Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Ohio talked about what we do when we are back home. Of course we tour businesses, meet with people, and do all of those wonderful things. What I hear from them is: Why aren't you back in Washington solving problems? Look, I represent one of the most beautiful districts in the entire country: Winter Park, Vail, the beautiful Flatirons near Boulder, Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, the great Arts Center in Loveland, and Fort Collins. I love nothing more than going home. But when we got elected to this position, Mr. Speaker, we promised our constituents that we will make a sacrifice. Part of that sacrifice is saying: You know what. We are going to take some time away, leave our friends and family, to work for the good of the country, to roll up our sleeves and actually solve problems. As much as I would like to be back in Colorado, in my beautiful district, right now and I would rather personally be hiking in the hills above our home in north Boulder than I would be debating the finer points of coal refuse policy with the gentleman from Ohio, that is what I signed up for. I know, Mr. Speaker, that that is what he signed up for, too. We signed up to do work. We owe the American people a budget. We should stay here until we complete that budget, even if it means canceling the vacation that we have scheduled. And, yes, that vacation--when we are back home, we can't do legislative work. Sure, we can put on an apron and visit a local kitchen. We do, and I do. And you know what, it is part of the job. I am happy to do it. But we can't pass a single law while we are back home. It is impossible, Mr. Speaker, to pass a budget while we are all back home and Congress is not in session. It is not possible if Congress is not in session. The gentleman asked: What is a better way to proceed with this noncontroversial bill and the controversial bill? Look, either way is fine if we had an open rulemaking process, an open rule. At least there would be some point to these discussions on the floor. There would be Republicans and Democrats who might have ideas to make these bills better that would be bringing them forward. At least there would be some point to it. But, no, there is no point to it. Because we are debating it, we know the outcome, and Republicans and Democrats can't even offer their bills to enhance it. We are prohibited during all of this time debating one bill that is largely noncontroversial and one bill that isn't going anywhere and won't become law. We are spending the entire week debating these bills--or most of the week. I know we will be back to discuss another court case relating to immigration later this week. But the bulk of the week is debating this rather than the budget, securing our border, keeping the American people safe, growing the economy, creating jobs, investing in infrastructure, FAA authorization, any of those issues. But when I am back home and visiting businesses, I hear about it from my constituents. You would think that, with all the time we spend back home that the gentleman from Ohio calls nonvacation time because we are always listening to people, we would listen more and actually do what the American people say. Are the American people saying to address the miniscule aspects of the coal refuse plant and CSAPR and MATS? Let me be honest, Mr. Speaker. Until this debate, I thought CSAPR was just a friendly ghost, because the American people back in my district are not really about CSAPR and MATS. In fact, once I understood them, I thought they sounded good. They are market-based approaches. I don't think this Federal takeover that the Republicans are proposing is a good idea. Instead, if we are spending all this time listening back home, which we certainly are because Congress is hardly working here, then at least let's listen to what the American people say. I believe they are speaking strongly with one voice, whether they are Republican or Democratic. I hear the same things from my constituents, the unaffiliated constituents, the Republicans, the Democrats, the Greens, the Libertarians. What they all tend to say, what they all say, is: Go do your job. Pass a budget. Pass a budget. Democrats believe that. Republicans believe that. Unaffiliated voters believe that. Greens, Libertarians, and the American Constitution Party believe that. If I have left out any other parties, I am pretty sure in saying that they also think that Americans should have a budget. We have budgets for our households. I have a budget for my household. We have budgets for our States. Doesn't the American Congress owe the American people a budget? Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to prohibit the House from going on recess next week until we do our job and pass a budget. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with the extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. There is a way that our process works around here. If a rule is illegal, it will be tossed out by the courts. George Bush's attempt to implement the Clean Air Act, section 112, around brick kilns was tossed out. What this bill does is says that, so long as there is a court challenge, there is some sort of presumption that the rule be tossed out and, therefore, an indefinite stay. Now, there can be challenges all the time. The minute one fails, another one can be launched. No bones about it. This would indefinitely prevent this rule from ever taking effect with regard to brick kilns. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I haven't heard from a single constituent on this issue. Like the gentleman from Alabama, my constituents are angry. They are angry at Congress and worried about the direction of the country. They want Congress to replace our broken immigration system with one that works and secure our southern border. They want Congress to return to fiscal responsibility and balance our budget. They want to make sure that college is affordable for the next generation. They want to make sure they have good jobs here at home. They want to make sure that we encourage companies to locate and grow here in America rather than take tax advantages for relocating overseas or inverting their headquarters to occur overseas, as occurs with today's Tax Code. Those are some of the many issues that my constituents want me to talk about here. I just had a townhall meeting last week in Fort Collins, Colorado, the biggest city in my district. About 100 people came. Not a single person was angry about brick kilns. But, yes, there was a lot of anger there about some of the issues I indicated: people frustrated with why Congress refuses to act on making college more affordable, why Congress has refused to act in making sure that Medicare and Social Security are there for the next generation, and why Congress doesn't put our country on the course of fiscal responsibility and reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio. But, instead, we are debating a bill that won't become law without allowing amendments here on the floor. That is what a closed rule means. If it was an open rule, I would be able to offer my amendment to close the small site exemption with regard to fracking, but I can't. We are debating a bill that won't become law, attacking a rule that is merely implementing what Congress has told not just this President, but any President, to do. George Bush tried. Obama tried. It is because Congress, under the Clean Air Act, tells the executive: You have to do this under section 112. And then, when they do it, there is the issue that went through the courts. That is appropriate. That is their role. But when they implement what Congress has told them to do, we are saying: No. There is an indefinite stay. That is what this bill would do. I know, Mr. Speaker, regardless of what they think about any of the policies or rules put out by this administration or any administration, it is not the place of Congress to issue stays on rules. It is the role of the courts. The Constitution established three branches in our government for a reason under our Constitution. It is the courts' job, not Congress' job, to interfere with the legal process. It is not Congress' job to take that responsibility away from the judicial branch, especially with a bill that would actually encourage more frivolous litigation by rewarding frivolous litigation and endless appeals when we already have too much of that in our court system. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question, which, if we succeed on that vote, we can immediately get to hold hearings on the President's budget proposals. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule as well, again, a closed rule, not allowing amendments here on the floor of the House. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Again, so long as even there are the most frivolous lawsuits and anybody could continually file a lawsuit, and so long as any one of them is pending, the rule does not take effect. It is indefinitely stayed. So, yet again, we are debating something on the floor going nowhere. We are not debating improving our roads and bridges. We are not debating securing our southern border. We are not debating balancing our Federal budget deficit. We are not debating making America more competitive and bringing jobs from overseas and China back home here and creating a growing middle class. Instead, we are wasting time on legislation that won't become law, that shouldn't even become law because it is the inappropriate role of this body. There are so many things that we could be talking about even within the energy realm and the EPA realm that would be productive discussions. I will give you an example. I have had the opportunity in hearings in the Natural Resources Committee to bring up a bipartisan bill that I have with Mr. Gosar twice this week, and this is the third time. It is a bill that would create jobs and create renewable energy. It is called the Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act. Why don't we have a rule on that bill or bring it up on suspension? Mr. Gosar and my bill would incentivize renewable energy development by streamlining the permitting process on public lands for renewable energy projects. Isn't that something we can come together about, making sure that we can find a way to expedite siting for renewable energy products on public land, creating jobs and creating clean energy? Or we could be discussing the need for a permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, something that just last week was offered as a bipartisan amendment by myself and Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Sanford of South Carolina. But, of course, that amendment was not given an hour of debate, 2 hours of debate, like this. We have the rule, we have the bill. The entire legislative day is discussing a stay on brick kilns. It should be in a courtroom, not in the U.S. House. We weren't even given 10 minutes. We weren't even given 1 minute to discuss that bipartisan amendment from Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Sanford and myself. Look, the list goes on and on of what we could be doing. It has been said that politics is the art of the possible. When the American people look at our proceedings on the floor and what the Republican majority is doing with Congress, is it any wonder that the approval rating of Congress is 8 percent? The people look at Congress and say, look, you are spending an entire day debating a stay on kiln rules. First of all, why are you talking about it? It should be in a courtroom. Second of all, aren't there critical national priorities that you need to be debating right now to create jobs, make America more competitive overseas, improve our schools, make college more affordable, balance our deficit, fix our broken immigration system, improve our roads and bridges, make America more competitive and grow the middle class? Aren't there? That is what 92 percent of the American people are crying out. There is still time for this Congress to listen. I hope that we begin. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. The Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act--certainly, a mouthful to say--is yet another of the endless list of attempts by this body--and it will not become law--to block implementation of an administrative rule or regulation that some people don't like, rather than tackling the issues that this country cares about and that I hear from voters back home when I have townhall meetings or I am at the grocery store. I hear about fixing our broken immigration system and securing our border. I hear about balancing the budget deficit. I hear about making sure that Medicare and Social Security are solvent and there for the next generation. I hear about making sure we create jobs, that housing is affordable, and that our roads and bridges are safe so traffic can flow safely and quickly. Yet, here we are again, spending an entire legislative day debating a bill that won't become law, which you will certainly hear about over the next couple of hours, regarding a series of regulations around brick kilns. Once again the Republicans are approaching a complex rulemaking process with a knee-jerk reaction in a nontransparent process with a closed rule, not even allowing a debate for a single amendment. Not only is this bill not transparent and not necessary, in this particular case, it sets a bad precedent because the courts already have the authority to issue a stay of compliance on a final rule. As we saw through the recent delay of the Clean Power Plan, our judicial and legislative systems are separate for a reason. Let the courts do their work and let us do ours. Let us not preempt the courts from their normal process. Our judicial and legislative systems are separate. Individuals, organizations, and companies have plenty of recourse and options through the court system to address this matter. The floor of the House is not the place to be requesting a stay. If there was something done that was illegal or wrong, the place to request a stay is the courtroom. But time and time again legislation like this has come to this floor, disposing of the judicial process and shortcutting the justice system that we have to delay a rule until all legal challenges are completed, which effectively means that frivolous lawsuits can jam up the rule indefinitely and forever. Over the past 45 years, it is proven that clean air regulations are important to protect the public health and consistent with growing a strong economy. Of course, I understand the pressure requirements placed on brick and clay ceramic makers. They have legitimate reasons to provide input to question or contest the rule. The judicial avenue is and will be available to them. That is the appropriate venue to request a stay, not the floor of the House of Representatives. There are several brick and clay companies in my State of Colorado, such as the Summit Brick & Tile Company in Pueblo, Colorado. I know these companies updated and changed their industry after the 2004 rule. But, unfortunately, like so many rules under the administration of George Bush, the rule is written so poorly that it was vacated by the courts in 2007, which means there is no rule under the authority of the Clean Air Act, which this Congress has made the law of the land, that sets standards for eliminating air pollution in this industry. Not only is that unacceptable, but, of course, it needs to be rectified urgently. There is nothing special about brick kilns. Like anything else, of course, they affect air quality. I have a picture of what we are talking about here. Of course, like any other economic activity that creates issues regarding air quality, we need a nuanced and thoughtful rule that ensures that the economic activity continues, subject to maintaining the public health. In fact, the EPA has a responsibility under section 112 of the Clean Air Act to control pollution from stationary sources of pollution, like brick kilns. Let me repeat that. The EPA was actually required by Congress to implement a rule that covers this industry because, according to the judiciary, President Bush enacted the rule incorrectly. If Congress wants to get at the underlying statutes, let's have that debate. Let's talk about what the EPA should and shouldn't do. I believe that we should close down loopholes that exempt fracking from regulation under the Clean Air Act. We have a series of bills that would do that--the BREATHE Act and the FRESHER Act--to ensure that the small site exemption does not occur, does not exist with regard to fracking activities that, in the aggregate, can have a considerable impact on air quality. We have seen areas of our State and our neighboring State of Wyoming have worse air quality than downtown Los Angeles because of the extraction and fracking-related activity, which is largely exempt from the clean air law. That is the debate I would be happy to have. Let's debate the appropriate jurisdiction of the EPA. If there is something we got wrong in that with regard to brick kilns and their authority or responsibility, that is the place to have the debate. It is not to give an indefinite stay to simply implement what is the law of the land and the will of Congress, which is the EPA's responsibility. Congress has told the EPA, through the Clean Air Act, that they have the responsibility under section 112 to control pollution from stationary sources of pollution. They tried to do it under President Bush. It was tossed out by the courts because it was improperly constructed, and they are doing their job. Yet, Congress is trying to use something that is normally a judicial procedure, a stay, to get around the very mandate that Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency. So it is simply the wrong way to go about it. Brick and clay plants, if left unregulated, which is why they are covered under the Clean Air Act, can be major sources of toxic air pollutants, like hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, and hazardous metal, heavy metal pollutants that can endanger people with everything from asthma to cancer. Now, I don't know about you, but I would rather have my children running around a playground of a town where plants that put out hazardous pollutants are regulated in a thoughtful and responsible way, which is what this rule attempts to do. That is why opponents of this legislation include the Center for Biological Diversity, League of Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters, National Resource Development Council, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. All of these experts understand that, for 15 years, Congress has expected air pollution from these facilities to be covered by the Clean Air Act standards, and that delaying the process further is irresponsible, prevents the EPA from doing their mandate that Congress has given them, sets a dangerous public health precedent, and will endanger lives of American citizens. Not only is this a treacherous pattern but, again, it is a waste of time. This bill won't become law. It came out of committee on a party- line vote. The majority knows that, even in the off chance that the Senate were to consider this legislation, which I highly doubt, the President would veto the bill. It was indicated in the Statement of Administration Policy that I will include in the Record, Mr. Speaker, which reads, in part, H.R. 4557 would create ``an incentive for parties to litigate this rulemaking and the related corrections notice for as long as possible in order to delay air pollution reductions.'' Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 4557--Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act of 2016--Rep. Bill Johnson, R-OH, and seven cosponsors The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 4557, which could extend indefinitely deadlines for the brick and structural clay industry to limit mercury and other hazardous air pollution. Specifically, H.R. 4557 would extend compliance deadlines for the Brick and Structural Clay National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants until all litigation on the final rule is complete, thereby creating an incentive for parties to litigate the rulemaking and the related corrections notice for as long as possible in order to delay air pollution reductions. In the meantime, H.R. 4557 would undermine the public health protections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by allowing further emissions of approximately 30 tons per month of toxic air pollution from brick and clay products production facilities. These toxic emissions include mercury, gases, and other hazardous metals which are associated with a variety of acute and chronic health effects, including cancers. The CAA required the Environmental Protection Agency to finalize pollution standards for toxic air pollution from all industrial sectors by 2000. Since then, sources in many other sectors have been complying with standards that limit their emissions of cancer-causing toxic air pollutants. The subject rule reflects CAA requirements while providing flexible compliance options and the maximum time allowed by law for compliance. It also makes distinctions between requirements for small and large kilns in order to reduce the impacts on small businesses. Since its enactment in 1970, and subsequent amendment in 1977 and 1990--each time with strong bipartisan support--the CAA has improved the Nation's air quality and protected public health. Over that same period of time, the economy has grown over 200 percent while emissions of key pollutants have decreased nearly 70 percent. Forty-five years of clean air regulation have shown that a strong economy and strong environmental and public health protection go hand-in-hand. Because H.R. 4557 threatens the health of Americans by allowing more toxic air pollution, if the President were presented with H.R. 4557, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. POLIS. Did anybody who was angry bring up brick kilns as something they were angry about? I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as I indicated, it would be an appropriate discussion for us to talk about the statutory obligations of EPA. We might have differing opinions. I think they should have the authority, we should remove the small site exemption, and they should look at emissions from the fracking industry and the extraction. But that is a valid discussion to have. Instead of that, we are saying you are doing what we told you to do, but we want to grant a stay. So Congress, under the EPA in section 112, directed the EPA under the Clean Air Act to promulgate these regulations. President George Bush did so. They were tossed out, and now there is a new set of regulations going forward to implement what Congress wanted the EPA to do. Now, if the gentleman from Alabama doesn't want the EPA to do that, let's have that discussion about EPA's authority. I am happy to do it. I have ideas. Maybe there are some areas the EPA shouldn't have that mandate authority. There are other areas, like making sure we look at emissions from fracking where we need enhanced authority because there is something called the small site exemption in the Clean Air Act, where, even though each particular fracking pad has a very small contribution to air quality, when you start having thousands of them in a limited area--which we do--it starts looking a lot less like a couple automobiles and a lot more like a large industrial factory. So they shouldn't be exempt just by nature of being small, because when you have a lot of small things, it equals not only one big thing, it equals 10 big things and 100 big things. We have over 40,000 active wells in the greater Weld-Larimer County area alone, and there is an enormous impact on our air quality, which is exempt under the small site exemption. So again, section 112 directs the EPA to promulgate these rules. If we want to open up the mandate that Congress has given the EPA, let's have that discussion. As an individual legislator, I might trade you this brick kiln authority if we can close the small site exemption. I would say, fine; my constituents care more about closing that small site exemption than they do if there are two brick kilns in our entire State. So I think, in general, my constituents and Coloradans care more about making sure our air quality is good and protected with regard to the emissions from the fracking activity than from the two brick kilns. So I would be open to that as a legislative compromise. That is how legislation is made. But we are not allowed to have that debate. The gentleman mentioned, oh, no amendments were brought forward. Guess what? We did a motion in the Rules Committee--I am sure the gentleman from Alabama remembers--yesterday to do an open rule on this. If that had passed--and it failed on a partisan vote. Not a single Republican voted to allow an open rule on this bill. If that had succeeded, if that had passed, that open rule the Democrats wanted, we could then introduce amendments like the ones that I mentioned to talk about the authority of the EPA or other issues that we have to improve the statutory requirements in charge of the EPA. Right on the floor, we would have the opportunity to do that. Instead, we have an entire day on brick kilns without even being allowed to introduce amendments that affect our clean air and water in any way, shape, or form. I think we can do better. The gentleman also asked what the impact of the brick kilns on this is. The EPA estimates that the brick and clay rule would reduce national air toxins by approximately 375 tons in 2018. Again, that is what Congress has told the EPA to do under the Clean Air Act. If Congress wants the EPA to do something different, let's have that discussion, section 112, other sections of the Clean Air Act, of the mandate that Congress has given the EPA. Let's not use a court procedure, a stay, that won't become law to short-circuit something that Congress has told the EPA to do. It is positively schizophrenic for Congress to require an agency to do something and then say we are not going to allow you to do what we told you to do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to talk a little bit more about when we say this bill will never become law what exactly we mean and I mean when I indicate that. There have been an enormous number of bills that have passed the House of Representatives. As an example, repealing the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, taking health care away from tens of millions of Americans--that has passed this House in one form or another 64 times. So 64 times the House of Representatives has voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That is clearly what people who have been elected to the House have decided to do. The House of Representatives alone, however, doesn't get to make the law. We have the United States Senate and we have a President. The United States Senate usually requires, as a procedural matter, 60 votes to move legislation forward. And of course, even after a bill in the same form passes the House and the Senate, for it to become law, the President needs to sign it. If the President vetoes it, it immediately comes back and will require two-thirds to override the veto. So what we are talking about with this bill around kilns, like this one here, we are talking about a bill that probably will pass the House. I expect that that is what we are spending a whole day on. I don't think the Republicans would want to spend a whole day on it if it was going to fail. So let's assume it passes. I have heard no indication whatsoever that the Senate is going to take this up in any way, shape, or form. In the unlikely event that the Senate takes it up, they have the challenge of getting 60 votes. The bill had no bipartisan support in committee. It is hard to see how they would get enough Democratic support in the Senate to get the 60 votes to pass the bill. Even if they somehow did, President Obama and the administration is, of course, against providing a stay against their own rule that they promulgated. Therefore, we are spending an entire day doing nothing, talking about brick kilns, fiddling while Rome burns. The American people are upset, Mr. Speaker. The American people want this Congress to tackle the issues that affect them and their family around their kitchen table: rising rents and mortgage prices; maybe the mom or the dad or the kids lost their job and need to get back to work; making sure that they have a way to commute to work every day, and that our roads and bridges are strong, and they spend a minimal amount of time in traffic so they can spend more time with their family or at work earning money; balancing our budget deficit to secure a strong financial future for our country; making sure that Medicare and Social Security are there and safe, not only for today's retirees, but for the next generation and the next generation of American retirees; securing our southern border and replacing our broken and nonsensical and costly immigration system with one that works for America to make us more competitive, generate more revenues, unites families, and reflects our values as a Nation of immigrants. We could be doing any of those things. We could be debating any of those things. No one says they are easy. It starts with time to debate here on the floor of the House. What a great way to spend a day, a Thursday. By the way, Speaker Ryan and the Republicans don't even have us working Friday, tomorrow. They are sending us all home on Thursday, after spending a day debating brick kilns. We are not even debating anything tomorrow, Friday, or Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday or Friday of next week. I mean, look, the American people would love this kind of job which the Republican majority has given themselves with the congressional calendar where we have worked 3\1/2\ days this week, get Friday off, all of next week off, and spend a whole day debating brick kilns, rather than the issues that the American people care about. That is what is going on here. That is why Congress has such a low approval rating. Well, look, let's begin by debating the issues that people care about. They are hard. I get that. Fixing our broken immigration system, balancing our budget deficit, securing Medicare and Social Security, are not easy issues. But why don't we spend a day doing that, today, all day, having ideas from both sides of the aisle, having Members speak about their plans to make America better and stronger, rather than debating a court procedure, a stay on brick kilns, all day, and then rewarding ourselves with a day off tomorrow. Job well done, Congress. We did a court procedure on brick kilns as our work product and, for that, we deserve a week and a half off. That is the job that Congress has defined for itself, and it is why the American people are so outraged. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would require the Republicans to stop their partisan games and hold hearings on the budget proposal, the President's budget. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we pass this previous question motion that I am making, we can actually begin the important discussion of how we can bring our budget into balance and restore fiscal responsibility. Let's have hearings on the President's budget proposal. Let's talk about the tradeoffs around investments and savings. Let's have those meaningful discussions, rather than to spend an entire day on brick kilns, and then giving ourselves a week and a half off. We can still salvage this Congress for the American people. We can restore trust in the integrity and the desire of the American Government to do good and tackle the big issues we face. I am confident we can. That can begin by passing my previous question motion and getting to debate about the budget and balancing our budget and the tradeoffs and investments in our future, rather than debating kilns and giving ourselves a week and a half off. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, congratulate the gentleman from Alabama. He had a recent election and triumphed, and, of course, we will be excited to continue to serve with him. When we run, it is difficult. We have our ear to the ground, and we hear people. The gentleman mentioned that people were angry back home. I think there are a lot of people in my district that are angry, too. But again, I want to ask the gentleman: Is what they were angry about this brick kiln rule, or were they angry about the failure of Congress to secure our borders and the failure of Congress to balance our budget, all those things? I want to ask whether what you heard about in that anger was about brick kilns, or was it about other issues. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to give a little history about the efforts of the Democratic Party to secure our Southern border. We had an immigration bill last session. In that bill that passed the Senate with bipartisan support--not only every Democrat, but also many Republicans, like John McCain and Marco Rubio--we had $40 billion to secure our Southern border. Talk about a secure wall--security, making sure that illegal products and illegal people do not cross across that border--we had that. Thanks to the Republicans' failure to take action in this body, the House of Representatives, and simply pass the Senate bill, there is still no security on the Southern border. There are people, illegal drugs, and illegal products sneaking across every day because this body hasn't acted. Now, it is pie in the sky to think that some other country is going to pay for a wall to protect America. It isn't going to happen. What we did is we actually had fines for people who were here illegally. So people who are here illegally were actually the very ones who contributed money back into our coffers to help secure our Southern border, not to mention the additional economic benefit and taxes that they would pay going forward. It is time to act on immigration and secure our border.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to bring down this rule and restore the faith of the American people and this institution and defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. This is one of the strangest debates we have had in my time in the House here on the floor of the House. We are actually literally debating the fine print of menus in chain restaurants. Frankly, I think the American people want to see this body address the real issues that they care about every day. They want our body to fix our broken immigration system and secure our borders. They want us to raise the minimum wage and make college more affordable. They want to make sure that Americans are safe and secure in their homes and that we can ensure for the next generation of Americans the same promise that our last generation has enjoyed in this country. We know it is becoming even harder and harder for Americans to stay and thrive in the middle class, burdened with more and more college debt and with medical bills. It is time to improve that and make sure that we can restore a robust economy that works for all Americans. The finer points of exactly the font size on menus is, of course, best left to the executive agencies. It is a complete waste of Congress' time. There is a 400-page guidance from the FDA, and Congress is now going into that through this bill and literally doing things like adjusting font size and changing definitions. What a bizarre way to spend not only an hour for this rule debate but time for the actual bill debate, amendments, and the vote. I wonder how much taxpayer time we are spending on menu font size, which I don't even know why we are even talking about that. How bizarre. The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act is advertised as a response to what some perceive to be FDA regulations they don't like. Fine. Elect a different President. There actually will be a different President. One of the things this bill ironically does is delays these rules until there is a new President. So, I don't know, will Members of this body like rules better that are set by President Trump or President Sanders or President Clinton? I don't even think the topics come up in their campaign on what font size they want on menus and where they want the calories listed. I haven't heard it from any of my constituents. Generally, people want information about calories and how much they are getting. They want to know that, if they are getting a hamburger, it might make a difference if the smaller one is 300 calories and the bigger one is 500; maybe if I am watching my weight, I will order the smaller one. That is generally what people want. These rules generally do that. But here we are using hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars changing a few things and saying, by the way, we want President Trump or Sanders to do this instead of President Obama. I mean, why? The American people should be outraged. The American people look at Congress, and what do we have, like I think a 6 percent approval rating. Six percent of the American people are saying right on? Six percent of the American people want us to discuss exactly where it says how many calories your hamburger has at your fast-food restaurant? Maybe those 6 percent checked the wrong box on that congressional approval poll. But at least 94 percent of the American people think we ought to be doing something else, and so do I. I think we should be working to balance the budget. I think that we should fix our broken immigration system and restore our borders. I think that we should grow the American economy, find a sustainable way to invest in infrastructure, find a way to provide a boost to the renewable energies economy, boost American exports in manufacturing, raise the minimum wage, make health care more affordable, and build upon the improvements of the Affordable Care Act. But no, no. The Republican majority has decided we are going to spend the rest of the day today and tomorrow debating where and how on menus--and not even all restaurants, just some restaurants, with restaurants on all sides of this issue, by the way--that it says how many calories are in your hamburger. While some say that they don't like the regulations, the reality is this bill actually delays and waters down the transparency that the American people want. Honestly, my constituents have not called about this. I don't think many of them care that much about where it says how many calories are in their burger. But to the extent they think about it, they just want transparency. They want to see it. So do I as a consumer, by the way. When we work late nights here in D.C., I will order online from a delivery service. They will bring the food to my home. Sometimes I will go into their storefront, and sometimes those stores are chain stores that are under this. Now, as a consumer, I like to see the calories at all those locations. What this bill would actually do is prevent that from happening. It would say, look, Mr. Store Owner or Ms. Store Owner of a Restaurant Franchise Chain That Delivers, you get 60 percent of your business at your door that comes in, 40 percent of your business is delivery, so you don't have to tell your delivery customers on your Web site how many calories are in that burger. If I am one of their delivery customers, I lose out on that transparency because of the measures in this bill. And the converse, what if 60 percent of their food is delivery food and 40 percent are walk-in customers? Now you are saying that if I choose to go there, walk-in customers, sure, maybe the calorie thing is somewhere, maybe it is tucked under a magazine dispenser or it is on some back wall in the restroom, but it is not right there on the menu where I can actually see how many calories are in the item of my choice. The American people like our labeling. They like transparency. You go to the supermarket, every item, you pick it up, there is a label that tells you the calories, and it tells you the ingredients. People like that for restaurants. They certainly don't like Congress trying to modify the fine print on the font size on 400 pages of thoughtful rules around exactly how this should be done and punting it to the next President, whom we don't even know who that is going to be, to start a whole new rulemaking process about something that is very simple. People want to see how many calories are in what they eat. It is a very simple concept--very simple. People like it. People don't want us wasting time on it. Let's not waste time on it. Let's discuss the things people care about. But, no, we are forced to, under this rule, spend even more time--and time is money. Time is money, not just of opportunity cost, but we could be talking about ending our budget deficit and restoring order to our border. We could be doing that. Not just the opportunity cost but actual cost. It costs money to keep this body up and running. We are paying our staffs, the lights are on, hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to discuss exactly where and how the number of calories on your hamburger will be listed when there already are over 400 pages of rules which work and are still being fine tuned. We had great testimony from the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Frank Pallone, yesterday in our Rules Committee. He said that there are ongoing discussions with FDA, and they are well aware of some of these issues that can be improved. Congress is best setting these broad directions, like the broad direction which I support which Congress actually did. This was part of the Affordable Care Act. If it were a separate vote, I would have been proud to support it too. We said chain restaurants need to label caloric intake. That is great. That is a broad direction. The details of exactly how to do it need to be figured out on the implementation side. I can only imagine, if Congress got this involved with every single thing, this country would grind to a halt. Nothing could ever occur. No permit would ever be granted. No approval would ever occur of anything. It is simply the wrong way to run the largest, wealthiest, most democratic, and most free nation on the face of the Earth by grinding the country to a halt over Congress--the Congress of the United States--setting font sizes on restaurant menus. What the heck are we doing? It is a wonder that 6 percent of people, Mr. Speaker, approve of this Congress. I think they checked the wrong box. The whole point of this labeling measure included in the Affordable Care Act was to empower consumers to make healthier decisions about the food they eat by simply allowing them to know what is in it. That is the broad direction set by Congress, making sure that we have a public health impact. We need a certain level of standardization so consumers can compare nutritional information on restaurants, just as we do on packages in stores. If companies that make packaged foods had free rein to invent serving sizes on nutrition labels, or to put the labels on the inside of the container instead of the outside where you can't really see it, would anybody in this body argue that those labels were no longer serving the public good for which they were introduced? This is the same thing. This is the same thing as putting a label on the inside of a jar, rather than the outside, to game the system. It seems to me like an effort to deprive the American people of information they want to see. You don't improve Federal standards by making them unenforceable in a court of law. You make them irrelevant by making them unenforceable in a court of law. Mr. Speaker, I am one of these people who wants to know what is in their food. Many of my constituents are too. I am proud to represent the Second Congressional District of Colorado, one of the fittest congressional districts in this Nation, one of the districts with the lowest obesity rates, and a district in which people pride themselves on nutrition, healthy lifestyles, and exercise. I am proud to be a representative of that district. My constituents want to know what they eat. Menu labeling, which has been implemented in five States and dozens of cities since 2006, empowers consumers to make healthy decisions and know what they eat, which has never been more important. We all know that obesity and diabetes are on the rise. Last year, almost half of American adults had diabetes or pre-diabetes. Medical costs are in the hundreds of billions to treat these diseases and growing. Eating well is the most significant thing that a person can do as a preventative health measure to prevent themselves from developing these diet-related illnesses, including obesity and heart disease. As it stands now, nutrition information is already available on prepackaged foods. So when I cook at home, I know exactly what ingredients are going into the meal I feed myself and my kids. It is right on the label. But when I go out to eat, I don't have the advantage of that same information. In 2015, for the first time ever, Americans spent more money at restaurants than on groceries. Let me say that again: Americans spent more money at restaurants than on groceries for the first time in 2015. That is a big deal. An important part of the nutritional content that gives us sustenance comes from restaurants, and the American people want that same level of transparency at their restaurants. With this particular bill, Congress would be moving away from the broad direction that it gave the FDA to basically micromanage over 400 pages of exactly, in what instances, where, and how labels need to appear to the detriment of transparency and access. As my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) mentioned in the Rules Committee, the FDA solicited significant feedback from stakeholders over many years, both during the negotiations of the Affordable Care Act and, of course, over the course of developing a final rule. They have delayed implementation for 2 years already to give restaurants and the retail food community more time. I am talking about printing things. How overly generous can you get? With this bill, the Republicans are seeking 2 more years of delay. It is important to point out it has already been delayed 2 years. Again, this is a typical example of why the American people are so frustrated with Congress. This is a bill that will effectively grind things to a halt. Grind what to a halt? Telling you how many calories are in your hamburger, something that people want to know. That is what it will grind to a halt. To what end? To no end. It is a bizarre, unusual waste of time for Congress to be even debating this. If this bill were to pass and be signed into law--which it won't be because, of course, the President does not support this bill--it would postpone regulations for another 2 years, leaving an entirely new structure about exactly how the caloric intake on your menus is portrayed to the next President of the United States. Let's get this done. Under this bill, the menu labeling provision would go into effect, at the earliest, in 2018 and would be significantly watered down. Why is Congress sticking our noses in over 400 pages of rulemaking regarding this issue? If we have issues with the FDA, bring them up appropriately in oversight hearings of the FDA. At most, legislatively, perhaps a funding restriction amendment in an appropriations process to run a particular aspect of this regulation that a majority of this body doesn't like might be a legislative way to spend 10 minutes on it and resolve it. Ten minutes. Maybe the American people would think it reasonable to spend 10 minutes. They don't think it is reasonable to discuss this for 2 days. Hamburger calories for 2 days and exactly what font size and where it appears? What is going on here, Mr. Speaker? This is simply an inappropriate way, a shockingly out-of-touch way, for Congress to spend its time. My colleagues who support this bill have said that it builds flexibility for compliance. They say that it can help clarify nutrition information. I don't agree with those remarks, but I am more concerned with the provision of micromanaging the way that bills this Congress have already passed are implemented. I am worried this bill would make the provision of nutrition information more confusing for several reasons. In fact, I think that is part of the nefarious goal of this bill. Where are caloric counts supposed to be displayed? This bill would allow the restaurant or retail establishment to publish this information on one menu board, and not necessarily at the point of sale. So instead of on the menu at the point of sale, they can stick it in the bathroom. They can stick it in the bathroom. If you don't go to the bathroom, you won't see how many calories are in your burger. That is what they could do under this rule. Who the heck wants that? As Mr. Pallone pointed out yesterday, H.R. 2017 allows retailers to publish nutrition information in the format that receives the majority of their customers, whether it was in person or online. Just because I order food delivered to my home, I might not get to know how many calories are in my family's dinner. Or conversely, if other people order delivery and I go into a restaurant, I might not get to know how many calories are in a meal that I am feeding my family. I don't see why we don't just publish the information in the store, on takeout menus, and online. They have it, they know it, print it. It is easy. Do it. People want to see it. It is transparency. It is like letting prepackaged goods put their label on the inside of the package where nobody can see it rather than the outside. Or people buy things, if you buy your packaged goods online--and some people do--saying: Oh, it is on the Web site, so it doesn't need to be on the label. If you go in the store, you don't get to know what is in this product. The businesses that are required to implement these regulations aren't even corner delis or mom and pop shops. This isn't about them. This is about restaurants with more than 20 locations. The FDA has exempted any business smaller than that. In fact, the rulemaking has many exceptions already, including exemptions for specialty items, for temporary menus, for custom orders, and for daily specials. All exempt. They had a thoughtful process. They talked to restaurant owners. I haven't heard any complaints from my district about it, and people generally support the overall direction of transparency. I am especially concerned with how this bill would eliminate mechanisms for enforcement by removing a provision requiring businesses to provide documentation of compliance. It means that it would be essentially impossible for businesses to be accountable for whether they are even complying with regulations. It would make these regulations in paper only, in name only. There would be no meaningful enforcement mechanism. If this bill were to become law, which it won't, it would effectively gut those transparency requirements. The bill also prohibits civil lawsuits against businesses that attempt to deceive customers or circumvent the labeling process. If companies are willingly lying about what is in their products, in the calories and the nutritional content, of course, they should be liable for that--of course. Should a company intentionally mislead with confusing labels, customers need a way to fight back. Instead, this bill calls for complete indemnity, and makes any labeling initiative meaningless because there is simply no reason to comply. This bill allows restaurants to essentially invent their own nutritional information by using deceptive serving sizes and hide that information in bathrooms or on walls where consumers won't even see it, and not put it online or only put it online and not at the restaurant. At the same time, if somehow customers are able to discern that an establishment is lying, it strips away the enforcement mechanism and civil liability from that. What a colossal waste of time for the United States Congress to descend to the level of whether calories should be displayed in bathrooms, or on walls, or on menus in restaurants with more than 20 chains, when this Nation is in crisis and needs a responsible Congress to balance the budget and needs a responsible Congress to secure our borders and replace our broken immigration system with one that works. It needs a responsible Congress to ensure the safety and security of the American people, it needs a responsible Congress to find a sustainable way to invest in infrastructure and growth, and it does not need a Congress to micromanage the font size of menus. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. First of all, none of what we are even talking about applies to small businesses. I have friends that own restaurants in Colorado in Boulder and Fort Collins. I have a friend that has three restaurants and another one has one restaurant. I actually used to own a part of a restaurant. I don't recommend that business to anybody. It is a tough business. This bill doesn't apply to any of those people. We are talking about businesses with over 20 restaurants. We are talking about the big guys. I think that is why, for instance, the National Restaurant Association isn't even in favor of this bill. They represent many of the restaurants that feel that this is a step forward. They want their customers to know what is in their food because, guess what, when you know what is in your food, you are more likely to dine out. The fact that restaurants have surpassed grocery stores for meals just shows the importance of restaurants to the American people. People want to know what is in their food. This bill would impede that. It is Congress micromanaging the fine print of a thoroughly vetted and negotiated rulemaking process that has already been delayed 2 years--it is Congress delaying it another 2 years--saying somehow this issue of exactly where in restaurants it displays the calories is so important that President Obama can't be trusted with it, we have to trust President Trump or President Clinton or President Sanders. That is what this body is effectively saying. It is a colossal waste of this body's time. It is time for Congress to focus on issues that matter to the American people. That is what I hear about. I think it is what my colleagues hear about when we have townhalls when we are out and about in our districts. I haven't heard a single constituent--we are not even talking one--who said that they want the number of calories on the menu items to be harder to see or posted in less places at restaurants-- zero. I have heard from literally zero constituents that they want this. I have heard from several that they like knowing what is in their food. I think that most constituents--who I haven't heard from at all on this issue--are just utterly dismayed that Congress is spending a day and a half even debating this. How bizarre this is when there are real life bread and butter issues that they face--putting food on their table, paying their rent, paying their college loans, replacing their car that burnt out, making sure they don't lose their job, and having to work a second job to make ends meet and make their mortgage. That is what people are facing out there. The fact that what this Congress is debating is so far removed from that dinner table talk at a family's house is why this Congress has such a dismal approval rating, which will continue to get worse as long as we debate these kinds of bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, instead of trying to water down transparency and preventive health measures, we should be focusing on what we can actively do to make this country healthier, happier, and safer, like investing in child nutrition, an issue that has broad bipartisan support. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, the Senate Agriculture Committee passed a bipartisan rewrite of the Child Nutrition Act, and there is widespread support for reauthorizing key child nutrition policies, like the Summer Food Service Program, which really helps some of our most at-risk families ensure that kids are at school ready to learn because they have had their nutritional needs met. By some estimates, as few as 18 percent of students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch during the school year also receive a summer meal. We can do better. The time of year should never dictate whether or not a child goes hungry in this country. A bipartisan group of Senators agree, and they have offered an innovative solution to the issue in the bipartisan Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act. The House and our Education and the Workforce Committee should focus on issues like summer meals, which actually make a difference for families, rather than trying to prevent calorie information from being displayed large enough or in the right place where people can actually see it. God forbid. We also should be focusing on policies like the Farm to School Program, which provide support for our local farmers and at the same time give kids the healthy meals that they need. Educating our next generation about eating well while simultaneously introducing them to the values of farmers and growing food in our culture and on our land is a double win. It would be great if Congress could roll up our sleeves and get to work on issues that the American people care about, rather than debating how to hide calorie information from consumers. We should be discussing how to make better nutritional information available to more people, how to feed more kids that go hungry, how to improve our public health, and, of course, the big issues that we actually hear about, securing our borders, making sure the American people are safe and secure, investing in infrastructure, and growing our economy. That is what this body should be focused on. I was told by my staff person that zero constituents of mine have called or written in asking me to support this bill. Three have written in opposed to this bill. The rest of them--792,000 of them--don't think we should be debating this bill. They haven't opined on it, and they continue to grow disillusioned with a Congress that is debating for a day and a half how to best hide nutritional information from them rather than improve the quality of schools, make college more affordable, make sure that they can afford their mortgage, and do something about the fact that it is getting harder and harder to get by in our country every day. Mr. Speaker, national standards are important. They create something that consumers can recognize and can understand. Nutritional labeling standards on menus promote consistency and increased transparency. Standards make compliance easier and less costly. By engaging stakeholders in dialogue, the FDA has tried to accommodate retailers that will be affected by this bill, and worked to put this feedback into the final bill. Sadly, Members of this body have responded, instead, by preemptively introducing legislation that would not only weaken the guidelines but would delay them for 2 additional years on top of the 2 years that they have already been delayed. This bill would create more confusion than it addresses. It undermines the effectiveness of the regulation by limiting a consumer's recourse for action in civil court, and it does not make consumers and the American people any healthier. For all of these reasons and more, prominent healthcare groups across the spectrum oppose this legislation, including the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the Association of State Public Health Nutritionists, the American Public Health Association, the National Physicians Alliance, the Public Health Institute, doctors, and public health advocates. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2017 as well. Menu labeling provides the necessary information to make healthy choices when eating out. Easy access to accurate information about the foods we eat serves our Nation's public health. By rejecting this rule, Congress will be sending the message to the rank and file on both sides of the aisle, who, hopefully, will join me in opposing this rule and in bringing this down, that Congress should have priorities that the American people have in that we need to get Congress to work on dealing with the bread-and-butter issues that concern American families every day of the week, every hour of the day. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bill to help prevent mass shootings by promoting research into the causes of gun violence, making it easier to identify and treat those most prone to committing heinous acts. 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, 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, we are a Nation of immigrants and a Nation of laws. When those two come into conflict, the responsibility for addressing it belongs in this body, the United States Congress. We are a compassionate people. We need to unite families. We need to provide a pathway to citizenship. We need to make sure that companies in America have access to the talented employee pool that they need. We are also a Nation of laws. We need to get serious about our border security. We need employment verification and real penalties for those who violate our laws. It is past time for Congress to act on immigration reform. I renew my call for Congress to restore the rule of law and recognize that our Nation of immigrants must also be a moral Nation, leading the way for the next great generation of Americans to take their place alongside us as leaders of American industry, civil society, and even in this very body itself.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, with one item, the American people speak with a single voice. They want Congress to tackle our broken immigration system, secure our borders, and restore the rule of law. Yet here we are, more than halfway through the 114th Congress, and not a single immigration bill that fixes the problem has even been brought to the floor or committee or passed. We hear Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle tapping into the enormous public sentiment that says stop what you are doing and fix our broken immigration system. There are 11 million people or more in our country illegally. The rule of law has been made a mockery of, families are being torn apart by ICE and DHS at great cost to taxpayers. Let's fix our immigration system. Comprehensive immigration reform will save over $200 billion, create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans, secure our borders, and restore the rule of law. What is not to like? Let's come together around finally fixing the problem rather than simply complaining about it.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule today because it is close--it is close--to a rule that would have substantial bipartisan support. The rule today provides for consideration of H.R. 1675, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act of 2015, and H.R. 766, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act of 2015. In terms of process, there is some credit to be given under this rule. The rule was very close, with one major fault, which I will discuss in detail, to fulfilling the promises laid out by the new Speaker of the House of Representatives. As you might recall, Mr. Speaker, there was a promise to all Members that each Member of this body would have a chance to consider his or her ideas on the House floor through a more open amendment process. And you know what? That is a good idea. Of course, if it was an idea that didn't have a majority of support, that is fine. But there would be a vote. We could debate it. We could vote on it. If ideas came to the floor, were debated and considered worthy by a majority of this body, they would pass. Even if a particular committee chair of jurisdiction didn't like the bill, even if leadership on either side didn't like the amendment, the will of the body could be heard for commonsense improvements. Now, this promise of regular order is so simple, so attractive, so desirable, by the American people who let us do our job, yet, unfortunately, it still remains elusive. Now, on the first bill here today, H.R. 1675, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act, there were seven amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, four of which I was a cosponsor of. I am proud to say all seven amendments were made in order to be considered on the House floor. If that was all that this rule contained, I would be proud to support that rule. In addition to that, H.R. 1675 is actually good legislation. Look, any one of us can say we don't personally agree with every word, and there are amendments to address some of the deficiencies in the bill. But in its total, it is a package that should be considered for an affirmative vote by Members of both parties. I am confident that it will have strong bipartisan support in the underlying bill. It promotes and makes needed updates in employee ownership, which is a great form of corporate governance that I think each Member of this body should support. We have companies in my district that use it. The legislation also clears away red tape for small- and middle- market companies, which my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) spoke about here on the floor as well as in the Rules Committee. I do believe that one of the bill's titles, in its current form, takes away and reduces market transparency in the wrong direction. But I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, we have amendments that will be considered today by Mr. Issa and Mr. Ellison, as well as cosponsored by myself, that would address that matter--to encourage transparency in financial markets--because financial markets are predicated on as- close-to-perfect information as we can achieve and step towards perfect information, enhance the efficiency of markets; steps away from perfect information, decreased efficiency of markets. Now, the second bill, H.R. 766, unfortunately is a piece of legislation that again addresses a real need, but I can't support it. Again, I would be proud to vote for the rule if it included a simple amendment which I will be talking about in a moment. But, unfortunately, the process through the Rules Committee shut that down. I want to be clear. H.R. 766 takes a look at a critical, legitimate issue, the issue of the Justice Department and Operation Choke Point. Now, unfortunately, what it does is it goes too far in limiting the tools that are available to DOJ to combat actual illegal activities, like Ponzi schemes, banking fraud, and situations where the banks themselves are complicit in committing the alleged fraud. It also fails to deliver on what Mr. Stivers indicated its goal was, to allow legally operating businesses to access the banking system. It fails to deliver on that because, while there were nine amendments that were made in order, a critical amendment offered by my colleagues, Mr. Perlmutter of Colorado and Mr. Heck of Washington State, was not allowed, an amendment that would have furthered the goal of this bill to allow legally operating businesses to access banking services. It was a germane amendment. There were no points of order. In fact, a majority of the Members of this body have supported this amendment, in full or in part, in various floor votes in earlier times. A majority of this body supports a real-world solution to a real- world problem, not just one we face in Colorado, but many States face. The fact that legal, legitimate marijuana-related businesses cannot interact with legitimate banking institutions is an enormous problem for economic growth and a security risk. It is a problem for law enforcement that we hear from police and sheriff departments back home every day, and it is a problem for the safety of our communities. It is simply not acceptable to meet the standard of an open and transparent process that the Speaker has promised to eliminate from even consideration and a vote, this very important amendment that addresses the accessibility of banking services to companies that are engaged in a legal State business. For 23 States and the District of Columbia, this is an enormous problem right now. To be clear, what we are talking about is not just people who run medical marijuana dispensaries, but also highly regulated growing operations. Even farmers producing industrial hemp are turned away from opening bank accounts, cannot accept credit cards, have to haul around large amounts of cash to pay their employees every day, placing themselves and their employees at enormous risk of physical assault and robbery, as well as detracting from the very law enforcement ability to trace transactions that our law enforcement officials are clamoring for. Due to Congress' inaction, hundreds of businesses in Colorado and 22 other States are forced to operate on a dangerous, untrackable, cash- only system that raises serious public safety concerns, increases tax fraud, and is an enormous burden on our economy. Now, those are facts that are not in dispute. I know that there are many Members on both sides of the debate about how we should treat hemp and marijuana, whether they should be legal or illegal. That is not the issue. The issue is that 22 States and the District of Columbia have chosen to legalize it under State law. It is illegal under Federal law. We are not debating that here now either. That is fine. That wouldn't be germane for this bill, to say let's legalize it federally. That is not even what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is, in the States that it is legal, it is absolutely critical from even a law enforcement perspective--even if you want it to continue to be illegal federally--that the interactions are through our normal banking system in a traceable way. These are facts that are not in dispute. My good friend from Ohio knows these issues. In the lead-up to Ohio's possible consideration of legalization, I am confident that many Ohioans had conversations with law enforcement, walking through officials on the issue of making this a cash-based business. That was a significant issue in the Ohio election and in other States. The issues of taxation and recordkeeping are critical. But do you know what, that points to the necessity of this legislation. Do you know what, Mr. Perlmutter's amendment would likely have passed this body with Republican and Democratic support. It would have won a majority of bipartisan support this week. It is not the job of the Rules Committee to pick winners and losers. If it is particularly objectionable for the Rules Committee to abuse its power to kill a measure that has demonstrated a bipartisan level of support, that is not an appropriate use of the discretion of our committee or our chair to have their personal opinions guide what amendments are forwarded to this body for full consideration. What else can Members do? We write thoughtful amendments that solve real-world problems in our State. We garner support for these amendments year by year talking to Republicans and Democrats. And then what, it just dies because we can't get it to a floor vote? How is that an open and transparent process? It is not. Mr. Perlmutter and Mr. Heck are fighters. They will keep working on this. We will win this debate eventually. This is simply a speed bump in making sure that we address this issue for which there are no legitimate arguments on the other side regardless of where one stands on the legal treatment or regulation of substances that are currently classified. We should have won this week with this debate. This type of bipartisan work should be rewarded in this body, and the 23 States and the District of Columbia that face this issue deserve better. This amendment had no drafting error. There was no political gimmick to it. It wasn't nongermane. It didn't even rewrite in any substantial way the underlying bill. It was perfectly consistent. It wasn't even controversial. I can't understand why it didn't deserve consideration by this body--not even a 10-minute debate, not even a 1-minute debate. Will the gentleman from Ohio amend the rule to allow at least a 1- minute debate on this amendment? I will yield for a ``yes'' or ``no.'' Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman from Ohio won't even allow a 1-minute debate. The gentleman from Ohio said he wanted legally operating State businesses to have access to banking services which is the very purpose of this bill. It is a great shame that we cannot fix this issue now. Because you know what, otherwise I give credit to the gentleman from Ohio and my colleagues on the Rules Committee for allowing 9 of 10 amendments to be considered on the House floor under these two bills. This is the rule that I am coming closest to supporting of any rule that we have debated thus far in the 114th Congress here on the floor, but because of this one glaring deficiency which prevents, through an open and transparent process, a real-world problem that Democrats and Republicans agree need to be solved from being addressed in any appropriate bill in an appropriate way, I cannot recommend to my colleagues that they support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bill to help prevent mass shootings by promoting research into the causes of gun violence and making it easier to identify and treat those prone to committing violent acts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. To further discuss our proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I look forward to discussing with him his bill next week and seeing whether it is something that I can support. I strongly believe in encouraging employee ownership through ESOPs options. This bill does part. We can do a lot more. It is a big thing that we can do to address the increasing income disparities that this country has in making sure that workers can participate in capital formation and capital growth along with owners and executives. We look forward to working with the gentleman on that bill and contacting the gentleman as well. The gentleman from Ohio said that somehow legal operating businesses must have access to banking resources, the goal of this bill. He said, oh, wait a minute, I mean Federal ones not State ones, not Federal not State. This is where you have a difference. Of course, you won't have any disagreement that there is an ambiguity here with regard to types of businesses that are legal at the State level and are not legal federally. But this is where you will find that most Democrats believe very strongly in States' rights. Most Republicans believe here, with the exception of the other gentleman from California who just spoke and a number of others who would allow a majority to support this bill, but apparently the gentleman from Ohio believes in an overarching Federal definition telling States what they can and can't do indirectly through the banking system, effectively constraining their ability to allow banks to serve businesses that might sell types of firearms that are illegal federally, or types of marijuana or hemp or other products that might be illegal federally. Effectively, they are arguing that the Federal Government should tell them what to do and impose a one-size-fits-all solution on States that are as diverse as Texas and California and Colorado and North Dakota. I disagree with that premise, as do most of the Democrats here today. We feel that while this body, of course--and I agree with the gentleman-- should continue with the discussion about the regulatory structure of legal treatment of cannabis products federally, that should in no way, shape, or form stand in the way of a simple fix that says, whether you want it to be legal or illegal, transactions should be traceable, safe, through the banking system for businesses that are legal at the State level. Let me address H.R. 1675, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act, also being named the Capital Markets Improvement Act. It is a good piece of bipartisan legislation that I think can be made even better through the amendment process. Title I of this bill, which will revise the SEC's rule 701 by raising and indexing for inflation the threshold under which companies can issue stock to employees without running into government red tape, is a commonsense, good piece of legislation. I hope it is something that most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree with. I am an early cosponsor of this legislation, and I think we should promote and applaud the structure, the indexation, and, of course, allowing employees to have a stake in their companies. That is not the only solution. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) might have some other ideas I look forward to discussing, as do I. But if you want to help solve some of our Nation's issues with income inequality and the wealth gap, then we should applaud and promote companies that incorporate employee stock or option ownership. Whether you issue stock in the manner under this bill or whether you operate in ESOP or any of the other forms that allow workers to benefit from the growth of your company, we should find ways to work together to promote and encourage this style of corporate governance. Title II is a safe harbor for investment research, a bill that will help improve available market information for investors and something that has broad bipartisan support. I know my colleague from Delaware (Mr. Carney) will also be pleased to see this pass, as an original sponsor. My colleague from Ohio, who is a co-chair with me of the Congressional Caucus for Middle Market Growth, spoke yesterday and today about how this overall package of legislation will help grow companies in the all-important middle market. This is Main Street America. These are companies that might not be big enough to be multinational, multibillion-dollar brand names, and they are not startups or small companies, but it is the engine of our economy, the portion of the market that is a vital piece of our economic engine creating jobs on Main Street. Title III of this bill will work to reduce red tape for these very middle market companies. These provisions have broad bipartisan support, and I applaud them. The SEC has largely agreed with this. In fact, the only argument against it has been we already do this, and I think that is a weak argument because we ought to put it in statute. The SEC has agreed and has taken action, but, unfortunately, some of their actions have added in some increased investor impediments as well. I hope the administration can work with Congress to improve this bill if there are specific issues they have with it. But the bill is necessary. It is better to fix things in statute. I think that we can work together to reduce red tape to grow small- and middle-sized companies. Title V of the bill is another bipartisan piece of legislation that is in line with the sort of regulatory review that we already ask in many agencies. It is the sort of good government legislation I think both sides of the aisle can find agreement on and hopefully support now. Title IV of H.R. 1675, unfortunately, is a bit of a step in the wrong direction, and it is something we discussed extensively in the committee yesterday. Fortunately, for this provision, there was an open process. Mr. Issa and Mr. Ellison have amendments that will be considered that improve the portion of the bill or remove it entirely. Unfortunately, the bill, as written, is a move away from searchable financial reporting that can be done digitally. It is a step away from sortable and downloadable formats. It is a return to the pen and paper and inefficient world of the 20th century rather than a step forward to the open data transparency world of the 21st century. Across the board, market participants, investors, and regulators want information that is already required--we are not talking about any new requirements--information that is already required, financial information, to simply be available in a digital, searchable format. That is all we seek to preserve and not eliminate. It is an odd and outdated use of government resources to deal with this information by hand, by pen, by paper. It puts investors and others at an enormous disadvantage, and it prevents and reduces the amount of information in the marketplace. Searchable and sortable data can be better used to track trends, find anomalies, find investment opportunities, and help regulators notice trouble spots in markets and hopefully catch the next Enron before it explodes. Just as importantly, investors need information. So do entrepreneurial folks, who want to take this information and package it in new and interesting and exciting ways and sell it on to institutional and individual investors. We heard yesterday from detractors who said investors aren't asking for this information. We also heard that the committee didn't include any investors in their testimony; they only included operating companies. I am not sure who they are speaking for; but in my conversations, I have never heard any investor say, ``I want less information,'' or, ``I want information to be harder to search or find.'' No investor says, ``I want to know less about a company's earnings. I want it to be in an archaic pen and paper format.'' That argument that this information isn't welcome by investors is simply incorrect, and it is counter to anything you will ever hear from anyone in the investment community. Hopefully, we will fix these issues through amendment. Overall, I believe this package should merit serious consideration and support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. H.R. 766, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, does address a very important issue, and that is the inexcusable actions of Operation Choke Point, which, at best, could be described as an overzealous use of the Department of Justice's power, or, at worst, as a pernicious attempt to root out activities that are determined to be politically unpopular. Unfortunately, as we examine this bill, it looks like it has some unintended consequences which are not addressed through the amendment process. The amendment process also fails to include a simple amendment that would further the goals of this bill with regard to the regulated marijuana industry in 22 States. I hope that we can address the Operation Choke Point issue. I hope we can prevent this administration and future administrations from engaging, having DOJ engage in this kind of troublesome use of authority to coerce closures of accounts for otherwise legitimate and legal customers of local financial institutions. If a bank or credit union has a legal business, it is legal in the State, they deem it creditworthy, they are a good customer and they want to open an account with them, they should be able to serve that customer. The Federal Government should not use the bank itself as an intermediary in a dispute. If the DOJ has a dispute with a bank's customer, that should be resolved between the DOJ and the customer, not the bank. I hope that there is groundwork for bipartisan legislation in this area that can ensure that this President and future Presidents and the future Department of Justices do not abuse their authority in this area. One real-life, everyday issue where this concept comes up of the Department of Justice and the Federal Government interfering with the bank working with its legal customer would have been addressed by the Perlmutter amendment that I spoke about earlier. It is not just a Colorado issue. Frankly, if this bill addressed that issue, despite it being overarching in other areas, I would probably support it. Thus is the importance of this issue from local law enforcement in our State. But, unfortunately, not even a minute, not even a second of debate is allowed on the issue. The gentleman from Ohio claimed that we were having that debate. To be clear, we are not. We are debating the underlying rule. There is no time for the sponsors of the amendment to make their case or for opponents of the amendment to make their case. We are outlaying the time for other amendments. Many amendments have 10 minutes; many amendments have more. There is not even a second for the debate of that amendment sponsored by Mr. Perlmutter. That is why I cannot support this rule. 213 million Americans live in a State or jurisdiction where the voters have allowed for some legal marijuana use. Colorado tried to solve the problem locally, but we were rejected by Federal banking regulators in courts, so Congress needs to be the one to make this change. Only Congress can address this issue. While there remains a need to align Federal and State laws, while the DOJ and Treasury have issued some guidance, some institutions are providing banking services to the DOJ and Treasury guidance issues, the guidance does not solve the problem, which is why we need to change the law and provide certainty, which this very simple amendment that has bipartisan support and likely would have passed on the floor would have done. But it is completely shut down under this rule even though it furthers the actual goal of the legislation, is germane to the legislation, is consistent with the legislation, and yet it is completely shut down in a closed process that runs contrary to the Speaker's stated goal of allowing Members on both sides of the aisle to contribute to making things better. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I appreciate the committee of jurisdiction's work and the Rules Committee's work to make 9 out of 10 amendments submitted in order today--that is 9 out of 10. But I have to reiterate again that the one that is most important to not only my home State, but the jurisdictions in which 213 million Americans live--22 States plus the District of Columbia--is omitted from consideration in its appropriate, germane bill. I strongly object to the unnecessary gatekeeping of the Rules Committee and what they have engaged in and the way that they have treated this excellent idea and real-world solution from Mr. Perlmutter and Mr. Heck. Access to banking services is an issue of fundamental importance for all businesses, as the proponents of this bill have argued. Do you know what? That includes State legal marijuana businesses. Just because some Members of Congress--and they are in the minority, by the way, and they are decreasing every day--object to the very existence of these businesses does not mean that they should obstruct the entire legislative process and shut down our ability to make it possible for these businesses to exist, grow, and succeed. The Perlmutter-Heck amendment is a germane, thoughtful solution to a real-world problem, and I hope this House will atone for its error today by swiftly taking up legislation--and there is a stand-alone bill--to solve this banking issue once and for all. This was a discussion that we had in our committee yesterday, but, unfortunately, it is a discussion that we are not allowed to have on the people's floor of the House of Representatives. There is not an amendment that would have somehow legalized or have made any judgment about the legality or the morality of marijuana. It simply would have addressed a banking issue that both proponents and opponents of marijuana law reform agree needs to be addressed. Now, I am happy to have that conversation about how we should treat marijuana federally at a separate point. That is fine. I have legislation to regulate marijuana like alcohol, and others have other ideas. Those who are following at home need to know that the Perlmutter-Heck amendment is not that discussion. It was germane to the bill we were discussing, and it, frankly, gets at the issue of why our banks are being used as a chokepoint for doing business with otherwise legal and legitimate customers as determined by the States. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, while I support one of the two underlying bills--and I would like to be here to support the other if it would simply deal with the urgent issue of 213 million Americans who live in jurisdictions that face it--I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.