Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say in response to my friend that the committee did a lot of work through the night and voted on a number of issues that Members raised, and many of the items that they voted on were not subject to their own hearings. What we are seeing here is a failure of Speaker Ryan to follow through on his pledge for regular order. What is regular order? There is a committee markup of the bill for good or bad. Sometimes the chairman has things in that bill he or she doesn't want. Other times it is exactly like they want it. That gets reported out to the Committee on Rules, and other Members have a chance to change it. If any Member of this body wanted to remove women from the Selective Service, which was in the HASC markup, they would simply offer an amendment to do so. That is the normal process. There would be debate and there would be a vote. Instead of that process, there is a mysterious self-executing amendment in the rule itself; so the rule, itself, controverts the actual bill that the HASC reported out. It actually changes the very bill that the committee worked on without a vote, without debate, and that is the opposite of regular order, the opposite of the process that allows Members to fully debate and vet these issues. This rule actually stifles the debate on this very issue that the HASC weighed in on. It is my understanding it is in the Senate bill, to include women in Selective Service as well. I think it will likely be in any conference report that comes out. But for whatever reason, rather than having the debate and vote on the floor, it is being hidden behind a procedural trick in a self-executing rule. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton) to discuss the bill and the rule.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule with the self-executing language which undoes the committee language, in violation of regular order. Vote ``no'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is particularly ironic that the gentleman is touting the bipartisan amendments. It is one of those bipartisan amendments that adds women in the Selective Service that is stripped out of the HASC bill, of the committee's bill right here in this rule, through a self-executing amendment. So this rule, if it were to pass--and I hope it doesn't. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle vote ``no.'' This rule undoes one of those very bipartisan amendments that the gentleman is touting. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to take some time to highlight some of the terrible environmental provisions that run counter to our national security imperative to create a more sustainable society that are in this bill or that have been submitted as amendments to this bill. For instance, there has been an amendment that would block implementation of the collaborative Federal land use plans and prevent listing of the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act for the next decade. We have had extensive hearings in another committee I serve on, the Natural Resources Committee. This has nothing to do with defense. In fact, we hold up the collaborative Federal land use plan as an example of how to avoid listing this species and, yet, make sure that we can maintain a viable habitat. I think it was a great success. I think it is ridiculous that we are talking about amending a national defense bill to undo something that we have had extensive hearings on in the Natural Resources Committee and is held up by all parties involved as a huge success. In addition, there is going to be an amendment offered to sell off over 800,000 acres of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge in Nevada. It would be transferred to the Air Force, which has not requested a transfer. The Air Force has not requested this land for any military use; yet, there is a bill to impose the management of these lands on the Air Force. It would represent a harmful public land sell-off precedent. It is important habitat for desert bighorn sheep, mule deer, mountain lions, and other wildlife. As we mentioned, the Air Force has not requested the stewardship of these lands. Of course, it would put a costly new burden on the Air Force to the detriment of our national security. In addition, there are two provisions already in the NDAA that will remove or block Federal endangered species protections for the American burrowing beetle and the lesser prairie chicken. Again, I am happy to have those debates. But what on Earth do they have to do with national defense, and why are they in the committee bill? Section 2866 would block ESA protections for the lesser prairie chicken for 6 years and then impose arbitrary restrictions on whether the Secretary of the Interior can relist the lesser prairie chicken, regardless of its biological status, even if there is only a handful left or it is nearing extinction. Section 2866 would also immediately and permanently remove the burrowing beetle for protection under the Endangered Species Act and prevent it from receiving any protections in the future. Our biodiversity is a source of strength. To somehow have a backdoor attempt--if you can't get these things through the proper regular order of the Natural Resources Committee, to somehow say that the burrowing beetle has something to do with national defense is a great stretch of our rules of germaneness that we have here in the body of this House. More perilously, more dangerously, there is language in the House NDAA bill that is a repeal of section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The purpose of this law is to reduce the Department of Defense's dependence on oil from hostile regimes of the world. So it is a disparate element of advanced lower carbon fuels to promote energy security. Repealing this provision is something the Department of Defense does not want. It would be unwise for our clean energy future. So this bill actually detracts from the current language in the repeal of section 526. It reduces our energy security as a Nation, renders us to be more reliant on foreign powers for our oil, just as the budgetary tricks in this bill will force us to borrow more from China and Saudi Arabia to spend this year. Finally, there is some damaging language about aquatic invasive species, which, of course, cost billions of dollars annually when we deal with the zebra mussels in lakes in Colorado, damaging shipping, damage to industrial and government facilities. Invasive species cause great irreversible damage to coastal and inland waters, including some in my district. Once a nonnative species invades a lake or river, it is basically impossible to eliminate, as we know. S. 373, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, or VIDA, would discard the Clean Waters Act goal of stopping further invasive species and replace it with a law that would instead put ineffective standards for removing invasive species from ships' ballast water discharges that bear no relation to protection of water quality. So, again, this bill will strip out very important measures that would prevent the dissemination of invasive species. Even in the lakes in my district, including in Grand County, we have had a devastating impact of the zebra mussel invasive species both on local habitat as well as directly on recreational ships and boaters. There is not a direct military aspect to where we are, but, again, this applies to both military and shipping and is a great cost to the American economy when these invasive species threaten us. Again, these are issues people may differ on. I am happy to have that debate. In fact, it is a little bit of deja vu. I feel like I have had that debate on the Natural Resources Committee. We have debated many of these same things. But instead of bills being reported out of that committee and coming to the floor, apparently, the NDAA is seen by some as a catchall to attack our environmental safeguards. That is wrong. That actually detracts from our national security. It makes us more reliant on foreign oil. It is the wrong direction for the bill, the wrong direction for national defense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, my friends, the time for immigration reform is now so as to increase our economic growth, creating good jobs for Americans; to reduce our budget deficit by over $200 billion; to improve our national security so we know who is here and what they are doing; to make sure that people who are here legally have the ability to get jobs and so that we have the ability to screen out people who are violating our laws; to restore the rule of law; to secure our border; to unite families so we don't tear American children from their immigrant parents. For all of these reasons and more, it is time for this body to act. Only Congress can pass comprehensive immigration reform. Only Congress can enforce our laws. Only Congress can ensure that we grow our economy, meet the needs of our labor force, grow jobs for American families, and increase wages, all through comprehensive immigration reform. I call upon my Republican and Democratic friends to stop waiting and to act and to take up comprehensive immigration reform now.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise before this body of Congress to recognize Dr. John Warner of Breckenridge, Colorado. John has served on the town council of Breckenridge for 14 years and the last 8 years as mayor. Being mayor of one of the country's premier resort communities has its challenges, but John has guided his community through both growth and uncertainty with integrity and passion. His steadfast commitment to making the place that residents call home a better place is an inspiration to us all. The hallmark of John's tenure was sustainability, and many important projects resulted from his efforts, like the new recycling facility, three solar projects, hybrid vehicles in the town's fleet, and a sustainability certification program for businesses. Despite many complicated issues, John took each one with a calm assuredness and a balanced approach. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to pay tribute to Dr. John G. Warner on behalf of the residents of the Second Congressional District and myself. His contributions to the town of Breckenridge will remain his legacy for many years to come.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this package before us cannot be the final word. Congress needs to approve funding to develop a comprehensive response to this epidemic and save lives. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that, in addition to including all of the opioid bills passed this week, which I do support, will also provide $600 million in funding to address the opioid epidemic. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule today that provides for consideration of S. 524. As has been discussed on the floor this week, Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in the midst of an epidemic. While opioid abuse is nothing new, the numbers are getting more and more alarming. Addiction claimed over 28,000 lives in 2014 and drastically altered many more for the worst. All week we have heard stories from both sides of the aisle speaking to how addiction is breaking apart families and communities. Today we are considering a package of bills that will hopefully take some meaningful steps towards addressing this crisis. Prescription drug addiction is a very complex issue. There is no simple solution. It is a subject that deserves comprehensive debate and full consideration of ideas that Democratic and Republican Members have to be able to address: this public health crisis. While I and many of my Democratic colleagues are supportive of the underlying legislation, there are problems with the process that have locked out ideas that can save lives that are being prevented from coming to the floor under this rule. Of the 18 bills included under this rule, all but 2 were brought to the floor on suspension. What does that mean? It means no Members-- Democratic or Republican--were allowed to amend or improve 16 of these 18 bills. The scope of the two bills that were brought forward in a manner that allowed amendments was so narrow that it closed out many of the amendments that we considered in the Rules Committee because they weren't germane to these two particular bills. I find that very frustrating. It limits discussion on a major public health crisis, something that is an issue that is not at all partisan. Many bipartisan amendments that I will talk about in a moment, many ideas from Republicans and Democrats, were simply not even allowed to be considered in this process. Amendments that would save lives, amendments that families would be grateful for, and amendments that would reduce opioid abuse in our country are not even allowed to be considered here on the floor of the House. These were not amendments with an ideological agenda. Sometimes we are down here on a bill that is highly ideological and there are amendments that are locked out that would change it drastically or gut it. No, these are good faith efforts and ideas from the experiences that many of us have had back in our own districts as to how we can address this opioid abuse crisis that we are facing nationally. Among the amendments that should have been allowed this week and why I am urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule--one amendment that was locked out was a bipartisan amendment by Representatives Ann Kuster and Frank Guinta, my colleagues from New Hampshire, which is really one of the ground zero areas for this crisis, offered a bipartisan amendment to H.R. 4641 that would have allowed HHS to award grants to recovery community organizations. Their amendment acknowledges that recovery is a long road. For any of us, including myself, who have known people who have been in recovery from drug addiction, they know it is difficult. It is a real test of internal fortitude for them. Of course, their community and family need to rally around and support their sobriety. We need to be supporting not only prevention and initial treatment, but also lifetime support for the lifetime struggle to pull people out of the vicious cycle of addiction. This amendment that was blocked under this rule took the long view that, to address this crisis, we need the long-term support of recovery community organizations. Now, we know how pressing this issue is for our New Hampshire colleagues, Republican and Democratic. So why not open up this process to allow their idea to be debated on its merits? If Members of Congress found it lacking merit, of course, it would be the prerogative of Members of this body to vote it down; but at least have that debate, and I honestly think that it likely would have passed. Representatives Katherine Clark and Evan Jenkins offered a bipartisan amendment to H.R. 4641--again, locked out under this rule. We are not allowed to debate it, and we are not allowed to vote on it. Their proposal, very simply, would have authorized grants for the creation of comprehensive systems to provide support for prescribers with regard to patient pain and substance abuse. According to a study in the Journal of Opioid Management, fewer than half of primary care providers felt sufficiently trained in prescribing opioids. This would have helped address that training gap of prescribers so that they would less often use opioids and more frequently use alternative pain reduction prescriptions. It is our doctors and nurse practitioners and nurses who are on the front lines. They need to be adequately prepared to deal with patients in pain and with patients who are in the throes of addiction. Again, unfortunately, under this rule, Katherine Clark and Evan Jenkins' amendment is not allowed to be considered by this body. I, personally, offered a bipartisan amendment with Mr. Rohrabacher of California that would have required the Pain Management Task Force, created in H.R. 4641, to take into consideration the potential for marijuana to serve as an alternative to opioids for pain management. Several private studies have yielded promising results. In 2014, the Journal of Pain found that those who suffer from chronic pain reduced their use of opioids by a significant margin when using marijuana for medicinal purposes. Marijuana likely won't work in every instance where somebody has chronic pain, but, where it does, you have a far less harmful, less addictive option with much more limited side effects than opioids and painkillers. We shouldn't be taking an option with limited side effects off the table when it could help free millions of Americans from excruciating pain and crippling addiction. Unfortunately, that amendment--simply an amendment to take into consideration and study the issue--was also blocked under this rule. Those are some of the many examples. As I mentioned, none of the amendments made it out of the Rules Committee, and our colleagues will not have the opportunity to weigh in on the House floor. A wide variety of amendments were blocked. From a process perspective, this is really irresponsible of this body, when responding to an epidemic of this complexity, to not debate and solicit ideas--bipartisan ideas, Republican ideas, and Democratic ideas--from Members of this body and to find creative solutions that can actually save lives and would be of great comfort to families who are affected. My other concern is that the majority has authorized, but has not funded or appropriated any of the programs under these bills. In February, the President submitted a proposal that would have provided $1.1 billion in new funding to address this epidemic in enforcement and treatment. Despite that, this bill has no funding for these efforts. Combating addiction is truly a bipartisan effort. When close to 100 Americans are dying from drug overdoses every day, we have to work together to change that. I think that, unfortunately, under this rule, while this might be some baby steps forward, we are falling short of the mark of really being able to put our very best thinking and very best solutions forward. According to the CDC, since 1999, the number of prescription opioids sold in the United States has quadrupled despite no discernible change in the pain that Americans are reporting. So in a 15-year period, opioids are used four times as much. That is the precursor to this opioid addiction problem, and we need to do more to address that overprescription of opioids. In my home State of Colorado, the statewide rate of drug overdose deaths increased from 9.7 percent per 100,000 residents to 16.3 percent per 100,000 residents. Opioids were a major component of that. Nationally, there have been even larger increases. Since 1999, deaths from prescription opioids, like oxycodone, hydrocodone, and methadone, have quadrupled. So it is no surprise the number of prescription opioids sold in the United States have quadrupled and deaths have quadrupled. It is no coincidence that those numbers are similar. In 2014, almost 2 million Americans had some level of dependence on prescription pain relievers. This trend has especially dire consequences during pregnancy, which one of our bills addresses. In the last decade alone, over 130,000 infants were born with newborn drug withdrawal symptoms. Given the extremity of circumstances surrounding opioid abuse in this country, I am glad that this body is devoting some effort towards casting a critical eye on what we can do; and I am saddened that this body didn't have a more open process to include many of the ideas, which I mentioned earlier, from bipartisan Members of this body and others that are simply locked out under this rule. The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported out 12 bills. The Committee on Foreign Affairs considered a bill to allow the Treasury Department to block international drug traffickers from using the U.S. financial system. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs passed out a bill. I was also pleased that the committee that I serve on, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, took up a bill that I coauthored along with Representatives Barletta and Clark and Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Scott and Representative Walberg--the Infant Plan of Safe Care Improvement Act--which directs child protective service agencies to develop a safe care plan to closely monitor the health outcomes for infants who are born with this syndrome. The scourge of opioid addiction has touched families in my district and across the country. No State has managed to avoid it. I stand in opposition to this rule because, truly, we need to do everything we can to address this emergency, including debating good ideas, creative ideas from both sides of the aisle, and letting the Members decide, based on their own experiences, their own creative solutions as to what we can do to help combat this scourge that has affected our country. I reserve 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, I yield myself 2 minutes. I rise today to honor a constituent of mine, Mr. Timothy J. Gagen of Breckenridge, Colorado. Tim is retiring from 40 years of civil service in municipal government. He has served towns and cities across Colorado, Illinois, and Indiana and recently received the Colorado City and County Management Association's Lifetime Achievement Award. During his tenure in Colorado, Tim was instrumental in working with various entities, including the EPA, U.S. Army, Colorado State Health Board, and the U.S. Attorney General on two Superfund sites. Tim was influential in the formation and success of our Highway 70 Coalition, an organization of governments that works with the Colorado Department of Transportation to improve safety and reduce congestion along our important Highway 70, the main artery to our mountain communities. He spearheaded a crucial land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service that provided for much-needed workforce housing, and we were able to get a bill passed here and signed into law to get it done. Tim's steadfast focus on the most important elements to our community--the people who live and work in the area--resulted in the Breckenridge Vision, developed by citizens. Tim's accomplishments are highlighted by two early learning centers, a scholarship program to assist parents from the county, and nearly 1,000 workforce affordable housing units in the town with a population of 4,500. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Timothy J. Gagen on behalf of the residents of the Second Congressional District. His contributions to the town of Breckenridge will remain his legacy for many years to come. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, there have been harrowing tales told here on the floor of the House, and there is no doubt opioid addiction is a segment of that. It is a public health crisis in this country that is hurting communities, hurting families, killing people. In 2012, enough prescriptions were written for opioids to give every single adult in this country their own bottle. Prescriptions for opioids have increased four times in the last 15 years. That is four times as many prescriptions. We need to do something. It is a start today. It is not enough. It is not enough. Unfortunately, these rules block out and prevent many creative and effective ideas from both sides of the aisle from coming to the floor. We also have missed the opportunity to provide funding to address treatment and enforcement. The fact that both parties in both Chambers have come together to tackle opioid addiction is a testament to how far the reach of this epidemic is. Every district has been affected; every Member of this body has taken note. I and many of us know families and individuals whose lives have been devastated or ended prematurely from the opioid crisis. It is crucial that we approach the problem from every possible angle: support for providers, training for law enforcement, well-funded treatment centers, thoughtful policies for addicted parents, education for our youth, innovative dispensing technologies, alternative pain management therapies. There are so many ideas to consider. This rule packages 18 bills that address part of the problem together. Unfortunately, 16 of them don't allow amendments, and the 2 that do, many amendments were ruled out for lack of being germane. Given the rate of deaths from prescription opioid abuse, we should allow a full debate of amendments and ideas on the floor of the House to address this issue. Yes, we are taking a first step today, but there is a lot more work to do to save lives and help families across our country. We need to fund these programs so they are not just words on a page. This is a very real issue with real implications for American families, and we owe it to American families across the country to have a more open and thorough process to do more to combat the opioid scourge. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring forward Ms. Kuster's amendment, ``no'' on the underlying rule, and ``yes'' on the underlying bills. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the passage of the Email Privacy Act is an enormous victory. It is a victory for all Americans who believe in the right to privacy, in the Fourth Amendment, and in due process. The Email Privacy Act mandates, for the first time, that Americans have the same legal protection for their emails as they do for papers, letters, faxes, and other old communications. The bill protects those of us--myself included and many Members of this body--who have email accounts in the cloud. Maybe it is Google mail or Yahoo Mail or AOL or other email accounts on their hard drives. It makes sure that the government doesn't have the right, without a warrant, to search emails that are older than 180 days. This bill is also a victory for bipartisanship. When I introduced the bill, along with my colleague Mr. Yoder, in the winter of 2015, we knew it would be popular. Yet, as this bill sits before us today, ready for passage, I am very proud to say it has garnered 314 cosponsors, and it stands as the single most popular bill in this session of the House of Representatives. I am excited that it is scheduled for a floor vote. When Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986, electronic communications were different than they are today. They didn't really exist as such. A few professors were using a predecessor for the Internet. It was not a mass form of communication. Today, with 24/7 accessibility with mobile devices and laptops, over 205 billion emails are sent every day, according to some estimates, including many that contain our private communications for millions of Americans who deserve the same right to privacy as documents in a file cabinet. With the passage of the Email Privacy Act, Congress will ensure that your emails that are older than 180 days are subject to the same protection under the Fourth Amendment. You often hear Members on both sides of the aisle talk about commonsense bills. When you read our bill and when you look at the immense support, there is nothing more common sense than the Email Privacy Act. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and pass the bill. I urge the Senate to take it up and act. There is the unanimous support from the House Judiciary Committee and, as of today--hopefully soon-- overwhelming support on the floor of the House. This bill should be passed. It should be brought to the desk of the President of the United States. We should finally bring our email privacy laws into the 21st century.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. The United States leads the global economy on innovation. There are a lot of pieces of the innovation agenda, some that Republicans and Democrats disagree on, some that they agree on. I am pleased to be here today on a small but important piece that can help move the innovation agenda forward, help America retain and grow its competitive advantage. Let me set the scene. This could be a ballroom at a university, it could be a theater that is rented out for the night. There might be 5 or 10 teams of entrepreneurs who worked hard on their business plans. Perhaps they were part of some business plan competition to refine what they call their pitch deck. The audience fills out. Who is in the audience? It wouldn't be a worthwhile event if there weren't potential investors there. So, of course, the bulk of the audience--it could be half, it could be three-quarters, it could be most of it--will be accredited investors. They are the only people who can invest in these companies. Who else should be in the room? Who do we want to make sure that we don't seal off the opportunity to learn and gain from that experience? Well, it could be university faculty, graduate students, professors. They don't happen to be worth $2 million, but they might have technical expertise. They might be able to be consultants. They might be professionals, lawyers and bankers, who might be able to assist the companies develop, patent their ideas, and raise money. It might be students and future entrepreneurs who want to learn about the pitch process so they, too, can refine their ideas and be on the stage the next time around. That is what this bill allows, for us to make sure that the great opportunity that this country offers reaches people from all economic backgrounds. We can't lock everybody except for the millionaires and billionaires out of the room that helps form the seed capital for tomorrow's great company. HALOS does not change the existing law about who can and can't buy private securities. What it does do is allow folks who are not accredited investors, who are not there as a potential investor to be in the room, to learn from the experience, to perhaps get a job if they are an aspiring programmer, to have to team up with one of the companies that presented as a cofounder to complement some of the competencies that the other founder has, to make sure that they, too, are in that great room of opportunity.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I believe our startup communities will be strengthened. Startup ecosystems like the ones that I am proud to say exist in towns like Fort Collins and Boulder in my district can be made more diverse through this law and will inevitably make sure that those in the room can expand opportunity beyond people who are already millionaires and billionaires. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of legendary actor David O. Frazier whose extraordinary career in the theatre spanned a half century rousing and enchanting audiences around the world with an artistic repertoire which one critic described as bringing ``fire from the sky.'' David O. Frazier appeared in more than 150 theatrical productions, many at the Cleveland Playhouse through four decades. He co-wrote 30 original musicals with his life partner and husband, Joseph Garry. One revue, ``Jacques Brel Is Alive and Well and Living in Paris,'' received such rave notice that though booked for only a few weeks audience response kept it at Cleveland's State Theatre for two and a half years. Frazier's stellar performances in Jacques Brel helped spark a renewal of a performing arts complex at Playhouse Square which stands today as one of the largest in America. Frazier's memorable role as playwright Brendan Behan in ``Conversations With an Irish Rascal,'' also directed by Joseph Garry, went from 90 performances at Playhouse Square to cheers at the Edinburgh Festival, to a rollicking reception off-Broadway and then to audiences worldwide. David Frazier infused his magic into every performance and added to his fame as a performer of great magnitude which ``grabbed the audience by the throat.'' The native of Kankekee, Illinois journeyed to the Cleveland area as a young man where he met the love of his life, Joseph Garry, who was directing ``Carnival.'' Joe took on a new capacity, directing David to audition at the Cleveland Play House which led to him starring in 50 theatrical productions and to nearly 50 years as a couple with Joe, in an eternal partnership of love which marked Joe and David as courageous, celebrated and beloved with great intensity by all who know them. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the House of Representatives, please join me in honor and recognition of the life and the memory of actor David O. Frazier and to celebrate a man, a couple and a career which has enriched the lives of people everywhere. I submit the following article. Legendary `Jacques Brel' Actor David O. Frazier Remembered as a Titan of the Cleveland Stage (Appreciation) (Andrea Simakis, The Plain Dealer) Cleveland, Ohio.--There is a fine musical to be written about the life and times of David O. Frazier, who died Sunday at age 76. It would be filled with music both sad and joyous, and feature lavish costumes and exotic locales to reflect his love of travel, a passion he indulged with Joseph Garry Jr., his collaborator in art and life for 49 years. The two spanned the globe like characters plucked from a Jules Verne novel, Cleveland's version of Phileas Fogg and his resourceful French valet, Passepartout. The tuner would be a resounding hit, one audiences would want to return to again and again, a show as warm, witty and wise as Frazier himself, as anyone lucky enough to spend even minutes in his orbit can attest. During his tenure as one of Cleveland's most notable artists, Frazier appeared in more than 150 productions--many at the Cleveland Play House, where he acted for nearly four decades--and co-wrote 30 original musicals with Garry. Despite that resume, he is best known for his part in ``Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris,'' the revue directed by Garry and performed in the lobby of the dilapidated State Theatre in the pre-renovation 1970s. A showcase for the songs of Belgian composer and enigmatic showman Jacques Brel, the cabaret opened in April of 1973. Though booked for a few weeks, it proved so popular it ran for an astonishing two-and-a half-years, launching what critics called ``the Brel era,'' the beginning of a renaissance that not only saved Playhouse Square and its grand, crumbling houses from the wrecking ball but led to its becoming the second-largest performing-arts complex in America. Gina Vernaci, architect of the KeyBank Broadway Series at Playhouse Square, offered her sympathies by celebrating that remarkable legacy. ``David and Joe Garry have been beloved fixtures at Playhouse Square since the days of `Jacques Brel,' '' Vernaci wrote. ``With his cast mates Cliff Bemis, Terry Piteo and Prov Hollander, and under the direction of Joe and musical director David Gooding, David gave his all in 522 performances of the show that was the catalyst for the saving of our historic theaters. His passing leaves a hole in our hearts that will not be filled. Our condolences go out to Joe and to David's family, friends and all those who knew him.'' And so many did. As news of his death spread, emails began arriving to Garry's inbox--from Nepal, Rio, Paris and London. There was even a note from the Princess of Kuwait, the result of Frazier and Garry's performing on cruise ships, a run that lasted 10 years, from 2000 to 2010. Their residencies aboard the Queen Mary and other storied vessels took them from Tierra del Fuego to the North Pole, Frazier mostly doing cabaret, Garry onstage also as narrator and storyteller. Their shows weren't the usual ``Love Boat'' cliche. ``For example,'' remembered Garry, ``we would perform a musical piece on Gauguin and then take the audience to his gravesite [next to Brel] in the South Pacific.'' Though they stayed closer to home as Frazier's health declined, they were never far from the Cleveland theater scene they helped create, attending performances in and around Playhouse Square, Frazier balancing on a cane and then later, ferried along by Garry in a wheelchair. ``During David's long illness, Joe was the perfect caretaker,'' said longtime Cleveland critic Roy Berko, recalling how Garry carefully transferred Frazier to his seat in the orchestra. Ever the performer, Frazier ``worked at an illusion of wellness,'' said Garry. ``Even in the wheelchair.'' Without Frazier, there might well have been no ``Brel era'' and, consequently, no gala unveiling of the world's largest outdoor chandelier, no home for touring Broadway, no downtown arts mecca. There would only be more parking lots. ``As a matter of fact I didn't like `Jacques Brel' at all when I first saw it in London,'' Garry explained to The Plain Dealer's theater critic Peter Bellamy in 1977, ``and only after hearing David play the recording for five years did I consent to direct the musical. Then I grew to love it.'' First staged by Garry for the Berea Summer Theatre before taking up residence at the State, ``Jacques Brel's'' devotees flocked to it with the zeal of ``Rocky Horror'' groupies. Bill Rudman, founder and artistic director of the Musical Theater Project, was among them. ``My girlfriend and I saw it six times--it was Our Show!'' Rudman remembered in an email. ``And the same could be said for hundreds of other couples in town. ``David was just plain riveting. Whatever he was doing on stage--whatever he was saying--he was so present that you felt you were right there with him.'' ``Just ask Clevelanders who were here when `Brel' ran,'' wrote John David Sidley in The Plain Dealer's magazine on the occasion of a 10th anniversary revival in 1985. ``And if you can find some who never attended, you will discover them almost apologetic--as if they were bring forced to admit they voted for Nixon.'' In his rave, Bellamy explained the oddball allure of ``Jacques Brel.'' ``The production has no plot, consisting of a little dialogue and many songs. They treat of angels and devils, of dreams and hope, of despair and the hell of war. They also deal with youth, old age, drunks, prostitutes, dogs, rainbows, cotton candy, carousels and calliopes. ``Brel is a poet and philosopher as well as a composer. He is concerned not only with man's atrocities, but his nobility. He comments, but does not preach. He mentions Vietnam and Hiroshima, but is not bitter. He has compassion for the human condition. ``. . . Frazier, remembered for his many fine roles at the [Cleveland] Play House, has a voice of great power and provides many moments of hilarity with his clowning and pantomime.'' Fans so identified Frazier with the project they often thought he was the Belgian songwriter himself, remembered friend Frank Dutton in a Facebook tribute to Frazier. Dutton was a self-described ``mangy teenager'' in the 1970s, working coat check during the initial run of ``Brel.'' ``For some reason some people thought David was Brel!'' Dutton wrote. ``They would usually say things like `I just love that Jacks Brel (sic), you tell Mr. Brel how much we enjoyed his show.' We always wondered why no one thought Cliff was Brel. In actuality, neither of them looked like Brel, but maybe David is what people thought Brel would look like.'' Frazier followed that success with his turn as playwright and personality Brendan Behan in ``Conversations With an Irish Rascal'' in 1975, a musical biography filled Irish songs and ballads that Frazier wrote with the late publicist Kathleen Kennedy. Bellamy dubbed Frazier, who learned to play the harmonica for the role, ``magnificent.'' After clocking a healthy 90 performances at Playhouse Square, ``Rascal,'' also directed by Garry, went on to a celebrated stand at the Edinburgh Festival and an off-Broadway premiere at the Top of the Gate Theater, later known as the Village Gate, a famous Greenwich Village spot that once hosted jazz greats John Coltrane and Dizzy Gillespie, rockers Patti Smith and Jimi Hendrix, and Broadway darling Tommy Tune. Frazier tore his pants the night of the opening, sending Garry running to find a costumer at a show that was playing downstairs. No luck, quipped Garry, as ``Let My People Come'' was an explicit musical about sex that featured a nude cast. Though The New York Times' Clive Barnes dismissed ``Rascal,'' it won fans on tour. ``We performed `Rascal' all over the world,'' Garry wrote in a guest column for The Plain Dealer in 1976, ``everywhere from the National Theatre of Scotland to a brothel in the Caribbean. We have performed it before 50 people and 1000 people and its ability to leave an imprint on your soul never dies. There is that kind of nakedness to it.'' Certainly, that had something to do with the man himself. Despite his celebrity, Frazier threw himself into parts with the eagerness of a novice, no matter the size of the stage. As the star in a production of ``The King and I'' for Berea Summer Theatre in 1977, Frazier shaved his head, pierced his ear (``at a Miss Bojangles' establishment,'' Frazier reported), grew a ``Fu Manchu mustache'' and lost 40 pounds. (``I did not wish the show to be known as `Anna and the Fat of Siam.' '') He also nearly severed a middle toe colliding with a metal coat rack racing to the dressing room for a quick change on the second night of the show. He wrapped the injured digit in masking tape and made it through the polka in ``Shall We Dance.'' Inspired by pain, his death scene that night ``was the best . . . of my career.'' He was admitted to the hospital as ``King of Siam.'' The only member of Actors' Equity, the professional actors' union, in the production. Frazier, in order to defray costs, helped sew his own costumes and styled the hair of his 12 stage wives. In an especially delicious anecdote, the Kankakee, Illinois, native dropped out of hairdressing school to join the resident company of the Cleveland Play House in 1966. (He also picked cotton in Texas; worked as an Air Force supply clerk in Missouri; sold stationery in Kansas City, Missouri, where he once moonlighted as a female impersonator; and hawked men's sportswear at Higbee's in Cleveland, among other pursuits.) The versatile song-and-dance man who could also rivet in straight plays became an elite member of the Tony Award- winning theater's Hall of Fame in July of 2001. Frazier ``sings with zest and acts with gusto,'' Bellamy wrote in his review of the ``King and I,'' another Garry production, and those who knew and loved him best say he approached his days the same way. ``David Frazier had a raucous, ebullient love of life, on stage and off,'' said Cleveland Scene theater critic and performer Christine Howey. ``His performances in `Jacques Brel' as well as many other productions were always fiery, intense and memorable. But more than that, he was a loving and compassionate friend. I can still hear his booming laughter that punctuated most conversations, and I trust I always will.'' But no one knew him better than Garry. In truth, there is no way to celebrate one without speaking of the other. They met at Berea Summer Theatre, where Garry was helming ``Carnival.'' With a keen eye for talent, Garry advised him. ``to give up all this other nonsense,'' including those barbershop dreams, and audition for K. Elmo Lowe, then artistic director of the Play House. Frazier did, appearing in some 50 productions, everything from Garry's rocked-out version of Aristophanes' ``The Birds'' to the Sam Shepard modern masterpiece ``Buried Child.'' He was known, said managing director Kevin Moore, for his immense talent to create a wide variety of characters and as ``a gregarious and loving gentleman.'' In a short, poignant video shot during the 100th anniversary celebrations at Cleveland Play House in October 2015, Frazier recollected his almost 40 years as an actor there, holding the theater's Tony. ``I had great moments here,'' he said, surrounded by Garry and artistic director Laura Kepley, ``too many to mention, so I just think this is the best moment of all,'' he said, spinning the little silver disc on the statuette. After the first rehearsal of ``Carnival,'' he asked to store some of his things at Garry's place for a weekend during a move. The stuff--and Frazier--stayed. ``His timing,'' said Garry, ``was always perfect.'' Their sultanate of a condo in Bratenahl is legendary, a museum of artifacts from their voyages--elaborate masks and statuary and rainbows of wall hangings--and framed photos of the couple with friends they'd met: Patricia Neal, Rue McClanahan, Elaine Stritch, Tony Walton and Cliff Robertson. They threw Kitty Carlisle a birthday party when she turned 92 and swam laps with her in the pool. (``She won,'' Garry said.) ``He lived his life in Capital Letters . . .'' Garry wrote in an email addressed to ``Dear Family and Precious Friends'' the morning of Frazier's death. ``. . . as Peter Bellamy, the PD Drama Critic said `He brought fire from the sky.' I witnessed his life for 49 glorious years and I cherish every golden moment. David had an intensity and energy that infused everything he ever did. When he performed `Irish Rascal' at The National Theatre of Scotland a critic said `his towering performance grabbed the audience by the throat.' He grabbed my heart in the same way.'' Though the pair married two years ago on March 18, they would have celebrated 50 years together on Aug. 1. ``David kept pushing to make plans but I knew we would never reach the date,'' Garry wrote. ``We lived our lives as one . . . we were singular. The first gift I gave David included a card which read `You are the We of Me' and so he will remain.'' ``Brel, above all, is concerned with the power of love,'' wrote Bellamy of their most famous collaboration. ``One of his lines is: `Without having anything else but the strength of loving, you have in your hands the whole world.' '' That they did. ``Celebrating A Rascal,'' a memorial to David O. Frazier, will be held in the State Theatre on Monday, April 25 at 5 p.m. The public is invited to attend.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of April 17 as World Hemophilia Day. Hemophilia is a rare genetic condition that prevents the proper formation of blood clots. Four hundred newborns are diagnosed with this disease annually, and hundreds of thousands more suffer from it around the world. We share a responsibility to this global patient population to ensure that they are receiving the most innovative treatments and advanced care. In addition, we must reaffirm our commitment to research and development to try and find a cure for this dangerous condition. On World Hemophilia Day, I speak in support of the many people battling this complex disease. It is my hope that by raising awareness, we will eventually see the day where treatment for hemophilia is affordable, feasible, and accessible for all.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, Americans get it. Households have to balance their budget, businesses have to balance their budget. Not talking about it and putting your head in the sand is only a recipe for increased debt and increased liability for future generations of Americans. The fact that we are spending $400 billion or $500 billion more than we are taking in--of course we might not know about that for the next year until after the fact if we don't have a budget--the fact that we have enormous unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security doesn't go away just because Republicans ignore the topic and refuse to have a debate on balancing our budget. I am proud to sponsor a balanced budget amendment. I think that by working together, Democrats and Republicans can restore fiscal responsibility to our Nation. How can we do it? Well, I will tell you how we can't do it. We can't do it by 48 hours from the deadline to pass a budget by discussing obscure bills to codify FCC regulations with our valuable floor time. It starts with an honest discussion. It starts with Democrats and Republicans offering their budgets. I have been proud in the past to support bipartisan budgets that have come to this body. I have supported and opposed some of the Democratic budgets that my colleagues have offered, but we have to have that discussion on the floor. The work doesn't do itself and the problem doesn't go away when Republicans choose to ignore it. I wish our budget deficit was as easy to solve as simply ignoring it. Wouldn't that be convenient if we could simply ignore the budget deficit and it would go away? Wouldn't it be convenient if we could just ignore the national debt and it would go away? Wouldn't it be convenient if we could ignore the damage to agencies that an indiscriminate sequester has caused and it would simply go away? I like that line of thinking, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, it is completely unrealistic. The American people realize it is completely unrealistic. That is why when America looks to Congress and says: we have these discussions in our households about our budget, and businesses have these discussions. Why can't you, Mr. Speaker? Why can't you? That is the reason the Congressional approval rating is so low. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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