Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, my amendment would simply restore the funding cuts to the Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy account just to fund at the same levels it was funded last year. That is $986 million. And I will tell you where we find those funds and take it from in a minute. It takes them from two programs: the fossil fuel energy and research account and the nuclear weapons account. So we should invest in our future for energy efficiency and renewable energy rather than throwing more money at the past and into nuclear weapons. Fossil fuel research and development is a dead end for America, for our economy, for the clean air that we need, and for our water. Continuing to fund fossil fuels, whether it makes them marginally cleaner or not, is simply throwing money at the past rather than the future. Regardless of how clean we make fossil fuel extraction, it is never as clean or, more importantly, as sustainable as renewable energy, and definitely won't be as cheap or sustainable as clean energy. I am the proud sponsor of a bill for our country to reach 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, but to be able to do that, we need the investment in research and development. Frankly, investing in nuclear weapons when we already have enough nuclear capabilities to destroy every man, woman, and child on this planet seven times over is simply wasteful. Nuclear weapons receive over $10 billion, while renewable energy receives a measly $986 million. I was talking to one of my constituents a little while ago, Nancy Cronk from Colorado, and she agreed that we simply spend too much on potentially having the capability of destroying the world through nuclear weapons, rather than investing in a renewable energy future. We don't live in Cold War times. We don't need Cold War-level spending for facilities that the military hasn't used in over 20 years. We should be following the advice, in this case, of the Department of Defense and focusing on the renewable energy account, which helps fund national labs like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden. The most recent study of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's economic impact alone shows it totaled over $800 million nationally. In addition, CU Boulder and NREL jointly operate the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute, which is located in Colorado, which helps advance renewable energy science, engineering, and analysis through industry partnerships and education. That is the future of our country, Mr. Chairman, and the future of the world. And by undercutting our investment in our future and throwing money at the past, and being able to kill every man, woman, and child seven times instead of six times, we are losing the forest through the trees, and we are making our country less secure, not more secure. The Building Technologies Offices, NREL, and many others receiving funds under this account do amazing work to pull us into the 21st century, like using 3D printing for wind blades. Not only that, their work helps save consumers money because of energy efficiency. In fact, an estimate shows that from 2009 to 2015, the work of the Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy program has saved consumers more than $543 billion and reduced carbon pollution by 2.3 billion metric tons. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for recognizing the importance of the Energy Efficient & Renewable Energy account. It is an incredibly high priority for economic development. We talked about the jobs and technology transfers that come out of that fund. We also talked about its need for energy independence in our future. I hope the chairman is willing to work on finding other agreeable funding sources to hold that account harmless and plus it up. I want to highlight a couple of other important projects funded from the EERE account, large and small. One example is the EERE's Vehicle Technologies Office which awarded $500,000. It doesn't sound like a lot, but it makes an enormous difference on the ground for the Clean City Coalition to support Project FEVER, to foster the development of Colorado State's acceleration of plug-in electric vehicles, which are in extremely high demand. The Clean Cities project helped to develop a comprehensive electric vehicle strategy, including supply readiness and implementation. The project has already saved over 7.5 billion gallons of petroleum. These are just some of the many projects that we should be focused on because they are truly our future. Rather than expanding our nuclear arsenal, rather than throwing money into the past with additional fossil fuel research, we can move toward cleaner air, cleaner water, more jobs, a stronger economy, and energy independence through clean, renewable energy. That is why I ask you to support my amendment that will increase EERE funding and decrease funding for fossil fuel research and unnecessary and dangerous nukes that would destroy the world more than is reasonably needed as a deterrent. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. It is wonderful to have so many Coloradans here, isn't it, Madam Speaker?

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), another great State that borders the State of Colorado.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, this letter, which I think my colleagues will find convincing, has 310 groups that have signed on in support of this rule, including groups from across the ideological spectrum, across the States, many faith-based groups, and many others, including from my friend from Colorado's and my home State, the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado; the National Council of Jewish Women, Colorado Section; the NAACP State Conference of Colorado; the Colorado Fiscal Institute; the Colorado Council of Churches; the Colorado Alliance of Retired Americans, and many others. So I am glad that this will appear in the Record for all of Congress to see. I will encourage my colleagues to read this letter and see who signed it before casting your vote on the repeal of this rule, the Congressional disapproval resolution. So this will appear in the Record, and I know that my colleagues will study that Record before making their decision. Prior to the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal consumer protection laws were enforced by a number of different regulators and different agencies. This was uneven and, after the 2008 financial crisis, I was personally glad that we were able to pull together the efforts to protect consumers in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But despite their success, Republicans have been going after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ever since. Despite record profits by banks and Wall Street, here we are trying to go back to a time when there was nobody to keep them in check. Despite the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau returning nearly $12 billion to harmed consumers, the Republicans continue to attack the agency. This is entirely the purpose that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created, this type of rule. Congress specifically authorized the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to study forced arbitration agreements, and determine what steps were necessary. The Bureau undertook an extensive rulemaking process that had public comments. I hope my colleagues across the aisle who support this repeal were active in that public comment process because that was an important time to be heard. The banks participated in that, consumer groups, and so many other stakeholders before the final rule was issued. My colleagues across the aisle have not offered any evidence in support of this resolution of disapproval. Why are you seeking to strip rights away from consumers in this fashion? The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that just 400 consumers per year pursue claims in arbitration, with only 16 receiving any cash relief. Again, when you are ripped off of a relatively small amount of money, you don't have redress in the courts as a sole plaintiff. You don't have redress--I shouldn't say you don't; you technically do--you don't have an economic form of redress in the courts, and you don't have an economically viable form of redress through arbitration. So the only true mechanism, if you have a million people, each of whom are deprived of $20 or $50, the only realistic legal mechanism is a class action lawsuit, which this rule would protect. There is also no evidence to show, no studies--I would challenge my colleagues to cite them if there are--to show that removing this type of clause can somehow increase costs to consumers. Frankly, this resolution of disapproval is just a giveaway to big banks at the expense of you, me, everybody who has a credit card, everybody who has a loan--the wrong direction for the country. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation, H.J. Res. 111, disapproval of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's arbitration rule. Before turning to the underlying legislation, I want to raise concerns about the bulk of the work this week, which is the so-called minibus appropriations bill, in which this body will seek to spend over $700 billion of deficit expenditures. That funding bill combines four major appropriations bills and represents more than half of discretionary spending. It includes our spending for the legislative branch, veterans, energy and water, and the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, there is additional deficit spending that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to put in the bill, providing $1.6 billion to build a border wall, directly contrary to the promises President Trump made on the campaign trail that another country would pay for the wall. Republicans are seeking to pass the bill to you, Madam Speaker, and our fellow taxpayers to pay for this wall, in direct violation of President Trump's promise. They also stripped out a bipartisan amendment by Representative Lee that would end the 2001 AUMF and require Congress to come up with a new Authorization for Use of Military Force within 8 months that was placed into this bill in committee. Representative Lee's amendment was stripped out by the Rules Committee despite it being in the committee mark and despite bipartisan support to require an Authorization for Use of Military Force. We really need to start making some decisions about the direction of our military. Representative Lee's amendment would have forced Congress to have that discussion. Congress, unfortunately, seems to only work--or works best--when we are on the clock, the day or two before the expiration of funding, the day or two before an arbitrary time limit. This would apply a similar test to force Congress to have a discussion around the Authorization for Use of Military Force. I have full confidence that, had that time not been met, Democrats and Republicans could have provided additional short-term extensions for the Authorization for Use of Military Force until such time Congress could come together to pass a new one, agree with the Senate, and send it to the President's desk. Now on to the matters at hand. This underlying resolution of disapproval weakens consumer protections while protecting big banks rather than consumers. This rule was crafted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help restore consumer rights and give consumers the ability to join together when they are taken advantage of by big banks. Instead of debating ways to improve consumer protections or increase access to financial services, my colleagues instead have brought a Congressional Review Act resolution that would stop our own financial safety mechanisms from taking any future action on arbitration clauses in consumer financial products. Now, we have all seen these arbitration clauses. You might need a magnifying glass because the font is small, the contract is large. Even sophisticated consumers often don't know that by unilaterally signing those rights away, they are removing their ability to address their grievances in court. In many cases, removing the ability to have any justice because when you have a large class, each of whom suffers a small amount of damage, even the cost of administering an arbitration claim can be prohibitive if the claim per affected individual is $50, $75, or $100. Absent these kinds of protections, you give broad license for big banks to rip off large numbers of consumers and take a small amount of money from each of them. That is what this rule is intended to prevent. The House Financial Services Committee did not hold any hearings on this rule. It didn't go through committee. It appeared just a few days ago when it was introduced. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau didn't have the opportunity to testify about their studies or their findings, or the process they went through to finalize the rule, including input from the general public. Congress has authorized the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to examine the use of arbitration agreements by financial institutions and consumer contracts; and, if necessary, to take appropriate steps to limit the use of them, to prevent arbitration agreements from being forced on consumers. In any particular case, both sides can certainly agree to arbitration. Given the choice, many consumers will choose arbitration. This is about forcing consumers and giving them no alternative but to give away their rights to sue in a court of law in favor of an arbitration process. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that 90 percent of arbitration agreements built into the fine point of financial consumer products actually do prohibit class action lawsuits. In cases involving credit card issuers, companies being sued used the arbitration clauses buried in the fine print contract to block class action lawsuits 65 percent of the time. Again, even with the lower costs of administering an arbitration case, it is prohibitive if the claim per person is relatively small. So we are talking about situations where people are illegally ripped off of $20, of $100, of their annual credit card processing fee illegally charged. Their redress, absent a class action, is essentially nonexistent because even though the cost of pursuing an arbitration case is significantly less than the courts, they still can either take up an enormous amount of time or, if you hire outside counsel, thousands of dollars. Thank goodness, not the hundreds of thousands of dollars that a full court case can entail, but certainly thousands of dollars. And if you were deprived of $30 or $50, are you just supposed to accept it? Or can hundreds or thousands of people who were ripped off band together and seek justice, as this rule would allow for? Long before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took any action, the Department of Defense already recognized that forced arbitration clauses in consumer loans to servicemembers stripped away the rights of servicemembers and ultimately banned forced arbitration clauses in consumer loan products made to servicemembers. We don't want people taking advantage of members of our military. So, too, we don't want anybody taking advantage of members of the American public. But we know that big banks don't want consumers to have more power when it comes to financial products. They prefer the deck remained stacked against consumers, even when a bank or a credit card company breaks the law. When it comes to financial service products, most consumers are entirely at the mercy of our financial institutions. These arbitration clauses are buried in pages and pages of small print and disclosures that are very technical for people with a college degree, no less a high school degree, no less not even graduating from high school. The consumer doesn't have the ability to modify the contract before they sign it--take it or leave it--or negotiate on any type of footing equally with the bank. They are left with a take-it-or-leave-it choice. According to the Bureau study, more than 75 percent of consumers surveyed did not know whether they were subject to an arbitration clause in their agreements, and less than 7 percent knew that those clauses limit their ability to bring a claim to court. That means 93 percent of the people who sign these agreements don't even realize they are signing their right to sue away, and that is because they are buried in fine print, are unclear, and run contrary to the fundamental American principle of the ability to seek justice when you are wronged. This final rule restores consumer rights to band together when there is a systemic and widespread form of misconduct by a bank. This resolution of disapproval would stop consumers from even knowing if others were harmed in a similar manner by the same bank or lender so they could potentially band together. I am glad that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau final rule actually gave some power back to consumers. And now here we have the Republicans trying to take that power right away and give it back to the big banks. Madam Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a letter signed by 310 organizations that include civil rights, faith-based, and consumer advocacy groups that support the arbitration rule. July 12, 2017. Re Final Rule on Arbitration Agreements. Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Washington DC. The 310 undersigned consumer, civil rights, labor, community, and non-profit organizations write to state our strong support for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)'s final rule to limit pre-dispute binding mandatory (or forced) arbitration clauses in consumer finance contracts. The rule, which will restore consumers' ability to band together in court to pursue claims, is a significant step forward in the ongoing fight to curb predatory practices in consumer financial products and services and to make these markets fairer and safer. Lenders and other financial services companies use forced arbitration to push consumers out of court and into a private arbitration system that is tilted against them. Forced arbitration eliminates the right to a civil jury trial, limits discovery, restricts or prohibits public disclosure of proceedings and outcomes, and makes meaningful appeals virtually impossible. It also often prohibits consumers from banding together in a class action to hold the company responsible. Recent scandals again demonstrate the very real harm forced arbitration causes consumers. Reports show that customers had been trying to sue financial services institutions over fraudulent accounts going back a number of years. However, some banks forced those customers into secret, binding arbitration by invoking fine print in consumers' legitimate account agreements to block them from suing over reasons as outrageous as fake accounts, also helping to keep the scandal out of the public eye. Even in cases where widespread fraud has been exposed, banks continue to invoke these fine-print clauses to kill lawsuits stemming from their illegal acts and block consumer recovery. The CFPB's thorough arbitration study further documents how forced arbitration blocks consumer access to courts, shielding banks and lenders from meaningful accountability for their unlawful behavior. Finalizing the proposed rule will restore crucial class action rights that deter systemic abuses and bring much-needed transparency to consumer financial arbitration. The CFPB Study Data Shows That Forced Arbitration Eliminates Consumer Claims and Shields Companies from Accountability The CFPB's study verified the prevalence of forced arbitration clauses--including class action bans--in consumer financial contracts and found that this practice impacts tens of millions of consumers. Yet it also revealed that consumers typically have no idea they are signing away their right to sue in court when they participate in the financial marketplace. The most obvious impact of forced arbitration clauses is that they block most consumer claims from going forward at all. Class action bans prevent consumers from bringing complaints of fraud or other abusive or deceptive practices in financial services because the individual value of these claims is often too small for a single consumer to afford to bring alone. Without the option to join together in a class action, just 25 consumers with claims of under $1,000 pursued arbitration each year. In a county of over 320 million, these numbers leave no doubt that class action bans effectively wipe out consumer claims and thus shield corporate wrongdoers from liability. In the few claims that went to arbitration, the study also confirmed that forced arbitration overwhelmingly favors industry over consumers. Class Actions Provide Great Benefit for Consumers Cheated by Systemic Wrongdoing and Deter Risky or Illegal Conduct The data makes clear that class actions provide a practical way for groups of consumers who have suffered the same kind of abuse from the same corporate wrongdoer to join together to attempt to hold the financial institution accountable. The CFPB study found that 34 million consumers received a total of $2.2 billion in cash payments, debt forbearance, and other in-kind relief from 2008-2012--not including any attorneys' fees or court costs. These findings were echoed in an empirical study by disinterested academics, which found consumer class actions against illegal overdraft fees ``deliver[ed] fair compensation to a significant portion of class members.'' Several major banks settled class actions that claimed the banks had purposely reordered consumer transactions to maximize the amount of overdraft fees charged to the consumer. This study found that plaintiffs in these cases recovered up to ``65% of damages, with the variation based largely on the strength of the class's claims and the likelihood of winning certification of the class.'' Yet unknown thousands of other consumers subject to similarly unlawful overdraft fee practices likely got little or no relief when class actions against their banks were dismissed due to arbitration clauses. Even assuming that their claims would be fairly resolved in arbitration, leaving 34 million consumers to find their own attorney, establish the individual facts of their case, and take time off work to attend an arbitration will never be more efficient than pooling time and resources between millions of consumers harmed in the same way by the same bank or lender to challenge abusive practices. Indeed, additional empirical scholarship demonstrates that most consumers are unaware when they have been harmed, unaware that the harm violates a law, or have decided that filing individual claims is not worth their time and expense. Collective action is critically important, not only for enabling those already victimized to obtain justice, but also for deterring bad behavior and preventing harm to other victims. While each individual consumer may only lose $25 or $50 to a fraudulent charge or illegal fee, for example, unlawful practices implemented at a systemic level can add up to millions or more in ill-gotten gains for banks and lenders who violate the law. Government enforcers have limited resources, and the prospect of class actions helps ensure that banks and lenders obey legal requirements that protect consumers. The Rule's Reporting Requirements Add Crucial Transparency to Arbitration Our organizations strongly support the proposed provision to begin shining a light on individual arbitrations through reporting requirements. Unlike our legal system, which is built upon hundreds of years of precedent, common law principles, and statutory standards of fairness and ethics, arbitration firms have few constraints on their practices and scant record of their proceedings. The substantially shorter history of consumer arbitration has nonetheless produced both anecdotal claims of unethical behavior and documented systemic abuses by unregulated arbitration films. The rule's reporting requirements will lend crucial transparency and accountability to a previously opaque system. Increased transparency can help consumers make informed decisions when choosing how to pursue their claim, in line with well-established principles of the free market. Data collected by the CFPB will also help other government entities, as well as the general public, ensure that arbitrators operate within the law and treat all parties fairly. The Rule is in the Public Interest and for the Protection of Consumers Because forced arbitration undermines compliance with laws and creates an uneven playing field between corporations that use forced arbitration and those that allow for greater consumer choice in dispute resolution, it is in the public interest and in the interest of consumer protection to prohibit or strictly curtail the use of forced arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts. We commend the CFPB for finalizing its rule to restore consumers' right to choose how to resolve disputes with financial institutions and address the public harm caused by forced arbitration, as thoroughly documented in its three- year, comprehensive study. Thank you for the opportunity to share our views. National Signatories 9to5 National Association of Working Women; Action In Maturity, Inc.; Affordable Housing Alliance; AFL-CIO; Alianza Americas; Alliance for Justice; Allied Progress; American Association for Justice; American Association of University Women (AAUW); American Council of the Blind; American Family Voices; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers; Americans for Democratic Action; Americans for Financial Reform; Association of University Centers on Disabilities; Bankruptcy Law Center; The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Center for Economic Integrity; Center for Economic Justice. Center for Global Policy Solutions; Center for Justice & Democracy; Center for Popular Democracy; Center for Progressive Reform; Center for Responsible Lending; Centro Legal de la Raza; CFED; Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America; Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety; Consumers Union; Consumer Voice; Daily Kos; Demos; Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund; Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN); Economic Policy Institute; The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy; Equal Justice Society. Equal Justice Works; Fair Share; The Financial Clinic; Food & Water Watch; Fund Democracy; Government Accountability Project; Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights; Hindu American Foundation; Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings; Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; The Institute for College Access & Success; Institute for Science and Human Values; Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility; International Association for College Admission Counseling; Jobs With Justice; Justice in Aging; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; League of United Latin American Citizens; Main Street Alliance; Manufactured Housing Action; Mission Asset Fund. NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; National Association for College Admission Counseling; National Association of Consumer Advocates; National Association of Social Workers (NASW); National Center for Law and Economic Justice; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development; National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC); National Council of Jewish Women; National Council of La Raza; National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients); National Consumers League; National Employment Lawyers Association; National Employment Law Project; National Fair Housing Alliance; National Health Law Program; National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association; National Legal Aid and Defender Association. National LGBTQ Task Force; National Partnership for Women & Families; National Organization for Women; National Urban League; National Women's Law Center; New Rules for Global Finance; Occupational Safety & Health Law Project; Other98; People's Action; Privacy Rights Clearinghouse; Progressive Congress Action Fund; Protect All Children's Environment; Public Citizen; Public Justice; Public Knowledge; Public Law Center; The Rootstrikers Project at Demand Progress; Salvadoran American National Network (SANN); Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Small Business Majority. Southern Poverty Law Center; TURN--The Utility Reform Network; United Auto Workers (UAW); United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries; United Policyholders; U.S. PIRG; Veterans Education Success; Woodstock Institute; Workplace Fairness; Worksafe; World Hunger Education, Advocacy & Training (WHEAT); Young Invincibles. State and Local Signatories Alabama: Woodmere Neighborhood Association--AL. Arkansas: Arkansans Against Abusive Payday Lending--AR; Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families--AR. Arizona: Arizona Community Action Association--AZ; Arizona PIRG--AZ; Gila County Community Services--AZ; Mesa Community Action Network--AZ; Save the Family Foundation of Arizona--

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

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, for months now we have been debating bills that hurt hardworking Americans--bills that kick millions, tens of millions, of people off health insurance; bills that gut safety and environmental protections that would keep our air clean; bills that prioritize the interests of Wall Street over Main Street. This is not what my constituents want. It is also not what the constituents of many of us want. Madam Speaker, for this reason, Democrats have unveiled an agenda to increase wages, reduce costs for everyday expenses, and give workers the training they need to compete in 21st century jobs. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pocan's Leveraging Effective Apprenticeships to Rebuild National Skills Act, H.R. 2933, which would promote effective apprenticeships that would give students and workers more opportunities to find good-paying jobs. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote of the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, we have less than 4 days left before the scheduled August recess. I hope in that time we can focus on strengthening the economy and empowering consumers rather than taking away consumers' rights, like this bill does. We should focus on fixing our broken immigration system to create more economic growth and reduce our deficit, and we should create jobs and make sure that more people are covered by healthcare, not less. Instead, here we are, spending time on the floor of the House stripping away consumer protections and spending American taxpayer money on an unwanted border wall, in direct violation of President Trump's promise. Madam Speaker, I oppose this rule, and I oppose the underlying legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on both, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of Estes Park, Colorado--the gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park and one of the many treasured mountain towns in our beautiful Second Congressional District of Colorado. Over 150 years ago, pioneers of the mountain west settled in Estes Park. Homesteaders came from all walks of life. In April of 1917, the formal incorporation of the town of Estes Park took place, ensuring our community could continue to serve the growing needs of those living in and visiting the beautiful valley. Since its incorporation, Estes Park has been a vital community partner in growing the outdoor recreation economy, playing host to 4.5 million visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park, making it the single most popular tourist attraction in our entire State. The iconic Stanley Hotel and the Historic Park Theatre are just a few of the iconic landmarks in Estes Park. Estes Park's ZIP Code is 80517, and on August 5, 2017--8/5/17--Estes Park will have its official centennial celebration--80517. I am incredibly proud to represent the community of Estes Park and its citizens in Congress, and I am thrilled to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Estes Park.

Mr. POLIS

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

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

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to both this rule and the underlying bill. Instead of coming up with new thoughts or new ideas, here we have another recycled and careless bill that has been through this body before that takes away protections for our sick, for our children, for pregnant women, and for the elderly. It is the wrong way to go for our country. This bill is called the Ozone Standards Implementation Act, but it is actually a political stunt for a special interest, in this case the oil and gas industry. It will hurt our air, our environment, and, frankly, have a negative impact on the health of Americans. It will increase healthcare costs at a time when healthcare costs are already too high. We see that, the way the House Republicans are trying to jam through the Affordable Care Act repeal, which I remind my friends passed here in the House. It is only in the Senate where they are finally realizing the error of their ways. In Colorado, 500,000 people have benefited from the Affordable Care Act, and the number of people without insurance has been cut in half from 6.7 percent to 2.5 percent. Of course, it is not perfect, and I hope that now is an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together, rather than Republicans seeking to go at it alone with a plan that provides less people with healthcare rather than more. The Affordable Care Act made sure that no one can be denied coverage for a preexisting condition. That benefited over 750,000 people in Colorado, including people with cancer and asthma, the rates of which would both increase if this bill that we are discussing under this rule were to become law. Yes, that is right. More people would suffer from asthma and more people would suffer from cancer if this bill were to pass. This reckless Republican healthcare bill even eliminated the Prevention and Public Health Fund at the end of fiscal year 2017, slashing funding for the Centers for Disease Control by 12 percent, singling out certain providers, like Planned Parenthood, from even participating in the Medicaid program; preventing patients from receiving preventative care services, like cancer screenings and STD testing and contraceptive care from their provider of choice, often, in many cases, the only provider in town. So it is no surprise that we have yet another bill that would increase healthcare costs before us, lead to more people having to pay more for what they already have for healthcare. And here we have a bill that is opposed by the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society. They are all very strongly opposed to this bill. It is why over 700 healthcare professionals signed a letter in opposition to H.R. 806 dated July 17, 2017, which I include in the Record. July 17, 2017. Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned physicians, nurses, environmental health professionals and other health professionals, urge you to protect our patients' and communities' health from dangerous air pollution. Please oppose any legislation or administrative actions that would block, weaken or delay work to implement and enforce strong safeguards for healthy air. Our patients, families, and neighbors need healthy air to breathe, particularly those who are at greater risk of getting sick or dying prematurely due to air pollution, including children, older adults, and people with asthma, COPD, and heart disease. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, the United States has made enormous progress in cleaning up ozone and particle pollution. The American Lung Association's 2017 ``State of the Air'' report found that cities across the U.S. have made continued improvement in reducing these pollutants, with many reaching their lowest ozone levels yet. However, 125 million people still live in areas where they are exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution. Clean Air Act protections must continue to be implemented and enforced to ensure that all Americans have healthy air to breathe. In addition, evidence shows that climate change will make it harder to clean up ozone and particle pollution. The nation must reduce the carbon, methane, and other pollutants that lead to warmer temperatures, and work to protect our communities against the many health impacts of climate change. As health and medical professionals, we call upon you to protect the health of our patients and our communities by opposing measures that would block, weaken, or delay protections under the Clean Air Act, or other protections that reduce harmful air pollution and protect public health from the impacts of climate change. Our communities are counting on you. Sincerely, Alabama Surya Bhatt, MD; Cindy Blackburn, RN; Ellen Buckner, PhD, RN, CNE, AE-C; Mark Dransfield, MD; Linda Gibson-Young, PhD, ARNP; Katherine Herndon, PharmD, BCPS; deNay Kirkpatrick, DNP, Nurse Practitioner; Kathleen Lovlie, MD; Michael Lyerly, MD; Marissa Natelson Love, MD; Jessica Nichols, RN, BSN; Gabriela Oates, PhD; Ashley Thomas, MD; Paula Warren, MD. Alaska Owen Hanley, MD; Charles Holyfield, RRT, Director, Cardiopulmonary Services; Sheila Hurst, Tobacco Treatment Specialist; Elaine Phillips, FNP; Melinda Rathkopf, MD; Jill Valerius, MD, ABIHM, IFMCP, ATC. Arizona Michelle Dorsey, MD; Mark Mabry, RN; Marsha Presley, PhD. Arkansas Marsha Scullark, MPS. California Jennifer Abraham, MD; Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH; Ellen Aiken, MD, MPH; Mark Andrade, RCP, RRT, AE-C; Devin Arias, MPH; Ed Avol, Professor, Dept of Preventive Medicine; Ardel Ayala, RRT; Julia Barnes, MPH, Community Engagement Manager; Laura Barrera, RRT; John Basile, RRT; Bruce Bekkar, MD; Eugene Belogorsky, MD; Simone Bennett, MD; Amir Berjis, MD; Robert Bernstein, MD; Robert Blount, MD; Coletta Boone, RCP; Amy Brendel, MD; Lisa Caine, RCP. Donna Carr, MD; Cherise Charleswell, MPH; Jiu-Chivan Chen, MD, MPH, ScD; Sharon Chinthrajah, MD; David T. Cooke, MD; Pamela Dannenberg, RN, COHN-S, CAE; John Davis, RN, FNP-BC; Sara DeLaney, RN, MSN, MPH; Athony DeRiggi, MD; Maria Diaz, RN, BSN; Ralph DiLibero, MD; Jacquolyn Duerr, MPH; Marsha Eptein, MD; Enza Esposito Nguyen, RN, MSN, ANP-BC; Shohreh Farzan, PhD; Bennett Feinberg, MD; Amber Fitzsimmons, PT; Catherine Forest, MD, MPH; Vanessa Garcia, RN, PHN; Frank Gilliland, MD, PhD. Robert M Gould, MD; Jim Grizzell, MBA, MA, MCHES(R), ACSM- EP; Kevin Hamilton, RRT; Stephen Hansen, MD, FACP; Catherine Harrison, RN, MPH; Marie Hoemke, RN, PHN, MPA, MA; Mark Horton, MD; Mary Hunsader, RN, MSN, CNS, AE-C; Harriet Ingram, RN, BS; Karen Jakpor, MD, MPH; Martin Joye, MD; Magie Karla, RD; Lynn Kersey, MA, MPH, CLE; Ellen Levine, PhD, MPH; Rita Lewis, RN, PHN; Erica Lipanovich, PA-C; Shanna Livermore, MPH, MCHES; Cynthia Mahoney, MD; Michael Maiman, MD; Atashi Mandal, MD; Futernick Marc, MD. Margie Matsui, RN, CRRN, COHN-S, FAAOHN; Rob McConnell, MD; DeAnn McEwen, MSN, RN; Ellen McKnight, NP; Robert Meagher, MD; Louis Menachof, MD; Deb Messina-Kleinman, MPH; Jennifer Miller, PhD,; Anthony Molina, MD; Janice Murota, MD; Gretchen Nelson, FNP; Wendy Oshima, Health professional; Frances Owens, RRT; Sonal Patel, MD; David Pepper, MD; Tamanna Rahman, MPH; Wendy Ring, MD, MPH; Brenda Rios, FNP; Linda Rudolph, MD, MPH; Cindy Russell, MD. Sunil Saini, MD; Hannah Shrieve-Lawler, MSN, RN, PHN, RYT; Susan Smith, RRT, RCP; Rhonda Spencer-Hwang, DrPH, MPH; Sue Stone, MD; Mary Anne Tablizo, MD; Neeta Thakur, MD; Duncan Thomas, PhD, Professor; Laura Van Winkle, PhD; Jose Vempilly, MD; Li-hsia Wang, MD, FAAP; Kinari Webb, MD; Ruggeri Wendy, MD; Jan Wicklas, RCP; Shirley Windsor, RRT; Dan Woo, MPH, Public Health Professional; Kuo Liang Yu, MD; Marcela Yu,

Mr. POLIS. Did the gentleman consider offering that as an amendment to this bill, your other bill, to allow the sale of those asthma inhalers?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, I know my friend actually has a bill on the topic of the asthma inhalers, and I can tell you, if this bill becomes law, we will need all the asthma inhalers we can get, so I think your bill will have to go through. I would like to inquire of the gentleman why your asthma inhaler bill isn't included in this package, since we will need to sell more asthma inhalers if the rest of the bill goes through?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, Colorado is home to 17,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, recipients. This program is an essential help in our dysfunctional immigration system. It allows young people who only know the U.S. as home to legally reside and work here. Through my congressional service, I have been moved by the stories of DACA recipients who have bravely spoken up for their communities and only want to positively contribute to our country, young people like Brayan. Brayan is a business marketing and finance major at Colorado State University, in my district. He moved here with his family at a young age. He was only 3. He doesn't even remember making the trek from Chihuahua, Mexico, to Colorado. He grew up here, attended elementary and high school here. He didn't even know he was undocumented until he was in eighth grade. DACA has allowed Brayan to come out of the shadows and live with a sense of security rather than anxiety and fear. In Brayan's words, DACA has put hope in the hearts of the forgotten. What I want Brayan and others like him to know is: You are not forgotten, not by me, not by those of us in the community who know you and love you. I stand by Brayan's side, and I will fight to ensure that the DACA program is continued for the 17,000 recipients in Colorado and 800,000 nationwide. The bottom line is that Brayan and others like him belong here.