Jared Polis RSS Articles

Growth to Excellence Act Reforms No Child Left Behind, Boosts Achievement

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT

With the leading House Education and the Workforce Republican offering two bills that weaken the cause of education reform, Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) today announced the introduction of the Growth to Excellence Act (H.R. 3845), which reforms No Child Left Behind to allow states to develop their own policies that increase student achievement and measure it over time, and that instill accountability. The bill was authored and first introduced by Senators Mark Udall (D-CO) and Michael Bennet (D-CO).

“The Growth to Excellence Act demands results and accountability but allows states the ability to chart their own course to higher achievement for students,” said Polis. “There is no substitute for improving student outcomes and ensuring that every graduate is ready for college or a career, but where No Child Left Behind was prescriptive and punitive, the Growth to Excellence Act is flexible and focused on what helps better prepare students to succeed and graduate. I am proud to partner with Senator Udall and Senator Bennet on this critical education reform legislation.”

"I look forward to working with Congressman Polis to pass our growth model bills through Congress and to help schools to more effectively track their students' progress over time," Udall added. "Colorado's way of measuring students' performance over time instead of a one-size-fits-all snapshot on test day is a great blueprint to help schools around the country in making students college- and career-ready."

"As a former school superintendent, I’ve seen firsthand how No Child Left Behind's measures for student performance are missing the mark," said Bennet. "We developed a School Performance Framework in Denver to measure the progress of actual students year over year that served as the foundation for the Colorado growth model, which is now being used or pursued by more than a dozen states. Our model has provided the country with an innovative example of how to measure student progress in real and meaningful ways. This bill builds on Colorado’s example and ensures we are working towards a sane and useful accountability system that gives every kid a shot at a quality education. I commend Congressman Polis for taking up this bill in the House of Representatives. It is an excellent counterpart to the bill Senator Udall and I have introduced in the Senate."

The bill is a sharp contrast to Republican legislation by House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN), which fails to include any required student achievement goals or research-based interventions for schools not improving students’ academic performance.

Under the Growth to Excellence Act, rather than a top-down federal approach, states could set their own robust and achievable goals for measuring student achievement in test score growth and high school graduation rates and ensuring accountability from schools and school districts. The bill is based on Colorado’s deep experience in this area of student growth and school accountability systems. Since the U.S. Department of Education established the Growth Model Pilot Project in 2005, 14 other states have joined Colorado in participating in the program to incorporate growth as a way of measuring achievement.

The Growth to Excellence Act would:

Ensure that all high school graduates are ready for college or a career by requiring challenging standards that measure each student’s preparedness;
Consistently apply and rigorously define adequate student growth as being on track to college and career readiness within 3 years or by the last year of student testing, whichever is earlier;
Allow states to set educationally-sound, rigorous and achievable measures of student achievement based on test score growth and high school graduation rates;
Rate schools and school districts based on measures of student achievement and require state-developed interventions for schools that do not improve;
Close achievement gaps by continuing academic performance targets for minority and low-income students, English language learners and students with disabilities;
Replicate success by recognizing top performing schools and districts to encourage adoption of practices that increase student achievement; and
Better measure student progress by allowing states to use adaptive assessments, which dig deeper into a student’s knowledge base to better measure knowledge or ability, depending on the student’s answers.

The bill is endorsed by Education Trust, a national organization focused on education reform policies.

Colorado NCLB Waiver Will Further Encourage Bold Reform

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) released the following statement today praising the Obama administration for granting Colorado and nine other states a waiver from onerous provisions of No Child Left Behind so that they can pursue their own reforms that improve student achievement and accountability. Polis will attend a White House event this afternoon at which President Obama will announce the waivers.

“Colorado’s waiver will allow our state to continue as a national leader in bold education reforms that improve student achievement and prepare all of our students for college or a career. The need for these waivers reinforces that No Child Left Behind must be reformed and that Congress must work in a bipartisan way to pass the Growth to Excellence Act, which Senator Udall and Senator Bennet authored and which I introduced today in the House. The keys to reform are getting accountability right at all levels, expanding and replicating what works, and changing what doesn’t work so we can improve all of our schools and boost student achievement.”

Colorado Rep. Polis leads House effort to reform No Child Left Behind

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT

On the heels of news that the Obama administration has granted Colorado and 10 other states a waiver from the controversial requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind education law, Colorado Democratic Congressman Jared Polis introduced a House version of the Growth to Excellence Act (H.R. 3845) written by Colorado U.S. Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall. The bill would rework No Child Left Behind by granting greater authority to the states to develop student achievement and school accountability policies.

The legislation “demands results and accountability but allows states the ability to chart their own course to higher achievement for students,” said Polis in a release. “There is no substitute for improving student outcomes and ensuring that every graduate is ready for college or a career, but where No Child Left Behind was prescriptive and punitive, the Growth to Excellence Act is flexible and focused on what helps better prepare students to succeed and graduate.”

The bill grew from Colorado’s experience as a participant in the Growth Model Pilot Project started in 2005, which allowed states to experiment in tweaking the No Child Left Behind Act accountability system. The idea was to look beyond the one established achievement standard and seek to reward schools that were successful in helping students significantly advance in their learning.

Provisions of the Bennet-Polis-Udall Growth to Excellence Act would allow states instead of the federal government to set measures of achievement and to base those measures on test score growth and high school graduation rates; replicate success by recognizing top-performing schools and districts; and seek to more accurately measure student progress by allowing states to use “adaptive assessments,” which “dig deeper into a student’s knowledge base to better measure knowledge or ability.”

Before being appointed to the Senate, Bennet was superintendent of the Denver Public School system and he has championed education reform on Capitol Hill. He spoke with passion last fall in the Senate chamber about what he characterized as the comically frustrating shortcomings of No Child Left Behind, describing the law was the worst kind of federal overreach. In explaining the priorities of the new Growth to Excellence bill, he emphasized the need to grant local parties the power to shape achievement and assessment efforts according to varying contexts.

“We developed a School Performance Framework in Denver to measure the progress of actual students year over year that served as the foundation for the Colorado growth model, which is now being used or pursued by more than a dozen states,” he was quoted in a release. “Our model has provided the country with an innovative example of how to measure student progress in real and meaningful ways.

“This bill builds on Colorado’s example and ensures we are working towards a sane and useful accountability system that gives every kid a shot at a quality education. I commend Congressman Polis for taking up this bill in the House of Representatives. It is an excellent counterpart to the bill Senator Udall and I have introduced in the Senate.”

Kline Education Bills Weakens Accountability, Effective Teacher Evaluations

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Concerned that draft education legislation released by House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) undermines reforms that improve public education and boost student achievement, Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) today wrote to Kline and Committee Ranking Member George Miller (D-CA) urging a bipartisan effort to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) with a focus on strengthening accountability and insisting on effective teacher and administrator evaluations.

“We should reform No Child Left Behind but we must not walk away from its commitment to holding states, districts, and schools accountable for student achievement,” said Polis. “As we showed in our work on the charter school bill last year, there is a great deal of room for bipartisan agreement in education. I’m ready to work with reform-minded Republicans and Democrats to pass an ESEA reauthorization that strengthens accountability to improve America’s schools.”

The letter to Kline and Miller follows and can also be downloaded here.

Dear Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller:

I am deeply concerned about both the process and content of the recently released partisan House draft legislation, the Student Success Act and the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act, both of which would weaken education accountability and teacher effectiveness in a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

The flaws in both bills released are a natural result of a failure to develop the legislation in a bipartisan manner. Bipartisanship is essential if Congress is to pass an update of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in the coming year and see it signed into law. Without such bipartisanship, these bills accordingly step backward from the reforms needed to improve public education and boost student achievement.

Specifically, the Student Success Act abandons strong educational standards to ensure students are ready for college and careers; lets schools, school districts and states avoid improving student academic achievement; and provides no basic guidelines for turning around even the lowest performing schools. Our children and the nation’s future cannot afford such negligence in federal policy.

The Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act similarly reflects a poorly thought-out and overly partisan construction by omitting key elements of educator effectiveness: not requiring performance evaluations of school principals; severing evaluation results from instructional improvement through teacher professional development; and failing to specify student assessment growth as a measure of student achievement in evaluation results.

Had the majority party worked in a bipartisan manner on these draft proposals, these defects would have likely been addressed by including components of reform legislation already introduced, including the Securing Teacher Effectiveness, Leadership Learning and Results (STELLAR) Act (H.R. 1368) and the Growth to Excellence Act (H.R. 3845). The success of such a bipartisan approach was evidenced last September when the House passed a strong charter school bill, the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act, with overwhelming bipartisan support. The majority party should have heeded the lesson of that experience.

The alternative to Congressional ESEA reauthorization is almost certainly the waiver process, which the U.S. Department of Education has had to establish to correct problems in NCLB. Although less than ideal, waivers would be preferential to the weak accountability provisions included in the newly released House bills that will not support student academic achievement. While current NCLB provisions in this area are too prescriptive and unrealistic, the notion of holding schools accountable for student achievement is necessary to truly improve our nation’s educational and economic standing.

Education is critical to our nation’s ability to compete in a global economy. On this point we all agree. If we are inadequately monitoring or demanding educational improvements of all students and educators, we are actually retreating from the progress we made in No Child Left Behind. This is what we will surely see with the majority’s deficient draft legislative proposals, which would represent a return to failed, pre-NCLB federal education law that spent taxpayer dollars without holding our schools truly accountable for student achievement. We should fix what is wrong with NCLB, not back away from the need to truly reform education in America.

Sincerely,

Jared Polis

Member of Congress

Democrat Urges House Chairman to Resume Bipartisan Talks on ‘No Child’

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Democrat Urges House Chairman to Resume Bipartisan Talks on ‘No Child’

Congressional Quarterly – Lauren Smith

The day before the chairman of the House education panel was slated to formally introduce two bills aimed at overhauling federal education law, a Democrat who formerly served on the committee urged him to reconsider bipartisan negotiations.

Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado also contended that Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline’s bills wouldn’t go far enough in holding schools and teachers accountable for student success.

In a letter to the Minnesota Republican and to the panel’s ranking Democrat, George Miller of California, Polis lamented that Kline decided late last year to move ahead with a rewrite of the law (PL 107-110), known as “No Child Left Behind,” without Democratic support.

“The flaws in both bills released are a natural result of a failure to develop the legislation in a bipartisan manner,” wrote Polis, who left the Education panel because of Democratic losses in the 2010 elections. “Bipartisanship is essential if Congress is to pass an update of No Child Left Behind in the coming year and see it signed into law. Without such bipartisanship, these bills accordingly step backward from the reforms needed to improve public education and boost student achievement.”

Kline introduced his two bills as drafts in January, following his announcement that bipartisan negotiations had stopped making progress. He is scheduled to officially introduce both measures Thursday morning at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

The measures are aimed at eliminating the current accountability system and instituting teacher effectiveness provisions, which have proven to be the two thorniest issues for negotiators.

Instead of replacing the law’s accountability system, which requires all students to be 100 proficient in reading and math by 2014, Kline’s measures would allow each state to create their own standards and assessments.

Polis criticized that such an approach would be too weak, saying he prefers the Education Department’s waiver system for exempting states from portions of the education law. The system requires states to make a number of significant changes to their education systems in return for flexibility from the law, and waivers for the first round of applicants are expected to be granted as early as this week.

He noted that bipartisan negotiations had at least some success last year, when a bill to expand charter schools passed out of the committee and the House with support from both sides of the aisle. That bill is incorporated in Kline’s proposals.

Kline has said on several occasions that he hopes bipartisan discussions will continue during the markup process, and he expects many amendments from both parties.

“The committee appreciates Mr. Polis’ concerns and looks forward to a robust debate once the proposals have been formally introduced,” said Kline’s spokeswoman, Alexandra Sollberger.

Although he is no longer on the education panel, Polis remains interested in playing a part in rewriting No Child. Polis, who has served on the Colorado State Board of Education, has introduced a measure (HR 3845) aimed at improving teacher effectiveness, and he is cosponsoring another (HR 1368) by Rep. Susan A. Davis, D-Calif.

Supporting Reform Through Line-Item Veto, STOCK Act

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT

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. Walzor 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.

Statement on California Proposition 8 Court Decision

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) released the following statement regarding the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision declaring unconstitutional California Proposition 8, which outlawed marriage equality. It is now expected that the decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“No law that denies any American the right to marry the person that they love can be called constitutional, moral or just. Today's decision by the 9th Circuit is a victory for the cause of justice and the ideal that we are all created equal and are all equal before the law. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will come down on the side of marriage equality and recognize the committed and loving relationships of millions of American couples.”

Civilian Property Realignment Act Can Save Taxpayer Money

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT

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.

Polis Reacts to State of the Union

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) released the following statement in reaction to President Obama’s State of the Union Address.

“President Obama tonight outlined not only a blueprint for an economy built to last but an action agenda that reflects what Coloradans have been telling Congress to address for months: create jobs and strengthen the economy; reform education for our children and economic future; make college more affordable; invest in clean renewable energy to make us energy independent; and ensure that all Americans have a chance to work hard and succeed. These are all practical, common sense solutions to our most pressing challenges that Congress should embrace, and I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans this year to make progress for Colorado and America.”

Correcting the Record

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT

NOTE: On Sunday, the Denver Post published an opinion piece by a conservative author that contains serious factual inaccuracies about Congressman Polis. The Denver Post published this item before offering Congressman Polis an opportunity to address these false claims. The Post made no attempt to verify these claims. Only after publishing did the Post offer a chance to respond but that response will not be allowed to appear until Tuesday, January 24. That response from appears below.

Post Readers Deserve the Truth

By Jared Polis

In the Sunday’s Denver Post, a conservative commentator and advisor to Sarah Palin made a series of baseless charges about my finances and conduct in Congress. This person has made a lucrative cottage industry of hurling various charges at elected officials, including John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. Gadflies have been around forever, but they usually don’t get featured in major American newspapers.

In short, this article makes numerous false claims about my personal investments. The fact is that I have not purchased stock in any publicly-traded company since entering Congress. His assertions are blatantly and verifiably false. Additionally, when I was first elected in 2008, I decided to set up a blind trust to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, a step few members take and that is not required. But I believe elected officials should be held to a higher standard, which is why I’ve also cosponsored the STOCK Act, which would make it illegal for members of Congress, or their staff, to trade stock based on non-public information.

Regrettably, facts offer no defense against propagandists. This person also falsely claimed that the blind trust I set up is all a farce controlled by a personal friend, Solomon Halpern. Solomon Halpern has never controlled the investments made by my blind trust. That work is done by a Texas firm called Kanaly Trust, which was selected for its experience handling blind trusts for Bush administration officials. As is required by law, I have had no contact with Kanaly Trust since the trust was established. But in the age of what Steven Colbert calls “truthiness,” baseless attacks are what we’ve come to expect in political discourse.

When finished inventing evidence, the writer recycled baseless charges familiar to observers of local politics. He claims that I “made two large purchases of company stock” in a firm called Bridgehealth that supposedly would benefit from the health care bill then being considered by the House Education and Labor Committee, of which I was a member. Hardly.

I co-founded Bridgehealth in 2007 (well before my election) to provide more affordable health care options. I’ve heard too many horror stories of Coloradans who can’t afford proper care. I have loaned this business money virtually every quarter since its founding in order to sustain its operations and to avoid layoffs. I am not otherwise involved in this company as either an employee or board member. And contrary to the assertion that I was “shepherding” this bill through, I was one of only three Democrats on the Committee to vote against it (as the Denver Post reported.)

Similarly, it is claimed that I made other investments that benefited from the bill. This is also wholly false. To reiterate, I have not purchased any publicly traded stock since entering office. Two weeks after I voted against the bill a series of exchange traded funds, or ETFs, which are similar to mutual funds, were purchased to diversify my personal holdings (those outside of the blind trust that support my personal expenses and home). One of these was in the health care sector. It represents less than 1 percent of my overall diversified portfolio. Using the author’s logic, anyone who purchased a mutual fund or invested in their 401(k) would be disqualified from public office.

I am proud of my record in Congress and I welcome and enjoy the chance to debate the issues. But we all bear a responsibility to the truth. The quality of debate should be equal to the greatness of our country. When a political operative who has coauthored books with the likes of Glenn Beck chooses to spread untruths and to purposely mislead the public just to make a few dollars, it harms our democracy. I hope that the Denver Post will endeavor to further correct the record.

Congress on Your Corner @ Vic's Coffee

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:03:37 GMT

Friday, August 7th Congress on Your Corner Vic’s Coffee 2680 Broadway Street Boulder, CO 80302 8:00 – 9:30 AM

Congress on Your Corner @ Southern Sun - Boulder

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:15:39 GMT

Monday, August 17th Congress on Your Corner The Southern Sun 627 South Broadway Boulder, CO 80305 5:30 – 7:00 PM

Eagle County Town Hall

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:16:34 GMT

Wednesday, August 19th Eagle County Town Hall Singletree Community Center 1010 Berry Creek Road Edwards, CO 81632 4:30 – 5:30 PM

Congress on Your Corner @ Boulder Whole Foods

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:36:05 GMT

Thursday, August 20th Congress on Your Corner Whole Foods Market 2905 Pearl Street Boulder, CO 80301 6:00 – 7:30 PM

Housing Fair

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:23:24 GMT

Congress on Your Corner @ Boulder Farmers Market

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:17:29 GMT

Wednesday, September 2nd Congress on Your Corner Boulder Farmers Market Next to Central Park on 13th Street between Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 5:30 – 7:00 PM

Congress on Your Corner @ Lafayette VFW Hall

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:18:20 GMT

Thursday, September 3rd Congress on Your Corner VFW HALL 105 West Emma Street Lafayette, CO 80026 5:30 - 7:00 PM

Boulder Town Hall

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:47:51 GMT

Friday, September 4th Boulder Town Hall University of Colorado at Boulder University Memorial Center (UMC)Ball Room 7:00 - 8:30 PM

Congress on Your Corner @ Rancho Liborio Grocery Store

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:19:17 GMT

Saturday, September 5th Congress on Your Corner Rancho Liborio Grocery Store 850 East 88th Avenue Thornton, CO 80229 10:00 – 11:30 AM

Adams County Town Hall

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:20:15 GMT

Saturday, September 5th Adams County Town Hall Welby New Technology High School 1200 East 78th Avenue #105 Thornton, CO 80229 1:00 - 3:00 PM