Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

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

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call upon the House of Representatives to address our broken immigration system, one that serves our national security poorly, one that inhibits the ability of law enforcement to keep our communities safe and replace it with comprehensive immigration reform so we know who is here, so that people who are here illegally will be required to register and get right with the law and pay a fine, that we provide a pathway to citizenship for people who are here and playing a productive role in our economy, and that we can make sure that parents aren't taken away forcibly from their American citizen children. It has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office that immigration reform would reduce our budget deficit by over $200 billion. There are people here today working, Mr. Speaker, and we don't even know if they are paying taxes. We need to make sure that everybody who works in our country pays their just share of taxes, fulfills their responsibilities as legal residents or as citizens of our country, and the only way that we can do that is through congressional action. I am proud to support comprehensive immigration reform. I call upon Speaker Ryan and the Republican majority to put a bill forward that secures our border, reduces our deficit, and provides a way that people are required to get right with the law and have workplace authentication.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Chairman Bishop for bringing H.R. 4510, the Bolts Ditch Access and Use Act, to the floor today. I introduced this simple but very important piece of legislation at the request of the local community of Minturn, in Eagle County, because it improves public land, water, and communities in my district. This bill has bipartisan support from the Colorado delegation. I thank Mr. Tipton and Mr. Lamborn for partnering with me on this bill here in the House. In the Senate, Senator Gardner and Senator Bennet have partnered to pass this bill as well. I am also thankful to the town of Minturn, to the conservation community, and to water utilities for working together for a commonsense solution that we can all support. This is an example of how we can solve a problem when everybody comes together. The need for this legislation is to solve a vital local problem for the people of Minturn, Colorado, a town of about 1,000 people in Eagle County, which is in our Rocky Mountains in Colorado. The problem it fixes results from a mistake in the 1980 Wilderness Act, which inadvertently left Bolts Ditch off of the list of existing water facilities which it should have been included on. This legislation would authorize a special use of the Bolts Ditch headgate and the segment of the Bolts Ditch within the Holy Cross Wilderness area, allowing Minturn to use its existing water right to fill Bolts Lake. The residents of Minturn 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. This bill will ensure that the town of Minturn is able to utilize a crucial resource and to do so without compromising the sanctity of the surrounding wilderness areas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority and minority staffs of the committee for working with us on this bill. It is very important to the people of Minturn and to our central mountain region in Colorado, so I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As a fellow Representative of the West, I join my colleagues from Utah and South Dakota in support of this bill. Whenever we need to make an alteration to Federal land, whether it is the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management, it frequently requires an actual bill to go through this entire process--the House, the Senate, and the President's signature. I have had to do that a number of times and worked with our chairman on a number of bills important to my district. Now we have one that is not only of importance to South Dakotans, but important to veterans nationally. This bill provides the Veterans Administration with 200 acres of Federal land that is managed by the BLM to expand the Black Hills National Cemetery. As we know, national cemeteries are reserved for brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice while serving in the military, and it is important that we have space to meet those interment requests. Our veterans have served their country, and they deserve to permanently rest in a cemetery that honors their sacrifice and commitment to the ideals that hold us together as a nation. It so happens that the BLM land that this bill would transfer abuts the current cemetery. The BLM and the VA determined that only Congress can provide the permanent jurisdiction transfer necessary for this expansion. Again, that is not uncommon to actually bring bills before Congress for land exchanges or border extensions. That is why we are discussing this bipartisan, commonsense bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Expanding the Black Hills National Cemetery is a noble and worthy cause. It deserves our support. I want to thank Representative Noem of South Dakota for bringing this issue forward and for all of her hard work in guiding this bill through committee and, hopefully, shortly, through the United States Congress. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3881 is a bill that would repeal some unnecessary, redundant parts of the U.S. Code related to private oil and gas rights of the Allegheny National Forest. The intent, as the sponsor indicated, is to ensure that the owners of those mineral rights are allowed to exercise them and drill within the boundaries as legal. While those rights are certainly valid and should be respected, the U.S. Forest Service also has certain rights that have also been confirmed by the courts, for instance, the right to receive 60 days' advance notice before any drilling begins. The introduced draft of this legislation initially raised the possibility that it could have inadvertently overturned the court cases and precedences guaranteeing that advance notice and other rights of the U.S. Forest Service. Thankfully, in markup, the sponsor of the legislation and the majority on the Natural Resources Committee agreed to accept an amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal), which made it completely clear that this bill does not affect the right of the Forest Service to get this advance notice or any other valid right of the Forest Service, nor does it negatively impact any other rights the Forest Service has to oversee activities in national forests and to protect forest resources pursuant to the law. This bill, as amended, simply repeals language that some have interpreted as potentially infringing on private property rights. Passing this bill would not have an impact on how oil and gas operations are conducted in the Allegheny National Forest or in any national forest nationwide. I thank the sponsor of this bill for working with the Democrats on the committee to craft a workable response that hopefully will pass by unanimous consent. I ask my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along with my colleagues Mr. Peter King of New York and Mr. Raul Ruiz of California. The amendment is small, but its impact is large and very important to our three districts and many others across the country that have rural towns with volunteer fire departments. All this amendment does is increase funding for the Volunteer Fire Assistance grant program from $13 million to $15 million. VFA funds are awarded to volunteer fire departments that protect small communities of less than 10,000 people and help them prepare to respond to wildfires. Sadly, I have a perfect example of this need in my district right now. The small town of Nederland in Boulder County, Colorado, is battling the Cold Springs forest fire, with the fire crews largely made up of volunteers, initially. As just one example, Charlie Schmidtmann, who is a captain with the Nederland Fire Protection District, and Bretlyn Schmidtmann, who is an ER nurse, a paramedic, and volunteer firefighter already lost their home to the Cold Springs fire, even as they continue to work to save neighbors' homes. It is this sort of heroic work that we need to support through the funding that they need so they have the tools that they need to fight fires swiftly and effectively. For some reason, we still don't treat fires the way we treat other natural disasters. Wildfires are underfunded when it comes to mitigation, prevention, and suppression. Fires often occur in rural communities with smaller populations. The Volunteer Fire Assistance program is critical to moving the needle on wildfire management, preventing large wildfires from getting out of hand while they are still small. Though this grant program is small, its impact is incredible. The Volunteer Fire Assistance program provides matching funds to volunteer fire departments protecting communities with 10,000 or fewer residents. Volunteer fire departments provide nearly 80 percent of the initial attack on wildfires across the United States, but, unfortunately, these volunteer fire departments frequently lack significant financial resources. $2 million may not sound like a lot in this town, but it makes an enormous difference for our volunteer fire departments across the country. In recent years, the threat of wildland fires has increased steadily across the country. The 10-year average cost to the Federal Government of suppressing wildland fires continues to go up; but instead of funding communities that might be able to suppress the fires in the initial phase, we have been underfunding that very program that can save taxpayer money by preventing large forest fires. I ask for your support for this amendment, which has been endorsed by the National Association of State Foresters and International Association of Fire Chiefs, in adding $2 million to this program.

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, wild free-roaming horses and burros are a living symbol of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West, like in my home State of Colorado. My amendment will help to prevent the Bureau of Land Management from destroying this iconic symbol using funds allocated in this bill to be used for surgical sterilization of horses. What distinguishes America's wild horses from their domestic counterparts is their natural behaviors and their complex social organizations. Surgical sterilization will take the wild out of wild horses by removing the horse's ability to utilize the reproductive organs that drive their natural behavior and changing their hormonal structure. It turns them into little more than pasture horses, destroying their complex social organizations and inalterably changing the free-roaming behaviors that Congress sought to protect when we passed the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. The way surgical sterilization of our horses is conducted under the guise of population control is simply cruel. A 2013 National Academy of Sciences study report identifies many strategies for fertility control and supports the use of PZP, or immunocontraception, which has been underutilized. Rather than using taxpayer funds and do expensive roundups and expensive operations, we have effective dart-delivered birth control that is a fraction of the cost and is more humane and preserves the wild character of the herds. The National Academy of Sciences notes that sterilization is the least recommended of the approaches. There is not good data, it is untested in wild horses, and the risks associated are simply unnecessary. BLM noted that fertility control is viable if used appropriately. It is important to maintain the population size of these herds. Of course, we can agree that some form of fertility control is needed. Sterilization affects both male and female wild horses. In both cases experts have flat out said they are bad ideas. Ovariectomies, tubal ligations, and laser ablation are planned techniques to be used on wild horse mares. Two of the three techniques have never been performed on horses, let alone wild mares and fillies. The National Academy of Sciences, once again, stated clearly that castrating stallions will cause loss of testosterone and consequential reduction in or complete loss of male type of behaviors necessary for maintenance of social organization, band integrity, and expression of a natural behavior repertoire. Scientists believe this mass sterilization program could essentially lead to the end of wild horses and burros in the West. Luckily, BLM does have a better and cheaper tool. The PZP birth control vaccine is an example. It is deliverable by a remote dart. It is relatively cheap--$25 a dose. The surgical interventions cost far more. Numerous studies have demonstrated the cost effectiveness and efficacy of this vaccine in managing wild horse populations. But instead of expanding its use, the BLM has incorrectly reduced it over the last several years. Contraception alternatives have been available since the 1980s. But BLM, unfortunately, continues to ignore this approach despite the National Academy of Sciences report indicating these vaccines are the most promising fertility control methods to help limit the population growth for wild horses and burros. Examples of successful use of PZP has been noted in the McCullough Peak herds in Wyoming and Assateague herds in Virginia and Maryland. Look, these kinds of procedures destroy the wild nature of horses. They are a waste of taxpayer money, and they are inhumane. The National Academy of Sciences advised against the surgical removal of ovaries, warning the possibility that ovariectomies may be followed by prolonged bleeding or infection makes it inadvisable for field application. The final point I want to make is that this proposal by BLM has raised overwhelming opposition by the general public for whom our wild horses and burros are very popular. Over 20,000 citizens submitted comments in opposition to this plan. The public wants its wild horses protected, and, of course, we need to control the population, but we should not surgically mutilate our wild horses. I would like to ask for the ranking member and chairman to work with me to make sure the BLM spends our taxpayer money more wisely and protects the iconic symbol of the American West.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for accepting this important amendment on behalf of the many small towns and volunteer fire departments across the United States. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee. The amendment is very simple. It offers a choice for those in Congress to make. It is a choice for Members to vote on whether we want to keep our public lands public or not. Very simply, my amendment says that none of the funds available through this bill can be used in violation of the law with regard to keeping our public lands public. This amendment would not undo anything or undermine any current congressional or administrative land exchanges that are done legally. The amendment would, however, prohibit the use of funds in this bill to pursue any extra-legal ways to turn Federal land over to private owners through various things like a commission, or others that have been espoused. The district I have the honor of representing in Colorado is over 60 percent public lands. Public lands are not only beautiful and majestic, but they are the fundamental drivers of our mountain area economies in counties like Grand and Eagle and Summit Counties. Public lands are good for our body, mind, and soul. A U.S. Army veteran of the Kosovo and Iraq war who lives in Colorado recently said: ``I fought to protect all that makes our Nation great, and that includes the public lands that belong to every American.'' Not only are our public lands good for our souls, but they are also one of our largest economic drivers in our State and throughout the Rocky Mountain region and, indeed, across the country. Over $646 billion is generated economically through our public lands, and visiting our public lands supports over 6 million jobs. From small businesses to ski resorts, from gas stations to diners, our economy thrives largely in part because of the public lands in areas like the one I have the honor of representing. A recent poll across six Western States revealed that 96 percent of Americans support protecting public lands for future generations. Clearly, it is a top priority for our families. People want to see our public lands stay public and they want to see the maintenance for access of outdoor areas on our public lands as a critical focus of the Federal Government. States simply don't have the resources to take on the responsibilities for maintaining and keeping our Federal lands safe. Selling these lands outright to private owners would undoubtedly lead to loss of access, loss of jobs, devastate our economy, and hurt the quality of life in districts like mine. If you talk to the people on the ground who use these lands, whether it is sportsmen and recreational shooters, hikers, bikers, campers, hunters, or motorized activists, they don't want our land, the land they use, taken away from them. Obviously, those concerned with environmental well-being, water quality, and public health also strongly support our public lands. With this amendment, I offer a clear choice to my colleagues. Support the protection of public lands and let's cast a vote to do that. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I, again, thank the gentleman that there is not any sale of public lands in this bill. I would point out that there are Members in this body--in fact, the chair of the authorizing committee in this general area--who speak regularly about privatizing our public lands, so there is a real threat. This is not simply something that comes out of nowhere. I think the peace of mind that we would get by including this kind of language in an appropriations bill would make it very clear that Congress supports the opinion of the American people, supports the economy in districts like mine, and wants to keep our public lands public. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his commitment to work with us protecting wild horses. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question so that we can keep our country safer. Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the underlying bills because they interfere with our efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in the rigid implementation of the JCPOA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment, along with my colleagues, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Huffman, and Ms. Lujan Grisham. It is a very simple amendment. It just strikes a policy rider, section 439 of the bill. This section would block the EPA from doing its job. It would block the EPA's commonsense standards for sources of emissions of methane in the oil and gas industry, an issue that is literally in our backyards in the State of Colorado. It would even prevent the EPA from doing research into existing drill sites for methane standard purposes, and, most astonishing, it would actually prevent the EPA from clarifying the scope of emission sources, which would continue to make sure that we know less and are less protected rather than more protected. The President and the EPA are taking action to protect our country, our planet, from methane emissions. It is past time that we take bold action to combat climate change and reduce the impact of impending catastrophic changes to our climate, to our world, reducing national security and hurting our economy in tourism and agriculture-dependent districts like mine. Taking aggressive action now is, quite simply, a moral imperative, not only within the purview of the EPA, but the actual charge that Congress is giving the Environmental Protection Agency. The sad reality is that right now, the majority of our energy still comes from fossil fuels. That is why while of course we need to invest in renewables, at the same time, we can't wait to transition entirely to renewable energy before we address the extraction process that releases dangerous chemicals, such as methane as a by-product. Pound for pound, methane pollution from oil and gas wells is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is responsible for one-quarter of human- made climate change, according to scientists. These EPA rules are long overdue standards for the oil and gas industry, which will reduce methane pollution and provide certainty for the industry. Although I wish, frankly, these new rules went further, I wish, frankly, that Congress had taken bold action, these stricter standards are a good start, and they are necessary. Scientists have recently published even more convincing data showing that the methane released during natural gas extraction is a deadly climate threat. New scientific mapping shows that 12.4 million people live within a half mile of the 1.2 million active oil and gas facilities in the United States, many in my home of Colorado. This threat radius is a very conservative estimate of the distance from which toxic air emissions from oil and gas facilities have an adverse impact on public health. It is why in many areas of northern Colorado and Wyoming, we have worse air quality than downtown Los Angeles. We must not prevent the EPA from moving forward to protect our air, our water, and our planet, which is what Congress has charged them to do. It is time for us to allow them to do their science-based work. It is time to make the fossil fuel industry and fracking play by the same set of rules the rest of the country plays by, instead of letting them emit tons of chemicals, literally tons of chemicals into our air that put our health and the future of the planet in jeopardy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, you can't just pretend that things don't have costs. Of course, carbon emissions have a cost. Of course, methane emissions have a cost. It doesn't mean that people are proposing we abolish carbon emissions from our economy. It means we want to look at, in this case, methane emissions and their cost. Colorado has implemented similar rules already that the industry has adopted. There are actors in the industry who want this very certainty so they know what they need to do with regard to methane emissions. There are plenty of companies providing new recapture technologies. All this does is begin to get a handle on it. Again, in my opinion, it doesn't go far enough. In my opinion, it isn't the kind of action I would hope a bold Congress would take. But at the very least, let's have standards for methane emissions. Let's prevent a ban on research into existing drill sites for methane standard purposes. If this section is left intact, not only does it strike the emission standards, it prevents the EPA from doing research into what the standards should be or could be, so we are never going to reach ``the right answer.'' It should be beholden on those who believe that this is not the right answer to actually support the very kind of research for methane standard purposes that is blocked by this very section, which our amendment will remove from the bill. I ask for your support on this simple, commonsense amendment to remove this policy rider and help keep our air clean. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.