Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, isn't that amazing? Republicans can't even find elected Representatives willing to come down here on the floor and defend taking kids away from their parents. They are out of speakers because Republicans are embarrassed. They know that they cannot face the American people, no less their Maker, knowing that they are complicit in tearing innocent children away from mom and dad. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is now looking to house up to 20,000 children taken away from their parents at military bases. They are looking to take 10 times as many children away from their parents as they already have. It is time to stop President Trump. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article entitled ``Pentagon Asked to Make Room for 20,000 Migrant Children on Military Bases.'' [June 21, 2018] Pentagon Asked To Make Room for 20,000 Migrant Children on Military Bases (By Dan Lamothe, Seung Min Kim and Nick Miroff) The Trump administration is considering housing up to 20,000 unaccompanied migrant children on military bases in coming months, according to lawmakers and a Defense Department memo obtained by The Washington Post. The Pentagon's notification to lawmakers said that officials at Health and Human Services asked the Pentagon to indicate whether it can provide the beds for children at military installations ``for occupancy as early as July through December 31, 2018.'' Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) addressed the issue on the Senate floor Thursday morning. ``The Department of Defense has been asked whether it can house 20,000 unaccompanied children between now and the end of the year,'' he said. ``How will that work? Is it even feasible?'' The plan would seemingly have similarities to 2014, when the Obama administration housed about 7,000 unaccompanied children on three military bases. The Pentagon, in its congressional notification to lawmakers, said it must determine if it ``possesses these capabilities.'' As required under the Economy Act, the memo said, the Defense Department would be reimbursed for all costs incurred. The sites would be run by HHS employees or contractors working with them, the memo said. They would provide care to the children, ``including supervision, meals, clothing, medical services, transportation or other daily needs,'' and HHS representatives will be present at each location. The memo was sent to lawmakers Wednesday after President Trump reversed his administration's unpopular policy to separate children from their parents as they arrived at the southern U.S. border. The president's executive order directed Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to ``take all legally available measures'' to provide Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen with ``any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families,'' and the construction of new facilities ``if necessary and consistent with law.'' Lt. Col. Jamie Davis acknowledged Thursday that the Pentagon received the request, and said the department is reviewing it. The Trump administration spent months planning, testing and defending its family separation system at the border, taking more than 2,500 children from their parents in the six weeks prior to the president's executive order Wednesday bringing it to a halt. The U.S. government has been examining for weeks whether it can use military bases to house migrant children. Representatives from HHS visited three bases in Texas--Fort Bliss, Dyess Air Force Base and Goodfellow Air Force Base-- last week to review their facilities for suitability, and were scheduled to review Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas on Wednesday, Davis said. The Obama administration temporarily set up temporary centers in 2014 at three U.S. military bases: Fort Sill in Oklahoma, Lackland Air Force Base in Texas and naval Base Ventura in California. Asked about the possibility of military bases being involved again, Mattis said Wednesday that the Defense Department would ``see what they come up with'' in HHS, and that the Pentagon will ``respond if requested.'' Mattis dismissed concerns about housing migrants on military bases now, noting that the Defense Department has done it on several occasions and for several reasons. ``We have housed refugees,'' he said. ``We have housed people thrown out of their homes by earthquakes and hurricanes. We do whatever is in the best interest of the country.'' The secretary, pressed on the sensitivities of the Trump administration separating children from their parents, said reporters would need to ask ``the people responsible for it.'' ``I'm not going to chime in from the outside,'' he said. ``There's people responsible for it. Secretary Nielson, obviously, maintains close collaboration with us. You saw that when we deployed certain National Guard units there, so she's in charge.'' Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Calif.), the leading members of the armed services committees, wrote a letter to Mattis on Wednesday requesting assurances that members of Congress would have access to any migrant facility established on a military base. The letter, sent before Trump dropped his family-separation policy at the border, said that it was essential to have access even in cases where only short notice is provided. Mattis has approved temporarily detailing 21 military attorneys to the Justice Department to help with the glut of immigration cases that have emerged on the border. The order, issued earlier this month, calls for 21 attorneys with criminal-trial experience to assist as special assistant U.S. attorneys for 179 days, Davis said. They will help in prosecuting border immigration cases, he added, ``with a focus on misdemeanor improper entry and felony illegal reentry cases.'' The possibility was raised in a congressional hearing in May, and first reported as underway by MSNBC on Wednesday night. U.S. law permits a judge advocate lawyer to be assigned or detailed to another agency, including to provide representation in civil and criminal cases.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also remind my friend from Miami that we have reached several compromises. He and I are both members of the Problem Solvers Caucus. I am proud that the Problem Solvers Caucus--more than 25 Democrats, 25 Republicans--we agreed. We reached a compromise bill--border security, addresses the needs of the Dreamers. I think it would get 60, 70 percent of the votes on the floor of the House. Let's bring that bill up. Unfortunately, Republicans chose to set Mr. Curbelo's work and my work aside and proceed with a spiteful bill that makes the problem worse. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To my friend Mr. Diaz-Balart and Mr. Newhouse and so many others, we stand ready to work with you, but instead, you chose to work with Steve King, Louie Gohmert, Stephen Miller. Come talk to us. We are ready. Democrats, to a person, are ready to support something that we don't fully agree with because we understand the Republicans control this body. So come talk to us, and stop talking to Steve King, Louie Gohmert, and Stephen Miller. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman from Washington an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, ``Immigrant children,'' quoting from this article, ``are being routinely and forcibly given a range of psychotropic drugs at U.S. government-funded youth shelters.'' Taking multiple psychotropic drugs can seriously injure children. And many youths in Shiloh detention facility are being given nine different pills in the morning, six in the evening. You are paying for them all, Mr. Speaker. Taxpayers are paying for pills and injections and drugs for 2-years-olds and 4-year-olds that have been stripped from their parents. One mother said she nor any other family member had even been consulted about their daughter being given powerful drugs. Many kids are being held down, forcibly given injections when they refuse to take the medication that our tax dollars are paying for. We need to stop this, Mr. Speaker. You don't need a bill to stop it. President Trump needs to stop it. He wasn't doing it till 90 days ago; then he started to do it. It is not the will of Congress. It is not the letter of the law. It is a policy that is un-American and far outside the intent of Republicans or Democrats in this body. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Ranking Member Nadler's bill, H.R. 6135, the Keep Families Together Act, which I am proud to cosponsor. This thoughtful proposal would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from separating children from their parents, of course, except in extraordinary circumstances, and limit the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers. 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 myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from Reuters today titled: ``U.S. Centers Force Migrant Children to Take Drugs.'' [From Reuters, June 21, 2018] U.S. Centers Force Migrant Children to Take Drugs: Lawsuit Immigrant children are being routinely and forcibly given a range of psychotropic drugs at U.S. government-funded youth shelters to manage their trauma after being detained and in some cases separated from parents, according to a lawsuit. Children held at facilities such as the Shiloh Treatment Center in Texas are almost certain to be administered the drugs, irrespective of their condition, and without their parents' consent, according to the lawsuit filed by the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law. The Shiloh center, which specializes in services for children and youths with behavioral and emotional problems, did not respond immediately to a request for comment. The lawsuit was filed on April 16, days after the introduction of the Trump Administration's ``zero tolerance'' policy to separate children from parents who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. Trump abandoned the policy on Wednesday. ``If you're in Shiloh then it's almost certain you are on these medications. So if any child were placed in Shiloh after being separated from a parent, then they're almost certainly on psychotropics,'' said Carlos Holguin, a lawyer representing the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law. Officials at the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which oversees such centers, were not immediately available for comment. Taking multiple psychotropic drugs at the same time can seriously injure children, according to the filing, which highlights the need for oversight to prevent medications being used as ``chemical straight jackets,'' rather than treat actual mental health needs. ORR-run centers unilaterally administer the drugs to children in disregard of laws in Texas and other states that require either a parent's consent or a court order, the filing said. The lawsuit seeks a shift in ORR policies to comply with state laws and prevent the prolonged detention of children. Some youths at Shiloh reported being given up to nine different pills in the morning and six in the evening and said they were told they would remain detained if they refused drugs, the lawsuit said. Some said they had been held down and given injections when they refused to take medication, the lawsuit said. One mother said neither she nor any other family member had been consulted about medication given to her daughter, even though Shiloh had their contact details. Another mother said her daughter received such powerful anti-anxiety medications she collapsed several times, according to the filing.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly against this rule and the underlying legislation. We have a human rights catastrophe on our hands. In less than 90 days, the Trump administration has ripped 2,500 children out of their parents' arms. I am the father of a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old. I can only imagine what it would mean to have them taken to parts unknown, perhaps even locked in a cage, not knowing, not being able to find out what is happening to them. This was a conscious decision that President Trump and Attorney General Sessions made to separate children from parents. It was not the congressional intent of the law. It was not the way that President Obama implemented the law. It was not the way President Trump implemented the law until 90 days ago. But then President Trump made this mean-spirited decision to literally take little children, even babies, away from their mothers in our country, to place innocent children in facilities that have mats on the floor or thermal blankets for warmth, away from the loving embrace of a mom or a dad. The President called this a zero-tolerance policy. It was simply the only reason that these families that are fleeing to the U.S., who are trying to keep their children safe, are being treated like criminals and having their young children taken away from them. Children are being moved around this country faster than the Office of Refugee Resettlement can even track. We already know that the Office of Refugee Resettlement has a history of literally losing children, losing track of them while they are in custody, and now they are responsible for even more young, innocent lives. Young children are being placed with host families as far away from the border as Michigan and Washington State. Parents don't even know where their children are. And young children are simply terrified about what happened to their loving mom and their loving dad, and how our country, the United States of America, could be complicit in separating them from the only parents they know. This is an embarrassment for our Nation, and it must end. And it is offensive when these bills before us are talked about as consensus or compromise, when no Democrats were involved. It may be a consensus between far-right Republicans and rightwing Republicans, but it is not a consensus among moderates, independents, or a single Democrat. And when it comes to caring about these kids, I know my Republican colleagues care as well. So show it by supporting a true compromise bill, like the Dream Act, like other bills that we have had before us, like comprehensive immigration reform that, of course, will get votes from both sides of the aisle because they are the right thing to do for our country. There are long-term consequences for this shortsighted policy. The very act of separating a family has traumatic and long-lasting impact for young girls like this, taken away from their mom and dad, their culture, their support system. They don't even have the tools at a young age to process what is going on or the trauma or the reality of the situation. One Colorado pediatric emergency doctor treating children removed from their parents said: ``The children clung so tightly and completely to their foster mothers, both at the emergency department and at home, that they were literally unable to put them down. They were terrified that their world would be broken for a second time.'' The Trump administration is creating a generation of thousands of kids, many of whom will grow up in our country, whose first and sometimes most formative memories is of somebody wearing the badge or the flag of our country tearing them apart from their mother or their father while they are screaming, while they are crying out in the void of a fluorescently-lit warehouse funded by your taxpayer dollars. According to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, responsible for the care of these kids, many children remain in these shelters for 57 days on average. It is further disturbing that President Trump would willingly pull families apart and not have any plan for reuniting them even with his executive order, no plans to unite the over 2,500 children who have been torn apart from their parents. According to the former director of ICE, these family separations may become permanent, literally leaving hundreds of kids here in the U.S. left in an already stressed and underfunded child welfare system, where they literally have a mom or dad fully capable of giving them care and loving them that has been forcibly separated from their own young children. My office has been flooded with calls--I know yours has too, Mr. Speaker--some callers crying on the other end, demanding that we do something. Yet, instead of ensuring that we provide resources families need and reunite them and heal the trauma, the Republicans are bringing to the floor partisan bills that would detain families indefinitely and criminalize even more immigrants. But this is what happens in a broken, failing, unaccountable immigration system. On that, we agree. So, please, begin the discussions of compromise, of consensus. And that doesn't mean yourselves, Republicans. You control this body. You get to say what we vote on. It means involve caring independent, unaffiliated, Democrats, moms and dads, the faith community, the law enforcement community. Don't just have this discussion behind closed doors and come out with even more draconian measures that tear even more families apart. So instead of bringing two bills to the floor that have widespread opposition, even in your own party--Republicans failed to pass their own bill--there are bipartisan solutions that would not only pass the House, but would get a large majority of the House. We could probably get to two-thirds of this House voting for compassion and love if we only were willing to try, bills that truly balance and include border security and safety and the values of our country, so we know that we, as Americans and as taxpayers, are not complicit in tearing a young girl's world apart. Look, in Congress we often argue on policy issues. And I respect Mr. Newhouse, my friend from Washington. And I would tell him that what a compromise means, Mr. Newhouse, is not you compromising with Stephen Miller; it means you compromising with Luis Gutierrez or Zoe Lofgren or me or the faith community. It is not a compromise when reasonable people like Mr. Newhouse and Mr. Curbelo go into a backroom and have the reason beaten out of them by hateful fearmongering that is, frankly, un-American. Look, I urge my Republican colleagues to imagine that these children were theirs, because they are ours, they are our wards, they are in our country. This cannot be allowed to continue. We need to reject this rule. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this heartless, inhumane bill and begin a true process of compromise and consensus that can secure our borders, fix our broken immigration system, unite families, restore the rule of law, and reflect our values as Americans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

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

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, here we are, a year and a half into this session of Congress, and finally the Republicans are bringing something to the floor around the opioid epidemic, but it is too little, too late. They prioritized, unfortunately, corporate tax giveaways over families that are struggling and communities which are affected by the path of destruction caused by opioid drug abuse. As we address opioid addiction, we need to remember that many communities were suffering from substance use disorders long before Congress began to wake up to this issue. Opioid abuse affects both rural and urban communities and has a human face and a tragedy in every congressional district. We should support efforts to address this through treatment instead of incarceration or punishment, through alternatives instead of giving Washington, D.C., bureaucrats more power. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in the midst of a devastating opioid crisis that is spiraling out of control. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, opioids are responsible for 6 out of 10 overdose deaths in the country. More than 115 Americans die each day from opioid overdose. The house is on fire; yet, with these bills today, unfortunately, the Republicans are not addressing this problem in a meaningful way. The American people need strong action from Congress to stem the tide of the opioid scourge and save lives. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lujan's legislation, H.R. 3495, the Opioid and Heroin Abuse Crisis Investment Act, which would make a difference by extending badly needed funding to combat the growing public health crisis of opioid-related addiction and deaths. 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 myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 2851, H.R. 5735, and H.R. 5788. We could have done so much better. I am going to get into some of the great ideas that we talked about and amendments were submitted but didn't make it through. This week is supposed to be about bringing bills to the floor that actually do something about the opioid crisis that is having devastating consequences on families and entire communities, including in my home State of Colorado. Legislation to address opioid abuse and save lives is long overdue. But I am sad to say that the bills that are being brought forth make, at the most, incremental changes and will not substantially affect the plague that is affecting our country of opioid addiction, abuse, and death. As you know, this is a crisis that cuts across State lines. It affects every congressional district in our country. I certainly know people directly affected in my constituents. I am sure every Member of Congress does. In Colorado the rate of drug overdoses since 2000 has more than doubled. This is not a partisan issue, and I wish we could come together around a more significant response that actually did something to combat opioid abuse. If Republicans were serious about dealing with opioids, they would drop their assault on Medicaid. Medicaid is a critical service to help individuals battling opioid addiction, including supporting inpatient treatment centers and case managers to help get people the help they need. Frankly, we should have a discussion about how to achieve universal healthcare. There are people today who are unable to get coverage or support to recover from the substance abuse that holds them hostage. While Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act have dramatically improved and expanded access to health coverage, including drug treatment, there are too many Americans today--in fact, over millions--who do not have health insurance. There is no single solution to the opioid crisis. Instead, policymakers should use a multipronged approach, universal healthcare, substance abuse, and mental health treatment being one. Another prong is identifying alternative treatments, instead of highly addictive opioid compounds for pain management. That is one of the things that I am so disappointed is not being advanced to the floor. Many States have medical marijuana available to patients with a variety of health issues, including chronic pain. Doctors across the country have prescribed medical marijuana as a legitimate treatment option for pain management. In cases where it works, it provides a less harmful alternative, a less harmful and less addictive alternative to opioids. Opioids have a role in pain management. But if a first-line therapy like medical marijuana, acupuncture, or acupressure can work, you can prevent people from developing a dependency, because almost three- quarters of opioid abuse starts with prescription drug treatment for pain management. In some cases, those first-line treatments like medical marijuana, acupuncture, and acupressure won't work, and prescriptions to opioids have their role. But let's at least prevent some people from having to go on prescription opioids when a less harmful, less addictive, and less damaging therapy can work effectively for their pain management. I have heard from so many Coloradans for whom medical marijuana works instead of having to resort to opioids. Unfortunately, medical marijuana is still illegal at the Federal level. There are limited research opportunities about the safety and efficacy of marijuana, and that is holding us back from really understanding how medical marijuana can be used for pain management. I offered a very simple and commonsense amendment at the Rules Committee last night that authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to study medical marijuana as an alternative treatment option to prescription opioids, just very simply. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the VA alone has treated about 70,000 veterans for opioid addiction last year alone, but my amendment was, unfortunately, blocked from getting a vote. The issue is personal for me, Mr. Speaker. I was able to present a Purple Heart to a veteran who lives in my district in Colorado, a young man who put his life on the line for our country. He told me that he uses medical marijuana for his pain issues and has successfully been able to take himself off of the opioids that the VA had prescribed for those pain issues. I also offered an amendment with Representatives Pocan and Gosar last night that, unfortunately, was not even allowed to be debated here on the floor that would prevent a natural botanic substance like kratom from being scheduled under the new scheduling authority created by SITSA. Unfortunately, it was blocked. Kratom, which is a cousin of the coffee plant, is used by many as an alternative to addictive opioids and a way of escaping addiction. I have heard from so many constituents for whom legal access to kratom is critical to their sobriety and their battle against opioid addiction. We can very simply ensure that that legal access could be retained had this amendment been allowed. If it is cut off, as the FDA and others have been threatening, there is no doubt in my mind, nor should there be any doubt in anybody's mind, that people will resort back to deadly opioids, rather than managing through harm reduction using other compounds that are less dangerous and less deadly, be it medical marijuana or kratom. We are debating these bills today because we know we need to take action to address the opioid epidemic that we all have felt the human face of in our communities. But instead of trying to ban substances and put more Big Government bans on top of things that people are using to recover from opioids, we should be exploring and embracing alternative treatment options to opioids. Simply put, we need to improve access to alternative pain relief options beyond opioids like kratom and like medical marijuana, because 75 percent of opioid abuse starts with prescription drugs usually for pain management. We need to embrace that part of the solution. Increase freedom. Let Americans choose less harmful compounds that work for pain management and free people up to never become the victim of a terrible cycle of opioid addiction. Unfortunately, both of those amendments were blocked. H.R. 2851, the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, is a bill that would create a new schedule of drugs under the Controlled Substances Act giving even more authority to the Department of Justice to wage a failed drug war and determine which substances are illegal, sidestepping the current process for scheduling drugs, sidestepping Congress, and often sidestepping common sense. When you put Government bureaucrats in charge, they only take more power every time. This bill creates lengthy sentencing and penalties, indulging in the over criminalization. It could harm hundreds of thousands of people battling opioid abuse by relying on incarceration and penalization, rather than treatment and helping people recover from opioid abuse. This is a public health issue. It is not that there is not a criminal dimension; there, of course, is for cartels and smugglers. But when it comes to your niece or nephew, Mr. Speaker, your cousin or your neighbor's kid, we want to help them get better, recover their lives, and free themselves from the vicious cycle of opioid addiction. This bill does not do that. While it is well-intended, it has serious flaws that need to be addressed. If we want to have an impact on fighting epidemics, the answer is not to give even more authority to government bureaucrats in Washington. It is to empower the American people themselves to take control of our own destiny. The rule also provides for consideration of the THRIVE Act, that is H.R. 5735. It is a different topic, but it is related. It is designed to create housing opportunities for people suffering from substance abuse disorders. The problem with this bill is it sets arbitrary time limits on those who seek stable housing while receiving treatment for substance use disorders, and it doesn't actually increase the supply of affordable housing. When we are dealing with homelessness and transitory housing, we need to take meaningful action to actually increase the supply of beds for people who are in recovery. We have to walk the walk. Without funding for beds and for treatment, we are just talking around the edges and we are not really solving this problem. The final bill under this rule is H.R. 5788, the Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act, which is another bill that creates more paperwork for the Postal Service. Frankly, it just adds, again, another level of bureaucracy. I am pretty sure, Mr. Speaker, that people smuggling opioids into this country don't put opioids on the Customs form. They don't say: ``We are illegally bringing opioids into the country.'' Yes, we need to do more against smuggling, but creating more forms to fill out by government bureaucrats is not the answer. This bill is being considered under a closed rule. This is the 86th closed rule of this Congress. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that not a single Member, Democrat or Republican, was able to offer an amendment to this bill, the Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act. There were good ideas from both sides that aren't even allowed to be advanced. The Republicans continue to bring bills to floor this way that limit the opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to actually do something to stop opioid abuse. It is frustrating. As a legislator who has a lot of ideas about what we can do to actually save lives, increase freedom, and reduce opioid abuse, which would pass--I think a lot of my ideas would get 300, 350 votes here in the House--we are not even allowed to bring them forward. It is just so frustrating when we all know the human face of people who are suffering from being caught in the vicious cycle of opioid addiction. We have seen it affect so many families, including so many of our friends and even family. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for the vote on passage of H.R. 5895 (rollcall No. 257), but had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on final passage. personal explanation

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for the vote on passage of H.R. 3 (Roll Call No. 243). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No'' on final passage. This bill cuts critical funding from the Children's Health Insurance Program, education and job-training programs. H.R. 3 was brought to the floor in a rushed and closed process, with the Appropriations Committee holding no hearings or mark-ups and limiting the opportunity for Members to review the legislation.