They bear no relation to our national needs now or in the future. A balanced budget amendment must treat outlays and revenues equally, not bias one or the other in the Constitution itself, our fundamental governing document. The majority is not only ignoring the realities of basic math, they're turning their backs on the pledges of an open process. This bill was brought to the floor rapidly through the Rules Committee yesterday, without a markup, without hearings, without witness testimony, and without allowing amendments from Republicans or Democrats. A bill of this magnitude with such far-reaching consequences for our democracy itself should be treated more seriously than this. The concept of enshrining a particular percentage of public expenditures as a percentage of GDP is contrary to the concept of a democratic republic in which Congress is elected by the people of this country to govern this country. For these reasons and others, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, what is being talked about today in terms of inserting language into our United States Constitution that constrains fiscal policy is nothing more and nothing less than a perversion of our democratic Republic. To take a major power away from the people of this country and replace it with an arbitrary percentage, 18, 19.7 percent, whatever that percentage is that is proposed to put into the Constitution as a percentage of GNP to spend on government, takes a basic power away from the people to elect Representatives to have those discussions. That's what we're here for. Should it be 18 percent? 22 percent? 19 percent? 15 percent? Let's debate that and let the House and let the people of this country work their will. To put that into the United States Constitution in an arbitrary figure without a single hearing, without a single discussion, besides 1 hour of debate here on the floor of the House, is a perversion of the very Constitution that we began this session by reading into the Record of the House.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I have no further requests for time, and am prepared to close. I would like to ask the gentleman from Utah if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, recent peer-reviewed scientific studies suggest that mountaintop mining is associated with higher cancer risk and elevated birth defect rates and many other health problems in Appalachian coal mining communities. Rates of cancer and birth defects are much higher, and with direct links to mountaintop mining practices, than the national average and even higher than in areas with traditional coal mining. Is this really what the rest of us are being asked to subsidize at the cost of our own States and our health? If we want to debate mountaintop mining, let's do it--and there are pros and cons, legitimate issues and stalking horses as well--but we don't want to hurt the rest of the States in that process. This bill throws into question a balance between State and Federal authority that has served the American people well for 30 years. Why should the rest of us, once again, pay the price for a gain of a few coal mining companies or of a few factory farms when most Americans would prefer that we protect the Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades? Oklahoma continues to battle Arkansas over water pollution from poultry farms, which starts in Arkansas and flows into Oklahoma. Why are we voting on a bill that would let Arkansas decide the fate of Oklahoma's waters? Why should a community in Tennessee, whose economy is booming thanks to white water rafting and the growth of the outdoor recreation industry, live and die by the decisions of a North Carolina mining company? Are we really going to vote for the ability of Pennsylvania to decide the fate of New York, Maryland and West Virginia rivers when Pennsylvania has decided that fracking with chemicals should be done without meaningful oversight? I will be interested to see how these pronounced downstream States vote on these measures, and it will be interesting to see the outcome of this bill and how anybody who supports it from the downstream States can possibly justify the votes to their constituents, who are on the receiving end of interstate pollution. H.R. 2018 would undermine the Federal Government's ability to ensure that States effectively implement or make necessary improvements to their water quality standards. If States fail to adhere to their own existing water quality standards, the bill would prohibit the EPA from insisting that States make the improvements that are necessary. Regarding dredge-and-fill projects, H.R. 2018 would stymie the EPA's ability to stop discharges that have unacceptable adverse effects on municipal water supplies. Now, although this veto authority has only been used 13 times in the past 38 years, it is a critical tool that safeguards against the most destructive and health-threatening proposes. Americans expect and rely on clean water and clean air that we breathe and drink every day. The Nation's lakes, rivers, bays, wetlands, and streams are vital to our health and vital to our economy. From the Chesapeake Bay to the Great Lakes to the Florida Everglades, all of these waterways and beaches are of interest and value and importance to our entire country. They need to be clean enough to swim and drink and fish from. Americans should have safe, clean water to drink. H.R. 2018 would remove the EPA's ability to protect communities from unacceptable adverse effects for our Nation's waters and public health. Before the Clean Water Act, there wasn't an effective Federal safety net to ensure the health of our waters, but since the passage of the Clean Water Act, we have made great strides in restoring our waterways. This bill threatens to move that back. Our current waterways are critical for our economy in my home State of Colorado and across the country. Waterways sustain the activities of 40 million anglers and sportsmen, who spend about $45 billion a year, and of about 2.3 million people who spend over $1 billion a year hunting, as well as the multibillion dollar commercial fishing industry. Again, we have a national interest as to these issues, and it should not be, consistent with the American value of responsibility, within the ability of any one particular State to damage the economy and health of people in another State. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, from a purely self-interested perspective as a Coloradan--and perhaps we have very little to lose as we're a headwaters State--snow that falls in my district on the continental divide will either end up in the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers, flowing toward the Gulf of Mexico, or will end up in the Colorado River, supplying my friend from Utah's State as well as Arizona, Nevada and California. The continental divide runs right through my district in the State of Colorado. If Colorado, for example, opened its doors to unregulated uranium mining, it's Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and California which would have to pay that price. Regardless of self-interest, clean water is an interstate issue that deserves an interstate solution. I can't think of anything that better fits the description of interstate commerce, which is enshrined in our Constitution, itself. Truly, how we deal with our interstate waterways is at the very base of interstate commerce. Safe drinking water is critical to economic growth, to the survival of all communities nationally and to all people in the entire world. While States appropriately have led the role in implementing clean water safeguards, the law does not function effectively without a backstop and a floor provided by the Federal Government which ensures that people have clean water and safe drinking water regardless of the State in which they live. Mr. Speaker, you've heard today the call from the right of Federal overreach, of an out-of-control EPA and that kind of rhetoric. Again, these are valid discussions about the degree of regulation from the EPA, how to deal with mountaintop coal mining--all important policy discussions--but they're simply avoided and punted in the wrong way by saying that these aren't legitimate interstate issues that have their nexuses here at the Federal level. This bill is truly about a handout to special interests. A vote for this bill is a vote for a few well-lobbied companies and a vote against the health and environment of downstream States and downstream residents, which, as I noted above, include just about every person in the country. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, the ranking member on the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, a member of the Water Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Carnahan.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).