Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest honors that I have had as a Member of Congress has been the opportunity to serve on the Education and the Workforce Committee and on the conference committee that put the Every Student Succeeds Act together in its final form. Before coming to Congress, I chaired the Colorado State Board of Education; I founded two charter schools, the New America School and the Academy of Urban Learning; and I worked closely with educators, school board members, and parents across our State to improve the quality of our schools in Colorado. I know firsthand the impact that Federal education policy has on States, on school districts, on schools, and on the families that they serve. So when I arrived in Congress, I was excited to roll up my sleeves and get to work on education policy. One of the top issues in education when I arrived has always been the desire to replace No Child Left Behind, an outdated and inflexible law that, in many ways, set schools up for failure, with a new and better way of making sure that every student has the opportunity to succeed. I heard from so many of my constituents that, under No Child Left Behind, schools were testing too much, districts lacked the flexibility they needed, and the Colorado Department of Education--like so many other State departments of education--was effectively at the whim of the U.S. Department of Education with regard to their State plans, effectively living waiver to waiver. That is no way to go about Federal education policy. It is why the Every Student Succeeds Act was so badly needed. Now, early on, the work on the Every Student Succeeds Act wasn't as collegial as it should have been. Republicans introduced a hyperpartisan bill. It passed this Chamber with no Democrat votes and many Republicans voting against it as well. But throughout the process, one thing remained the same: Members were committed to moving past No Child Left Behind and replacing it with a bill that put the interests of students first. Finally that happened last Congress, 15 years after the passage of No Child Left Behind and almost 6 years after the expiration of the authorizing statute; but, finally, Congress did its job. I am proud to say that everyone on the Education and the Workforce Committee has shown that we believe that every child deserves a great education. We may have different ideas at times about how to achieve that goal, and that is okay, but we all value the result of ensuring opportunity for every child in our country. It was that very commitment and value, as well as our willingness to work together, that produced the Every Student Succeeds Act. The bill passed overwhelmingly in the majority Republican House and Senate, and was signed by our then-Democratic President. It was and continues to be a bright spot of the last Congress, and what too often seems a Congress that is overwhelmed by partisanship. Unfortunately, the bipartisanship under ESSA potentially ends with this bill. House Republicans have filed the resolution using the Congressional Review Act to overturn a key regulation consistent with the law that was finalized by the Obama administration in December. Now, before diving into the details of this particular Congressional Review Act that is considered under this rule, I want to say a little bit about the process. We should look no further than the U.S. Constitution in learning how separation of powers works. There are three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch is separate, independent, and coequal, and different in how they function. That is an important background and a critical context in evaluating this legislation. When Congress passed and the President signed the Every Student Succeeds Act in December of 2015, the process didn't end. Many bills, especially one as extensive as ESSA, require clarification from the Department of Education, the agency charged with executing the law. The text of the ESSA anticipated that. In fact, the law describes in detail how the Department of Education should and shouldn't write regulations. Frankly, that had been some of the problem under No Child Left Behind, is it lacked sufficient congressional direction with regard to the waiver process which was used effectively at the full discretion of then-Secretary of Education Duncan and President Obama. It took the Department a year and a multistakeholder process, ensuring every voice was heard. Sure enough, a year after the legislation was passed, the Department of Education finalized its rules on accountability. Last week, House Republicans took the first step towards taking a sledgehammer to that entire implementation. Rules that have extensive buy-in from stakeholders and are the blueprint for States in developing our State education plans would be thrown out under this rule, effectively throwing public education into chaos across all 50 States and completely disregarding the hard work of educators, parents, school board members, superintendents, and principals over the last year. The two education-related CRAs we are considering on the floor were introduced last Wednesday night. That is four legislative days between introduction and action. Once more, the CRAs weren't treated through the committee process. We did not consider them in the Education and the Workforce Committee. There were no hearings, no markups. In fact, the full Education and the Workforce Committee hasn't even had a markup yet with regard to a K-12 bill. I am honored to be the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, which has jurisdiction over one of these three CRAs under this bill. We had no hearings or markups on this bill. It is really a disservice to the over 50 new Members of this Congress--no imprint on this bill--as well as the Members at large, that this committee avoids the regular process. It is also counter to promises that were made by Republican leadership about returning to regular order. The actions today couldn't be further from regular order because Republicans have chosen to utilize the Congressional Review Act to move bills from introduction to the floor without going through committee. Unfortunately, the Congressional Review Act not only overturns regulations, but it prevents the Department of Education from writing a new regulation that is similar to the regulation that was overturned. Now, Mr. Byrne mentioned that there can be subsequent legislation that allows it. Let me point out that Every Student Succeeds Act was over 5 years overdue. It took Congress 5 years after the initial expiration of No Child Left Behind to even replace the authorizing statute. So if that is Congress' intent, we are putting the cart before the horse. We should alter or change the authorizing statute in a way that Democrats and Republicans agree, rather than throw out the work that has already occurred. This statute would effectively tie the hands of the recently confirmed Secretary of Education DeVos and prevent her from implementing the will of this body through the Every Student Succeeds Act. Over the past few weeks, my office has received hundreds of pieces of mail regarding education, largely in opposition to Secretary DeVos; but I think the issue is that Secretary DeVos, who was recently confirmed-- this CRA would prevent her from doing her job and implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act. Let me just say that this guidance on accountability isn't just for show. It is at the very heart of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which Democrats and Republicans supported. It has real impact. I want to close my opening remarks with a story about that real impact from Christina in Pennsylvania, whose son has a learning disability. Christina's son has always had a tough time in school due to diagnosed dyslexia, dysgraphia, and ADHD. While he is a smart and personable kid, when it came time to read and write, he could be thought of as the ``bad'' kid too often, and he acted out. It would have been easy for the school to write him off without the protections that are offered under IDEA, but, luckily, he was required to participate in assessments. That accountability encouraged the school to work harder and to stick with it and to figure out why this otherwise smart student couldn't read simple words in different places on a page or demonstrate his achievement of knowledge. If his school wasn't required to show student progress, there wouldn't have been the incentive for them to invest their time and money in helping his special needs. Without accountability, Christina's son's school would have had little incentive to set appropriate educational goals for him and offer the support necessary to reach them. Accountability requirements inform school administrators, teachers, parents, students, and the community at large that all students have a learning goal and make sure that all students have the tools to get there. Today, Christina's son is a college freshman majoring in biology with a 3.2 GPA. The accountability in this CRA that would be thrown out would undermine the very accountability that allowed not only Christina's son to succeed but so many other children across our country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am seeing a lot of feigned indignation about the accountability provisions of this bill. It wasn't that long ago when we passed the Every Student Succeeds Act when Democrats and Republicans came down here and said we are giving the Secretary specific authority around accountability for preventing Secretaries from doing rogue things that both sides have perceived previous Secretaries had done, and the authorizing statute was passed by Democrats and Republicans. Now, all of a sudden, we have Republicans coming down here gutting the very accountability provisions that they themselves lauded under the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act, which passed in this body overwhelmingly, as well as in the U.S. Senate. It is a little hard to understand how Republicans are upset with the very authority around specific parameters around that authority that they specifically gave to the Secretary of Education. Again, if there are particular quibbles, there is a different Secretary of Education now. Those rules can be changed through a stakeholder process--and they may very well be--but now Republicans are seeking to tie the hands of the new Secretary of Education and throwing out all of the hard work that I got to see people in Colorado working on, and I know occurred in many other States, to come up with thoughtful, sensible accountability plans that met the legislative intent of Democrats and Republicans in this body. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that this body is moving forward on the Bolts Ditch land boundary adjustment bill. I am hopeful that, after passage, the Senate will bring this bill up and pass it on until it becomes law to remove any encumbrances that Minturn has in accessing its preexisting water rights due to a clerical error from the 1980s. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 689, the Bolts Ditch Access and Use Act, at the request of our local community in my district, Minturn, Colorado. In Eagle County, Minturn really needs this legislation because it improves public land and water management in my district. The bill has bipartisan support. I thank Mr. Tipton and Mr. Lamborn for collaborating with me on this bill here in the House. I am thankful that Senator Gardner and Senator Bennet have partnered to pass this bill as well. This legislation passed the House last session, but once again was held up in the Senate. I call upon the Senate, after House passage, to act expeditiously to put this matter to rest. I am very hopeful we can get it across the finish line soon. I am grateful to the town of Minturn, to the conservation community, and to water utilities for working together for a commonsense solution that I am proud to support. This is an example of how we can truly solve any problem when everybody comes together and works together to solve it. The need for this bill is to solve a vital local problem for the people of Minturn, Colorado, a town of about 1,000 people in Eagle County. The problem it fixes results from a mistake, an error, in the 1980 Wilderness Act, which inadvertently left Bolts Ditch off of the list of existing water facilities, where it should have been included. This legislation would simply authorize the special use of the Bolts Ditch headgate and the segment of the Bolts Ditch within the Holy Cross Wilderness area, allowing Minturn to use rights that it already has, existing water rights, to fill Bolts Lake. The residents of Minturn, including the mayor, whom I have met with, who brought this bill to me, as well as Coloradans across the central mountains, have long relied on water infrastructure like Bolts Ditch to access clean and affordable drinking water for our growing communities. This bill will ensure that the town of Minturn is able to utilize a crucial resource, and do so without compromising the sanctity of the surrounding wilderness areas. I thank the Republican and Democratic staffs on the committee for working with us on this bill. It is very important for the people of Minturn and for our central mountain region in Colorado to pass this bill into law. I urge its passage. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill that supports our veterans. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill provides the Veterans Administration with 200 acres of Federal land, which are currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management, in order to expand the Black Hills National Cemetery. National cemeteries are reserved for the brave men and women who make the ultimate personal sacrifice while serving in the military in defense of our freedom, and it is important that we have the sufficient space to meet all of those interment requests. These heroes have served our country and deserve to permanently rest in a cemetery that honors their sacrifice and commitment to the ideals that hold us together as a nation. With respect to the Black Hills National Cemetery specifically, the BLM and the VA determined that only Congress can provide the permanent jurisdiction transfer that is needed for this particular expansion; thus, we are considering this bill and, after passage, are encouraging our friends in the Senate to do the same. Of course, this bill represents a small fraction of the ways we can support our veterans and need to support our veterans to demonstrate our appreciation for those who have served. We need to improve access to education and job training. We need to increase funding and raise the bar on accountability for the Department of Veterans Affairs. We should work to shorten wait times at VA hospitals by allowing nurses to practice to the full extent of their licensure to ensure quality care in a quicker way at a reasonable cost, and there are many other things we need to do to make sure that those who proudly put their lives on the line--or in this case, who have paid the ultimate price to protect our freedom--and their families and loved ones are cared for by this country in recognition of their sacrifice. I do believe this simple change in land ownership will have an impact by providing the men and women who have bravely served a final resting place. Expanding the Black Hills National Cemetery is a noble and worthy cause that deserves our support. I thank my colleague from South Dakota for bringing this issue forward and for her hard work in guiding this bill through Congress. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the Speaker for the recognition and Mr. Lamborn for bringing forward this bill. H.R. 618 is legislation I am proud to cosponsor because it is a commonsense land exchange in my home State of Colorado. It authorizes the Forest Service to exchange the Emerald Valley Ranch for the larger ecologically sensitive Crags parcel. The world-famous Broadmoor Hotel-- that I visited many times and attended many education conferences at-- currently has a 25-year special use permit to operate the guest ranch on the Emerald Valley parcel. This parcel has lost its National Forest character, and conveying it out of Pike National Forest will simplify management at that site and replace it with a parcel that is more appropriate. In exchange, the Forest Service will receive the 320-acre Crags parcel and a permanent trail easement for the historic Barr Trail. The Crags property connects with several Forest Service trails in the Pikes Peak Ranger District and has been identified by the Forest Service as a priority for acquisition. I am glad that, under this bill, we can accomplish that priority. The exchange eliminates a large private inholding in the National Forest and removes the need for Federal land management of the Emerald Valley Ranch. It is a win-win scenario. Essentially, this legislation simplifies land management around Pikes Peak, while protecting public lands and growing our economy. The Forest Service testified in support of H.R. 618. I support its adoption, as do stakeholders across the spectrum. It has been a pleasure to work with my colleagues, Mr. Lamborn and Mr. Tipton, on this bill, and I appreciate their hard work and constructive work for this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I, as well, am prepared to close and I just want to highlight my agreement with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn). When people work together, these are the kind of commonsense results we get. Unfortunately, on these bills, I don't think we will be making the front page of The Washington Post or The New York Times or the FOX News Talk hour, but that is so much of the workhorse-type work that we need to do in this body. What we have done with Mr. Tipton, Mr. Lamborn, and myself is we have been able to put together the commonsense priorities around public land management. The district I have the honor of representing is 65 percent public land. So these are everyday issues that my constituents deal with living in and around public land. It is very exciting to be passing H.R. 618 and allowing getting rid of the private inholding, putting some appropriate land in the management of the Forest Service and, of course, doing something that will also benefit one of our iconic conference centers and hotels in Colorado Springs that I have had the opportunity to be a guest and a conferee at so many times. I deeply appreciate the work of Mr. Tipton and Mr. Lamborn. I urge a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. Furthermore, I call upon the United States Senate to bring up these series of bills that are very important to those of us like Mr. Tipton, Mr. Lamborn, and me, who represent areas with substantial public land where our constituents in the private sector, our residents, interact every day with issues around public land and land management. These issues will improve the quality of life in our communities. This bill will help improve the quality of the tourism experience, as well as the conservation goals of Rocky Mountain National Park. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have introduced the Arapaho National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act, also known as the Wedge Act. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I wish all of my bills could come to the floor so quickly, within a week of introducing them. But I am very glad, on behalf of Grand County, which I am honored to represent, that we could move so expeditiously, at least through the House, through this body. Once again, I will call upon the Senate, upon passage, to move on this bill. Again, this is another bill the House did its work on, we did pass last session, and the Senate failed to pass into law. It is very important for Grand County. It is a commonsense protection of public lands. It was coordinated with local landowners and local officials, supported by the county commissioners and Federal land agencies. The legislation involves a parcel of 10 lots in Grand County, which we and locals call the ``wedge.'' As indicated by its name, the parcel is wedged between Arapaho National Forest and Rocky Mountain National Park, effectively separating the two. Although the wedge is integral for the successful management of the public land, it remains outside of the National Forest Service boundary. Millions of visitors already enjoy the parcel's beauty as they travel west from the 13,000-foot apex of the Rocky Mountains, along the Trail Ridge scenic byway and into the destination town of Grand Lake, in my district. The area is undeveloped. Seven of the ten parcels are already being managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The owners of the remaining parcels are all in favor of this bill. It is very important to point out that all of the stakeholders are supportive of this effort in statute. Development of the wedge parcel would significantly affect the health of Rocky Mountain National Park and hurt the adjoining Colorado River headwaters. Not only would the development harm clean water for millions, but it could also harm the economic potential for what is truly a jewel of the National Park System, Rocky Mountain National Park, supporting millions of visitors in the surrounding communities. In recognition of these potential threats to the quality and character, as well as the economy and jobs in the area, there has been significant support locally for this bill. Supporters include everyone from local officials, like the Grand County Commissioners and the town of Grand Lake, to conservation and outdoor recreation groups, including Headwaters Trails Alliance, Conservation Colorado, and the Rocky Mountain Nature Conservancy. H.R. 688 simply responds to the wishes of my constituency--including the landholders in these areas, particularly those living in and around the wedge, as well as the visitors every year--by incorporating it into the Arapaho National Forest boundary and adding the lots owned by the Forest Service into the adjacent Bowen Gulch Protection Area, just as we did when the House passed this exact bill last year. This strong, bipartisan bill has the express support of my Colorado colleagues in both chambers, including the cosponsorship of Mr. Tipton and Mr. Lamborn, and introduction by Senator Bennet and Senator Gardner in the Senate. It was passed out of the Natural Resources Committee unanimously last Congress and passed here on the House floor. Unfortunately, the clock ran out before the Senate was able to consider it. I am looking forward to, after expeditiously moving it out of this body, allowing the Senate to do their work and pass this bill into law. I am extremely grateful for the House Natural Resources Committee's support of this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of its passage. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for advancing this bill. I look forward to working with them to advance similar legislation that expands, protects, and enhances our public lands. It is particularly a privilege for me to work on a bill that uses resources and that highlights for the American people the value of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I urge a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill expands the Fort Frederica National Monument to include a 20-acre property, known as the North Marsh, currently owned by the St. Simons Land Trust. The National Park Service evaluated the property in a 2014 study and determined that its acquisition would provide additional opportunities to protect and interpret resources that are associated with the site. Fort Frederica, which is located on St. Simons Island, Georgia, was built by James Oglethorpe in 1736 to protect the Colony of Georgia from Spanish Florida. The National Park Service has managed the fort since 1936 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt used the Antiquities Act to designate the site as a national monument. This bill is an important reminder of how a decision to protect and elevate our shared national heritage resonates generation after generation. Here we are today, 80 years after President Roosevelt made the decision to establish a national monument, and we are looking at a terrific opportunity to expand it and increase the resources it protects. By using money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund--a Federal program that wasn't yet around in President FDR's time and of which I fought hard to reauthorize in this body--we can continue this important legacy. It is good to highlight the work of the Land and Water Conservation Fund as we pass this bill with regard to a national monument that has been with us for 80 years. I thank the majority for advancing this bill, and I look forward to working with them to advance similar legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Living in and around public land, as Mr. Tipton, Mr. Lamborn, and I do, we often have these kinds of bills to address the interactions between our communities and our Federal lands in Colorado. H.R. 698 is another bill that addresses public lands. I am proud to join Mr. Tipton as a cosponsor of this bill. It will convey 148 acres of land to the Gordman-Leverich Partnership, a company in Colorado, which will remedy a land dispute between a private landowner and the Forest Service. Way back in 1947, just a few years after my dear mother--who is watching us on C-SPAN as we speak--and my father were born, an administrative error occurred that shifted the boundary between the Elkhorn Ranch and the White River National Forest. This survey placed 148 acres of private land inside the forest boundary without providing consideration to the landholders. Since then, the title of the ranch has changed several times, but the administrative error has never been corrected. We all know how we hold private property rights dear in this country, and this bill will correct the error, acknowledge the correct boundary of the Elkhorn Ranch, providing the current owner with a clear and free title rather than the encumbrance that the disputed nature of the land previously provided. It will help avoid costly litigation to both sides, provides clarity for landowners and the Forest Service. It recognizes today's reality on the ground and it will help local officials in the Forest Service as well. I thank my colleague, Mr. Tipton, for his good work on this legislation, working with stakeholders. I want to point out that the Forest Service testified in support of this bill. I join my colleagues in urging its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight, as Mr. Tipton said, a number of the bills that we are going through, including this one, have passed the House before, and yet the Senate failed to send them to the President's desk. These are real issues that our constituents face. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Senate to simply take up these noncontroversial bills, pass them, and allow President Trump to sign them so we can resolve these real-life issues that affect our constituents. While it feels good to pass a bill as a legislator--and Mr. Tipton deserves credit, and I look forward to being able to argue for the passage of a bill that I am a lead sponsor on shortly; and, of course, we recently passed, by voice vote, Mr. Lamborn's bill--these issues will remain pending until the Senate acts. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to bring forward these bills so we can address these pressing concerns that our constituents have and deal with them in an appropriate multistakeholder manner, where Democrats and Republicans can join in support of addressing the real-life issues that those of us who represent areas in and around public land have. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the passage of the Email Privacy Act is long overdue. The fact that the law that governs the government access to emails dates from 1986, before email was really a mass phenomena, is a glaring loophole in our privacy protection laws. 1986 was a time when we used floppy disks to store our information, when, if any internet existed at all, it was just a few people at research universities communicating with another. It was far from a mass phenomena. Today, this bill catches up with the reasonable expectation that consumers already have that their emails are private. Just as Americans view their phone conversations as private, their physical letters through the mail private, Americans view their emails the same way. Yet, until we close this loophole, the government maintains access, without a warrant, to emails that are older than 6 months in a way that they do not allow access to your old personal letters filed away in a filing cabinet in your office. They don't allow access to old voice mails, and emails are, frankly, no different. The Email Privacy Act requires that Americans have the same legal protection for our emails as we do for paper letters, faxes, and other types of communication that may remain sitting around. Updating this law simply aligns the law to the digital and physical world. It has taken too long already. Today is a major step forward. I would like to highlight the House has already passed this bill unanimously last session. How rare it is not just Democrats and Republicans coming together, not just Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, but every single Democrat and Republican coming together, Mr. Speaker. That is rare, and yet this body has spoken overwhelmingly last session and I hope will speak overwhelmingly again today to encourage the Senate to promptly bring up this bill and pass it into law. This bill is a strong victory for bipartisanship. This bill has been one of the most popular bills in the entire Congress. I am proud to say, as the lead Democrat, this bill had 314 cosponsors last Congress and passed unanimously. Back when Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986, it is fair to say that electronic communications meant something different than it means today. Thirty years ago, modern email simply didn't exist. And today, with 24/7 accessibility, accessibility on our smart devices, in our homes, everywhere else, it has been estimated that there were 205 billion emails sent each day by Americans. Those emails contain private communications for millions of us, and they deserve the same right of privacy as the letters in your file cabinet or your desk. You often hear Members talk about commonsense bills. Well, this bill really defines common sense. When you read our bill, there is nothing more common sense than the Email Privacy Act, which is why the bill passed 419-0 last Congress. Unfortunately, the bill didn't make it to a Senate Judiciary Committee vote, which is why I am so thrilled that Chairman Goodlatte and Mr. Conyers have succeeded in having Mr. McCarthy and Speaker Ryan bring this bill forward so early this session, giving the Senate a chance to act. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Yoder, for his hard work as the lead sponsor on this bill. I remember he and I, in gathering floor sponsors, would have these friendly contests of who could get more, Democrats or Republicans. That is how popular this bill was in terms of gaining 314 cosponsors, more than any other bill in the House of Representatives at that time. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill. Send a strong message to the Senate to vote immediately on the Email Privacy Act. Tell the Senate it is time to stand up for the privacy of Americans. This bill must be passed. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, the gentleman from Oklahoma referenced that these have been the subject of hearings. I would point out that there are over 50 new Members of this body who were not part of the last Congress who have not had a chance to look at it. And there has been time. They could have had hearings and markups last week or the week before prior to these bills coming to the floor. I just came from a hearing in one my committees today. So they certainly could have been done consistent with the timeline, had that been the desire. But, again, the better approach, the correct approach, would be to amend or change the authorities of the authorizing agency for these rules, rather than use the CRA process. Mr. Speaker, President Trump's immoral and unconstitutional executive order banning Syrian refugees and suspending immigration from many countries is an attack on our core American values as a nation of law and a nation of immigrants. This callous indifference of human suffering not only has tarnished and hurt our image abroad but harmed our national security by alienating allies and providing terrorist groups with new recruiting tools. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lofgren's bill to overturn and defund this dangerous executive order. Let me be perfectly clear for people watching what this vote means. A ``no'' vote on the previous question gives us the opportunity to overturn this order and bring up Representative Lofgren's bill. A ``yes'' vote means the House will continue to do nothing to stop President Trump's executive action and, instead, choose with allowing more methane to be spewed into the atmosphere. This will be the third such vote the House takes this week, and, so far, every vote cast by a Republican Member in Congress has been in favor of turning a blind eye to President Trump's unconstitutional and dangerous order. The American people should take notice and insist that their elected Representatives vote ``no'' and reject this administration's disgraceful policy. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. The fact that these CRA proposals that we have before us have not gone through any sort of special order, regular order; the fact that CRAs are cumbersome and reckless tools; and the fact that all they do is take away protections from our air and from our workers should make it easy for every Member of this body to join me in voting ``no'' on this rule and on the underlying bills. We should be keeping regulations and standards predictable that put Americans at the top of our priority list, not oil and gas companies, and not companies that are bad actors and violate our law by refusing to pay overtime to their workers. We should value clean air, and we should value companies that play by the rules. We should value regulations that protect our taxpayer dollars rather than increase our deficit by $140 million. We can do all of these things by simply defeating this rule and defeating the underlying bills. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying bills. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. I am prepared to close if the gentleman doesn't have any remaining speakers.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying resolutions. The resolutions that this rule provides consideration for threaten our air and don't protect the American people. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that somehow repealing these rules will create jobs. It will actually destroy jobs, jobs that are associated with recapturing methane. This is what a methane flare looks like. I drive by them in Colorado, and the potential for capturing, rather than flaring that methane, is important for the quality of our air and to reduce our emissions. The House majority has made it their priority to instill fear and uncertainty in hardworking American families. People, who come here legally on visas who have lived here for many years, even small businesses, rather than focusing on jobs or having constructive conversations about immigration, are worried about their employees and, in some cases, even their owners being deported or not allowed back after conducting business overseas. Republicans apparently would rather help shield large corporations from transparency, eliminate regulations that protect families from water and air pollution, and require companies to follow wage rules. To add to this uncertainty and fear, President Trump has signed an executive order already that bans refugees and citizens from predominantly Muslim countries. Well, America is a nation of immigrants--those who fled political and religious persecution, violence in their home countries, and those seeking to build a family in a country that values freedom and upholds civil rights. Our new President has decided that the best use of taxpayer money is to build a wall on our southern border. Our President has used his first 2 weeks in office to generate fear and uncertainty among vulnerable households who may lose their health insurance rather than create jobs and improve our economy. The new President has even limited the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to communicate with the public about things like methane flaring. The two Congressional Review Act resolutions we are discussing today--like the previous ones that, I should point out, do not follow regular order--they didn't receive any hearings in this Congress. They were a closed rule with no amendments allowed. I offered two amendments to the methane rule amendment. Neither were allowed to even be debated on this floor of this House, no less adopted. I would like to quote from Speaker Ryan when he took the gavel in October of 2015. He said: ``We need to let every member contribute--not once they have earned their stripes, but right now.'' In a further quote, Speaker Ryan said: ``The committees should retake the lead in drafting all major legislation. If you know the issue, you should write the bill. Open up the process.'' ``In other words, we need to return to regular order.'' Yet, here we are again with two CRAs that did not come through regular order, did not have a hearing with no opportunity for Members on either side of the aisle, Democrats or Republicans, with good ideas to make these pieces of legislation any better. Apparently, Speaker Ryan's commitment doesn't apply to CRAs or issues that keep our air and water clean or protect workers. I would like to ask that Speaker Ryan explain to his colleagues how he is sticking to his commitment of regular order and to clarify what that means. Not one amendment was allowed to be heard on the floor on either of these bills. This is a closed rule, including two of mine. First, let's talk about the methane waste rule. It is very important to my constituents where fracking has worsened the quality of the air and upset neighborhoods across my district in Colorado. The first amendment offered in the Rules Committee was to the methane waste rule, and it would have added Bureau of Land Management scientific findings. It would offer transparency and truth to this Congressional Review Act, providing facts about methane, methane waste, and why it is necessary for this rule to be moved forward. Without this rule, we would be seeing a lot more of this in areas like my district and my State. In the last few weeks, a war on science has been begun by this administration. If we support facts, then we should let facts speak for themselves and be as objective as possible. We should have allowed that amendment which would have listed the scientific truths around methane and this rule. Scientific facts are clear. The current rule would supply energy for up to 740,000 more households per year. Rather than burn that methane into the atmosphere, we can actually provide energy for 740,000 more households; and that methane is 25 times more dangerous and potent as carbon dioxide for worsening the impact of global warming. Even if you want to ignore the energy impact of helping more Americans have power or the climate impacts of increasing climate change, if we look at this rule from a jobs perspective, this CRA would destroy American jobs. I would like to explain how this methane waste CRA rule will affect the jobs of thousands of employees of the more than 70 companies headquartered in the U.S. that provide services and equipment to identify and capture natural gas and methane leaking from pipelines, processing equipment, and wells, including many in my home State of Colorado. This rule directly threatens the livelihood of many businesses and employees in my home State. If, for some strange reason, the job creation argument isn't enough for you, how about the hundreds of millions of dollars American taxpayers would collect over the next decade from additional royalties? Oil and gas companies are required to pay for the methane they collect and sell from public lands, and the more that is captured rather than burned off, the better not only for the companies and the employees, but also for taxpayers as we try to reduce our budget deficit. An estimated $140 million in royalties over the next decade would be lost if this CRA moves forward. That is $140 million more in deficit spending that this rule signifies if it were to pass, and that is why it is opposed by Taxpayers for Common Sense and most other fiscally conservative groups. Again, if job creation, science, and taxpayer savings aren't enough, how about the cancer-causing impacts, carcinogenic effects, of oil and gas drilling? Stacy Lambright lives in Thornton, Colorado, near my district with her husband, Eric, and her two kids, Jack and Molly. Stacy became a community activist and a member of Moms Clean Air Force after she found out her neighborhood park frequented by children and families was directly next to a leaking oil and gas fracking well. Stacy and her family have been living in the neighborhood for over 14 years, and they have started to experience health concerns after oil and gas drillers moved in. Since 2015, Stacy's been documenting an unusual amount of nosebleeds in her family. Just as recently as Monday, her daughter had a nosebleed, while her son had six nosebleeds last month, something they never had before. And Stacy's husband's asthma has significantly increased. They have lived in the neighborhood for 14 years and only recently, since the drilling occurred, have they had these health impacts. There have been no changes in their home or surrounding neighborhood other than the increased amount of fracking and oil and gas wells and leaks, documented leaks, to existing wells. This methane rule further threatens the health of constituents as we gather additional data, and that is why Stacy is advocating for stronger legislation and better management practices, not worse management practices, with regard to existing oil and gas wells. The safety and health of Stacy's family should be a top priority for Congress, but it appears, instead, the Republicans' top priority in this resolution is bringing us back to a time when our water is polluted, our skies are smoggy, and health issues from dirty air are a burden for families. I know it has been argued--we probably will again--that oil and gas companies are fixing and capping leaks on their own, but that is false. There is a massive amount of gas leaked every day, and these companies have not reduced methane emissions from the field one bit. Again, absent this rule, we will see more of this kind of activity, not less. Another argument is that infrastructure, like pipelines, is important to prevent methane flaring. And of course that is true, but a GAO report says that only 9 percent of venting and flaring is due to the lack of infrastructure, so it is only a small part of the overall issue. And, by the way, this rule doesn't block or in any way impede any new infrastructure projects, and more infrastructure alone clearly won't solve the problem of leaking wells and flaring methane. The issue of leaking methane, in particular, is partially addressed by this rule, which, by the way, doesn't go far enough. However, what they wrote has been proven to work in creating jobs and cleaning up our air. In Colorado, we have a methane rule that, frankly, this rule is largely based on, and I know it has worked in Colorado. And while we need to do a lot better in my home State, at least some level of baseline can work for the whole country. Oil production on Federal lands went up 28 percent between 2010 and 2015 under the Obama administration. There is no question that BLM has and still has authority to regulate methane. It is a waste of taxpayer money, a misuse of our public lands to do anything other than to reduce our methane emissions. Just as an aside, the benefits of this rule include increased job creation, cleaner air, healthier families, and the climate. BLM was extraordinarily conscientious when drafting this rule. They held eight public forums. They extended the comment period for 75 days. Over 300,000 public comments were collected and addressed. The BLM's methane rule was done out in the open with public input as opposed to, by the way, this process, which was done behind closed doors, without a public hearing, and didn't even have a committee hearing. It doesn't make sense to use the CRA to repeal this BLM methane rule. This BLM methane rule creates jobs, protects our families, saves taxpayer money, and reduces our budget deficit. The second amendment I offered got to the heart of the problem with CRAs in general. Regardless of the rules that they are impacting, they are a reckless, blunt tool, and they are not the right instrument for honest, thoughtful legislating. If Congress has a problem with the authority under which the methane rule was issued, we should amend the statutory authority of the agency, not use a congressional resolution of disapproval. My other amendment simply said that the agency has the right and authority to write a rule impacting this issue which, otherwise, the CRA could effectively prevent; and due to that uncertainty, passing the CRA creates even more uncertainty for the industry. As the Denver Post, a newspaper that has endorsed dozens of Republicans over the last few years, said in regards to this methane waste rule: ``Congress is getting ready to use an ax where it needs a scalpel.'' The Congressional Review Act is one of the most ridiculous tools to be used by Congress, and, regardless of whether you disagree or agree with the policy, the better way to approach it would be to amend the statutory authority of the agency to make it clear whether they have the authority to issue this kind of rule and under what conditions. While we may disagree on that, and we may be able to offer and bring to the floor amendments regarding agency authority, that is the appropriate venue for this discussion. Let's move on to the other bill under this rule, the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces bill. My Republican colleagues continue to refer to this order as a problematic order. Unfortunately, it is another attempt to mislead the American people. This is a tactic the Republican elite have called ``providing alternative facts.'' The rule under CRA today comes from the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order, and it is sorely needed legislation. What this rule says is, if you are a company that consistently breaks the law, without regard for your workplace, workers, taxpayers, or the community, you should not receive millions of dollars in taxpayer contracts. It makes common sense to me. If you are abusing workers, have engaged in tax fraud, why would we want to contract with you with our taxpayer dollars? Companies that cut corners in safety or fair pay, dozens of other areas, shouldn't get to compete for our taxpayer money against good actors and companies that play by the rules. Everybody needs to start from a level playing field. Now, to be clear, there are only a few bad actors. The vast majority of companies have no issue at all with this rule. But unscrupulous actors who have ignored the law, violated the law, cut corners, should not be rewarded; and, to this day, there are a few bad actors that continue to receive billions of dollars of your taxpayer money in Federal contracts. In 2010, a GAO report proved that there was a problem. GAO investigated 15 Federal contractors cited for violating hundreds of Federal labor laws enforced by the Department of Labor, OSHA, and the National Labor Relations Board. The Federal Government awarded these 15 Federal contractors over $6 billion in government contract obligations, your money going to known violators in 2009 alone. How about that for waste, fraud, and abuse? Now, look, I don't know about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but fiscal responsibility is core to my beliefs as a Member of Congress. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of an amendment to require a balanced budget. I believe in the value of hard work and personal responsibility. If we know a company is cutting corners, taking the easy way out, and avoiding the responsibility of the law, why would we reward them with your money? Organizations throughout the country, representing a diverse group of stakeholders, agree. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Service Employees International Union all join me in opposition to this Congressional Review Act. They recognize the value of hard work. They don't support companies who cheat. I don't know why my Republicans colleagues do. This rule modernizes an antiquated system. Right now it is virtually impossible for procurement officials to know if company A has had any violations when they are up against company B for a contract. If company A has been cheating workers out of overtime and that allows them to underbid Company B, they shouldn't get the contract and be rewarded for violating the law. This executive order will increase coordination, simplification, access to information, and streamline the system. This executive order does not set up any way for companies to be banned or disbarred. That process has always existed and will still exist alongside this as a separate, independent process. In fact, what this process does is it provides a remedial path for companies to right the ship, to get right with the law, to be eligible, once again, for Federal contracts. A simple or rare mistake should, of course, not bar a company from participating in the Federal recruitment process. Instead, companies with repeated and excessive transgressions should be helped to follow the law and create a better workplace and be rewarded to be better stewards of taxpayers dollars. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to emphasize how important it is that we defeat the previous question. There are so many questions that have been raised. Not only is it in keeping with longstanding precedent for the President to divest and place their assets in a blind trust, but it is more important than ever with this President who has a complex web of assets, nationally and internationally, which are rife with conflicts of interest for the incoming administration. I truly hope we can act in a bipartisan way to defeat the previous question and bring forward Ms. Clark's simple, straightforward bill. It affects future Presidents, Republican and Democratic, and it is a very simple, commonsense piece of legislation simply saying that they will divest and place their assets in a blind trust, something that is important for both the appearance of propriety as well as for the sake of propriety. And yet instead of focusing on legislation to investigate foreign powers undermining our recent election, instead of focusing on preventing conflicts of interest for the incoming administration, instead of focusing on legislation that would create jobs, reduce our deficit, or improve on health care, instead we have partisan legislation that hasn't gone through regular order. It has left 56 new Members representing tens of millions of Americans on the sideline. The House passed a lot of legislation last Congress. That does not mean that we should bring every bill directly to the floor and skip the committee process, because there are 56 new Members who should also have a chance to put their imprint on legislation. The way the majority is bringing bills to the floor, it ignores the concerns of the American public; it ignores pressing issues related to the incoming President. We have this window of time under the outgoing President to send a bill to his desk to require disclosure and divestment from the new President, but that window is rapidly closing. We will only have President Obama in the White House for another week, so time is running short. If we act now and defeat the previous question, hopefully the Senate will act within a few days, and we can get the bill to President Obama. But the timeline is very, very short to do this. I do not expect that Mr. Trump would sign a bill that puts additional requirements on himself, although he would perhaps change that bill to affect future Presidents because it needs to be done. It is kind of shocking that we relied on precedents rather than law in this area. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so I can bring forward Ms. Clark's bill as my amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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