Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I have one more question on that. I am a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, one of the three committees that had original jurisdiction over the Affordable Care Act. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is a member of the Ways and Means Committee, one of the two committees with jurisdiction under the budget reconciliation for this healthcare bill. I want to ask: Have you ever been invited by President Trump to discuss your ideas for healthcare reform? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and would just add, look, fire prevention, expediting water projects and hydropower, these are not partisan issues; and to prove that point, there are bipartisan bills sponsored by conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats that would solve these issues. Rather than moving either of those bills through the floor, they are moving a divisive ideological bill with unintended consequences--or, perhaps, intended consequences--that would devastate a lot of our natural resources that sportsmen and recreationists rely on for our quality of life in the mountain West and across the country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, President Trump campaigned on a promise to bring, somehow, jobs back home. He said he was going to overhaul the Tax Code, introduce an infrastructure package, and remove barriers to job creation. Unfortunately, we have yet to hear specifics on any of the administration's plans to accomplish that. My colleagues will be happy to hear that in my hand I have an amendment that will help to accomplish this goal by providing tax incentives to companies that bring overseas jobs back home. What a great idea. Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pascrell's Bring Jobs Home Act, H.R. 685. This bill closes a tax loophole that actually rewards companies for moving jobs overseas while providing a tax credit to companies that move jobs back home to our country, the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to discuss our proposal.

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

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), my friend, that there is a problem here we are trying to solve. Unfortunately, these are not the bipartisan bills that Democrats and Republicans from both sides of the aisle have worked hard to put together to do. Of course, Democrats, myself, and so many others want to expedite water projects permitting for hydro renewable energy projects. Of course, we want to free up utilities to do extra mitigation work around power lines to reduce the risk of fires. We have solid bipartisan bills that would do that. We could put them on the floor today or tomorrow, and they would have over 400 votes. There are liberal Democrats, conservative Republicans, and firefighters who support them. Utilities, Democrats, Republicans, and sportsmen support them. That is a route we could go. We could get those bills to President Trump's desk by next week and actually start preventing forest fires and facilitate the permitting process around hydro projects. But, no, instead, we are doing a very divisive bill, one that has a lot of problems that it creates, in addition to solving some of the problems that it sets out to address. I encourage my Republican friends--they are in charge; they control the agenda--to take a look at pragmatic, smart, and thoughtful ways to reduce forest fire risk, speed up water project approval, such as the bipartisan National Forest System Vegetation Management Pilot Program Act, which is a bipartisan bill. Look, this bill around the expedited water projects would circumvent a lot of the public input process that is actually so important to the success of these projects. My colleague from Colorado was referring to several water projects. One that we both care deeply about, the Northern Integrated Supply Project, NISP, is currently with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. I strongly supported extending the public comment period from 30 to 60 days--a very reasonable time to allow people more input, which actually changed how the project was done and planned. It was a very meaningful form of input to build additional public support for the project; and, when the project is completed, will lead to a better, more meaningful project, serving the water needs of our communities, as well as the impact on the lives of those who live in and near it. So, look, whether it is fixing fire borrowing, giving utilities a liability waiver while not giving them a free pass, making sure that our agencies doing water project reviews have the men and women power they need to actually get them done quickly, these are reasonable, good ideas that I think we could pass with unanimity, or near unanimity. I promise the Republicans, if you would just work with us and have an open process, we could find common ground. Let's start with these small things. Let's start with preventing forest fires around electrical fires. We will get to healthcare. We can find common ground with you on that, too. But let's start on finding common ground around reducing forest fire risk around electrical wires, Mr. Speaker. There is a path to do that. Let's solve our small problems, and let's build a pathway to work together on the big problems our country faces. I urge everyone to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule, this rule that goes to the floor with no hearing, this rule that rules out Democratic amendments, doesn't even allow discussion of them, and has a controversial piece of underlying legislation, when there is no need for controversy around such an important aspect of life in the American West, and, nationally, reducing forest fire risk and facilitating water projects and hydroelectric projects. Please join me in voting ``no,'' so we can get this House back to working on commonsense legislation that is bipartisan, with the full support of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of international students, scholars, and the U.S. institutions of higher education they attend who have been unfairly penalized by the administration's efforts to limit travel to our country. I'd like to share with you the story of Khalid AI-Awadhi, an undergraduate student at CU Boulder from the United Arab Emirates, who is studying electrical and computer engineering. Khalid is president of CU International, a campus organization that helps international students adjust to campus life. He is well known for his welcoming demeanor and enthusiasm. Khalid is driven by his commitment to make CU Boulder a better learning experience for all international students. The personal connections he has built have truly made a difference for the experience of hundreds of students on campus by building bridges and connecting cultures. May is a critical month on the college calendar. Many currently- enrolled international students and scholars will choose not to travel home at the end of the academic year, for fear they might not be allowed to return in the fall. In addition, the anti-immigrant rhetoric and uncertainty created by our broken immigration system makes the United States less attractive to the students and scholars who we want to contribute to our campuses and communities. To ensure our nation's security, economic wellbeing, and academic leadership, we must remain an open and welcoming United States. So, to the international students and scholars who may be unsure about coming to study at institutions like CU Boulder and Colorado State, I say: Your contributions are valued and you are welcome here.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1039, but first and foremost, I want to make sure that we recognize and honor the work and sacrifice that our police and first responders do each and every day. This week is National Police Week and, frankly, it is an opportunity to honor every week, but in particular this week, those who run toward the gunfire, those who run toward the building on fire every day. In my own district in Colorado, I hear so many countless stories of heroic acts and going above and beyond the call of duty by those on the front lines of keeping us safe. In one example in Colorado, Officer Ross Maynard responded to a domestic violence situation. The victim's former boyfriend had broken a living room window in the middle of January, leaving the victim and her young daughter exposed to our record cold temperatures. Maynard went above and beyond his duty and covered the window to keep out the elements. He vacuumed the shattered glass from the floor when he found out the victim didn't have a vacuum so that the child didn't receive cuts from the glass. In example of heroism, dispatcher Sara Demgen calmly helped a man deliver his son when his wife went into labor and they realized they wouldn't be able to make it to the hospital. It is individuals like these who we should celebrate and support through our work here in Congress. Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today doesn't make anyone safer, and if we passed it, it would bring about a constitutionally dubious process that could interfere with the important work of law enforcement professionals. Part of the reason this is problematic legislation is because the process this legislation followed--like a lot of stuff that we have to vote on--was not transparent and was not regular order. There was no hearing on this bill. Even if we look back at last year's version of the bill, there was no hearing on that one, either. Then we look at the rule that we are debating now. Mr. Speaker, a rule means what is the process for amending this bill. What we have here is a shutting down of that process, where they didn't provide an open rule. They allowed only one amendment as part of this bill that had been offered. There was no opportunity on the floor, through what is called an open rule, for Democrats or Republicans to offer good ideas to improve this legislation. Of the six amendments that were submitted that the Committee on Rules considered yesterday, five of them were killed by the Committee on Rules and not even allowed to be voted on or debated by the House of Representatives. Now, the number of times I have had to come to this floor and argue against a closed rule or a structured rule is exhausting, and it is contrary to Speaker Ryan's promise that he made for the world to hear that he would bring us back to regular order and give everybody input on legislation that we consider in what is supposed to be the people's House. This rule, yet again, is not open. It rules five of the six amendments out of order. The confidence and the trust in the House of Representatives, it is hard to imagine how it could even sink much lower, but it is restrictive processes and rules like this where neither Republicans or Democrats are allowed to even offer amendments or debate amendments to improve the legislation that have led to the record level of distrust in this body. In a moment, I will look forward to discussing the bill itself, but I just wanted to take this occasion in particular to celebrate our law enforcement professionals on National Police Week and every week. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it seems that with each passing day, we learn more about the tangled web of conflicts of interest and secret meetings with Russians in and around the Trump campaign and Trump administration. Last week, President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey while he was overseeing the FBI's investigation into possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian Government, after reportedly asking Director Comey personally to drop the investigation into former National Security Advisor Flynn's ties to Russia. This week, we also learned that President Trump revealed highly classified information provided by an ally to Russian officials. Without President Trump's tax returns, we have no way of knowing if he himself has financial ties or is financially beholden to Russia or Russian interests, as news reports have suggested. The American people deserve to know whether or not President Trump has conflicts of interest, financial interests, or business dealings with Russia or other foreign governments. It is imperative that we, as the people's representatives, hold the executive branch fully accountable. Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R. 305, which would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to release their tax returns. If the President truly has nothing to hide, including business dealings or being economically beholden to Russia, he should freely release his tax returns to reassure the American people that they can have confidence that he is not acting out of conflict of interest but, rather, in our interest as a nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our important proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), the former Orlando police chief, and my good friend.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the gentleman knows, we grant necessary waivers for amendments all the time. It is a very routine thing. So to argue it is not germane, the Rules Committee can grant the necessary waivers for any of these amendments. And, frankly, these amendments are more germane to what the American people care about than the underlying bill. Mrs. Demings' amendment that states that the Director of the FBI may only be removed for inefficiency or neglect of duty or misuse of office, what could be more germane to the concerns of the American people than that? All it would have taken was granting necessary waivers, as the Rules Committee does regularly on a number of bills when it suits their interests. Another amendment from Representative Kennedy was rejected to reinstate the authority to appoint independent counsel for purposes of an independent investigation. One from Representative Lawrence was rejected to reinstate the authority for independent counsel. Representative Lieu had an amendment to reinstate the authority for independent counsel to investigate and was not allowed. Representative Moulton had one. So all of those amendments, even though they are more germane than any of the other items of what the American people care about, were, nevertheless, not granted the necessary waivers to be included in this bill. The bill we are considering under this bill is highly problematic. It, frankly, serves to hurt the very people it purports to protect. I know we all value the safety of our first responders and the safety of our communities. This bill would hurt the relationship police have with communities without any need. It is truly a solution in search of a problem. This legislation would give Federal probation officers authority to arrest third parties, not the person that they are working with on probation, the ability to arrest them without a warrant. When referring to third parties, that means people who are not under the authority of the police officer. It could mean a mother of someone on probation, a roommate, somebody who shares a house, and somebody doesn't want the probation officer to come into their room because the probation officer doesn't have a warrant, even if the parolee is in a different room. We need to remember that an individual, of course, gives up some of their rights, including their Fourth Amendment rights, as a condition of probation. But not everybody who comes into contact with that person also should be required to give up their Fourth Amendment rights. The mother in this example has not given up those constitutional rights, which read: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. . . .'' And simply being a roommate or a family member of somebody who is on probation should not mean you lose your constitutional rights as an American citizen. If in this example the mother doesn't want the probation officer to enter her room, she has that right, unlike the parolee. But this bill would change the dynamics and allow the probation officer to say she was interfering and arrest her, something that likely violates her Fourth Amendment protections and would be overturned by the courts. This would make family and friends of individuals entering probation from prison scared of allowing the person on probation to live in their homes. This could lead to increased recidivism and increased crime. It will create a huge hindrance to the probation system and the goal of successfully encouraging people to reenter society and avoid breaking the law. If people don't have a family member or friend to live with, successful reentry becomes harder and almost impossible. We need to remember that probation officers are part of the judicial branch, but police are members of the executive branch. Not only does this legislation complicate that, but it is a violation of separation of powers. When an individual is granted probation, as a condition of that probation they give up certain rights, and that is understandable, and under the authority and supervision of the judicial branch in doing so. Third parties have not made that agreement with the judicial branch. They are not their jurisdiction. They are not adjudicated by the judicial branch. And probation officers should not have the authority to arrest them without a warrant provided by an officer of the peace. However, even if we don't care about the constitutional rights of citizens, which I certainly hope we care about, we should care about the fact that this bill would reduce the safety of our probation officers. This legislation creates a very unsafe situation for our probation officers who are not trained in law enforcement. On average, a Federal probation officer completes six weeks of training. That is compared to 21 weeks of training and 3 weeks of field for a police officer. That is simply not the same level of training. With the disparity, doesn't it make sense for probation officers to use the assistance of police when they actually do need to arrest an uncooperative third party or serve a warrant based on probable cause? With additional police powers come more likelihood people could be put in harm's way, and that is the opposite of what we want for someone who doesn't have the proper training. I also want to talk about why the bill is so bad. In many ways, I asked myself the question: What problem are we trying to solve? Even if we look at the associations that are pushing for this legislation, the data just doesn't show that there is a need or that this would be a productive step towards either keeping our communities safer--and this bill would also put the lives of our probation officers at risk. In a letter earlier this year, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association stated that ``formal arrests by probation officers are rare.'' And 2015 data shows that, of the 987 searches conducted, only 30 uncooperative third parties, and even less arrests. With so few incidents, it is, frankly, better for probation officers to call or use the assistance of well-trained police officers, if needed. That is the answer. The proponents of this bill claim they have brought the bill forward at the request of our first responders. But the request was not even close to unanimous. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by officers, chiefs of police, probation officers, and other first responders in opposition to the bill. May 16, 2017. Dear Member of Congress: We are current or retired law enforcement officers concerned about public safety, constitutional policing practices, and building trust between law enforcement and the communities we serve. In light of Police Week, some Members of Congress have sponsored bills that would increase incarceration rates, enhance penalties for certain crimes, and, ultimately, weaken relationships between communities and police departments. The idea that ``law and order'' has declined in the previous decade does a disservice to the law enforcement officers who have taken oaths to protect and serve their local communities. Those officers deserve programs and policies that fund critical training, enhance important policing skills that improve officer and public safety, and offer technical assistance and operational support. We are deeply troubled by recent legislative and executive actions that support this divisive ``law and order'' rhetoric and that chip away at our hard-fought efforts to sustain long- term trust between our communities and law enforcement agencies. As officers who have handled high-profile incidents and routine investigations, we know that keys to success are strong leadership and morale, officer training and accountability, and community trust and engagement. Below, we offer several recommendations based upon these principles. Programs that support mental health services for officers. A number of law enforcement agencies are increasingly recognizing the importance of regular mental health checks, crisis hotlines, peer mentoring programs, and other mental health services to alleviate the stress and trauma that officers face. Policies and programs for de-escalation and crisis intervention training. As a result of such training, law enforcement agencies learn to apply strategies that reduce the likelihood of force-related incidents. De-escalation training is essential to reducing the number of violent confrontations between law enforcement and communities, as well as increasing methods for age appropriate responses when interacting with youth to improve their safety and well-being in communities. These trainings promote best practices and, as a result, reduce the risk of injury to police officers and members of the community. Policies that promote crisis intervention training incorporating the services of mental health professionals. Such professionals can assist officers in identifying and responding to a person impacted by mental illness, an intoxicating substance, or emotional distress. The public safety benefits resulting from this training are well- documented and broadly supported by policing and public safety experts. Programs that assist officers with understanding the effects of systemic trauma and better deal with the aftermath of trauma. Trauma sensitivity or trauma informed training can help officers identify individuals showing signs of trauma related behaviors, which may include: aggression; difficulty processing information; impulsiveness; heightened fight, flight, or freeze response; and hypersensitivity to noise or physical contact. Training can help law enforcement avoid interpreting such behaviors as requiring more aggression or use of force and, instead, guide officers to respond in a more informed and appropriate manner. Policies and programs that incorporate implicit bias training into police training at all levels. Implicit bias training helps police officers mitigate racial bias during community interactions, encourage respectful encounters, and promote constitutional policing with the goal of building trust with communities. Programs that collect data on deaths and use-of-force incidents by law enforcement. Specifically, we encourage you to support the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Use- of-Force Data Collection Program, which expands the Uniform Crime Report Program to include use of force incidents by law enforcement resulting in serious bodily injury. The Death in Custody Reporting Act, which was signed into law in 2014, must also be properly implemented. Support the Collaborative Reform Initiative of the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The Collaborative Reform Initiative is a valuable program that offers technical assistance and operational support to local police departments to improve policing practices, transparency, professionalism, accountability, community inclusion, and procedural fairness. The Collaborative Reform Initiative enables police departments--which participate on a voluntary basis--to sustain longterm, significant reforms in a manner that improves trust between police and communities and meets the public safety goals of residents. The work of DOJ's Civil Rights Division around policing must also be supported and sustained. During Police Week, we urge you to prioritize federal programs, funding, and legislation that support the above polices, rather than legislation that would undercut partnerships with our local communities. We invite you to reach out to us about the above priorities and ask that you support legislation and funding that champion these important issues. Sincerely, Hassan Aden, Police Chief (Ret.), Greenville (NC) Police Department; Chief James Abbott, West Orange (NJ) Police Department; Officer Nick Bucci (Ret.), New Jersey State Police; Sheriff Jerry L. Clayton, Washtenaw County (MI) Sherriff's Office; Captain James Davidsaver (Ret.), Lincoln (NE) Police Department; Deputy Chief Stephen Downing (Ret.), Los Angeles Police Department; Former Probation/Parole Officer and Corrections Counselor Shelley Fox-Loken, Oregon; Major Neill Franklin (Ret.), Baltimore and Maryland State Police Department; Officer Brian Gaughan (Ret.), Davenport, Iowa and Chicago; Lieutenant Commander Diane Goldstein (Ret.), Redondo Beach Police Department. Ron Hampton, Community Relations Officer, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (Ret.); Blacks in Law Enforcement of America; Officer Karen Hawke (Ret.), Massachusetts State Police; Former Federal Corrections Officer Regina Hufnagel, Boston, Massachusetts; Commissioner Terence Inch (Ret.), Hellam Township (PA) Police Department; Senior Patrol Officer Tim Johnson (Ret.), Madison (OH) Township Police Department; Commissioner George Kain, Ph.D, Ridgefield (CT) Board of Police Commissioners; Analyst Richard Kennedy (Ret.), Central Intelligence Agency; Chief Larry Kirk (Ret.), Old Monroe (MO) Police Department; Former Special Agent David Long, U.S. Department of Labor; Former Detective and Deputy Sheriff Nick Morrow, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Lieutenant Joanne Naughton (Ret.), New York Police Department; Chief Norm Stamper (Ret.), Seattle (WA) Police Department; Special Agent Ray Strack (Ret.), Department of Homeland Security, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Former Police Officer Silvestre Tanenbaum, Carrollton (TX) Police Department; Sergeant Carl Tennenbaum (Ret.), San Francisco Police Department; Former Detention Officer and Deputy Marshal Jason Thomas, Prowers County, Colorado; Detective James Trainum (Ret.), Washington Metropolitan Police Department; Deputy Sheriff Darren Ullmann, Cowlitz County (OR) Sheriff's Office; Federal Probation Officer LeRoy Washington (Ret.), Hawaii; Officer Jack Wilborn (Ret.), Glendale (AZ) Police Department; Detective Howard Wooldridge (Ret.), Michigan.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, as they state, in part, in the letter: ``We are deeply troubled by recent legislative and executive actions that support this divisive `law and order' rhetoric and that chip away at our hard-fought efforts to sustain long-term trust between our communities and law enforcement agencies.'' This letter is signed by many current and former police chiefs, sheriffs, and other law enforcement officials. In the letter that I included in the Record, which will now appear for the world to see, law enforcement professionals say that instead of pushing forward with this bill that we are being asked to consider under a closed and restrictive rule, we should focus on mental health and trauma services for officers to support them, programs and policies for de-escalation and crises intervention training, better staffing for our police agencies and probation officers, programs and policies that incorporate implicit bias training into police training and probation office training, and community-oriented policing. These are the types of policies that Democrats, and myself, would love to put forward during National Police Week to support our law enforcement professionals and to keep our communities safe. Why aren't we focusing on those kinds of ideas, rather than a solution in search of a problem? It is National Police Week, and we should be supporting legislation that protects and supports our police, not create a greater schism between our community and police through an unconstitutional bill that puts the lives of our probation officers at risk, and will likely increase recidivism among those on probation. We can do better. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, you know, if there is an issue that has the opportunity to pull Congress together, it is the need to fix our failing infrastructure. You all know the statistics, but suffice it to say, if your child had the grade of our infrastructure, they would be going to summer school this summer. In my district in Colorado, it is the upgrades for Interstate 25 between Denver and Fort Collins for the tens of thousands of commuters each day; it is the backup from skier traffic returning from the mountains on Interstate 70, or our Northwest line commuter rail that is 35 years behind schedule. Of course, there are people who came within a hair's breadth of missing their flight because of interstate traffic. What is happening to my district and my State is happening across the country. But it is not just roads and bridges we need to fix. To connect and improve our communities, the true definition of infrastructure includes investments in broadband, 21st century infrastructure, clean water systems, schools, public rail, pedestrian and bike paths, airports, energy efficiency, storage, and transmission to make our country stronger and reduce costs. Now is the time to act on an infrastructure package that has true investment. It can't just be toll roads or a giveaway to Wall Street. A fully paid-for infrastructure package will be a boon for the country, for our cities, for our towns, for our rural areas, and for the middle class. Infrastructure is a today problem that we can come together and solve. We need to act now and make infrastructure a priority.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Over the last several months, I have heard from thousands of my constituents over the phone, by email, and record numbers at townhalls. Frankly, the overwhelming message is frustration with the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress--no calls to pass this bill, which every group that advocates for workers' rights and unions opposes. The people in my district say that, to the contrary, Republicans continue to put the priorities of the few over the priorities of hardworking Americans. People are frustrated that, instead of working with Democrats, Republicans are focused on gutting healthcare coverage, increasing premiums, and stripping away workers' rights. People in my district, across my State, and across the country are worried. The members of our immigrant community--our neighbors, family, and friends--will continue to be demonized by the President of the United States. So while I don't expect this kind of rhetoric or policies to change overnight, I feel it is important to share these concerns with this body. Now, earlier this week, frankly, I was encouraged. There were some signs of positivity. Congressional Democrats and Republicans announced a bipartisan funding bill through the end of the year that shows a bright spot of what we can do together when we try. I hope we can all agree that a government shutdown would be catastrophic. In my district alone, I am reminded of the devastating impact of congressional inaction when I hosted a townhall in Estes Park just last week. The government shutdown in 2013, right during tourist season, cost our small and vibrant town nearly half a million dollars in tax revenue and millions of dollars in sales, threatening the existence of many Main Street businesses that rely on that tourism revenue and keeping Rocky Mountain National Park open. Estes Park sits at the entrance of Rocky Mountain National Park, and Rocky Mountain National Park was closed for most of the 16-day shutdown a few years ago. But somehow, despite those obvious economic indicators in jobs, Donald Trump tweeted just this morning that our country ``needs a good shutdown.'' What does that even mean? We need a good shutdown like we need a root canal. It would put people in my district out of work and cost the private sector millions of jobs. But I am hopeful now that we will avoid a shutdown; that, thankfully, the spending bill, through 2017, prohibits funding on a new border wall. It minimizes cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, allowing them to continue their work to keep our air and our water clean; and Planned Parenthood will continue to receive Federal funding. Now, that being said, of course, that budget isn't perfect, and we will have the chance to debate it on the floor. The Republicans insist on massive government deficit spending for increased military spending that digs our mountain of debt for the next generation even bigger. The tax-and-spend Republicans continue to spend hand over fist and increase the deficit at the cost of the next generation of Americans. Now, the bill before us, the Working Families Flexibility Act, is another example of Republicans putting ideology and special interests over the needs of workers and American families. The trend isn't new. It comes out of the typical playbook we have seen for decades. In fact, this very bill has been introduced multiple times over the past 22 years, never with any success. Nearly identical bills were introduced in 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2015, and now 2017. That is 10 times over 22 years. Each time, the bill never becomes law, and it won't become law now either. But that is how the Republicans want to spend their time in this body when we actually have important things to discuss that could become law, like fixing our broken immigration system. This bill somehow claims to provide employees with more flexibility, but the only flexibility are for the bosses. Instead of receiving overtime, workers would receive comp time; so their paychecks won't get anything out of extra time worked. It is important to note that this legislation applies to the private sector and only to employees subject to overtime provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act. The current overtime threshold is set at just under $24,000, so only employees that make less than $24,000 are affected by this bill. We have tried mightily to increase that threshold to keep up with inflation, but we have met resistance by the Republicans every step of the way. In 2017, the Federal poverty level for a family of four is about $24,000. So we are talking about only giving overtime to families that are below the poverty level. These families rely on that overtime to pay their bills, to pay their rent, and to put food on the table. These are the families who would benefit most from receiving overtime pay. In fact, a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that 40 percent of people making less than $22,500 a year worked some overtime hours and needed that income to get by. This same 40 percent are the very people who would lose out under the Republican bill today. My Republican colleagues claim that no one is forcing workers to accept comp time instead of overtime pay, and comp time is technically optional. But this argument represents how out of touch Republicans are with the real-life workforce conditions and actual working families. In practice, the power differential between employers and employees means that many employees would feel obligated to accept comp time instead of overtime pay, even if that is not what works best for them. Especially in nonunion workplaces, employees could feel pressure to go along with their employers' demand or risk not even being offered overtime or comp time in the future. Now, Republicans have also made the argument that public sector workers receive comp time. They are right. But that is not apples to apples. Public sector union membership is around 34 percent, and public sector employees have vast protections that private sector employees lack. As an example, public sector workers can't be fired except for good cause, and they have administrative appeal rights. They can't be discriminated against based on their desire to take overtime pay instead of comp time. Nonunionized private sector workers can be legally discriminated against in assigning their hours based on their decisions to take comp time versus overtime pay. If the Republicans want to enlarge this discussion to include providing additional workplace protections to workers in the private sector, we are happy to have that discussion both on the committee where I serve with my colleague, Mr. Byrne, as well as on the floor of the House. Republicans somehow argue that this bill provides flexibility for workers to get time off, but I will remind my colleagues that nothing in the current Fair Labor Standards Act prevents employers from offering time off right now. In fact, the Fair Labor Standards Act allows the ultimate flexibility. Employers can already provide paid or unpaid leave on sick days, maternity, and paternity under the FLSA. They don't need this legislation to provide them flexibility. They just need to do the right thing. This bill also ignores the fact that not all businesses are successful. Before coming to Congress, I started several businesses. I know this firsthand. A statistic is that 59 percent of restaurant businesses go out of business within 3 years. I am zero for two. I tried starting two restaurants. They both failed. Maybe that means if I try again someday, I will be finally due for a success. But what is important is that when something goes out of business, we don't leave the employees in the lurch. What you are effectively doing here by deferring the overtime pay into potential future time off, if the company goes out of business, that employee would have to get in line with other creditors and risk never being paid. That is not a theoretical risk. The majority of new businesses don't last 10 years. They go out of business. Depriving people of the payment for the work they have done already is not the right way to treat workers in those businesses, and it is not their fault when the bad decision is made by their bosses. In our committee markup of the bill, my Democratic colleagues offered a number of amendments to improve the legislation. Representative Bonamici offered an amendment that would allow comp time to earn interest before workers' use. Under the current way this bill is written, low-wage workers are being asked to give an interest-free loan to the company. That doesn't make sense. The amendment didn't pass. If employees receive overtime pay, they should receive interest on it as well. Representative Wilson offered an amendment that would exempt workers who are earning less than 2\1/2\ times the minimum wage, so the employees earning the very least wouldn't be subject to the law and could actually rely on their overtime pay. Again, that amendment was rejected by Republicans. Representative Blunt Rochester on the committee offered an amendment that would limit the bill so only workers eligible for at least 7 days of paid sick leave receive comp time. Yet, again, Republicans rejected this amendment. In total, committee Democrats offered eight amendments to try to improve this bill. Every single one was rejected. Instead of bringing forward the same, tired, 22-year-old policies that I certainly don't hear my constituents requesting, Democrats have offered real solutions that benefit working families. Working families would benefit from an increase in the overtime salary threshold. Last year, the Department of Labor proposed an increase to that threshold, and 248,000 workers in Colorado alone would have benefited under that rule. Democrats continue to write bills that provide commonsense solutions. We have offered legislation that would provide up to 12 weeks of partial-paid parental leave. Only 14 percent of the workforce has paid family leave through their employers. As a parent of a 5- and a 2-year- old, I know how important that is to be able to spend time with your newborn kids. Democrats have also introduced a bill that would allow employees to earn up to 7 sick days per year. That would be a tremendous help to the 4 in 10 private sector employees who don't have access to any paid sick leave at all under current law. Democrats have also offered legislation to combat pay discrimination. In 2017, women working full time are still paid 80 cents on the dollar compared to what men make. Democrats have offered legislation that I am proud to cosponsor that would address that kind of pay disparity. Those are the kinds of bills that the American people need, that workers need, and that we need to help lift people out of poverty and into the middle class. Today, House Democrats introduced the Equality Act. I was proud to join so many of my colleagues in a bipartisan bill to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Sadly, in many States, it is still legal to fire someone just because they are gay. The Equality Act would finally extend Federal workplace discrimination protections to LGBT Americans in all 50 States and the territories. Finally, House Democrats will soon be introducing the bill that would raise the minimum wage. In my home State of Colorado, voters chose to raise the wage last November, and many other States have minimum wages higher than the Federal minimum wage. But it shouldn't come down to what State you live in to determine if you even earn enough to put food on the table and pay your rent. It is long past time we update the Federal minimum wage, and the Raise the Wage Act would do just that. Yet, again, we are offering many solutions that we would love to discuss and love to vote on, and, instead, the Republicans are offering a bill to strip existing rights away from workers. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us represents the same old policies the Republicans have offered for decades. They have never succeeded, and they won't succeed now. This time around, they are offering a bill that might be great for some of the bosses, but it undermines the lives of hardworking Americans that keep our country going. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Working Families Flexibility Act and the rule before us, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a document from 1997 from then-President Bill Clinton who opposed a bill that is basically identical to this one in its current form. The President said he would veto this bill, if passed, because he said this bill purports to give working families greater flexibility, but, in reality, it grants employers more rights at the expense of working people. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle stop using President Clinton's good name in vain in passage of a bill that is nearly identical to the one that he threatened to veto. Of course, Democrats want to talk about flexibility. President Clinton, myself, and Democrats of the Education and the Workforce Committee are happy to do that, if there is a way to provide workers with real choices to protect workers against employee abuse in making their decisions, but the current bill, and the same bill that President Clinton opposed, fails in that regard and fails to give employees the rights that they deserve to exercise their comp time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy from President William Jefferson Clinton from 1997, in which President Clinton lays out the criteria, by and large, which is still the criteria under which Democrats would support a comp time flexibility bill, had the Republicans been at all serious about actually passing one into law rather than just passing a symbolic bill that they have passed for 22 years. [From the American Presidency Project, John T. Woolley & Gerhard Peters, Santa Barbara, CA] William J. Clinton: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1--Working Families Flexibility Act of 1997, March 19, 1997 (House) (Ballenger (R) NC and 99 others) The President will veto H.R. 1 if it is passed in its current form. The President will not sign H.R. 1, or any other comp time legislation, unless it adheres to three fundamental principles: (1) real choice for workers; (2) real protection against employer abuse; and (3) preservation of workers' rights. H.R. 1 purports to give working families greater flexibility. In reality, it grants employers more rights at the expense of working people: H.R. 1 fails to offer workers real choice. In particular, H.R. 1 would allow an employer to decide when a worker could use his or her compensatory time-off by disapproving such time-off if the employer claims it would ``unduly disrupt'' its operations. In addition, H.R. 1 would permit an employer to ``cash out'' a worker's earned compensatory time over 80 hours. H.R. 1 fails to protect workers against employer abuse. For example, H.R. 1 offers inadequate protections for vulnerable workers and part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees, including garment and construction workers, and those who are employed in industries with histories of Fair Labor Standards Act violations. H.R. 1 also fails to prohibit employers from substituting compensatory time-off for paid vacation or sick leave benefits. Furthermore, H.R. 1 lacks meaningful remedies for workers when employers penalize them for electing to receive overtime pay in lieu of compensatory time-off. In addition, H.R. 1 contains inadequate worker safeguards in cases where an employer goes bankrupt or out-of-business. H.R. 1 fails to preserve workers' rights. Workers who take compensatory time-off can be forced to work additional overtime in the same week-- even on the weekend--without being paid overtime premium pay. The Administration supports the substitute amendment to be offered by Representative George Miller, although procedural obstacles in the House have prevented the amendment from addressing all of the important issues that need to be treated, including expansion of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The Administration strongly believes that any legislation to authorize compensatory time under the Fair Labor Standards Act should be linked to expansion of the FMLA. Expanding the FMLA to give working families greater flexibility to foster the education of their children or provide routine health care for their children or elderly relatives will go a long way toward achieving the stated goals of H.R. 1. The Miller amendment, however, would ensure real employee choice, by adding crucial provisions not found in H.R. 1. For example, employers that adopt comp time programs would have to make comp time available to similarly-situated employees on a fair and non-discriminatory basis. Working families are guaranteed real protection against possible comp time abuse through the Miller amendment. Furthermore, the Miller amendment would preclude employers from using comp time to modify or reduce existing paid leave plans. It would entitle employees choosing comp time to get regular statements of their accrual and use of comp time; put a reasonable limit on the number of hours of comp time that can be accrued; and allow employees to seek damages when they incur costs because an employer wrongfully denies them use of the comp time they earned. The Secretary of Labor would have the authority to bar employers with a pattern and practice of comp time abuse from continuing to offer comp time. H.R. 1 has none of these protections. These are all improvements to H.R. 1 that guarantee the legislation enhances rather than decreases flexibility for America's working families.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to help bring forth the Equality Act, with 194 original cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. The principle behind the Equality Act is simple: discrimination is wrong, no matter what form it takes, no matter who it targets. This is a principle that Americans overwhelmingly choose to embrace and live by. We see it in the way we treat our LGBT employees, friends, neighbors, and family. It is apparent in the outpouring of joy and celebration we witnessed at the Supreme Court's historic marriage equality ruling 2 years ago. But sadly, our laws have not yet caught up with our values. It is still legal in a majority of States to fire somebody just because they are gay. That is not just a theoretical concern. It means real harm and real hardship for countless Americans. For LGBT Americans who are fired or turned away from a doctor's office or told they are not wanted in their neighborhood, many of them have nowhere to go for legal recourse. We are better than that as a nation. It is time we showed that. We are a nation that prides ourselves on our commitment to equality under the law. So I call upon this Congress to pass the Equality Act and put an end to legal discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans once and for all.