Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for the vote on passage of H.R. 5895 (Roll Call No. 257). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No'' on final passage. H.R. 5895 is a consolidation of three appropriations bills, all which deserve individual consideration. The FY19 Energy and Water appropriations bill does little to protect our environment, cuts investment in clean energy initiatives, weakens safeguards to protect endangered species and makes drinking water less safe for children.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for the vote on passage of H.R. 8 (Roll Call No. 238). Had I been present, I would have voted Yes on final passage. This bill is the result of a strong bipartisan process, and includes multiple projects beneficial to Colorado.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a pillar of our community, Carole Onderdonk of her adopted city of Eagle, Colorado. Carole Onderdonk was a graduate of Upsala College and Fordham University, eventually becoming a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, and a gifted craftsperson. As a social worker, she became a tireless advocate for the most vulnerable, and truly believed she could make a difference in the world. I'm told that her positivity inspired her friends and family to be their best selves. I've known Carole for almost 20 years, and represented her in Congress until they redistricted her part of Eagle County out of the 2nd Congressional District. She always considered me her honorary representative anyway, and I knew the progressive cause could always count on her passionate advocacy. Carole was one of our favorite volunteers in Eagle County, and she carried within her a passion for improving the lives of others through the power of activism and political action. Her dedication to making a positive impact will be sorely missed. Carol was a beloved daughter, sister, mother, grandmother, great- grandmother, and valued member of our community.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for Roll Call vote 205, on passage of H.R. 2. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No'' on final passage. The partisan farm bill the Republican majority brought to the floor only sought to hurt millions of working families, children, older adults and persons with disabilities by cutting $23 million in SNAP benefits and undermine programs that protect the environment and promote conservation.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our nuclear arsenal is capable of ending human life on the planet five to seven times. I don't understand the need for redundancy when it comes to the extinction of humanity. Once should be more than enough to kill every man, woman, and child on the face of the planet. My amendment doesn't address all of that, but it does make a cut of $198 million in unnecessary spending for nuclear weapons. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, my amendment, which I am proud to sponsor with Representative Blumenauer, makes a small, sensible reduction to unnecessary nuclear weapons spending. The National Defense Authorization that we have before us this week authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars for our nuclear weapons program, even $65 million to reduce an additional low-yield warhead. While the threats that we face around the world are different than what they were a few years ago, we cannot afford to sacrifice the fiscal security of our Nation in the name of national security. Spending more than we have and more than we need to on the military makes us less secure, rather than more secure, by mortgaging our future and that of future generations to those foreign nations which hold our debt. My amendment would simply make a small start by reducing the funding for the National Security Administration's weapons account by $198 million, the exact amount that the agency itself says that it doesn't need. Let me be clear: This amendment will maintain all of our nuclear capabilities and research; but for a body that should be making the hard choices to get our budget under control, why should we be giving the National Security Administration more money than they want, need, or are asking for? We need to start getting our budget under control. This is a small step. I offered other amendments that were blocked. This one is allowed. I hope that my Republican and Democratic colleagues can come together to show that we are serious about cutting unnecessary spending and reducing our deficit. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, last year, the Republicans passed a corporate tax giveaway that adds $1.9 trillion to the deficit. I was proud to join all of my fellow Democrats in voting against that. Today I am here to talk about a new bill I introduced, the Students Over Special Interests Act. It shows what we could have done with some of that $1.9 trillion. I hear from constituents every day overwhelmed by student debt. For instance, Sam in Morrison, Colorado, a law enforcement officer, has been making student loan payments for years. Even at the age of 51, he has tens of thousands of dollars left. What my Students Over Special Interests Act does is it forgives all student debt. That costs less than the Republican tax giveaway. In addition, it increases Pell funding and reduces the deficit. Studies have shown that repealing student loan debt stimulates the economy, supports job growth, and takes something that is weighing down too many families. After forgiving student debt and making college more affordable, my bill still costs less than the Republican tax giveaway that they passed into law. I encourage the House to take up the Students Over Special Interests bill.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 205.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the senior gentleman from Colorado for the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss a couple of the terrible conservation and environmental bills that affect the district I represent, our State, and our country. As the gentleman from Oregon mentioned, the elimination of the Conservation Stewardship Program, a program that has been successful to help preserve over 70 million acres, is, frankly, inexcusable. The Conservation Stewardship Program supports farmers, ranchers, and owners of forests who want to pursue high-level conservation stewardship activities. It is important to protect our watershed that our towns and communities rely on, to keep our air clean, to sequester carbon, to maintain diverse habitats for wildlife, and, yes, to keep our farms productive and sustainable in the long term. Working lands conservation programs are so popular that the Natural Resources Conservation Service wound up having to have a waiting list. It had to turn away almost three-quarters of the qualified applicants. Under the proposal today it would have to turn away 100 percent of applicants. Now, they claim that they are consolidating some programs into the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, but, frankly, those programs are very different. Whereas, the Conservation Stewardship Program helps farmers and ranchers implement advanced conservation and stewardship systems to help preserve and protect the resources on their lands. EQIP is more of an introduction or on-ramp to working lands conservation. It is on a one-time basis to help a specific conservation practice. It is not a program that designed, nor does it provide, assistance for long-term sustainability. That is why the Conservation Stewardship Program is so important for our forest health. Switching gears to our national forests, it seems that some Members of this body are still seeking to erode protections for our national forests. One example in this bill, the Tongass National Forest, in Alaska, which is one of the crown jewels of our National Forest System, faces a huge threat with two amendments. One of those amendments in the bill, which was already ruled in order last night without any debate, would exempt all of the Federal forests in Alaska--more Federal forests than any State in the country--to one of the most important conservation safeguards: the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The second amendment would overturn the Tongass forest plan, which protects roadless areas and other ecologically important lands from unsustainable logging, and charts a transition away from taxpayer subsidized, industrial scale, old-growth logging, to better and new forms of sustainable economic development. Our country's old-growth forests are, frankly, a National treasure. Clear-cutting ancient forests not only compromises our public lands; but it devastates and fragments habitat for wildlife, it introduces invasive species that compete with native species; and, yes, it pollutes the drinking water supplies for as many as 60 million people. The Roadless Rule is very important because it provides a balanced protection between our old-growth forests and public roads, and hydropower projects. Its application in Alaska has a very positive impact on community access and economic development, and we need to maintain the rule. As representatives and stewards of our forests, under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it is absolutely critical to protect our public lands. From the Clean Water Act to NEPA, which this bill would devastate for projects that are 6,000 acres or less, to the Endangered Species Act, which has had so many great successes, we need to protect the tools we have to secure a safe environment and a diverse habitat for our wildlife. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Colorado, and others, for speaking out on the important environmental provisions in this bill.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention to provisions of this bill which attack bedrock environmental laws and recklessly promote logging over clean water, recreation, and wildlife. In a district like mine, where the holdings of the U.S. Forest Service are extensive, this bill is a critical part of helping to protect our economy, our way of life, and the way we enjoy our public lands. Title 8 of the bill includes blatant attempts that undermine the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, and the roadless area conservation rule. This bill allows for congressional exemptions--basically, an earmark-- to prevent environmental reviews and public comment periods that actually prevent communities from having a say over what happens quite literally in their backyard. I think that we need to make sure that we involve our local communities. This bill empowers Washington, D.C., decisionmakers by taking that control away from our communities. It weakens the Endangered Species Act by eliminating scientific expert opinion about whether projects would harm endangered species and their critical habitats, and it prioritizes logging over recreation, even going so far as shifting incentives to emphasize logging over environmental restoration in other areas that support the outdoor recreation economy, one of the biggest sources of jobs in my district and in my State. Before the ink is even dry on the omnibus, this farm bill threatens to renege on the bipartisan wildfire budget deal with more proposals that weaken protections and mitigation on our public lands. In my State, the 6,000-acre congressional exemption or earmark would have a detrimental impact, but it would have an even worse impact on the much smaller Eastern and Midwestern forests, where 6,000 acres would vastly exceed the annual sustainable maximum harvest. When the Forest Service needs to do a 6,000-acre project, it already can. It needs to take input from the public nearby in our neighborhoods and in our communities about how they would be affected. Of course, it should consider how water, soil, and wildlife habitat can be protected. For years, congressional debate over forest management has been framed by the need to address hazardous fuels for wildfires. This bill takes a step away from that and makes it clear that reform efforts weren't actually about wildfire; they are about efforts to give away our public lands to timber and other industries and silence the voice of residents. Congress should stop trying to legislate logging projects and take control. Washington should allow our communities to have a say. The Forest Service has many tools today that include local input. All Americans deserve is a say in how our public lands are managed. Endangered species should certainly not be sacrificed just so more of our forests can be logged. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from over 120 conservation groups opposed to these harmful forestry provisions in H.R. 2, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' May 11, 2018. Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters we urge you to strongly oppose the extreme and divisively partisan federal forest provisions in the Forestry Title of the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R. 2), also known as ``the House Farm Bill.'' The legislation is replete with provisions that undermine bedrock environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). This bill consistently prioritizes the logging industry over all other forest stakeholders. It would cause irreparable harm to our federal forests, the millions of Americans who depend on them for clean drinking water, subsistence, recreation, and economic benefit, and the wildlife that call them home. The federal forest provisions in the House Farm Bill also run contrary to the wildfire funding agreement reached only weeks ago in the Fiscal Year 2018 Omnibus. A deal was only reached after significant environmental concessions to pro- logging hardliners, even though a comprehensive wildfire funding solution had solid bi-partisan support in both chambers going into the omnibus negotiation. Ignoring that compromise, H.R. 2 would allow logging, grazing, and many other activities on up to 6,000-acres-- almost 10 square miles for each single project--without any NEPA review or disclosure of potential harms. The numerous new exemptions are double the size of the legislated NEPA exclusion just passed in the omnibus deal and they also eliminate the requirement, preserved in the omnibus agreement, to consider cumulative effects and ``extraordinary circumstances'' such as wilderness areas and endangered species. This partisan bill also goes further than the omnibus deal on the ESA, allowing federal land management agencies to ``self-consult'' on whether their actions would harm threatened and endangered species even though such self- consultation has already been declared unlawful by the courts. Additionally, it attacks the landmark Roadless Rule, makes resource management and forest stewardship dependent on logging revenue, creating a perverse incentive, and jeopardizes fire-vulnerable communities by deprioritizing hazardous fuels reduction efforts in the Wildland Urban Interface. The harmful federal forest proposals in this legislation solve no problem; they only add controversy to the House Farm Bill and weaken its chances of becoming law. For all of these reasons we strongly urge you to OPPOSE the federal forest provisions in the House Farm Bill and any amendments that further undermine environmental safeguards on our federal forests. Thank you, Alaska Wilderness League; Allegheny Defense Project; Alpine Lakes Protection Society; Appalachian Voices; Arise for Social Justice; Bark; Beaver Valley Preservation Alliance; California Native Plant Society; Cascade Forest Conservancy; Cascadia Wildlands; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation; Cherokee Forest Voices; Christians For The Mountains; Climate Change Major Disaster Declaration Campaign; Colorado Native Plant Society; Conservation Colorado; Conservation Congress; Conservation Northwest; Darby Creek Valley Association. Defenders of Wildlife; Dolores River Boating Advocates; Earth Island Institute's John Muir Project; Earthjustice; Endangered Species Coalition; EnviroAce, LLC; Environmental Protection Information Center; Friends of Bell Smith Springs; Friends of Grays Harbor; Friends of Lake Monroe; Friends of Plumas Wilderness; Friends of the Bitterroot; Friends of the Inyo; Georgia ForestWatch; Grand Canyon Trust; Great Old Broads for Wilderness; Great Old Broads for Wilderness--Grand Junction Broadband; Great Old Broads for Wilderness--Rio Grande Valley Broadband; Great Old Broads for Wilderness-- Select Roaring Fork Broadband; Greater Hells Canyon Council. Greenvironment, LLC; Heartwood; High Country Conservation Advocates; Hoosier Environmental Council; Idaho Conservation League; Indiana Forest Alliance; Izaak Walton League Bush Lake Chapter; Izaak Walton League Cass Count Chapter; Izaak Walton League W.J. McCabe Chapter; Kentucky Conservation Committee; Kentucky Environmental Foundation; Kentucky Heartwood; Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.; Kettle Range Conservation Group; Klamath Forest Alliance; KS Wild; La Cueva Guardians; League of Conservation Voters; Los Padres ForestWatch; Mass Forest Rescue Campaign. Minnesota Division Izaak Walton League of America; Montana Wilderness Association; MountainTrue; National Parks Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; Nature Abounds; Nature for All; New Mexico Sportsmen; New Mexico Wild; New Mexico Wilderness Alliance; New Mexico Wildlife Federation; New River Alliance of Climbers; North Cascades Conservation Council; Northcoast Environmental Center; Ohio Environmental Council; Olympic Forest Coalition; Olympic Park Associates; Once a Forest; Oregon Wild; Partnership for Policy Integrity. Partnership for the National Trails System; PennFuture; Pennsylvania Council of Churches; Public Lands Media; RESTORE: The North Woods; Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative; Rocky Mountain Wild; San Juan Citizens Alliance; San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council; Sangre de Cristo Audubon Society; Santa Fe Forest Coalition; Save Our Sky Blue Waters; Sequoia ForestKeeper; Shawnee Forest Sentinels; Sheep Mountain Alliance; Sheltowee Trace Association; Sierra Club; Sierra Forest Legacy; Sky Island Alliance; Southern Environmental Law Center. Southern Illinoisans Against Fracturing Our Environment; Speak for the Trees; Tennessee Wild; The Enviro Show; The Lands Council; The Wilderness Society; Tulare County Audubon Society; Umpqua Watersheds, Inc.; Virginia Wilderness Committee; Water Stone Outdoors; West Virginia Environmental Council; West Virginia Highlands Conservancy; West Virginia Rivers Coalition; West Virginia Wilderness Coalition; Western Environmental Law Center; White Mountain Conservation League; WildEarth Guardians; Wilderness Workshop; Winter Wildlands Alliance; Zumbro Valley Audubon.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5236, the Main Street Employment Act of 2018, that will help employee-owned companies. Employee ownership is an important part of helping workers build wealth. In addition to the income gap in this country, we also have a wealth gap. When a company does well, everybody should do well, not just the investors. This bill helps promote employee-owned businesses by making changes to the Small Business Administration's loan program that helps employee-owned businesses access capital. It is currently a barrier in the rules that actually gives a disadvantage to employee-owned businesses, when, as a society, as a Nation, we should be encouraging employee ownership. The SBA Loan Guarantee Program is often the only financing that many small businesses can get early on to get off the ground. This bill would open up SBA lending for cooperatives, which we often call co-ops, and also strengthens the lending program for ESOPs, which is another form of employee-owned company. There is a very successful ESOP in the district I am honored to represent called New Belgium Brewery that makes among the best beer in the world. This bill also creates a small business employee ownership and cooperative program, which helps employers and employees understand how to create employee-owned businesses, providing some of the help for succession planning, coordinating with other programs to help employee-owned businesses succeed. Employee-owned businesses are anchor businesses in our communities. They provide good, stable jobs and help employees build value and wealth over time and participate in the governance of the company. They align the incentives of workers with owners and management and are good for overall economic productivity as well. This bill builds on the bipartisan language that I helped secure in the omnibus appropriations bill directing the SBA to encourage employee ownership. Passing this bill will make those changes in the 1-year spending bill that expires September 30 permanent. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support this very important piece of bipartisan legislation.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 3671 and H.R. 1742.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Representative Perlmutter. I am proud to join him in offering this amendment, which comes in a direct response to a tragedy that occurred in the district I am honored to represent, and countless other tragedies across the country. As Representative Perlmutter mentioned, back in 2015, there was a Flight for Life crash in Frisco, Colorado. The pilot, Patrick Mahany, died, and one person on board is still in the recovery process. The death and damage was caused not directly from the crash, but from the lack of a crash resistant fuel system that is already mandated in military helicopters, but, for some ridiculous reason, it is not mandated in civilian aircraft like the Flight for Life helicopter. I want to thank the widow of Patrick, Karen Mahany, for keeping this issue in front and foremost. I know how difficult it must be to go through a personal mourning process, but then to look above that and say: Let's stop this kind of tragedy from affecting other families. That is what Karen has done by putting herself out there. I am honored to be supportive of this amendment here today that will save lives and make sure that Patrick is among the last to suffer from a loss of life from this lack of simple safety equipment in helicopters. This important amendment simply requires the FAA to mandate crash resistant fuel systems in newly manufactured helicopters. I am also working on a tax credit to help fund retrofitting of existing helicopters. We can't let another tragedy lead to loss of life from an avoidable problem. All helicopters should be equipped with the best, most effective, and cost-effective technology available. Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment and ensure that this is part of the final bill that comes out of the House and Senate as well.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 5444 and H.R. 5445. I support the underlying bills, but the problem is these rules don't allow any amendments. We suggest an open process. I offered three amendments myself to these bills. My colleague Mr. Sherman offered an amendment to improve the bill. Unfortunately, we have been denied a vote, and instead this body is having a debate on, frankly, issues, just like yesterday, there doesn't even need to be that much debate on. I would think these bills, like the one yesterday, could have been put on something called the suspension calendar, which means they are not too controversial. Usually the reason we do a rule is we allow amendments. That is why we do that, and yet all the amendments that were offered were rejected. So we are kind of drawing out the time it takes to pass these bipartisan bills instead of spending the time on issues that the American public want us to address. Members on both sides of the aisle, myself included, are clamoring for debate around what is called an AUMF, an authorized use of military force, bill to address the authority of the President with regard to Syria, with regard to ISIS and other operations. We are now 4 months into 2018. The House still has not considered a bill to protect our Dreamers, our young aspiring Americans. So inaction, inaction, inaction. And even where we are moving forward with a bipartisan bill, we are shutting out ideas from Republicans and Democrats that could actually make the bill better. I, as I mentioned, offered a couple of those to this bill, and the majority blocked those amendments on a party-line vote. One of my amendments would have provided clarity to consumers and the IRS around providing a window for immunity on filings for use of cryptocurrency, a bipartisan bill with Mr. Schweikert. Another amendment would have provided tax relief for kombucha manufacturers, a bipartisan bill with Mr. Tipton. Another would have eased tax burdens on small businesses in States that have legalized marijuana. All three have bipartisan support. The Rules Committee could have granted the necessary waivers, as they do on many amendments when they choose to, and allowed them. Mr. Sherman's amendment was actually germane to the underlying bill. There wouldn't have needed to be any additional waivers that were granted. We simply could have advanced it to the floor to debate. So, again, these bills are largely noncontroversial. What is controversial is why won't the Republican leadership allow Democrats and Republicans to amend and improve these bills? And two, why we are wiling away our time on bills that we could have done Monday on a suspension voice vote instead of really working on a bipartisan Authorization for Use of Military Force or the other prescient issues our country faces? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), whose amendment was rejected in a party-line vote by the Rules Committee and not even allowed to be debated for a moment on the floor of the House.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on tax day, the White House made an announcement about President Trump's taxes, but it wasn't the announcement that Americans were waiting for. Instead of releasing his returns, President Trump was actually just requesting an extension to file his 2017 income tax return, which still would not be made public if or when he files it. It is a good reminder that President Trump has broken with decades of tradition when, as a Presidential candidate, he did not disclose his tax returns. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R. 305, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, which would require Presidential nominees to disclose their last 3 years of tax returns. To discuss our proposal, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), our final speaker.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask is the gentleman prepared to close?

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity here to defeat the previous question and call up a bill to increase transparency with regard to the President. We also have an opportunity to reject a rule that excludes good ideas, where Members of Congress, in good faith, offered amendments to improve the bill and they were denied. Of course, the two underlying bills are fine bills. What is broken is the process, a process that doesn't allow a meaningful floor debate on improvements to a bill and a process that doesn't allow any floor time for an Authorization for Use of Military Force or addressing the needs of our Dreamers. Unfortunately, these bills are brought to the floor under a closed rule. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.