Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now. If we can defeat this particular previous question, we will bring up the bill that prevents terrorists from assembling arsenals of weapons. We also, of course, want to be part of a constructive discussion around combating the Zika menace. I am hopeful that the House will find time to do that in the next few days. 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 urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question so that we can keep our country safer. Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the underlying bills because they interfere with our efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in the rigid implementation of the JCPOA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS. The gentleman from Texas is correct. Effectively, rather than actually find resources to develop a vaccine against Zika, they basically said, we are going to be taking the money from Ebola, which, by the way, still exists, still is a threat. We need to be ready for the next threat of an Ebola or Ebola-like danger to our citizens from a public health perspective. In addition, the initial Republican attempts included things that they long wanted to do, like remove dangerous insecticides from the list of insecticides that are prohibited, due to their harm to human health as well as ecosystems and animal health. The solution is straightforward. We need to develop a vaccine. We need to increase our public health infrastructure around this menace, and the bill fell short on that account because, effectively, it said, we might be able to not deal with Ebola and deal with this instead. The truth is, the American people want a public health infrastructure that keeps them safe from Ebola and Zika and every other potential biological threat that is out there. The American people want to be safe. It is a dynamic world with increased travel, increased commerce. There are biological threats from all quarters, and we need the public health infrastructure to keep up with that.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, this is ironic because we hear from Republicans all the time about the importance of cost-benefit analyses before this regulation, before that regulation. Well, of course, we acknowledge and I acknowledge that there are costs to regulation with regard to emissions, there is no doubt. There are also benefits. I have a tourism-dependent district. We have great ski areas like Vail, Breckenridge. Well, guess what. That is climate dependent. We have agriculture in my district--climate dependent. You know what? I would also acknowledge, of course, all the costs, all the benefits, those are estimates. You know, what? No model is perfect, but I guarantee you that the model is far superior to just throwing it out altogether and having no model. There are real costs to carbon emissions, and it is completely appropriate to use the best science-driven data to estimate those in any type of regulation. It is important to look at costs as benefits, and I feel we are making the argument our Republican friends usually make. But here, in this case, they don't happen to like these particular costs. Maybe they don't think they are real. Maybe they don't believe in them. But we let science guide us. The fact that I have a weather-dependent district and we have a climate-dependent economy across our country is powerful testimony towards including the social cost of carbon. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, voluntary measures are just that, voluntary. While there might, and perhaps there are a few good actors willing to abide by them in some States, like my home State of Colorado, have implemented air standards. What we care about is the aggregate. We want to discourage a race to the bottom among producers and have a national baseline for methane emissions. While, again, frankly, I think this rule should go a lot further, at least it provides that baseline, provides the industry certainty, and helps begin the process of us getting a handle on ensuring that the air we breathe is clean and reducing climate change. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment, along with my colleagues, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Huffman, and Ms. Lujan Grisham. It is a very simple amendment. It just strikes a policy rider, section 439 of the bill. This section would block the EPA from doing its job. It would block the EPA's commonsense standards for sources of emissions of methane in the oil and gas industry, an issue that is literally in our backyards in the State of Colorado. It would even prevent the EPA from doing research into existing drill sites for methane standard purposes, and, most astonishing, it would actually prevent the EPA from clarifying the scope of emission sources, which would continue to make sure that we know less and are less protected rather than more protected. The President and the EPA are taking action to protect our country, our planet, from methane emissions. It is past time that we take bold action to combat climate change and reduce the impact of impending catastrophic changes to our climate, to our world, reducing national security and hurting our economy in tourism and agriculture-dependent districts like mine. Taking aggressive action now is, quite simply, a moral imperative, not only within the purview of the EPA, but the actual charge that Congress is giving the Environmental Protection Agency. The sad reality is that right now, the majority of our energy still comes from fossil fuels. That is why while of course we need to invest in renewables, at the same time, we can't wait to transition entirely to renewable energy before we address the extraction process that releases dangerous chemicals, such as methane as a by-product. Pound for pound, methane pollution from oil and gas wells is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is responsible for one-quarter of human- made climate change, according to scientists. These EPA rules are long overdue standards for the oil and gas industry, which will reduce methane pollution and provide certainty for the industry. Although I wish, frankly, these new rules went further, I wish, frankly, that Congress had taken bold action, these stricter standards are a good start, and they are necessary. Scientists have recently published even more convincing data showing that the methane released during natural gas extraction is a deadly climate threat. New scientific mapping shows that 12.4 million people live within a half mile of the 1.2 million active oil and gas facilities in the United States, many in my home of Colorado. This threat radius is a very conservative estimate of the distance from which toxic air emissions from oil and gas facilities have an adverse impact on public health. It is why in many areas of northern Colorado and Wyoming, we have worse air quality than downtown Los Angeles. We must not prevent the EPA from moving forward to protect our air, our water, and our planet, which is what Congress has charged them to do. It is time for us to allow them to do their science-based work. It is time to make the fossil fuel industry and fracking play by the same set of rules the rest of the country plays by, instead of letting them emit tons of chemicals, literally tons of chemicals into our air that put our health and the future of the planet in jeopardy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, you can't just pretend that things don't have costs. Of course, carbon emissions have a cost. Of course, methane emissions have a cost. It doesn't mean that people are proposing we abolish carbon emissions from our economy. It means we want to look at, in this case, methane emissions and their cost. Colorado has implemented similar rules already that the industry has adopted. There are actors in the industry who want this very certainty so they know what they need to do with regard to methane emissions. There are plenty of companies providing new recapture technologies. All this does is begin to get a handle on it. Again, in my opinion, it doesn't go far enough. In my opinion, it isn't the kind of action I would hope a bold Congress would take. But at the very least, let's have standards for methane emissions. Let's prevent a ban on research into existing drill sites for methane standard purposes. If this section is left intact, not only does it strike the emission standards, it prevents the EPA from doing research into what the standards should be or could be, so we are never going to reach ``the right answer.'' It should be beholden on those who believe that this is not the right answer to actually support the very kind of research for methane standard purposes that is blocked by this very section, which our amendment will remove from the bill. I ask for your support on this simple, commonsense amendment to remove this policy rider and help keep our air clean. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5528, the Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act. I have the great privilege of representing Colorado's major research universities: Colorado State University in Fort Collins, and the University of Colorado flagship campus in Boulder, Colorado. When I speak with financial aid offices and students who receive financial aid at both institutions, one of the first priorities and issues I hear about is how we can allow students to complete the FAFSA and hear back earlier. The FAFSA was initially created to help open the doors and make college within reach for more students; but unfortunately, too often, it has grown unwieldy, and students are forced to make decisions about where they go and whether they go to college before even knowing how much aid they are scheduled to receive. Under this legislation, students will be able to complete the FAFSA several months earlier than they do now--very important. And the bill also links data with the IRS data retrieval tool, so information can populate automatically in the FAFSA form. These changes alone will go a long way toward making the process for completing the FAFSA simpler and easier. I am proud to have worked with Representatives Pocan, Roe of Tennessee, and Heck of Nevada to have introduced this bill, and I am very excited it is coming before the floor for a vote. Now, this bill is important. It is a good, bipartisan first step, but it is one of many things that Congress needs to do to improve college access and the completion rate for students. For example, allowing students to take college courses in high school could significantly reduce the overall price they pay for college. When a student takes dual enrollment courses, they are more likely to attend college and less likely to need remedial courses. We have high schools in my home State and in my district where students graduate high school with an associate's degree at essentially no cost to them, thanks to dual enrollment. We also need to look at innovative learning models, like competency- based education, which allows students to progress through their degree based on what they know instead of seat time. This model provides a more flexible path to a degree. It could be higher quality, less expensive, and more challenging than a traditional program. Another key part of reducing the cost of college is confronting the cost of materials. A student in Colorado spends an average of $1,200 a year on textbooks alone. Open source textbooks, which are openly licensed and free to use, can eliminate that cost. In order to address these ideas, reforms, and more, we need a comprehensive reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. A reauthorization will take Democrats and Republicans working together, just like we did on this bill, which is an important first step. I am hopeful that, in the coming months, members of the Education and the Workforce Committee can begin to lay the groundwork for a reauthorization of the HEA that truly helps make college more affordable and meets the changing needs of a global economy.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, although I am glad the House of Representatives is taking a step in the right direction by reauthorizing the FAA for a few months, I am frustrated that we are not going as far as we could to protect lives that could be easily saved. On July 3, 2015, just over a year ago, there was a Flight for Life crash in Frisco, Colorado, in my district. The pilot died, and one person on board is still recovering from major burns. The death was caused not because of speed or pilot error, but simply because the fuel system didn't have a crash-resistant system that is already mandated in military helicopters. Representative Perlmutter and I have introduced the Helicopter Fuel System Safety Act, and that would require the FAA to install crash- resistant fuel systems in newly manufactured helicopters by December 31, 2016. I am glad this reauthorization language moves the FAA in that direction, but I hope that we can move forward quickly to save lives and fix this. I was also disappointed I wasn't allowed to offer several other amendments, including one which would have given local airports more flexibility in limiting flights, something of great concern for my district around flight noise for constituents near Longmont. I don't know how many of you live near airports that have continuous flights with older planes, but I hear from my constituents often on this, and I wanted the opportunity to do something about it to make sure that they can enjoy their sleep and their peace and quiet of their neighborhoods. I hope to work with the FAA, the ranking member and chairman to give communities and airports the flexibility they need to have quiet skies in the future.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I just received devastating news in a story that was just broken by Politico: House Republicans indefinitely delay gun control votes. They have indefinitely postponed a vote on the antiterrorism package leaving Congress with no legislative response to last month's massacre in Orlando. I would hope that this new information will lead the gentleman from Alabama to consider this very important request from my colleague, Mr. Huffman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, given the new information that I entered, with regard to what has just broke a the Politico article, I think it would be important to hear from Mr. Byrne again about whether he would entertain a unanimous consent request at this time, understanding his previous answer was no. So I would like, Mr. Speaker, if you will, you to pose that question to him for consideration.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, would that we run out of victims. Mr. Speaker, would that we run out of victims, but, tragically, that is not the case. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley), who has a request that will break through this Republican obstruction and save lives, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for the purpose of an important and timely unanimous consent request.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the purpose of a very important unanimous consent request.

Mr. POLIS. Point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.