Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it has been the honor of my life to have served 10 years in this body, and I want to take this occasion to thank the amazing and talented staff that has worked both in our congressional office here in Washington as well as in Ft. Collins and Boulder and in Adams and Summit Counties. I want to thank all of the interns who have lent their services over the last decade, on behalf of the people of the Second Congressional District, hopefully providing them with a great experience that furthers their interest in public affairs. And, of course, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The men and women I have come to know and have worked with in the last decade have been some of the most important relationships of my life. I truly believe that there is no problem so large that the deliberative and thoughtful minds in this body can't rise to the occasion and solve all the pressing issues. It has been sad to see that, all too often, things stand in the way of that progress, whether it is partisanship, yes, but not only partisanship, the role of the special interests, and the increasingly divided electorate that we have nationally. But I know that the men and women of this body and in the next Congress, the 116th Congress, will hopefully come together to solve a lot of the pressing issues that affect our country and the world. Whether it is making sure that kids grow up with a good education, that families have access to affordable healthcare, or protecting our environment for ourselves and future generations, I know that the men and women in this body will be able to rise to that occasion. It truly has been an amazing honor to have worked with so many terrific people from all over this country, authentically representing their constituents and their districts. I look forward to taking this decade of service to our Nation with me throughout the rest of my life, wherever I go, to help inform the decisions I make to do the very best job that I can, every day. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the honor of serving in the United States Congress for a decade. I look forward to continuing to work with future United States Congresses.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Oakleigh Thorne II's accomplishments over the past six decades are truly inspirational--exuding tremendous dedication towards making a difference to the wellness of our planet by educating children about the importance of environmental consciousness. In 1954, Thorne founded the Thorne's Nature Experience, which serves to environmentally educate adults and children about the importance of ecology, and its impacts on our economy, our social institutions and structures, and the planet. Additionally, Thorne helped found the Environmental Studies Department at Naropa University here in Boulder. Thorne's passion for protecting the environment has driven him to defend and participate in over fifteen programs and boards that preserve open space within Boulder, Aspen, Keystone, Denver, and even Wyoming. Thorne has also raised money for programs to prevent infrastructure from building on lands, and has even made personal investments in owning property to preserve the beauty of our natural landscapes. Today, Thorne works with two different programs at Yale University: the External Board of the Yale Institute for Biosphere Studies and the Leadership Council for the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Dr. Oakleigh Thorne's contributions to environmental protections and education are more than anyone would hope to accomplish in three lifetimes. We could not wish you a happy 90th birthday without acknowledging all you've done thus far. Thank you for all you've done for the City of Boulder, the state Colorado, and the world at large. Happy 90th Birthday.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor the memory of Lew Gaiter III and offer my most sincere condolences to his family and to all who had the pleasure of knowing him. Lew served the people of Larimer County as County Commissioner for nearly a decade, during which he brought innovative ideas that delivered lasting change. While Lew achieved many things as commissioner, two of his most notable accomplishments were his work in advancing rural broadband development, and his help in establishing the Larimer County Office of Emergency Management. In addition to his work as commissioner, Lew added tremendous value to his community through his volunteer work. Lew was a member of the Loveland Volunteer Ski Patrol for 25 years and dedicated his time to local churches and charitable organizations. I am truly grateful to have been able to call Lew a friend and to have observed the dedication and enthusiasm he served his community with. Lew was a remarkable individual with a terrific work ethic and a servant's heart. His passing will be felt throughout his community and beyond

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the 50th anniversary of Front Range Community College in Colorado, which I am proud to represent. The college first opened in 1968 with only 2,000 students enrolled in a few programs. Today, they have campuses in Fort Collins, Westminster, Longmont, and Brighton--28,000 students, over 160 degree and certificate programs. Over the years, FRCC has seen continual enrollment increases, serving even more students. Go, Wolves. During my time in Congress, I have worked with FRCC to reduce the cost of textbooks, expand access to dual and concurrent enrollment programs with our school districts, support career and technical education, and ensure students who have obtained credits are able to get their associate's degree. We recognize the hard work and perseverance of the students and the staff at Front Range Community College as we celebrate the 50th birthday of Front Range Community College and how it has helped transform people's lives and communities across Colorado. For 50 years, Front Range Community College has fostered successful lives and strong futures for everybody. Congratulations and happy birthday, FRCC.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago, Mountain Sun opened its doors as a single pub on Pearl Street in Boulder, Colorado. Now there are five operating locations throughout Colorado's beautiful Front Range. Through the years, Mountain Sun has been home to many up-and-coming musicians, made guests feel like family in their cozy dining rooms, crafted beer and food that not only fills bellies but gives back to the community and honored their philosophy of being a ``gathering place with good food and drink, where conversation flows freely.'' Mountain Sun's story began in Portland, Oregon. Their proprietor Kevin Daly brewed his first beer at his favorite local pub. Soon his love of craft beer outgrew his desire to pursue a career in law and in 1993 Kevin opened up Mountain Sun Pub in Boulder. The brewery began as a six- barrel brewing system and their beloved ESB style beer, Colorado Kind, was the first beer crafted. Today, it remains one of their most popular beers. Commitment to high-quality ingredients, community engagement, environmental stewardship, and employee equity are the driving forces behind Mountain Sun's business. In 2002, Southern Sun, a larger dining space and a ten-barrel brew system, opened in south Boulder. The operation continued to grow with expansion into Denver in 2008 with the opening of the Vine Street Pub. Under the Sun and Longs Peak Pub and Taphouse opened in 2013 and 2014 respectively. I am proud that Mountain Sun calls the 2nd District of Colorado home. Mountain Sun's 25 years have given the community many great Scrabble games, stout months, and delicious burgers. Cheers to the next 25.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for funding appropriated to the Office of Compliance contained within the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 5895. This important funding will support efforts to the ongoing reform of the Congressional Accountability Act to better enable legislative branch offices and agencies to receive proper training regarding workplace conduct. I strongly oppose slush fund settlements being paid out with taxpayer dollars, and I am pleased that no funding contained in this bill will go towards money for settlements. I appreciate the work of the Conference Committee in getting this critical funding included in this appropriations package.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago this week, Colorado was struck by devastating floods. From Fort Collins, to Estes Park, to Lyons, to Boulder, dozens of communities were hit with unprecedented amounts of rain that gave way to rivers and tributaries overflowing, with huge amounts of damage, including the loss of eight lives. When the floods came 5 years ago, we committed to one another to be Colorado strong and to rebuild. I am proud to say that, in the years since the flood, I have been amazed by the resiliency of so many families. For my family, it meant a flooded basement and the loss of some of our treasured family photographs we stored there. For others, it upended their lives. Stu and Sarah Jane were new parents to their 9-month-old daughter when the flood waters demolished their house in Fourmile Canyon. Shortly after receiving a reverse 911 call, the canyon gave way. The family escaped to a firehouse, and, after 2 days, a National Guard helicopter flew in, transporting them to safety. There are so many stories of so many Colorado families, and the smallest difference in circumstances would have meant that many families wouldn't be alive today. In the last 5 years, communities have come together to repair roads, trails, homes, and businesses. This resiliency and grit that Coloradoans showed the week of September 9 through September 16, 2013, as rains fell, was matched only by the sense of community and tenacity that took hold as the waters subsided.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment. Employee- owned businesses are uniquely structured where the employer and the shareholders and the executives benefit, as well as the workers. There are different forms of making sure that employees can participate in the success and capital growth of a company. Those include co-ops, cooperatives; ESOPs, which stands for employee stock ownership plans; stock options; profit sharing. There are a number of ways to do it. But some of the key findings are that, over time, employees at employee-owned businesses, whether they are partially or entirely owned by employees, have greater success. The companies do better and the workers do better: higher wages; more savings for retirement; more sustainability; and more profitability as an enterprise, because it improves retention rates and employee morale. I think that employee-owned businesses are an important market- oriented mechanism to reduce the wage gap between executives, shareholders, and workers. But it can be difficult for a business to transition to an employee-ownership model or a business structure that allows for accessing financing and capital markets to make that transition happen. That is why I am sponsoring this amendment today to encourage the Small Business Administration to provide technical assistance, as well as education and outreach about existing programs, one of which is called the loan guarantee program, which is available to employee-owned businesses. SBA loans are a critical resource for many small businesses, and the employee-owned loan guarantee program is underutilized because a lot of lenders don't understand the unique nature of employee-owned businesses, especially smaller banks. ESOPs can be a very compelling model, as can the other models of employee ownership. There are a number of successful employee-owned companies in the district I am honored to represent in northern Colorado, including New Belgium Brewing. SBA loans are actually a critical part of helping companies make that transition to employee ownership, especially for small and midsized enterprises. I encourage the adoption of my amendment to help employee-owned businesses access financing options that will help small businesses grow, and help our communities retain community, local employee ownership of small businesses. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment to highlight the role that SBA can play in making employee ownership options a real-life occurrence for more companies and people across our country. Mr. Chairman, of course, there are a number of pieces of legislation, many of them bipartisan, under the jurisdiction of different committees with regard to how we can remove barriers to employee ownership in our economy. But this simple one before us today would simply encourage the SBA to provide technical assistance under current authorized, funded programs, to help make sure that there is a greater awareness about the opportunities of employee ownership, both for economic productivity as well as for reducing the equity and wage gap in our country. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS

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

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer Mr. Cicilline's amendment for the DISCLOSE Act. That is why we are talking about that bill today. The DISCLOSE Act is an alternative to this job-destroying bill and anticonsumer bill that we have before us. So I would encourage my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can shine a light on the dark money that continues to pervade and pollute and distort our political system. I would hope that that is something we can agree on. I hope my Republican and Democratic friends will vote to defeat the previous question because it doesn't matter what one's ideology is. What matters is there should be transparency in money in politics, and that is a basic tenet that I hope conservatives and liberals and moderates can agree on, and we can immediately move to that. When we defeat the previous question, I will offer that amendment based on the bill by Mr. Cicilline, which I am honored to be a cosponsor of. Mr. Speaker, this is the third attempt to undermine the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that protects jobs and uses science in decisionmaking with regard to managing our ocean resources. These attempts failed every time, and the biggest reason they failed is the framework of Magnuson is working. We talked about the increase in boat sales. We talked about the increase in jobs. We talked about the benefit to consumers. I am sure there is some fine tuning to do, but it is not time to push the reset button and start over down a very dangerous path that would destroy jobs and the entire economies of many of our local communities. This act has been essential, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in restoring our depleted fishing populations, helping communities devastated by overfishing, getting them back in balance. Science-based reforms over the last two decades have made our fisheries more profitable and rebuilt overfished stocks and have been of great benefit to consumers. These reforms have directly benefited recreational fishing interests, and that is reinforced by their own data of the industry. So if we continue down the path of sustainable fisheries management, commercial and recreational fishermen will see even greater financial gains and support in the future. In fact, NOAA estimates that fully rebuilt fisheries would add $31 billion to our economy and create 500,000 new jobs. We need a benchmark and a path to get there, not a pathway to the past of unsustainable practices and job destruction, which this bill does. These potential jobs and revenues--$31 billion, 500,000 jobs--would support thousands of coastal communities throughout America, consumers across our country and the world, far outweighing any short-term benefit from an empty oceans act. Only through science-based fisheries management can coastal towns and cities reap enormous environmental benefits. So, instead of throwing it away, we should build upon the proven sustainable fisheries management practices of Magnuson-Stevens in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, this bill halts decades of progress, ends the science-based approach. Rather than approving harmful and damaging measures to weaken our economy and harm the environment, let's start again and begin a true bipartisan reauthorization, as this Congress did in 1996, as this Congress did in 2006, to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can move forward with our discussion of requiring that donations into political campaigns and allied groups have to be disclosed and to also vote ``no'' on the rule so that we begin work on a bipartisan reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, building upon the tradition of this institution and putting science in the front. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we approach another election cycle, it is very important for this institution to do everything we can to ensure transparency and safety in our elections and the integrity of the election system itself. Our democracy is being threatened by corporations, by special interests, and by foreign powers who are stripping away power from our people and our voters with dark money spending. Secret spending in our elections has exploded since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision permitting super-PACs and certain tax-exempt groups to spend unlimited sums, including, in many cases, undisclosed funds. The result is unprecedented levels of spending and a midterm election expected to be the most expensive ever. Many of these groups don't even have to disclose their donors, allowing wealthy corporations and individuals and illicit foreign influencers to secretly spend unlimited dark money. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Cicilline's legislation, H.R. 6239, the DISCLOSE Act, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of. This bicameral bill would require organizations spending money in Federal elections to disclose their donors and guard against hidden foreign interference in our democracy. 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. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

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

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. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. It should be better called the empty oceans act. H.R. 200 really risks rolling back science-based conservation efforts, destroying jobs, and hurting our fisheries and fish stocks. It undermines successful sustainable fishery management put in place by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. That is why so many fishermen, scientists, and business owners have come out in opposition to the empty oceans act. Many people whose livelihood comes from the sea have expressed reservations about the job-destroying provisions of H.R. 200 and how it poses a threat to the commercial fishing industry and their jobs, which rely on sustainable practices. The Seafood Harvesters of America, a leading trade organization for fishermen, authored a letter expressing their concerns with the bill. More than 1,000 individuals and organizations have expressed their opposition. I had a number of fishermen come by my office today, telling me that this bill could cost them their jobs. Since its passage, the goal of Magnuson-Stevens has never wavered: managing fisheries to ensure sustainability while, of course, realizing the potential of the resource. Magnuson-Stevens takes a bottom-up approach to resource management where stakeholders on regional fishery management councils work to meet the science-based criteria outlined by the law. We have some success with this approach. Since the year 2000, we have seen 44 previously depleted fish stocks rebuilt. Currently, 84 percent of fish stocks are no longer overfished. In 1976, Magnuson-Stevens was passed to end unregulated fishing predominantly by foreign fleets and to develop our own American fleets that could benefit from our abundant fisheries. The act was strengthened in 1996 and 2006 through bipartisan reauthorizations that established science-based fishery management reforms. The 1996 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens bolstered requirements to prevent overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. And, in 2006, a bipartisan authorization maintained the commitment to sustainable fisheries, including accountability and catch limits. These bipartisan efforts succeeded to help create the sustainable fisheries that support coastal economies throughout America and, of course, consumers both in America and worldwide. Unfortunately, unlike past reauthorizations, H.R. 200 was crafted through a partisan committee process intent on dismantling much of the progress made by Magnuson-Stevens over the last 40 years. In fact, the bill was reported in a party-line vote--Republicans for; Democrats against--with the Republicans continuing to reject attempts to come up with a broad bipartisan approach, as this bill has traditionally been done, that supports both commercial and recreational fishing interests and, of course, maintaining science-based reforms around sustainability. Sadly, H.R. 200 inserts politics into how we manage our fisheries in several crucial areas. The bill erodes the role that science plays in managing our fisheries. The bill guts science-based annual catch limit requirements through the creation of many exemptions for key species. These exemptions include many smaller fish that are absolutely critical as prey for valuable commercial and recreational predator species as part of a delicately balanced ecosystem. Hundreds of other species are exempted through this bill which dramatically increases the chances that overfishing will occur, leading to the devastation, both for sportsmen and commercial fishermen. Catch limits are important to help conserve fisheries and are among the most successful provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. By eroding those provisions, this bill would allow for a long-term depletion of fish stocks. It can devastate the economies of local communities, destroy jobs, and threaten the recovery and stability of our ocean ecosystems. This bill also weakens the data collection requirements that ensure that data-driven, science-based management is used for our fisheries. Data is currently collected through a broad range of sources, and the determination of the best available data is used by NOAA Fisheries and the regional fishery management councils. H.R. 200 would weaken data collection processes and harm the role of science in successful management of our fishery resources. Weakening science-based provisions is only one of the ways that this bill inserts politics into what should be a scientific question, the management of our fisheries. This bill not only erodes science-based management practices, but it rolls back meaningful accountability requirements for recreational anglers. Large groups representing a few members of the fishing community and businesses that sell equipment and boats want to see that these jobs are sustained over time. According to data from the Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation released in May of 2018, participation in recreational fishing has increased for the past 2 years; 49 million Americans went fishing in 2017, an increase over the prior year. So the recreational side is strong under the current provisions of Magnuson-Stevens. And, of course, recreational fishermen are not the only beneficiaries of the science-based approach. According to the National Marine Manufacturers Association, U.S. sales of boats and marine products increased 7 percent since the last passage in 2016. So from 2016 to 2017, we saw a number of States: Florida, Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, Minnesota, California, Wisconsin, South Carolina, and Georgia, with double-digit increases in the sales of new boats, engines, trailers, and accessories, creating good jobs for Americans. Recreational anglers and the businesses that rely upon their support are doing well and thriving, and this growth is a direct result of science-based fishery management practices fostered by Magnuson that this very bill would systematically dismantle, destroying good American jobs. Instead of destroying jobs, what the Magnuson-Stevens Act does is ensure that our maritime industries will thrive now and in the future. And because of the success of Magnuson-Stevens, U.S. fisheries are stabilizing and rebounding. With the bill working as intended, it would be absurd to pass this bill and roll back these very policies that have led to job creation and growth, increased enjoyment for recreational fishermen, and better sustainable practices of ecosystem management. The Empty Oceans Act also inserts dangerous loopholes into Magnuson and it is including exemptions to rebuilding requirements that have helped recover successfully depleted fish stocks. H.R. 200 potentially exempts hundreds of species from annual catch limits. That can dramatically increase overfishing, and overfishing may seem to some lucrative, or to some fun in the short-term, but of course it has devastating and nonsustainable consequences for our coastal communities that economically depend on the vital industries of recreational fishing and sports fishing. These exemptions increase the chance of overfishing and lengthen the time it takes to rebuild depleted stocks to healthy levels, if ever. These loopholes have a devastating effect as well on the commercial fishing industry and on consumers across the country that enjoy eating healthy fish. In 2015, commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated $208 billion in revenue, supported 1.6 million jobs, and supported the healthy dining habits of hundreds of millions of American consumers, billions worldwide. These economic benefits not only support recreational anglers and commercial fishing interests but entire towns and cities that rely on sports fishermen, recreational and commercial, as the entire hub of their economy. If the Empty Oceans Act were to pass, the long-term prospects of so many communities would be devastated. So I think it is important to have a thoughtful look at how we can continue the bipartisan tradition of building upon the progress of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, making corrections where we need to, but making sure that we put science first in our ocean stewardship, and making sure that we have a sustainable approach to recreational and commercial fishing. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for the vote on passage of H.R. 6082, the Overdose Prevention and Patient Safety Act (Roll Call vote No. 278), had I been present I would have voted NO. I was absent for the vote on passage of H.R. 5797, the Individuals in Medicaid Deserve Care that is Appropriate and Responsible in its Execution Act (Roll Call vote No. 276), had I been present I would have voted NO.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. I don't agree with the Koch network on much. I do know that they fund many Republicans, but maybe now that the Republicans are taking children away from their parents, the Kochs will stop funding Republicans, because I am glad to hear that they are people of principle. The article says they ``push for a more moderate approach toward immigration legislation,'' and they have ``called on Trump to stop his administration from splitting up immigrant families,'' which this bill does not do. In fact, this bill ends those who are waiting for family reunification today. So there is a legal way to unite families. This bill eliminates that and will lead to more families being apart. This is a false crisis entirely of President Trump's making. I hope that even he has recognized that the American people will not stand for 3- and 4-year-olds literally being put in cages, strapped down while they are given drugs and medicated and injected, with Americans complicit in this atrocity. It needs to be reiterated one more time that the votes we take on the rule today are more than procedural. They have a significant impact on young lives of innocent children. They will show which Members of Congress care about fixing our immigration system and are willing to compromise and work in a bipartisan way, and which Members of Congress vote to make all of the problems outlined here today worse and more widespread. We need to reject these bills, reject this rule. We need to keep families together. We need to begin the sometimes challenging work of compromise and consensus building between Republicans and Democrats, between Mr. Newhouse and Mr. Curbelo, and me and Ms. Lofgren and others--not with Stephen Miller, Steve King, or Louie Gohmert. Reject these bills. Keep families together. Let's work together on border security, on fixing our broken immigration system, on uniting families, on a permanent solution for Dreamers, to ensure that this horror and affront to our American values ends and doesn't repeat itself ever again. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to go to the definition of the word compromise, because I think that there needs to be education regarding what these words mean that are being tossed around. A compromise is an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. It doesn't mean looking at yourself in the mirror and conceding to yourself. It doesn't mean Republicans going into a closed-door meeting and coming out with a bill that makes things worse. It means Republicans and Democrats working together, each giving up some things, each living with what they can accept. I have worked hard on compromise with many of my Republican colleagues through the Problem Solvers Caucus to solve and provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers while securing our border. This bill makes things worse. It guts legal immigration. It eliminates two family immigration programs: married children of U.S. citizens, and siblings of U.S. adults. It doesn't even grandfather in people already in the system waiting to be reunited with their families, meaning that it will eliminate the current legal way that families can be reunified. This bill raises the credible fear standard for asylum seekers to begin the process by raising the standards to more probably than not. This bill does nothing to prevent the Trump administration's grotesque policy of separating parents and children at the border. In fact, it simply removes protections for those families who are currently not separated at points of entry. And now we are hearing that President Trump is preparing military bases to house up to 20,000 more kids that he plans to snatch from their moms and their dads. We can do better. This humanitarian crisis is entirely President Trump's making. He didn't do it before the last 90 days. He just started a misinterpretation of the law. His recent executive order is not a solution. Over 2,300 kids have already been separated from their parents and there is no plan to reunite them. This order doesn't even require any families be detained together, and the order doesn't contain any prohibitions barring family separation. We know that separating kids is wrong. I hope Americans agree that this is bad for kids. But let's also look at science. The American Academy of Pediatrics said that the incarceration of families and separation of families has long-term consequences for the health and wellbeing, mental and physical, for children and parents. Separation consequences include: post-traumatic stress disorder, developmental delays, and poor psychological adjustment. I dare say that these policies of the Trump administration, who on their own decided to tear 1- and 2- and 3-year-old kids away from their parents, is going to create even greater needs for these next generation of kids, many of whom will grow up here legally, those who successfully pursue their asylum claims. And while those immigration claims are being adjudicated, some might have to return to their native country. Some will be able to stay. Families should be together. No parent should have to see their own child stripped away. This bill is hemorrhaging support. I have an article that I include in the Record from Politico stating that the Koch network won't support the House immigration bills, entitled: ``Koch network raps Trump, won't support House immigration bills.'' [From POLITICO, June 19, 2018] Koch Network Raps Trump, Won't Support House Immigration Bills (By Maggie Severns) The political network founded by the Koch brothers is taking a stand against both President Donald Trump's policy toward separating families at the border and two immigration bills due for votes in the House this week, dealing a blow to GOP leaders who are marshaling support for their version. ``It's encouraging that the House will have a debate this week on immigration bills that include protections for the Dreamers,'' said Daniel Garza, president of the Koch network's LIBRE Initiative, referring to a group of undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. ``Unfortunately, in their current form, both [House leadership's bill and an alternative immigration bill] expected to receive a vote fall short of the solution we need.'' Garza also called on Trump to ``take immediate action to end the separation of families at the border by rescinding the `zero tolerance' policy.'' The Kochs' push for a more moderate approach toward immigration legislation complicates the thorny debate in Washington. Lawmakers have called on Trump to stop his administration from splitting up immigrant families, which has drawn public outrage since he implemented a zero tolerance policy of prosecuting everyone who crosses the border illegally. Trump has refused to act alone, saying Congress needs to pass immigration legislation. The Koch brothers have pushed the Republican Party to create a path to citizenship for Dreamers, who were extended protections under the Obama administration that Trump has tried to withdraw. The Kochs also have urged the GOP not to make severe cuts to the flow of immigrants into the country, even launching a seven-figure ad buy supporting their efforts. House Republicans were coalescing around an immigration bill supported by House leadership that would, among other things, give some protections to Dreamers. Its path forward was already complicated: Trump blasted the measure last week, but later Tuesday he was expected to travel to Capitol Hill to rally Republicans behind it. The Kochs' opposition to the GOP leadership bill could make it even more difficult for House Speaker Paul Ryan to unite his caucus behind it. Conservatives favor a second bill, also due for a vote this week, from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Garza said in a statement that ``it's clear there's strong support in Congress and among the American people to provide permanency to the Dreamers,'' but neither bill ``affords the Dreamers the certainty they need to make a full contribution to American communities,'' and both ``include arbitrary cuts to legal immigration.''

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Newhouse may be proud, but there are no other Republicans who have come to the floor to join him. We have so many Democrats who want to speak about how you can unite families that I don't even have enough time to give. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague Mr. Newhouse if he will yield me the balance of his time. Well, I wish he would, because no Republicans are willing to face the American people, because they know they are not working to solve this issue. They are working to tear more families apart. And they are lying about it, Mr. Speaker. They are lying about it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).