Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Before further yielding, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say I think we're seeing a double standard here where, if it's a person of particular faith, as perhaps the gentleman approves of, then you say, oh, you go see a chaplain for your needs. However, if you're of no faith, you have to see a psychiatrist. All of our men and women who bravely serve us deserve the same support. I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, I think that to have any type of meaningful missile defense against potential threats in Korea, Iran, and elsewhere, it needs to work. That's simply what this amendment says--two tests that work before $107 million in spending goes forth. This is the financially responsible thing to do. Why would we want to spend first stage 107 million, over 6 years over a billion, on a system that doesn't work? It's a very reasonable threshold to have a certification by the Department of Defense if this works. It provides an additional incentive to make sure that America stays safe, demonstrates this works, have an incentive to actually make it work before the rest of the money is released. I think that's common sense. I think it aligns incentives of our contractors and our military and the defense of the American people. I think it's fiscally prudent. I think it improves our missile defense opportunities against threats from North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere; and I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt this commonsense amendment that would save over 107 million for the ground-based interceptors in the first year, 135 million for the refurbishment of Missile Field 1, and also ensure that our missile defense system works by having two tests and a certification that it's operational by the Secretary of Defense. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important amendment. As I'm sure my colleagues know, last November Coloradans voted overwhelmingly in favor of Amendment 64, which legalized the recreational use of marijuana in our State. Marijuana policy is a public health issue, and should be regulated like one. Americans across the country already know that the so-called `War on Drugs' is a failed Federal policy that clogs our prisons, drains Federal resources and disproportionately penalizes African-American and Latinos. But Amendment 64 represents even more than an acknowledgement of failure and a Triumph of common sense. For Colorado veterans who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, Amendment 64 measure offers them something more: relief. And for combat veterans who have tried everything the VA has thrown at them to fight their symptoms medical marijuana may be their only relief. Colorado service men and women have fought valiantly for their country in every American military conflict. It is not just Iraq and Afghanistan--from Korea to Vietnam to military engagements around the globe, over 420,000 veterans live in Colorado today. Our commitment to our veterans should not end once they are back on American soil, and in most cases, it does not. But for a number of veterans--those who the system denies when they try to access one of the few treatments that actually works for them-- we are not living up to our promise. If we continue to prescribe powerful, addictive drugs with dangerous side effects--but prevent even preliminary medical research into the efficacy of medical marijuana--we are not living up to our promise. Some estimate that nearly 20 percent of returning Iraq and Afghanistan war vets are suffering from PTSD. If we continue to fail to provide relief to veterans suffering from this condition, we are not living up to our promise. Eighteen States and the District of Columbia currently allow some form of marijuana use. A third of Americans live in one of these States, and more States are approving these common-sense measures every year. But the Federal Government continues to stand in the way of progress. Is there any other situation where this would be acceptable? Where some of our bravest men and women could be denied effective care by their own government? Our servicemen and women deserve better treatment from the country they defend. I believe the Federal Government should get out of the business of telling states they can or cannot do something that States are perfectly capable of regulating themselves. But that's a big step. At the very least, the government that sent our troops into harm's way should not turn around and stop them from accessing treatment that works for them--sometimes the only treatment that works for them. How many more veterans have to suffer the emotional and physical scars of war before we listen to what they have to say? I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. POLIS

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

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, the 287(g) program has become increasingly controversial and increasingly recognized as a costly failure. By allowing local police officers to effectively act as Federal agents and immigration officials, it not only increases crime by taking local cops off the beat and not only costs taxpayers money at a time when we have an over $600 billion deficit, but it also creates fear in Latino communities and in other immigrant communities. 287(g) exacerbates tensions and interferes with community policing and the efforts of law enforcement to gain the trust of people in the communities that they need in order to be able to do their jobs well. In effect, it has trained local law enforcement officials to use racial profiling, asking community members where they are born or if they are in this country legally. Now, the 287(g) program has become infamous because of the implementation in Maricopa County under Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his racial profiling. The practices sanctioned under 287(g) have led to an unprecedented civil rights investigation by the Department of Justice and an independent civil suit. Even Sheriff Arpaio has acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security directed him and his officers to use racial profiling as part of their policing practices in identifying individuals for deportation. You know that, if Sheriff Arpaio is citing a Federal expenditure as the justification for his actions, there must be a problem with that Federal expenditure--and in fact there is. In the fiscal year 2014 bill, the House Appropriations Committee has funded 287(g) at $44 million above the White House request. The White House has even threatened to veto the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, listing as one of its concerns that, in fact, the 287(g) program has been largely replaced by other enforcement mechanisms, like Secure Communities. Now, we don't all agree on Secure Communities, but there is increasing consensus on all sides of the aisle that 287(g) has no place in our communities or in our budget. It doesn't help combat illegal immigration. In fact, it makes it worse, and it increases crime in our communities. This amendment will allocate 10 percent of that funding to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and 90 percent toward deficit reduction. By seeking to cut the funding for a program that relies on racial profiling and increases crime, we're sending a clear message that we won't tolerate any more Arpaios, we care about the budget deficit, and we want to cut wasteful government spending. Programs like 287(g) have created mistrust between Latinos and other immigrant communities throughout this country and local law enforcement and interfered with community policing. Eliminating 287(g) once and for all will begin to repair the trust that's been lost over the last decade. It will help local law enforcement fight crime, instead of trying to implement failed Federal laws, and will be a step forward in the ultimate goal of this Congress of fixing our broken immigration system and restoring the rule of law so that we can grow our economy and decrease crime. This amendment is very simple. It would save $44 million from a wasteful government spending program, allocate just over $4 million of that to address some of the cuts that have been made to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and use the bulk of that for the deficit reduction account. Let's come together, Democrats and Republicans, to go after wasteful government spending and counterproductive government spending, as it is in this case. With that, I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I agree strongly with the impassioned plea by my colleague from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), and I'm very grateful for this amendment to be brought forward by Mr. Deutch and Mr. Foster. This really is an outrage. It's an outrage to our values as Americans, and frankly it's an outrage to taxpayers. The cost of holding an immigrant overnight is $120. We have viable and proven alternatives to detention that we should be using for noncriminal aliens. Again, what we're talking about here are different folks. When we're talking about criminal aliens, I don't think there's any dispute to the extent that we have criminal aliens. At any given time, this can be approximately 40 percent of the people in detention. When I visited the ICE facility in Aurora, they keep them separate, they wear different colored jumpsuits. They're criminal aliens, and they are--however many we have that have been apprehended for a crime--subject to deportation orders. It's perfectly fair to keep them in some form of detention. But the majority, 60 percent, are noncriminal aliens. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could have been a tail light out. They could have been going 10 miles over the speed limit. Yet, we as taxpayers are removing noncriminal aliens from their homes, from being the breadwinner for their family, from supporting their kids and being an asset to our country and instead turning them into a liability for taxpayers to the tune of $120 a day. Again, I don't see how this makes fiscal sense at all. We're paying for free rooms, free board, food, medical services. All of these are being provided at taxpayer cost for folks. How is this a good deal for Americans? It just doesn't make any sense to me when we have at one-tenth the cost alternatives to detention that include call-ins and ankle bracelets. There's a comprehensive program for noncriminal aliens that can do it at a much less expensive cost. And in detention, many of them remain for a period of months. I've even talked to folks, noncriminal aliens, who'd been in limbo for over a year, some approaching 2 years. So yes, anybody who opposes this amendment is saying U.S. taxpayers should foot the bill for food and board and health care for someone who is here illegally for 2 years. Why do people want to subsidize our illegal population? It's absolutely absurd. This is a commonsense measure. However many beds we need for criminal aliens, let's have. However many we need for noncriminal aliens in terms of alternatives to detention, let's do. Obviously, what we really need is comprehensive immigration reform to address this issue. There's no way I don't think people on either side of the aisle think that we should pay for 12 million people to be detained at the cost $120 a day. I can't even add that up in my own mind, but I can tell you, it'd be a deficit buster right there. So let's start here. Let's address our deficit. Let's make sure that we keep families together. Don't take parents away from kids. Don't force taxpayers to buy medical care and lodging and food for people who aren't even here in this country illegally. We can do that right here, right now by passing the Deutch amendment. I call upon my colleagues to join me in doing so. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my colleague, Mr. Tipton, in bringing forward this important amendment. Here, in the first year of June, there are already two wildfires that have erupted in my district. Mr. Tipton and I share northern and western Colorado. Just this last Monday, a wildfire ignited near Evergreen, Colorado. We had an evacuation of several thousand people. These are just the early season fires, and this year's wildfire season could very well be longer and more extreme than ever before. Already, the National Interagency Fire Center has predicted that this summer will bring an increased fire threat to communities in multiple States across the United States. Unfortunately, last year was a devastating year for fires in my home State. We had two of our most destructive fires in history. In 2012, wildfires destroyed 650 structures, six Coloradans lost their life in wildfires, 384,000 acres of land were burnt and caused over half a billion dollars in property damage. In addition to wildfires, our country and our State have experienced natural disasters, like droughts and tornadoes. The impacts of these are reminders of how costly and destructive extreme weather can be and how important it is to be prepared and to reduce risks where we can. In total, 11 extreme weather events last year across the country, including hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires, cost taxpayers $96 billion. Extreme weather events have a real impact, a human impact, and a cost. We have an opportunity in this amendment to reduce and minimize the damage and costs of extreme weather events, like wildfires, by mitigating the threat prior to an event. That is why I join Representative Tipton in directing $7.6 million to the National Pre- Disaster Mitigation Fund. We can spend a penny now to save a dollar later. The National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund is one of the only FEMA programs that reduces fire danger before a fire starts. By increasing funding to mitigate extreme weather events, we can allocate more resources to preventing the impact of these devastating fires, saving lives and saving money. Unfortunately, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, absent this amendment, is only funded at $22.5 million, which is actually a reduction of $2.475 million, even though events were occurring at higher rates last year and we have no reason to believe that this year will be different. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, very simply, is a good investment, Mr. Chairman. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund investments have already led to significant savings to taxpayers by reducing risks and damages caused by extreme weather. The amendment is completely offset by reducing the same amount of funding in the Automation Modernization account. In fact, our amendment actually decreases costs in the first year by $4 million. The Automation Modernization account has already been noted by the committee of lacking transparency regarding how the funds are managed. And of course, while I support the DHS modernizing its technology systems, I cannot support increasing that account in this time of fiscal constraint, especially when the result of these disasters could very well cost more than an ounce of prevention now. So this bill increases the account by $7.655 million that we're directing to the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund to proactively reduce the threat of wildfires and save taxpayer money. Now, we can't stop wildfires, but we can take measures to reduce their impacts on our communities and to save taxpayer money. That is why I am proud to join Representative Tipton, and I've offered this commonsense amendment that would allocate $7.655 million in additional resources to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady from New York. T-minus 38 days, 38 days until student loan interest rates are scheduled to increase from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. Mr. Speaker, in my district in Colorado, students trying to finance their education through Federally subsidized loans at the University of Colorado and Colorado State University and our other fine universities and, indeed, across the country simply can't afford, in a low interest rate environment today, with the sluggish economy, to have their rates double--double--in 38 days. Look, there's been a lot of good ideas that have been presented that would allow student loan rates to remain the same or even get better. We had, in our committee, the Education and Labor Committee, a Courtney amendment, which I supported, our Democratic substitute, to keep them at 3.4 percent. There are even proposals to lower them beyond that. I have a bipartisan bill with Representative Petri that moves the program over to earnings-contingent education loans, so that repayment amounts are contingent upon how much somebody is earning. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because it hasn't allowed any of these ideas to be brought forward to the floor. I was glad to see our ranking member, Mr. Miller, bring forth the President's proposal, which includes Earnings Contingent Education Loans. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee did not make it in order under this rule, which is why I oppose it. The underlying bill is a step in the right direction towards the President's proposal. I think it provides the framework which we need to improve upon in the Senate and work with the administration over the next 38 days to prevent student loan rates from doubling. First of all, to be clear, the proposal before us on the underlying bill is not the President's proposal. It does not include a robust earnings contingent income-based repayment program. It also charges a higher rate of interest above the 10-year Treasury note. To its credit, the Kline-Foxx bill does include a cap on interest rates, which is very borrower friendly and student friendly. Again, what's critical here is it provides a framework for moving forward over the next 38 days to resolve this issue and prevent student loan rates from doubling. The Washington Post editorialized on this 2 days ago and said that the Education and Workforce Committee bill is ``a similar policy'' to President Obama's policy, namely, pegging the student loan rates to a rate at which the government borrows, providing more certainty to borrowers, and helping make sure that college can remain affordable. I call upon my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I would like to inform the gentleman that I have possibly one who, if he comes, I would like to yield to. Other than that, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Look, it has been talked about as to the impact on gas prices in the Midwest. There is no TAPS on this pipeline in the Midwest. It goes from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico to China and everywhere else. There can't even be TAPS on it in the Midwest because we're talking about unprocessed tar sands crude, which needs to be processed. It's a drop in the bucket in the global supply and has no impact on gas prices. There are dozens of meaningful policies that we can talk about to reduce gas prices. Let's get to it rather than taking this important decision out of the context of the administration and out of the context of the process that Congress, itself, set up to co-op that very process for purely political purposes. The Northern Route Approval Act exempts TransCanada from multiple loss, including treaty acts that we've passed, the Clean Water Act, and many others that my colleague Mr. Nolan pointed out that American companies are subjected to. Yes, it's giving foreign companies preferential treatment over American companies. Even though we don't know the cost of potential Keystone tar sands spills, we do know that American taxpayers will likely be stuck paying the bill for cleaning up and for the economic costs of these spills. Tar sands developers are exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Let me repeat that. Tar sands developers are exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. That's a fund that normally collects an 8-cent per barrel excise tax on domestically produced crude oil to pay for spill prevention and mitigation efforts. So they are exempt. They're not paying in. Like any oil that's pulled out of the ground in Texas or across our country, they're paying in because we know that oil spills happen; we know they have real economic and health costs; we know they affect agriculture and water--but oh, no, this project is exempt. Since tar sands are not considered conventional oil, TransCanada is not required to pay into the trust fund for the oil it transports, while the data indicates that the tar sands crude can actually have a worse economic and environmental impact when spilled than conventional oil. We can't subject more communities like Mayflower to oil spills and then burden the U.S. taxpayers at a time of record deficits with paying for the cleanup. Approving the Keystone XL pipeline through this bill would simply benefit foreign oil companies at the expense of the health and safety of the American people. There is a process in place to protect the health and safety of the American people, the economic welfare of the American people, jobs. This bill circumvents that process that Congress set up. If we want to change the process, let's have a debate about the process for approval and the statutory framework and work with the administration to come up with a better way to do it. Let's not go around our own process just because we may or may not like what we may or may not think is the outcome. I urge the majority to stop wasting the American people's time with bills that are going nowhere and to turn towards addressing so many challenges we can agree on--reducing the deficit, improving the economy, improving the efficiency of the delivery of health care. Let's talk about reducing gas prices, the bipartisan bill that I've introduced with Mr. Gosar and Mr. Heck and others. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'll offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2070, Representative Tim Bishop's bill to protect consumers from price gouging at the pump. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Record along with the extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill. This rule doesn't even allow for 10 minutes of debate or 5 minutes of debate or 1 minute of debate on the very commonsense amendments that have been brought forward by my colleagues like Mr. Peters of Michigan and Mr. Tonko of New York. Don't we have 1 minute to debate these important amendments? What are we doing that's so important? We didn't even go into session until noon today. Why didn't we go into session at 11:59 a.m. and have 1 minute for debate on these amendments? What are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? We have the time to get it right. Let's do it. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, of course quantity affects price--Economics 101. The disconnect here and the failure in the argument from the other side is this quantity is a rounding error in the global supply and the global demand. This has no impact on price. We're not talking about anything that actually moves the bar of reducing gas prices for consumers. With that, it's my honor to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Mr. POLIS. 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 today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the Northern Route Approval Act. In the words of Yogi Berra, it's deja vu all over again here in the House of Representatives. Last week, the House of Representatives repealed the Affordable Care Act for the 37th time. This week, for the eighth time in 2\1/2\ years, we're voting yet again on another Keystone pipeline measure that will never become law. The very decision to sign this law would lie with the same President upon whose desk this decision is currently awaiting approval; and, therefore, this is yet another waste of taxpayer time, taxpayer money, when we have pressing national issues we should be discussing--how to address our budget deficit, how to get our economy moving, how to renew affordable college and low-interest rates for students. There are so many issues that my constituents are crying out for. Yet another symbolic issue that has nothing to do with whether the Keystone pipeline is approved or not is the last thing we should be spending our time here on the floor of the people's House debating. Rather than creating a bill that's more viable, instead this bill, by far, is the worst iteration of the bill that we've seen, worst of the eight. Even my colleagues who support construction of the 875-mile pipeline are having trouble supporting this bill because of its thinly veiled messaging that guts important laws and waives judicial review. In short, this Northern Route Approval Act is a regulatory earmark, a specific earmark which this House of Representatives has purported to eliminate. Not only is it an earmark; it's an earmark that has a far greater dollar value than any of the earmarks that have been much maligned by Members of both parties and are no longer part of this deliberative body. At a time where we should be advancing on renewable energy policy, on an all-of-the-above energy policy, this bill would bypass the very system that this Congress has set up under the law for consideration of a project. This project has nothing to do with gas prices. In the analysis from the Department of State, there is absolutely no indication this would have anything to do with gas prices. This is for the global market. Let's debate it for what it is. Is it a favor to Canada if we do it? Absolutely. Does it have an environmental and health impact on Americans? Absolutely. Weigh the two. Let's look at a cost benefit. This has nothing to do with lower gas prices. If we want to talk about lower gas prices, let's do it. Let's increase fuel efficiency standards to lower gas prices. Let's look at what we're doing nationally. Let's look at our processing capacity. Let's look at alternative and public transportation. There's a lot of things we could be doing that actually would reduce gas prices. There is no analysis in the Department of State's thorough vetting of this that this would have any impact on price at the pump. This is 5 to 10 years from now, exporting a majority for the global market. Instead of voting on this act, there's a number of other great bipartisan bills we could be talking about which would reduce gas prices. Let me give an example. The Public Lands Renewable Energy Act that I helped coauthor with Representatives Gosar, Thompson, and Heck of Nevada would expand renewable energy development and create jobs while protecting our Nation's public health and environmental resources. And yes, because we expand our renewable energy development portfolio, it would apply downward pressure on gas prices. This bill is talking about a review process that's already well underway for the Keystone XL pipeline. Congress, itself, set up the process whereby each administration--and the country has the opportunity every 4 years to elect a President. Congress set up the process where each administration has the criteria for approving projects like Keystone. If we don't like the criteria, let's talk about changing those criteria in statute. That's the proper way to do it, not just shortcut the very process that Congress set up. Until then, we need to keep this process in place. No matter what the administration does, some Members of Congress aren't going to like the outcome; but we establish the ground rules, and the executive branch is administering the law that we created. Rather than interrupting the State Department's review process with this bill, we should allow the Department to take the necessary time to address the impacts, the concerns, the costs, and the benefits of this controversial pipeline. Although there's many issues that need to be better understood as part of the Keystone XL process, it's critical that we address pipeline safety issues to make sure that tar sands don't spill into our communities. It's not a Republican or Democratic issue. Everybody wants to make sure that America is safe, even if we do a major favor for Canada. There are indications that this pipeline could be more susceptible to oil spills because of the higher pressure that this type of pipeline uses compared to conventional crude. In fact, in the public comment period, many Americans expressed their concern that a spill could impact their property value, their health, their safety, access to clean drinking water, and quality of life. These are the types of things the administration is rightfully weighing in determining the outcome. While others argue the pipelines are the safest way to transport tar sands crude oil, the 150,000-gallon oil spill in Mayflower, Arkansas, 2 months ago shows an example about the inadequacy of some of our current pipeline safety regulations. I've heard arguments that the pipeline could create economic benefit. Well, communities like Mayflower certainly won't see the benefits of Keystone when their yards, homes, and businesses are buried in the thick black layer of tar sands crude oil, threatening agriculture and local economic development. I think that we should make sure that tar sands developers adhere to pipeline safety standards that protect the health of Americans and protect our economy and protect jobs to ensure that any project that goes forward doesn't destroy jobs rather than create them. To address pipeline safety issues, Mr. Tonko of New York has offered a commonsense amendment. He'll be here to speak about that. It would require the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether current pipeline regulations are sufficient to address the special safety concerns that are particular to transporting tar sands crude oil. Unfortunately, however, this rule, which I strongly oppose, as well as the underlying bill, does not allow for the discussion or even the debate about Mr. Tonko's amendment, which I think is a commonsense requirement. Since this bill doesn't require the pipeline regulations which were requested by Mr. Tonko, I'm pleased that at least an amendment that I offer with Ms. Chu of California and Mr. Connolly of Virginia was made in order. This amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the true cost of a potential spill from the Keystone XL pipeline in our communities. The GAO study would look at the impact of tar sands spills on public health, the environment, and the quantity and quality of water available for agriculture to farmers and to municipalities for drinking. It's inevitable that the Keystone pipeline will have spills and leaks. That much we know. These spills and leaks are not only costly to clean up--and we need to know and understand those costs--but they also take a toll on our communities. Accidents happen. Understanding the cost of spills is also important because the Keystone pipeline is slated to cross over the Ogallala Aquifer. The Ogallala Aquifer lies beneath 8 States, including my home State of Colorado, and supplies drinking water to about 2 million Americans and supplies 30 percent of the irrigation water for our Nation's farmers. TransCanada stated that it will provide alternative water supplies to affected communities if an oil spill impacts surface or groundwater. But TransCanada's promise to provide alternative water supplies in case of an oil spill is not enough insurance for millions of Americans who rely on the Ogallala Aquifer for drinking water and for farming. We simply need more information about the potential impact and the range of impact that an oil spill would have on the Ogallala Aquifer. Mr. Speaker, even if my colleagues support the President if he chooses to move forward with the Keystone XL pipeline, there are many reasons not to vote for H.R. 3. Rather than ensuring that we have the proper protections in place for our environment and our citizens, the Northern Route Approval Act mandates approval of the pipeline while waiving nearly all other Federal permitting requirements. It doesn't even allow a discussion of amendments like Mr. Tonko's that were brought forward in good faith that at least deserve 10 minutes on the floor of the House when, by the way, we're debating a bill that's never going to become law, won't be brought up in the Senate, and goes to the very same President for signature who's considering this project. So the least we can do is spend 10 minutes debating Mr. Tonko's meaningful amendment if we're spending time debating everything else that isn't going to become law. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule, support a more open and transparent process here on the floor of the House, and then move forward with legislation that deals with critical national priorities that all of our constituents are calling upon this Congress to act upon. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), whose amendment under this rule was also shut out from even a debate here on the floor of the House.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman cited studies that apparently addressed his concerns about environmental impact. I would draw his attention to the fact that there were three draft studies--one that was actually finalized. All of them were on the old routing. The project itself has been revised. There have been zero studies, environmental studies for health and water, with regard to the new routing of the pipeline. With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to one of our leaders on energy policy, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire of the gentleman if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleagues, Ms. Chu from California and Mr. Connolly from Virginia. This amendment would require that the Government Accountability Office, which is independent, evaluate the true cost of potential spills from the Keystone XL pipeline. Americans want to know. We want to know what the impact of tar sands spills are on public health, on the environment, on the quantity and quality of water that's available for agriculture and farmers and for municipalities and for drinking. We all know that tar sands crude oil can be dangerous. We saw the recent spill in Mayflower, Arkansas. It's critical that we address the true cost of oil pipeline spills and their true impact. It's inevitable that the Keystone XL pipeline will have costly spills and leaks. Spills are especially concerning because the pipeline is slated to cross over the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world's largest aquifers that supplies drinking and irrigation water to millions of Americans. Instead of trying to rubber-stamp the Keystone XL this week and short circuit the very process that Congress established, instead we should be working to ensure that spills won't impact the health of our communities and the quality of our water. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill's constitutional authority statement cites the Tenth Amendment, and as such fails to live up to the rule of the House, and tries to perpetuate the false myth that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has heard the case. They have made their decision. The Affordable Care Act is constitutional. And Speaker Boehner has said, it is the law of the land. The constitutional authority statement for this bill is completely inaccurate. It is the 37th time we are voting to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act, but apparently we still can't get the paperwork right. How does a Member correct the statement of constitutional authority?