Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on October 31 and November 1, 2017. Had I been present for the following roll call votes: H.R. 2521--South Carolina Peanut Parity Act of 2017--I would have voted Yea on to allow South Carolina the ability to appoint members to the Peanut Standards Board. Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2936--I would have voted no because this motion prevented proceeding to debate a problematic forestry bill, and allowed Congress to debate and vote on the Dream Act to protect DREAMers. H. Res. 595--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2936--Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017--I would have opposed this rule because it only allowed debate of seven amendments, and blocked the consideration of 10 germane amendments. This rule does not maintain regular order I strive for.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, five years ago, Colorado voters chose to amend the State Constitution to legalize the cultivation, sale, and personal use of marijuana for people 21 years of age or older. Today, Colorado is home to a growing marijuana economy which has created 23,000 jobs in the industry and in excess of $200 million in tax revenue which helps to fund our schools. States like Colorado, and now dozens of other states, have proven that allowing responsible adults to legally purchase marijuana, gives money to classrooms, not cartels; creates jobs, not addicts; and boosts our economy, not our prison population. Colorado ought to be an example for the nation, and it is past time we lift the federal prohibition on marijuana. That's why I'm proud to sponsor the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, which allows each state to decide for itself whether to legalize marijuana. In addition, I will continue to attempt to restrict the Department of Justice from enforcing federal marijuana laws in states where it is legal. Earlier in 2017, I launched the bipartisan Cannabis Caucus with Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, and Rep. Don Young. The caucus will serve as an important working group to discuss marijuana policy and its future, moving Congress into the 21st century on drug policy. I applaud the pioneers of the cannabis industry in Colorado and nationwide. The perseverance and hard work to create a new model of legalization is commendable.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, trailblazer, pioneer, true Coloradoan. These are just a few phases that describe the Honorable Ken Salazar. A native of San Luis Valley, Secretary Salazar has always been true to his Colorado roots and values. Working tirelessly for others and the environment, Secretary Salazar's legacy will abide for generations to come. Secretary Salazar grew up on a rural ranch, learning to read and write by the light of oil lamps. No stranger to hard work, he pursued a varied education attending Colorado College, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science in 1977, and law degree from the University of Michigan Law School. Later Salazar was awarded honorary degrees from Colorado College and the University of Denver. 1986 marked Secretary Salazar's first appointment in politics. Serving as Gov. Romer's Director of Natural Resources, Salazar worked towards petroleum and mining reforms to better protect the surrounding environment. Secretary Salazar was elected as Colorado Attorney General in 1998 and handily won reelection in 2002. As Attorney General, he was awarded the prestigious Conference of Western Attorneys General Profile in Courage award for his work. In 2004, Secretary Salazar ran for U.S. Senate and won. Salazar was a leading member of a bipartisan group of Senators that developed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which would have provided a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and increased funding for border security. Secretary Salazar's Senate record is reflective of his passion for justice and environmental protections. He fought to limit natural gas drilling in western Colorado alongside Sen. Udall and his brother, Congressman Jon Salazar. Secretary Salazar worked in the Senate to give benefits to Rocky Flats workers. In 2009, President Obama appointed Salazar as Secretary of the Interior. As one of two Hispanics serving in the cabinet, Secretary Salazar worked to ensure our national parks and monuments were inclusive to minority communities and America's tribal communities. During his time as Secretary, Salazar successfully developed and implemented numerous renewable energy initiatives on public lands and helped lead the Obama Administration's ``all of the above'' energy strategy. I am honored to know Secretary Salazar as a colleague, but even more as a friend. On behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives, I want to congratulate Secretary Salazar on his induction in the Latino Hall of Fame.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, there are upwards of 800,000 DREAMers in our country--young, de facto Americans, people who grew up here, are as American as you or I, American in fact, albeit not in law. They are able to work legally under the deferred action, or DACA program, that President Obama has set up. That has been jeopardized by an announcement that President Trump will be terminating that program within 6 months. Now we are down to about 4\1/2\ months, a challenge to this body, Democrats and Republicans, to work together to rectify the legal situation of 800,000 de facto Americans. This body must act. We can't leave these young Americans in limbo with regard to what their future prospects are to work. Make no bones about it, if this body fails to act, over 800,000 aspiring Americans will no longer be able to go to work legally the very next day after deferred action expires. In the interest of unifying families, in the interest of these young people who are as American as you or I, in the interest of our economic growth and prosperity, I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stop playing politics and finally pass a DACA fix, like the Dream Act, into law to make sure that they can give back to the country that has given so much to them.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. As my colleague noted, Dr. Kirkpatrick was a psychologist at a VA medical center in Wisconsin. In 2009, he was fired from his job after allegedly questioning the overmedication of his patients, particularly related to opioids. Tragically, that very same day, Dr. Kirkpatrick committed suicide. I think we can all agree that protecting whistleblowers helps to ensure that waste, fraud, and abuse in our government does not go unnoticed or ignored. It is our responsibility to empower and encourage whistleblowers to come forward and speak out when something isn't right. No one should have to live in fear of retaliation for bringing the truth to light. No one should fear losing their job or career or their life simply for following the rules. The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act increases accountability by enacting mandatory punishments for any manager or superior at an agency who has been found to have retaliated against a whistleblower. The bill also contains VA-specific reforms to better protect the privacy of medical records. Employee medical records would now be prohibited from being accessed in the case of potential retaliation cases, which adds an additional level of accountability for supervisors; and protecting the whistleblower from attacks and threats based on their personal medical history, which would be completely inappropriate. Mr. Speaker, while there are strong and necessary reforms in this bill, I want to make sure that you know that legislation can always be improved through the amendment process or at least through conducting a hearing and markup of a bill. Sadly, but unsurprisingly in this Congress, this bill didn't have a markup in committee; didn't have a hearing; is considered under a closed rule, where amendments that were brought forward aren't even allowed to be debated on the House floor. This might be a surprise even to the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who himself requested a structured rule that allowed for debate on amendments. Much of my statement today echoes the sentiment of Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Cummings and his testimony yesterday evening in the Rules Committee. Though this bill isn't perfect, it can be improved and strengthened by a few relatively straightforward amendments, which, unfortunately, were shut down in the Rules Committee last night. The first amendment, which was blocked today, would have addressed the bill's constitutional concerns first raised by the Office of Personnel Management by revising the mandatory disciplinary procedures to allow superiors their constitutional rights to due process in responding to accusations of retaliation. It would have improved the bill and made it more likely to stand up in court to challenge. An amendment reaffirming the right to due process would have been something at least worth voting on, and, in fact, could have preserved the constitutionality of the core elements of this bill, ensuring that it stays in place to protect whistleblowers. Another amendment blocked under this rule would have addressed privacy concerns contained in the bill. Specifically, the amendment would have protected the privacy of a whistleblower who commits suicide, by requiring the permission of the whistleblower's next of kin before an agency can share information regarding the suicide. Again, it seems like a straightforward fix to protect the privacy of whistleblowers and their families. At the very least, even if Members of this body disagreed with it, why didn't we at least bring it forward for debate and a vote? Another amendment that was blocked today contained the text of Mr. Cummings' bill, H.R. 702, which was passed by the House of Representatives unanimously. As you know, this bill would expand protections for employees who face discrimination, and it solidifies our commitment to protecting whistleblowers and other employees from retaliation. It was a bipartisan bill. It passed the House unanimously. We simply should have allowed it under this bill to become part of a related effort. Now, I know that my colleagues on the other side will say: Oh, the Senate is slow. They won't take up this bill on time. It is better for us to pass something now than have to wait for their approval. But it only takes 10 minutes usually to debate an amendment. So we could have allowed three amendments and spent no more than 30 minutes debating them and still reported this bill out expeditiously. Now, I happen to think that, while there are many on the other side of the aisle who would agree the House needs to return to regular order, it is time that Members actually started by voting according to what they are saying. By voting ``no'' on this rule and rejecting it, we can send the message to House leadership that we want an open, regular order process. Bills should come out of committee through markups. Republicans and Democrats should have the opportunity to amend bills on the floor of the House. Perhaps if we did that more often, the Senate would not simply cast aside many of the bills that have passed the House, knowing that they went through the process of deliberate consideration by our body, rather than a bill that appears fully formed where Members of this body simply get an up-or-down vote. This bill will enjoy bipartisan support when it passes the House later today, as it should, but it also begs the question of: Why are we spending valuable time debating a noncontroversial bill, especially if it is considered under a closed rule? Why not have simply put it up on suspension in the first place? To say things bluntly, we are actually running out of time this year. By my count, we only have 30 legislative days left in the first half of the 115th Congress, yet we are faced with so many important issues we need to move forward on. Nine million children face losing their health insurance because Congress has not yet acted to reauthorize CHIP. Almost 1 million young, aspiring Americans have no idea what their lives will look like 6 months from now because of the President's decision to end DACA and Congress's continued inability to make it permanent law. The citizens of Puerto Rico, American citizens, still have not been granted a Federal aid package and are suffering from a lack of food, clean water, healthcare supplies, and electricity, jeopardizing many of their lives today. Yet here we are debating a bill without even allowing an amendment process that we could have passed under suspension vote yesterday so we could move on to CHIP, to Puerto Rico, to DACA today, rather than spend one of our 30 remaining days of business this year avoiding the topics that the American people want us to take on. Despite the important goals we have left to accomplish this year, it is misleading to assume that regular order isn't feasible. We have all seen how fast Congress can work when we are pushed right up to the edge. It is past time that we show that same urgency and commitment in considering legislation under regular order, even if it means we have to stay here on Thursdays and Fridays, even if it means we are working until 8 or 9 or 10 or midnight. The American people deserve no less. Make no mistake, the Whistleblower Protection Act is an important piece of legislation that will help protect whistleblowers and hold Federal agencies accountable, but if we are going to devote this much time to legislation that protects employees, let's take it a step further and talk about expanding worker protections for an even greater number of Americans. For example, my legislation, the Giving Workers a Fair Shot Act-- which I introduced last session and this session, and has yet to receive a hearing, no less a markup in the Education and Workforce Committee--would protect workers from wage theft, prevent taxpayer funds from going towards union busting, and establish first contract arbitration to prevent companies from dragging on labor negotiations unnecessarily to the detriment of workers. We don't have time to waste. If we are going to consider an issue, let's dive in. We can protect whistleblowers from retaliation and strengthen the rights of workers at the same time. Given the minimal amount of time we have left to work with, 30 days this year, we have an obligation to do both. By the way, the fact that we only work 30 more days this year here in the United States Congress probably comes as a great surprise to many hardworking Americans who are accustomed to working 5 days a week. We have the rest of the month of October, November, December. Well, many Americans might get Christmas Day off, perhaps even Christmas Eve, but I don't think Americans realize that Congress is only going to work 30 days out of the next 78 days. That is less than a half-time job, Mr. Speaker. I think the American people deserve more from us in this body, especially when so many issues like CHIP, like DACA, like Puerto Rico, and many others have gone unanswered by us in this body, the House of Representatives, or by colleagues across the way in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, President Trump has been relentless on his attack on immigrant Americans, generally, and, in particular, DREAMers since he took office. Yet 82 percent of American voters, including about 70 percent of Republicans, believe DREAMers should be allowed to stay in the U.S. and apply for citizenship. Yet President Trump has continued to turn his back on these innocent young people. Mr. Speaker, here is our chance to rectify President Trump's decision and restore the American people's faith in us and our faith in our aspiring Americans. When we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are de facto Americans in every way except for on paper. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question today, we can bring forward the Dream Act, which I am confident would pass on the floor of the House probably by a good margin. What the Dream Act does is it allows young people who grew up in our country, who know no other country, a pathway to become citizens. They have gone to our schools, they have been on the football team or cheerleaders like your own kids or grandkids, Mr. Speaker. They are able to work legally in our country because of the deferred action program, which is scheduled by President Trump to be canceled in 4\1/2\ months. We need to act now to give these young people the certainty they need to live their lives as Americans, the only country they know, and the only country that they are loyal to. We simply don't have time to waste. We need to give these young de facto Americans the certainty they need to continue with their lives to be able to contribute to our country, join our military, pay taxes, and all of the other responsibilities that Americans have. Of course, Mr. Speaker, protecting whistleblowers is important. It is critical to ensure that our democracy functions honestly and with accountability and government is truly working in the best interests of the people that it serves. But we could get there a better way, by having an open process that allows Democrats and Republicans to suggest further improvements to whistleblower protection rather than having a bill that was never marked up in committee, that simply appeared fully formed for the full House to consider without the opportunity for Democrats or Republicans to make it any better. The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act will strengthen the rights of whistleblowers and reaffirm their value and importance to our country. But once again, this bill should have gone through a regular process that allowed us to amend it. The fact that this bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support shouldn't stop us from making changes in this body, the House of Representatives, to improve the bill and make it work even better. We have an obligation to our constituents to thoughtfully consider every piece of legislation in front of us and to amend where we see fit. As we move forward on addressing the pressing issues in front of us, such as finding a path forward on deferred action, which we will present if we can defeat the previous question, reauthorizing CHIP, or making improvements in our healthcare system, let's do it through a regular process that allows Democrats and Republicans, the 435 of us who serve here, to bring forward our ideas, not just the ideas of leadership in making the country a better place. We have good, smart, deliberate Members on both sides of the aisle who want to work, want to legislate. It is ridiculous that we only have 30 days out of the next 78 in which Congress will even be working, and I suspect for most of the 30 days, like today, Democrats and Republicans won't even be able to offer their ideas and have them considered. The American people deserve better. We as an institution, as the United States Congress, can do better, and we can begin by defeating the previous question and defeating the rule. Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman. This is about giving both sides--the workers seeking to organize and the employer--the opportunity to make their case to workers fairly and expeditiously. Prior to this case, in every case, employers would have access with ways to pester and bug employees at home, through their personal email, through their phone numbers. There was simply no way that there was any equality given to the case for union organizers to make. In fact, union organizers often had to try to find ways that they could reach to simply make the case to workers so that they can make a fair choice. In addition, I find it ridiculous that this is called, by those on the other side, an ambush when, in fact, the only ambush is when they ambush the right of workers to organize by drawing out the election process to months and years, often beyond when many of the employees involved are even at the same employer because of the adverse working conditions that could have led them to organize in the first place. This rule was done through a multistakeholder process. There was a lot input from all sides, and it was a very thoughtful rule that gave a level playing field to ensure that workers, should they desire to organize, had a reasonable calendar for doing so and a reasonable way of reaching other workers to tell them the benefits of organizing, just as the company was telling them the downside. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment which throws out a very thoughtful rule that levels the playing field in labor relations.

Mr. POLIS

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

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

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, this amendment doesn't make sense from an economic perspective or a health perspective. It would block implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency's commonsense standards for sources of emissions of methane in the oil and gas industry. And while we invest in renewable energy, at the same time, we know that we can't wait to transition entirely to renewable energy before we address other side effects of the extraction process, like methane. Pound for pound, methane pollution from oil and gas wells is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is responsible for a quarter of human-made climate change. This EPA rule, frankly, is just a starting point. It is a long overdue standard for the oil and gas industry to reduce methane pollution. Frankly, I wish these rules went further, but these stricter standards are a good start; they are necessary. Scientists have published data that shows that methane released during extraction is an incredibly large contributor to the climate threat. I think it is really critical not to prevent the EPA from moving forward and fulfilling the mission that Congress gave them to protect our air, water, and planet, and that is what this amendment would do, which is why I oppose it.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, before I begin my comments on this amendment, I want to thank the chairman for including my other amendment regarding volunteer and State wildfire assistance en bloc earlier today. While a great deal of attention is being paid to Hurricane Harvey and Irma, the West is also being ravaged by wildfires, costing hundreds of millions of dollars and lives. My amendment with Representatives Renacci and King that passed makes sure that States and local governments will have a little bit more resources with their volunteer fire departments to fight those fires, and I appreciate that. Madam Chair, this amendment that is at the desk would address the really unsound plan by the EPA to close down their regional field offices. My amendment would prevent this plan from occurring by preventing funds from going to the closure of regional Environmental Protection Agency offices. We already know that the new EPA leadership has its priorities backwards, focused on how they can help fossil fuels and coal and oil rather than the congressionally mandated responsibility of keeping our air and water clean and helping to keep people healthy. So earlier this year, when the President's budget included closing ten regional Environmental Protection Agency offices and reports began to surface in April that Secretary Pruitt was looking to close the Region 5 office, which covers the upper Midwest, I was disappointed, hence, this action that I am taking here today with this amendment. The reports we have heard are surrounding Region 5, but we have no idea which regions they are targeting. In my home State of Colorado, the Region 8 headquarters serves six States and 27 sovereign Tribal nations. Our headquarters in Denver are essential to protecting health and safeguarding the national environment in the American West. It is very important to fight against this reckless EPA plan to close down regional offices that keep our air clean. And now more than ever, with tropical storms and flooded chemical plants and oil spills around Houston, we all know how essential EPA presence in the field is. The EPA field offices are often the first responders at the scenes of environmental disasters. Regional field offices are uniquely well versed in particular characteristics in our very diverse geographic Nation. It is very important for Congress to send an unambiguous message that we want to safeguard the lives and welfare of our American citizens, acknowledge and address the very real threat of climate change. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Well, if there is no plans to close offices and it would cost more to close them, I would just hope that the Chair would accept this amendment, which merely confirms what he just indicated. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I would like to inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, again, the chairman has given his assurances that there is no plans to close offices, that it would cost more to close offices; therefore, since there is no additional money for office closure in this bill, it is not happening. I don't see why we don't just confirm that same intent that he conveyed by putting this funding amendment restriction in place that would prevent offices from being closed. If they are saying they are not going to close, and if we are saying they are not going to close, well, let's just put that in words so it means something. That is all this amendment does. Obviously, if the President or the executive want to propose consolidation or closures, they can come back and seek funding for that. The Chair is right. We have the final word. If we include this language in the bill, our final word will be that you can't close EPA offices without a change in funding and coming back to Congress. So it is completely consistent with what the Chair indicated. I think it is a very important statement for us to make as a united Congress. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is very simple. It offers Members of this body a very clear choice about whether or not we want to keep our public lands in the hands of those who rightfully own them, the American public; or if we want to sell off our public lands to the highest bidder. This amendment would prohibit the Federal use of funds to pursue any additional extralegal ways to turn our Federal lands over to private owners. For example, it would prohibit commissions. It would prohibit groups that would find backdoor ways to do that, or any other means. My amendment simply ensures that none of the funds through this bill can be used in violation of the law that already exists. I would hope that can be accepted by the Republicans. It is important to note that this amendment would not do anything to undermine the current authority for congressional- and administration-driven land exchanges that many of us have worked on. In the district I am honored to represent, over 60 percent of the land is public land. These public lands are beautiful and majestic, just as they are across the entire country. They are a critical part of our American heritage; our Western heritage; in my State, our Colorado heritage; and they serve so many incredible purposes. First of all, public lands are good for our mind and soul. A U.S. Army Iraq war veteran 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.'' Second, these lands are good for our bodies by protecting water quality and public health. People hike and fish and enjoy outdoor recreation time. The public lands are the ecosystems that house headwaters of our river systems that we rely on for our drinking water and that help keep our air clean through the plants that they water. Not only are our lands good for the soul and health, they are also the key economic driver in my district and my State. Across the country, over $600 billion is generated through outdoor recreation on our public lands, and visiting public lands support over 6 million jobs. I represent Rocky Mountain National Park, which has over 3 million visitors a year. The entire economy of towns, like Estes Park, rely on our public lands. From small businesses to ski resorts, from gas stations to diners, our economy thrives in districts like mine because of our public lands. A recent poll across six Western States shows that 96 percent of Americans support public lands. Let's vote on this and make sure that 96 percent in Congress agrees with 96 percent of the American public. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Well, look, the only argument the chairman has made against this one, like the last one, is that it is not going to happen anyway. So why not give the American people the assurance? Because, frankly, it could happen anyway. There is a real threat. There are Members of this body and there are members of the President's administration that are seeking to sell off our public lands, which would devastate our local economy, undermine wildlife and the ecosystems that we support, and remove a critical iconic part of our Western heritage. Selling these public lands to private owners would lead to a loss of access to our most majestic, treasured spaces, a critical part of our quality of life not just for Coloradans, but for the millions of people from across the country that visit our wild areas. Time after time we see real attempts that are made here to transfer our most precious public lands to private ownership or sell them at wholesale. With this amendment, we offer a clear choice. Let's confirm what the chairman said: that this won't happen. Let's support the protection of our public lands as all of our constituents do. I think it is clear to make sure that Members are on the record. Do we support keeping our public lands public? Or do we support the corporatization of something that is, in many ways, the iconic essence of our identity as a people and as a country, our public lands? Madam Chair, I ask for my colleagues' support on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, for Johana. She graduated from the University of Colorado and went on to medical school, and we need to bring this bill up for her.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, in the foothills of the beautiful Boulder Flatirons stands a building that has been a beacon of exemplary research, groundbreaking discoveries, and an icon of the American spirit of research. I speak of course of the National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesa Lab, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2017. The breathtaking design was crafted by I.M. Pei, the legendary Chinese-American architect. Pei's previous work in the urban jungle is apparent in the looming concrete 5 story towers that comprise the Mesa Lab. The bush-hammering technique that is used throughout the building offers a roughness to the exterior while the pinkish aggregate mined in Lyons, CO helps the complex blend into the surrounding Flatirons. The NCAR Mesa Lab is home to 330 world-class scientists. These pioneers work every day to fulfill the vision of NCAR's founder, Walter Orr Roberts. Blazing new trails in human understanding, atmospheric science, climate change research, solar astronomy and much more, the scientists at NCAR are an interwoven part of the Boulder community. On behalf of my constituents I offer gratitude to have this facility and everything it stands for be a part of our family and acknowledge that though the research they have produced yields global benefit, we recognize that those benefits are only a small payment on the debt we owe for having such a fantastic asset as part of our home.