Jared Polis

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 this rule today, one that provides for consideration of the Protecting Access to Care Act. This bill would significantly alter how families and patients that are injured as a result of medical error are able to hold healthcare providers, facilities, or device makers accountable to make sure that that same thing doesn't happen to other people. This bill decreases patient safety. It undermines the ability of people who are wrongfully injured by medical malpractice or faulty medical devices to be compensated for their injuries, and it violates the 10th Amendment to our Constitution, the rights reserved to the States. Before I turn to the merits, or lack thereof, of this bill, I want to discuss the process under which this bill came to the floor. The Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over this bill, had zero hearings on this legislation, heard from zero experts, and went straight to markup. Despite the overwhelming opposition to this legislation, the Judiciary Committee did not want to hear from groups like the American Bar Association, Patient Safety America, the National Disability Rights Network, or the National Protection Alliance. When I see the American Bar Association, who the committee refused to hear from--I know my colleague from Colorado is an attorney. I just want to inquire of my colleague from Colorado if he is a member of the American Bar Association, and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POLIS. Okay. Well, that is the association which many attorneys, excepting, of course, my friend from Colorado, are a member of. The supporters of this bill point to its consideration in previous Congresses for hearings, but we have over 50 new Members who didn't hear a word about this bill from any experts before it was rushed to the floor. We are considering this bill under a very restrictive rule. That means there were 24 amendments filed. This rule only allows the House to debate and vote on five of them. That means 19 of them, amendments offered by Democrats and Republicans, were simply just tossed out in the Rules Committee. That is what this rule does. If this rule were to pass, it would mean that the efforts of 19 Members to offer ideas to improve healthcare wouldn't even be allowed to be debated or voted upon here on the floor of this House. It is no coincidence that eight amendments filed by Democrats, and not one Democratic amendment was made in order. Only 5 out of 24 ideas from Democrats and Republicans were made in order. One amendment filed by my colleague, Representative Jackson Lee, would have provided an exception to the bill for any medical-related injury to a child, which seems like common sense. At least have a debate about it. If people disagree, let them disagree. Let's have a vote. This rule continues this very closed process, where Democrats and Republicans are shut out of participating in the bills that appear fully formed without the opportunity for us to represent our districts and offer amendments to improve and make these bills better, to reduce costs, to improve the quality of care. What I wonder, Mr. Speaker, is: Where is the open process promised by Speaker Ryan? This Congress hasn't even considered a single piece of legislation under an open rule, and we have had many, many bills brought to the floor under closed rules and without any committee hearings. But, you know, I am beginning to not be surprised so much anymore because secretiveness seems to be the standard that Republicans are setting in this Congress. How the Republicans have handled their healthcare bill from start through now is a perfect example of the closed-door, secretive process that has become, tragically, the standard operating procedure for this Congress. The Republican healthcare bill will increase healthcare costs, provide less coverage--22 million fewer people will be covered-- increase costs for those who are lucky enough to keep their current coverage, and reduce access to healthcare for the American people. It puts a burden on small businesses, on the middle class, on rural healthcare providers, while handing hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to big corporations and special interests. TrumpCare is a billionaire's tax cut disguised as a healthcare bill, and it will be one of the largest transfers of wealth from the middle class and the working families to the top 1 percent of Americans. Effectively, it is removing benefits from people in rural counties and cities across our country and giving those tax cuts mostly to people in New York and Hollywood. That is what Republicans are delivering with this bill. When the American people were finally given the chance to see the Senate's healthcare legislation, the American people overwhelmingly rejected it. Only 16 percent of the American people approve of the plan. Democrats oppose it; Republicans oppose it; independents oppose it. The Congressional Budget Office's recent score of the bill says that coverage will significantly decrease under this bill and that the costs of deductibles for patients will go up. Patients will have to spend more out of pocket, those that are lucky enough to even have insurance after this cruel bill. But there is still time to stop it, and I call upon my colleagues to prevent this bill from moving forward. The bill that Republicans are trying to ram through Congress is not truly meant to make improvements to our healthcare system but to take money away from the middle class and working families and put it into the pockets of a very few people who benefit from the tax cuts under this bill: for people making millions of dollars a year. This bill makes it harder for middle-income families and for low- income families to access quality, affordable healthcare, makes it harder for individuals who have preexisting conditions or have genetic disorders or long-term diseases from accessing lifesaving medical attention, and cuts critical healthcare services for disabled children in schools that many of our school districts rely on. And they want to do this all with a closed process. I offered three amendments to improve healthcare in our Education and the Workforce Committee. All were defeated on a partisan vote. Every Republican voted not to allow those. No Democrat, as far as I know--certainly not me--has been invited to present our ideas to Republican leadership or President Trump. Democrats have lots of ideas to improve the Affordable Care Act. I am sure many Republicans do, too. Those ideas are not reflected whatsoever in this bill or in the closed process that prohibits Republicans and Democrats from even offering our suggestions to improve this bill. So, here we are, debating another piece of healthcare legislation that did not go through an open process. Democrats were shut out of the amendment process completely. This bill would make it more difficult for victims of medical malpractice to seek or receive compensation for their injuries. It is inconsistent with the 10th Amendment, which reserves these rights to the States that are not enumerated in the Constitution, and unlike the Democrats' approach to medical malpractice reform in the Affordable Care Act, which provided funding for pilot programs in the States to reduce the risk of medical malpractice liability consistent with the 10th Amendment. Many constitutional experts--I would add, many conservative constitutional experts--believe that this approach is unconstitutional because of the 10th Amendment. We have learned that this bill does not actually protect access to healthcare but, instead, undermines a State-based tort system, making it more difficult for patients to be compensated from bad actors. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by over 60 national and State organizations opposed to H.R. 1215. June 12, 2017. Re Groups Urge You to Vote NO on H.R. 1215. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The undersigned consumer, health, labor, legal and public interest groups strongly oppose H.R. 1215: The ``Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017.'' This bill would limit the legal rights of injured patients and families of those killed by negligent health care. The bill's sweeping scope covers not only cases involving medical malpractice, but also cases involving unsafe drugs and nursing home abuse and neglect. Even if H.R. 1215 applied only to doctors and hospitals, recent studies clearly establish that its provisions would lead to more deaths and injuries, and increased health care costs due to a ``broad relaxation of care.'' Add to this nursing home and pharmaceutical industry liability limitations, significantly weakening incentives for these industries to act safely, and untold numbers of additional death, injuries and costs are inevitable, and unacceptable. The latest statistics show that medical errors, most of which are preventable, are the third leading cause of death in America. This intolerable situation is perhaps all the more shocking because we already know about how to fix much of this problem. Congress should focus on improving patient safety and reducing deaths and injuries, not insulating negligent providers from accountability, harming patients and saddling taxpayers with the cost, as H.R. 1215 would do. For example, this bill would establish a permanent across- the-board $250,000 ``cap'' on compensation for ``non-economic damages'' in medical malpractice cases. Such caps are unfair and discriminatory. For example, University of Buffalo Law Professor Lucinda Finley has written, ``certain injuries that happen primarily to women are compensated predominantly or almost exclusively through noneconomic loss damages. These injuries include sexual or reproductive harm, pregnancy loss, and sexual assault injuries.'' Also, ``[J]uries consistently award women more in noneconomic loss damages than men . . . [A]ny cap on noneconomic loss damages will deprive women of a much greater proportion and amount of a jury award than men. Noneconomic loss damage caps therefore amount to a form of discrimination against women and contribute to unequal access to justice or fair compensation for women.'' Other provisions in H.R. 1215 are just as problematic. The proposed federal statute of limitations, more restrictive than a majority of state laws, lacks complete logic from a deficit reduction angle since its only impact would be to cut off meritorious claims, forcing patients to turn to the government for care. The bill would repeal joint and several liability even though the Congressional Budget Office says this could increase, not lower, costs. H.R. 1215 would overturn traditional state common law and would be an unprecedented interference with the work of state court judges and juries in civil cases. Its one-way preemption of state law provisions that protect patients (there are some exceptions) makes clear that the intent of this legislation is not to make laws uniform in the 50 states. Rather, it is a carefully crafted bill to provide relief and protections for the insurance, medical and drug industries, at the expense of patient safety. We urge you to oppose H.R. 1215: The ``Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017.'' Thank you. Very sincerely,

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

Mr. POLIS. Some of the groups are the Gerontological Advanced Practice Nurses Association, Justice in Aging, Long Term Care Community Coalition, National Education Association, National Consumers League, National Disability Rights Network, Public Citizen, Public Justice, and many, many other great organizations. I hope my friend from Colorado is a member of at least two or three of these wonderful organizations. I will furnish the entire list to him. This bill preempts State tort law that has been developed over the last 200 years and is contrary to the 10th Amendment of our Constitution. It imposes an arbitrary cap on the amount of noneconomic damages a victim can collect under a Federal law coopting the ability of States to do their own medical malpractice laws and hamstringing them with regard to the reforms that they can undertake. In fact, capping damages also increases taxpayer spending. According to a joint study by Northwestern University and the University of Illinois, they found that capping economic damages actually increases Medicare part B spending. I would point out another horrible feature of the cruel Republican healthcare bill is that it guts the Medicare trust fund and would lead to Medicare becoming insolvent sooner rather than later by draining the Medicare trust fund of over $100 billion. That is another aspect of this bill. No wonder they didn't want us to see it, Mr. Speaker. No wonder they kept it in a locked closet from even Republicans who were allegedly writing it, like Ken Buck and my friend, Senator Gardner, who was on the committee writing it and who later said he hadn't seen it. No wonder it was hidden, when you find out it actually leads to Medicare insolvency sooner, when you find that it throws 22 million people off the insurance that they already have, when you find out it raises rates for those who are lucky enough to maintain their insurance, when you find it takes money out of our schools, when you find that it risks throwing our elderly out of their nursing homes who rely on Medicaid. This bill is a symptom of a problem. I am not a doctor; my friend from Colorado is not a doctor; but when I ask my doctor what you do when there are symptoms, it is treat the underlying cause. Let's do that. This bill doesn't do that. This Republican Senate bill that throws people off insurance doesn't do that. Let's begin a process where we get ideas from Democrats and Republicans to work together to reduce costs in healthcare, to expand coverage in healthcare, and to improve the quality of healthcare for American families. This bill is not focused on protecting patients. It increases the risk to patients. It drains Medicare of additional money. This bill will not reduce costs to patients. In fact, no healthcare bill being debated in Congress right now actually improves patient care or reduces costs to patients. Those should be two pillars, two goals of healthcare reform: Can we reduce costs, and can we improve patient care? This bill risks making patient care worse in an unconstitutional way. The Senate bill actually will increase costs to patients, increase deductibles, make more people lose their insurance, make you pay more for insurance you already have if you are one of the people who is lucky enough not to lose it under the cruel Republican bill. Instead of politicizing and polarizing access to healthcare-- literally a life-and-death issue for American families--let's work together to find solutions that reduce costs, increase coverage, and improve care. The Senate Republican healthcare bill meets none of those three critical criteria that the American people demand in healthcare reform: reducing costs, increasing coverage, and improving the quality of care for ourselves and for our loved ones. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS. Prosecutors are lawyers as well. So I just wanted to be clear that it is not an insult. Being an attorney is a fine profession. There are some attorneys on both sides, both defending as well prosecuting criminals, but they are both attorneys. I just wanted to clarify that.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was glad my colleague pointed out that it violates the Seventh Amendment. Now we add that to the 10th Amendment. So there are actually two Amendments. I am not even an attorney, but I know this violates two Amendments to our Constitution. That is pretty impressive for one bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to inquire of my friend from Colorado whether recognizing those savings is in fact a Federal responsibility or a State responsibility. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, exactly. What I would further add, then, is whose prerogative is it to institute this kind of cap: States like our own State of Colorado, which has that cap? Or Washington, D.C. insiders behind closed doors? I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this effectively co-ops States and forces other States to do the same thing that my colleague's and my State of Colorado has already done. It goes beyond that as well. Under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, this should be a power reserved for the States. Mr. Speaker, I would like to shed light on a serious issue facing millions of students nationally and in my home State of Colorado. Every day, 50 million students and 3 million teachers face significant health and safety threats due to inadequate school facilities. I have heard about many in Colorado, school gyms that are closed down because their roofs are falling in, staggering statistics that disproportionately affect high-poverty schools, particularly urban and rural schools, and many schools serving a high percentage of minority students. Today we have a chance to address this rampant inequality throughout our school districts and to create jobs in the process. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Bobby Scott's Rebuild America's Schools Act, H.R. 2475, which I am also a proud co-sponsor of. Mr. Scott's legislation would invest $100 billion in the physical and digital infrastructure needs of our schools, creating nearly 2 million jobs and creating the education infrastructure we need for the 21st century. 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, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to supply those. To be clear, the entire school doesn't close, just the gym closes.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I do have further speakers.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, when we think about healthcare, we all think about, of course, first and foremost, ourselves and our loved ones and our families. As Representatives of 750,000 people, we also think about constituents that we know, that we have met, for whom healthcare is literally a life-and-death situation. I think of my friend Debbie and her son Sam. Debbie's son Sam was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was 4 years old. He is now 20 or 21 or so. He was a healthy kid, he ate healthy food, an active young child. As Debbie pointed out to me, it is not that anybody chooses an illness or a condition, the illness chooses you. Through the luck of the draw, her son Sam is afflicted with type 1 diabetes. Like many people with autoimmune diseases, it was not poor choices, it was not lifestyle decisions that gave him the disease or even increased his risk of the disease. He was dealt a bad hand with an autoimmune gene that his family didn't even know that they had. Because of that, Sam has a costly disease. Thankfully, one that can be treated, if not cured, but he has a costly disease for the rest of his life. There is no cure, and the cost of insulin and other lifesaving technologies is very high. Sam has what here in Washington people call a preexisting condition. That is what we are talking about. Without insurance, the cost per month would go from about $400, which Debbie and her husband are able to afford and put together for Sam, to $2,500 a month, which they could not possibly afford to do. Sam is now 20, and because of the Affordable Care Act, he will be on the family's health insurance until he is 26. That is, if the family can keep their health insurance. The family worries, like so many others, that they might be one of those 22 million families that loses coverage under this Republican healthcare bill. It is a lot of families. It is not going to be any of my colleagues' families. My colleagues have a government health insurance plan from serving in the House of Representatives. Their congressional staff has access to the exchanges, just like we do, to buy insurance. But 22 million people in each and every one of our districts, 435 districts in this country, in each and every one of our districts, not dozens of people, not hundreds of people, but thousands of real people like Deb and Sam, like a story I shared earlier of Marcia and Grace, will actually lose their healthcare. They will be forced to give up their home, become insolvent, go bankrupt, or die. A choice that no American should have to face. Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration today is one of many that didn't go through regular order. There were no hearings. Closed process. They cut out all the Democratic amendments that we had to improve the bill. That is how the Republicans have been handling healthcare legislation this Congress. That is why this approach isn't working. It is why this approach is so unpopular. No hearings, shut Members out of the legislative process, bring a bill to the floor that was hidden in some closet, written in secret, widely unpopular, throwing people off healthcare insurance, raising rates for those who are luckily enough to keep their insurance. This bill is not aimed at protecting patients. This bill before us and the Senate Republican healthcare bill make it more difficult for Americans to deal with real-life healthcare issues that were dealt over the course of life for ourselves and our families. We need a reset, Mr. Speaker. We need to reset and start real discussions about improving healthcare. How could Democrats or Republicans work together to reduce costs? Democrats and Republicans should work together to expand coverage. We shouldn't be talking about whether 22 million people lose coverage or 10 million people lose coverage or 5 million people lose coverage. Let's talk about 5 million people gaining coverage, 10 million people gaining coverage. Let's reset and frame the discussion about how more people can have access to healthcare. The problem we are trying to solve is not how can we get less Americans to have access to healthcare. That is why this bill is so unpopular. If that is the problem Republicans are trying to solve, they solved it in this bill. Less Americans will have healthcare. But that is not the problem that the American people want us to address in Congress. More people with healthcare, and people want to save money. They want their insurance rates to be lower, their deductibles to be lower. They want to save money. There are some low-hanging fruit in terms of costs in healthcare, administrative overhead, wasteful and duplicative spending, that we can go after together. These are good ideas, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. One of the amendments that I proposed was pricing transparency. One of the problems in the healthcare marketplace is nobody knows how much anybody charges. Different insurers and private payers pay widely different amounts for the exact same procedure. Let's at least disclose the pricing and have transparency so market mechanisms will work to pull down rates by promoting competition. By not allowing the market into healthcare, we are creating inefficiencies and raising rates. Let's come together on that. Let's come together around a lot of good ideas that Democrats and Republicans have bills on and have amendments on. But, no, they are not even allowed to be debated and not even allowed to be voted on either on this bill, in which every Democratic amendment was shut down, or in the Republican healthcare bill, in which no process was allowed for Democrats to improve the bill. We have never even been invited into the secret backroom to figure out what was being debated. We didn't even see the bill until it was presented fully formed days before it had to be voted on, affecting the lives of 22 million Americans, one-eighth of our entire economy, without any hearings, without any expert testimony, and only days to digest this hundred-page bill. So look, let's reset, let's work together to bring down costs, expanding coverage and improving quality, and create a work product in healthcare reform that we can be proud of as Republicans, as Democrats, and as Americans; one in which Debbie and her son, Sam, don't have to worry about giving up their home or facing death; or one in which Grace and her mother are able to live out their lives without worrying about their preexisting condition. Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to reject this closed 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. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2353, the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act. I recently had the opportunity to visit our new Pathways in Technology Early College, or P-TECH, program at Skyline High School in Colorado. P-TECH is a partnership between the St. Vrain Valley School District, Front Range Community College, and IBM. It allows students to earn a high school diploma and an associate's degree in 5 or 6 years through dual enrollment. I spoke with a number of students participating in P-TECH and they shared with me how the program equips them with the skills they need to get a well-paying, reliable job after graduation. That is exactly the kind of innovation Congress should be supporting, and I am proud that the Perkins reauthorization bill does just that. I urge this bill's final passage in the House, and I call on my colleagues in the Senate to take up this bipartisan legislation as soon as possible so more students can enjoy the kinds of opportunities that the students at the P-TECH High School and St. Vrain Valley School District do.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we hear the Senate is finally releasing a bill, a bill that would, sadly, take away healthcare from millions of Americans. Apparently, this bill will go straight to the Senate floor without a hearing, without a markup, without the opportunity for any public input. This Republican healthcare bill is a disaster. It removes guarantees of coverage that the Affordable Care Act created, allowing States to determine health insurance options and discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. Under the Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, Colorado, alone, will lose billions of dollars of funding. Coloradans will no longer be covered by Medicaid, leaving many more people uninsured and a further burden on the rest of us, driving up our rates because we have to cover the uninsured. Even Colorado schools would be affected because many schools serve as Medicaid providers to students with disabilities, and they would lose that funding. While the Affordable Care Act isn't perfect, I strongly oppose this Republican plan to take away insurance coverage and raise rates for Coloradans. Not only is the bill disastrous, the secretive process undermines the institution of Congress and the American people that have elected every Member of this body. Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to oppose the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. First, I want to rise in agreement with my friend from Washington's statement about civility in this Chamber and beyond. I think that, while it is extremely important that those of us who are elected to represent 700,000 to 800,000 people reflect the passions that we bring to our service, at the same time, we need to make sure that nothing that we say in these walls or outside is used to incite those who hear those words in a different way than they are intended. That is the fine line that we walk as elected Representatives who are passionate about our ideals and our values, and it is one that I encourage the President to walk, as well as other opinion leaders who we often see on the cable talk shows hurling inciteful phrases back and forth that could be used to further incite the American people. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the two underlying bills: H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act; and H.R. 1654, the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act. Frankly, both of these bills are trying to address real problems that have bipartisan solutions that I support, but neither of these bills solve the problems in a thoughtful, effective way without creating collateral damage that, in many ways, is as damaging as the problem that they are designed to solve. The majority will claim that similar bills received hearings last Congress, but I want to point out from a procedural perspective that neither of these bills have had hearings. These bills have not gone through the committee process. But what they won't say is there are dozens of new Members of Congress. New members of the Natural Resources Committee didn't have hearings at all, but it was rushed through a markup in committee and to the floor without any hearings in this session, without the new members of the National Resources Committee having a chance to ask questions about these bills. There is a reason we have regular order. It is so that we elected Representatives can use the passion we bring to service to ask the difficult questions to find out how to get at these very real problems that we are trying to solve. Unfortunately, this secrecy, lack of hearings, and lack of participation appears to be the norm, and, in fact, the standard that Republicans are setting in both Chambers of Congress right now. It is how the Republicans handled the healthcare bill in the House. It is how the Republicans are handling the secret healthcare bill behind a closed door somewhere over in the Senate. We know some things about the Republican healthcare bill. We know it will increase healthcare costs, throw people off their insurance, reduce access for the American people. We know it will burden small businesses and the middle class. We know it will hand hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. But there is also a lot we don't know because the process has been closed. This type of secret backroom deal is, unfortunately, becoming the norm of the way Republicans are running their agenda in Washington. The rule for this bill is another example. It blocked at least three amendments from being considered on the floor. Why can't we discuss the ideas of all Members, especially since there was no hearing on this bill? Representative McEachin from Virginia, Representative Schneider from Illinois, and Representative Torres from California all offered amendments, all had good ideas and were not even allowed to discuss those on the floor for 10 minutes, 5 minutes, not even for 1 minute, to offer or discuss any of those amendments. If my colleagues on the Republican side don't think they are good ideas, let's at least have a vote. They can vote against them. If they defeat them, that is the process. But they are not even allowing a vote on these amendments. Unfortunately, the process of this bill is typical of the Republican process on healthcare and the way they have approached so many other issues. Republicans are working in secret and limiting debates so the American people won't see the horrible things they are trying to do, like throwing tens of millions of Americans off of healthcare. Now, getting to these bills. First, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act has the goal of preventing forest fires and disruptions to power distribution; something that I strongly agree with. I represent a district that has over 60 percent public land and a number of rural power districts. It is an admirable goal. We are a district that is at risk for forest fires. We had several devastating fires in the last several years alone. In fact, I am representing a State that is getting even more ravaged by fire, in light of the changing climate. We need to take action to prevent them and allow additional work with regard to preventing the forest fire risk. Unfortunately, this bill is not a positive step, but I am glad to say there is an alternative out there. Representative Cramer from North Dakota and I, along with five of my Colorado delegation colleagues, recently introduced bipartisan legislation that will decrease these types of fires and protect power lines and transformers the right way--a way that Democrats and Republicans can agree on; a way that we can probably run the bill as a suspension and get 410 votes; a way that the stakeholders are involved and utilities, fire prevention experts and firefighters, environmentalists all agree on. My legislation, known as the National Forest System Vegetation Management Pilot Program Act of 2017, gives power and electricity companies the ability to remove dead trees, but without the recklessness included in the bill that we are considering today. It is a stark contrast. We can actually solve this problem in a way that would bring the country together, or there can be a divisive bill--maybe against one Democrat, maybe against five; I don't know, but it is not a broadly bipartisan bill. It is not one that has the support of the communities that are most affected by forest fires in my district. It is not even a bill that has the support of our main utility company in Colorado that actually sought the ability to reduce forest fire risks, which is done by Representative Cramer's and my bill. This bill we are considering today simply lacks the protections that we need to have confidence. In this bill, the company can come up with a plan to remove vegetation, and then it can be accepted with no questions asked. They can't require them to fix obvious problems, like the power company cutting down trees for no reason other than to sell it for timber. They can't even deny an application. Frankly, I think this legislation's real goal is to take a small step toward turning management of public lands over to private industry. Once this plan that they would submit under this bill is approved-- because the plans have to be approved--the utility companies would be able to do massive devegetation and clearing work without any reason related to fires and without any risk of liability. On the other hand, the bipartisan legislation I introduced with Mr. Cramer gives that liability waiver that the utility companies need to do the additional work, but only if there is no gross negligence by the utility company and has something to do with actually reducing the risk of fires, as well as putting reasonable limits on the distance that the work can be done from the power lines or transformers themselves. Mr. Cramer's and my bill has some of the most conservative and some of the most liberal Members of this body as cosponsors. So I just wonder and I ask the majority leader why we aren't bringing that bill to the floor--a bill that lacks controversy, that helps prevent forest fires, that saves American people time and money, a bill that this body could be proud of advancing with, if not all, almost near unanimity. I would suggest that, instead of bringing the bill we are considering today to the floor, we should have been focused on fixing something that we know needs to be fixed: the Forest Service's problem with fire borrowing. Fire borrowing means the Forest Service has to spend all their money fighting fires and little money to reduce the risk of forest fires, deal with climate change, or clear the extensive backlog of maintenance. We can do that today by bringing to the floor the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act that Representative Simpson and I introduced, along with my colleague, Mr. Schrader. These are the types of commonsense measures that would actually reduce the risk of forest fires, put the right parameters around utility companies doing additional work, and free up additional resources to prevent forest fires from occurring, rather than simply doing the cleanup after they occur. H.R. 1654, the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act, also is an admirable and needed goal, one that there is potential for bipartisan cooperation to speed up the process of approval of water projects and hydro dams. There truly is a problem with the speed of which some of these problems are approved. I represent a district and a State where we understand how difficult and important water is, and we also believe in the new renewable energy economy. Unfortunately, this bill also does it the wrong way. It circumvents and undermines important input from experts and scientists that actually understand the reviews that are being made by the Clean Water Act. It even circumvents tribal sovereignty in the Native American Tribes and their sacred lands by overriding their input. That is why a wide spectrum of organizations are opposed, from conservation groups like Oceana and League of Conservation Voters to sportsmen's groups like Trout Unlimited and The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. Dozens are opposed to this reckless bill. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of opposition. July 20, 2017. Please Oppose H.R. 1654 Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to urge you to oppose H.R. 1654 (McClintock, R-CA), a bill that would significantly limit meaningful public and environmental review of new dams and other surface storage projects throughout the west. H.R. 1654 would likely reduce protections for fish and wildlife, and could lead to further damming and destruction of western waterways. Similar provisions were included in H.R. 2898 and H.R. 23--anti-environmental bills from 2015 and 2017, respectively--and the Department of Interior has previously expressed opposition to these efforts. H.R. 1654 would undermine existing laws by making the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (``Reclamation'') the lead agency for all environmental reviews, including reviews under the Endangered Species Act. Giving Reclamation this unprecedented power over project permitting could undermine the ability of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and N.O.A.A. Fisheries to share expertise and inform the development of major infrastructure investments, placing imperiled fish species at risk. H.R. 1654 also establishes strict project-review timelines, including provisions that could require expedited review under the National Environmental Policy Act. These fast-tracking provisions could make it difficult for responsible agencies to meaningfully analyze proposed projects, and could limit the public's ability to weigh in on infrastructure that could affect communities for decades. Further, the bill permits non-federal public entities to contribute funds to expedite project permitting, raising questions about the fairness of the federal review process. This damaging bill would affect states throughout the west, and could even impact how state agencies are able review proposed projects within their jurisdictions. H.R. 1654 allows states to subject state agencies to the bill's procedures, thereby requiring those agencies to cede control to Reclamation and comply with Reclamation's timelines. Consolidating project review in this manner could weaken the essential role that states play in reviewing water infrastructure projects within their jurisdictions. As we recently learned from the emergency at Oroville Dam in California, careful planning and design for major infrastructure projects is critical for ensuring public safety and protecting the environment. Environmental review of surface storage projects is also essential for protecting endangered and commercially important salmon runs and the thousands of jobs that depend on healthy salmon populations. With so much at stake, the streamlining provisions in H.R. 1654 are unwise and irresponsible. Instead of fast tracking dam projects in the West, we should be investing in fiscally sound, environmentally friendly water supply solutions like conservation, water use efficiency, wastewater recycling, and stormwater capture. For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to vote no on

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the letter is signed by a number of sportsmen and environmental organizations, the very groups that we should seek to work with, the very groups that actually support, as I do, hydropower, facilitated permitting of hydropower, the right way. We need to speed up the process. In Colorado, we have had water projects that have been waiting on a decision for far too long. But instead of going around experts, rolling over tribal sovereignty, why don't we fund the agencies doing the reviews so that they have the manpower and time to look at an application, give feedback, and make a decision quickly? Again and again we have underfunded the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA, not acknowledging that that is what is causing and contributing to this very slowdown. We can solve these issues that we are facing. We can expedite permitting for water projects and hydropower. We can allow utilities to do additional work to reduce the risk of forest fires. I call upon this body, please, let's do it in a way that brings Democrats and Republicans together, proudly gets a bill to President Trump's desk in a fast and effective way involving input from Democrats and Republicans, not just Republicans.

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. POLIS. Absolutely. I agree with the gentleman from Texas. This House and the institution of Congress, as a separate agency of government in Article I, section 1 of our Constitution has the responsibility to exercise oversight of the executive branch.

Mr. POLIS. It absolutely is. Sometimes the American people in the back-and-forth say: Hey, why aren't Democrats participating in the healthcare debate? And the reason, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) articulated, is we have never been invited into this room. I would ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett): Have you seen the Republican healthcare bill in the Senate? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POLIS. Isn't that too short a period of time to even come up with a thoughtful amendment?