Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the meaning is very straightforward. That is exactly what it means.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, I think it is clear. We have had many Democrats coming to the floor talking about what we should be doing. I think the gentleman from Georgia might be the only Republican in the Chamber. Maybe there is one other in the back. I don't have my glasses on. We have a lot of ideas for keeping government open. Mainly, let's pass a continuing resolution to do it now. Let's work more than 6 days out of the next 14. Let's stay here until we can keep government open, until we can reauthorize the transportation and infrastructure bill. It sounds obvious to me; yet there just didn't seem to be any interest from the other side. No Republicans have approached me about keeping government open. I hope you do, Mr. Speaker. I hope you encourage your colleagues to. There is no one here in the Chamber talking about what we can do to avoid a job-crushing government shutdown, which we are 14 days away from. Instead, we are talking about unrelated bills. Now, I don't deny that these bills deserve their day in the sun. I just question whether, when we are 6 legislative days from a job-crushing shutdown, it is the time to discuss whether we should amend requirements set out by the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, that would reduce the role of public input and turn the idea of NEPA on its head by eliminating any illusion of objective or scientific analysis by allowing private sponsors to write parts of their own environmental reviews. Now, look, we can discuss that. I am strongly for reforming the NEPA process. As an example, if we can make it easier to site renewal energy projects, I am a sponsor of a bill to expedite the NEPA process for solar and wind infrastructure projects. Look, there are people who support this terrible bill in its current form; I completely understand that, but this bill does nothing to avert a job-destroying government shutdown that we are only 6 legislative days from reaching. Now, the gentleman from Georgia mentioned this, what we call a martial law amendment. With this amendment that he is proposing with this rule--we just got notice of it last minute here on the floor--he is offering an amendment that will allow any bill to be brought up under martial law next week. Now, in honor of Pope Francis' visit, I hope that they have a bill that they plan to bring to the floor under martial law to reduce our carbon emissions and finally do something to impact climate change, which I hope that Pope Francis will be addressing. I also hope that, under martial law, they will bring forward a bill to replace our broken immigration system with a humane system, with a pathway to citizenship that replaces the chaos we have, with the rule of law, border security, and a pathway to normalization and citizenship for hard-working, aspiring Americans who are already here. Now, I am not going to bet the ship that that is what they are going to do with this martial law, but the fact of the matter is, from a process perspective, we--myself, my colleagues, and I think most of the Republican rank and file--simply don't know what they are going to do with that authority. This is going around the normal rules of the House to establish a mechanism to avoid the normal process, avoid the normal process through Rules Committee and, through martial law, bring some sort of bill. I hope it is an immigration reform bill. I hope it is a climate change bill. I don't think it is. Based on what we are seeing this week, it will probably be some NEPA bill or some--I don't know--some other bill that doesn't avoid a government shutdown to the floor of the House. Maybe it will be a bill that is a Republican funding bill that will have a Presidential veto threat over it. That doesn't avoid a shutdown. Remember, the only way we can avoid a shutdown is the House, the Senate, and the President of the United States are on the same page for legislation to avoid a government shutdown. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and we will be back next week, and I will hold my criticism. I hope it is an immigration reform bill. I hope it is a climate change bill. I hope we honor Pope Francis by bringing forward two of his top priorities in a week that is appropriate, and if that is the case, I will support martial law for those two efforts, and I hope that that is what we will do. I will withhold judgment until we see what the Republicans attempt to do with this procedural bypass of our normal mechanisms that they have scheduled for next week. Look, these are bad bills under this rule. They are bad bills today. They would be bad bills if they were appropriate to consider. I believe they are inappropriate to consider in light of a job-crushing government shutdown occurring in 6 legislative days. The RAPID Act, which would turn the idea of NEPA on its head, is a one-size-fits-all approach. It is not the right approach to NEPA reform. There are thoughtful, bipartisan ideas that we could put together after we avoid a government shutdown. I am happy to do that. The LARA Act is even worse. Our country tried a similar framework to LARA in the eighties and early nineties, and there is broad consensus that the experiment failed. Instead of reducing lawsuits, there was an explosion of litigation, causing delays and wasting judicial resources. Why on earth are we giving these failed ideas a second try? The LARA Act would have prevented landmark decisions like the Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated schools; Griswold v. Connecticut, which established constitutional protections for right to privacy; and Loving v. Virginia, which ended bans on interracial marriage. Rather than ``preventing abuse,'' this bill would actually promote civil rights abuses and weaken the courts' ability to crack down on people who seek to discriminate illegally at work or school or at the voting booth, and Congress should not pass this bill, now or ever. I think it is particularly offensive, when a job-crushing government shutdown is looming, to even be talking about these other items rather than discussing how we can avoid a job-crushing government shutdown. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I am clear. These issues we should discuss. Natural resources. The World Health Organization estimates that 2 million people a year are killed because of air pollution. But putting forth these bills now does nothing to eliminate or deal with a job-crushing government shutdown. Over just 16 days in 2013, our country lost $24 billion in economic growth, hundreds of thousands of Federal workers were furloughed, contractors and subcontractors were not paid. It is an avoidable scenario. It is a crisis created by Congress. We wonder why people don't like Congress. It is a crisis of our own making. Why are we threatening the critical, everyday services Americans rely on, the millions of people that work for contractors and subcontractors of the Federal Government? A small-R republic is a system of governance in which people exert influence over their elected officials, and those representatives are supposed to listen and act upon those requests. We need to listen to the American people and take the responsible course, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to join me on this commonsense mission before it is too late. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation. We need to reinstate a legislative agenda that aligns with the desires and wills and aspirations of the American people and American businesses. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I will use our 9 minutes. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. We have a lot of Democrats that want to talk about keeping government open. I hear no Republicans here. With good respect to my friend from Georgia, where are the Republican ideas to keep government open?

Mr. POLIS. We are ready to use all of our time.

Mr. POLIS. May I inquire of the Speaker how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a leader in the effort to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. 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, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. POLIS. May I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia if he plans to use his 23 minutes?

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Well, Madam Speaker, that is the plain language of this amendment.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this extremely convoluted rule as well as the underlying legislation. When I was a child in the 1980s, I remember my mother taking me to Mothers Embracing Nuclear Disarmament rallies. I recall wondering why America possesses enough nuclear weapons to blow up the entire world at least seven times over. As an adult, I have never succeeded in finding a satisfactory answer to why we want to be able to blow up the world seven times. Now, we are all here because the potential for nuclear war is one of the greatest threats to the future of humanity and perhaps to the future of life on the planet itself. That is why this agreement to make sure that Iran, a country that supports terrorism, does not acquire nuclear weapons is so important. Let's be clear about what this deal is and what it isn't. It is not a peace deal. It is not a deal that calls on us to trust Iran or like Iran. In fact, the very reason we want to make sure that Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons is we see how much damage they caused through their mischief-making through support of Hezbollah and others on the conventional front. If that were compounded by nuclear capabilities, it would significantly increase the chance of global destruction. This agreement is based on verification and enforceability. It is built on extensive electronic monitoring and unprecedented access for international investigators at known or suspected Iranian nuclear sites. Of course, there are things in this deal that I would change or you would change. No deal is perfect. But perfection can't be our standard or we would never be able to support anything around here. Our job is to consider if this deal is better than the alternatives. If Congress rejects this agreement and it leads to a nuclear Iran, what then? It was multilateral sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table, not American sanctions alone; and it is clear that Russia and China will likely grant Iran sanctions relief, regardless of what the U.S. decides to do. We also worry about the dedication of our European allies in this regard. With sanctions disappearing and Iran's money being unfrozen, the deal is moving forward. Shouldn't we want this agreement to proceed with the oversight of the United States of America, to make sure that Iran abides by the very letter of this agreement not to develop nuclear weapons? Instead of standing in its way, we, in Congress, should play a leading role in the implementation and rigid enforcement of this deal to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This agreement is an unprecedented opportunity to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program cold and make the world a safer place. Of all our options, it is the one most likely to succeed in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. I urge my colleagues not to stand in the way of this important deal, to make sure that Iran, a country that supports terrorism, has a terrible record of human rights violations at home, and even just 2 days ago said that the State of Israel wouldn't last 25 years. It is important that we ensure that they don't have access to the nuclear weapons that will allow them to carry through with their terrorist goals.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a member of the Financial Services Committee and a leader in the effort to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a leader in the bipartisan efforts to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Oversight and Government Reform committee and a former member of the Rules Committee.