Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the chair of the Democratic Caucus, for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Utah how many more of my colleagues need to urgently request that this bill come forward before he would kindly consider our unanimous consent request to allow this bill to be debated on, even recognizing you may be opposed to it and others may support it, at least allowing us to have this debate? How many more Members need to come forward and request that for him, as a courtesy, to consider that? I am happy to yield for an answer.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), a leader on the fight for immigration reform, for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. POLIS. Is a discharge petition the process provided in the House rules to allow a majority of the House, without the support of the Speaker or the Rules Committee, to bring a measure to the floor that has not been reported by committee?

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), mentioned the National Ski Areas Association, and I include their February 11 letter for the Record. It states here, in part: However, to make it abundantly clear that ski areas have a narrow and pointed agenda with respect to this legislation and that we are committed to maintaining stream and aquatic species health, we are now advocating changes to the bill to narrow its scope even further. These changes include narrowing the scope of the bill to apply just to the U.S. Forest Service, and clarifying that the bill prohibits forced transfers of ownership of water rights to the United States by inserting the term ``title'' into the bill. I believe that my amendment is consistent with the position of the National Ski Areas Association. I am a strong believer in the original purpose of this bill. Yes, the U.S. Forest Service overstepped its authority by issuing a policy that requires ski area permittees to transfer ownership of their water rights to the Federal Government. Ski areas are the lifeblood of our mountain communities in Colorado and many communities across the Nation. Their economic viability and strength is extraordinarily important for working families. Ski areas have invested hundreds of millions of dollars of capital, and they can't be simply required to hand over their water rights to the Federal Government. This harmful policy hinders ski resort growth and expansion and harms the economy. My amendment fixes it. There is a legitimate issue here, and Congress could be solving it in a bipartisan manner. We agree that the 2011 U.S. Forest Service directive is a problem. This could have been a suspension bill, but H.R. 3189, despite our best efforts from my side of the aisle, does not reflect a bipartisan agreement to the water rights issue. There is not one comparable Federal water rights directive like the U.S. Forest Service directive, but the Republicans couldn't help themselves here, and they have, instead of fixing an issue, created a job-killing, water-grabbing Republican bill that will destroy jobs in Colorado and in mountain resorts across the country. This process has become convoluted and the bill overly broad. This legislation only serves to cast doubt on the complicated laws and precedents and authorities that make up our Nation's and States' water laws, and that it is critical to remain stable and predictable over time. This expansive legislation undermines jobs and recreational opportunities, from white-water rafting to fishing. Sportsmen's groups oppose this legislation. Ski counties in my district oppose this legislation. It was brought up in committee yesterday, could the opposition be ``political.'' Well, I want to be clear, one of the ski counties in my district, all three of the commissioners are Republican. Grand County, they oppose this bill unanimously, as do Summit County and Eagle County. Rafting and paddling groups oppose this legislation because it impacts our world-class, white-water runs. I hope we can fix this bill. We have tried hard throughout this process to offer language in the committee that would make this a bipartisan bill, to offer language to the chief sponsor, Representative Tipton. Up to this point, we have been rebuffed. This is our last hope to fix this bill and create something that actually responds to the flawed Forest Service directive of 2011. Without this change, this bill has nothing to do with the 2011 directive. It is just talk. It doesn't even respond to the issue it is designed to solve, which is why some of the very same ski communities that wanted a response to the 2011 directive don't even support this bill at this point. Since ski area water rights are a valuable asset that need to be protected, I am proud to have offered this amendment with Representative Kuster, Representative DeGette, Representative Perlmutter, Representative DelBene, Representative Cartwright, and Representative Huffman that would fix H.R. 3189, return the bill to its original purpose, lead to a strong House vote, and ensure that any U.S. Forest Service directive will not condition ski area permits on the transfer of title of any water right or require any ski area permittee to acquire a water right in the name of the United States. I reserve the balance of my time. National Ski Areas Association, February 11, 2014. Re Support for Water Rights Protection Act. Hon. Scott Tipton, Cannon HOB, Washington, DC. Hon. Jared Polis, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. John Barrasso, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Mark Udall, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC. Gentlemen: I am writing on behalf of the ski industry to express the reasons ski areas strongly support passage of the bipartisan Water Rights Protection Act, H.R. 3189/S. 1630, and to advocate changes to the bill to narrow its scope. At the outset, the ski industry would like to express our deep appreciation of your efforts to protect ski area water rights from federal encroachment over the past couple of years. Your leadership on protecting water rights and your commitment to working in a bipartisan fashion to solve this problem on behalf of ski areas and other permittees on federal land have had very positive and real effects to date. While ski areas have enjoyed a long and successful partnership with the Forest Service spanning almost eight decades, Forest Service water policy is an issue on which we simply do not agree. We have invested too much in water rights to simply hand them over to the federal government. As you are well aware, the Water Rights Protection Act would stop the federal government from illegally seizing water rights from private parties that develop them, such as ski areas, in violation of State water law and 5th Amendment property rights protections. The intent of the bill is narrow--to protect valuable assets of ski areas and other permittees that use federal land from seizure without compensation by the federal government. Essentially everyone agrees on the need for this protection, given recent (and past) Forest Service policy that demands transfer of valuable water rights to the U.S. without compensation. This policy threatened to rock the foundation of over a hundred years' worth of water law in the West, and again, thanks to your intervention, beneficial changes are expected in the future. The intention of the Water Rights Protection Act is not to impact stream health or aquatic species in any way. Some conservation groups contend that H.R. 3189 has a broader effect than simply protecting water rights, and in fact would hinder federal efforts to protect stream health and fish. Ski areas and other stakeholders strongly disagree with this interpretation of the bill and would never support a bill that had this result. In fact, a ``savings clause'' was included in the bill to explicitly state that the measure had no other impacts than to protect permittees' water rights from forced transfers. More importantly, the bill does not alter in any way the minimum stream flow protections that are set and enforced by the states on virtually every river and stream. Ski areas support and abide by these minimum stream flow requirements and would never take action to undermine them. However, to make it abundantly clear that ski areas have a narrow and pointed agenda with respect to this legislation and that we are committed to maintaining stream and aquatic species health, we are now advocating changes to the bill to narrow its scope even further. These changes include narrowing the scope of the bill to apply just to the U.S. Forest Service, and clarifying that the bill prohibits forced transfers of ownership of water rights to the United States by inserting the term ``title'' into the bill. We offer these changes to demonstrate emphatically our unwavering commitment to maintain stream health and aquatic species, and our narrow focus of simply protecting our valuable water rights assets. These changes are directed at solving the concrete problem at hand, which is overreaching policy by the Forest Service that requires a forced transfer of ownership of water rights from permittees to the United States. The bill will continue to benefit all permittees on Forest Service lands, not just ski areas. The release of a new water policy is expected from the Forest Service sometime in 2014. Ski areas welcome this new policy change, which we understand will not require a forced transfer of ownership of water rights. The release of this policy will not change the need for federal legislation however. First, the new policy is expected to apply prospectively, such that existing water rights subject to past Forest Service water clauses could continue to be in jeopardy of a taking by the Forest Service. Ski areas are proposing an amendment to the bill to protect against the implementation of such clauses beginning with the effective date of this bill. Ski areas have experienced four changes in Forest Service water policy in the last ten years. Only Congress can help stop the pendulum from swinging and provide ski areas the kind of stability they need to grow and succeed in the future. After prevailing on our challenge of the Forest Service's water rights takings policy in federal court in 2012, ski areas offered an alternative approach for the Forest Service to consider that would not involve forced transfers of water rights. We offered this alternative in the spirit of partnership, and as a way for the Forest Service to work cooperatively with ski areas to support their viability, and the viability of mountain communities, over the long term. The alternative offered by ski areas was to require resorts to provide successors in interest an option to purchase water rights at fair market value upon sale of a ski area. We continue to support this approach as a viable alternative that meets the needs of the agency, provides ski areas needed flexibility, and respects state water law. Ski areas are great stewards of water resources. It is important for everyone to remember that only a small portion of water that is used for snowmaking is consumed. Most of the water diverted from streams for snowmaking returns to the watershed. Although it varies from region to region, studies show that approximately 80 percent of the water used for snowmaking returns to the watershed. Since the majority of water used for snowmaking is water purchased by a ski area, brought onsite through diversions, stored on-slope, and typically released more slowly back into the watershed with the seasonal melting of the winter snowpack, snowmaking typically benefits the watershed in which it is taking place, as well as downstream users, and can help counteract the harmful effects of drought. In addition to using a whole array of conservation measures, many resorts impound or store water in reservoirs for use during low flow times of the year without affecting fish or aquatic habitat. The ability to control our water assets and investments--which will be the outcome of passage of the Water Rights Protection Act--will enable us to continue this stewardship in the future. It will also allow us to continue to provide a high quality recreation opportunity for millions of people on the National Forests. In closing, we thank you for your work to date on this issue, and we look forward to continuing to work together in cooperation to ensure the bill's passage. Sincerely, Michael Berry, President.

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

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I want to be clear that the concerns are by no means limited to the Endangered Species Act. The Republicans may care about endangered species, but they don't care about jobs. The Forest Service, the BLM, Interior, and Agriculture agencies all have relevant authority with regard to bypass flows. None of those are mentioned under this particular manager's amendment. What this manager's amendment shows is Republicans care more about endangered species than they do about jobs in our mountain resort areas. This manager's amendment added the term ``impairment of title.'' We wanted this limited to ``transfer of title'' because ``impairment of title'' actually expands the scope of the bill from the original bill. In addition, the so-called savings clause actually appears to negate the very bill that it appears in. This takes a bill that we had offered language to the committee and to Representative Tipton to make this a bipartisan bill. I think it could have very closely unanimously passed the House, certainly enough to pass a suspension, and instead they made a bill that even the very ski areas that they are claiming to help--actually, all the counties that I have that have ski resorts actually oppose this job-killing Republican water grab bill.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Ski area water rights are valuable assets that must be protected. Rather than disguise that in a catchall Republican job-killing water- grabbing bill, we have the opportunity through the Polis-DeGette- Perlmutter-DelBene-Kuster-Cartwright-Huffman amendment for this House to come together around something that helps the economy grow in our ski resort areas across the country. As so many times on issues of even greater importance, there is a fork in the road for this House, a decision to make, between the partisan-charged route of job-destroying Republican water-grabbing legislation or the opportunity to fix this bill and come together to make sure that our ski resort communities are secure in their water rights and can continue to justify their capital investments and grow. That is the choice we have with the Polis amendment. This amendment improves the bill. It helps turn the bill from a controversial bill into something that I think the vast majority of this body can and will agree on. The amendment ensures that any U.S. Forest Service directive will not condition ski area permits on the transfer of title of any water right or require any ski area permittee to acquire a water right in the name of the United States. That is the issue from the directive on 2011 that gives us a reason to even have the bill; but instead of addressing that issue in a focused way, this bill has tried to essentially rewrite centuries of water law in a superficial 2-page bill that has the impact of destroying jobs in Colorado and other mountain resort communities across the country. We can and we must do better--better for my district in Colorado. Many of the ski resort counties--like Pitkin County represented by Mr. Tipton, and Eagle, Summit, and Grand Counties that I represent--that benefit directly from the ski resort economy have come out opposed to this bill because it actually hurts their economy rather than helps it. If the very folks that this bill was supposedly written to help oppose this bill, what on Earth are we doing here? Thankfully, we have an amendment right now that can fix this bill. We tried in committee, we tried through the manager's amendment, and now, we are trying on the floor. Let's do it. Let's fix the bill. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and, unless it is incorporated, oppose the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Chair, I want to make it clear that I was an original sponsor of this bill. Like my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), I wanted to address the 2011 directive as it affected ski resorts. However, this bill, in markup and through the manager's amendment, became worse. We were unable to get the improvements that we needed to narrow the scope; and it became a Republican job-killing, water- grabbing bill, which was not the original intent. Even the areas where the intent was to help the ski areas--in Summit County and Eagle County in my district, in Pitkin County in Mr. Tipton's district--the counties have all come out against this very bill. It is a Republican water-grabbing, job-killing bill, and absent the amendment that I proposed, it is not something that I can support. I encourage my colleagues on my side of the aisle who value recreational opportunities, like fishing and white-water rafting, to join me in opposing this bill, unless the Polis amendment is incorporated into the bill. We will soon begin a debate on that amendment. This debate would focus the actual bill to fulfill its purpose, and I hope that this body will adopt it.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, but I regret to say unsurprisingly, the Republicans continue to play politics with Medicare, politics with water that is the lifeblood of the American West and the economic lifeblood of the counties that I represent in Eagle and Summit County. And all we have here to vote on today is, once again, an attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act, to keep the taxes and remove the benefits, and an attempt to grab the water from those who would use it for fishing and recreation in the Mountain West. I hope that we can do better. If we can reject this $183 billion rule, I think it will send a message to the Speaker that we are ready for immigration reform. We are ready to reach out our hand on the SGR, on the doc fix, and figure out the best way to pay for it, taking the best ideas that Republicans and Democrats have to offer, working with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and others to bend the cost curve, so that we can deliver a better quality of services to American seniors and contain costs more effectively. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and vote ``no'' on the underlying bills. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Republicans are getting worse and worse on these ObamaCare votes. You would think that you would get better with practice, after 52 times they would be better at repealing ObamaCare. That is because this body, the House of Representatives, has voted to repeal ObamaCare, in whole or in part, 52 times. Those votes started out where it was very simple. The votes were to repeal everything that was in the Affordable Care Act. That is how those votes started. Now they have gotten to the point where the Republicans want to keep the taxes from ObamaCare and get rid of the benefits. I don't think anybody wants that. I mean, if you are talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act, you still have people that are split on that. You might have a few more people that agree with you or a few more that agree with us, but the American people have different opinions about that. But if you offered any of them keep all the taxes and get rid of the benefits, I can't imagine anybody wants that. I would hope that, after so much practice, the Republicans would be quite good at this. It seems to be the core competency they are developing. Almost every week, in fact, this body repeals ObamaCare, but now they are repealing it in a way that keeps all the taxes and gets rid of the benefits; so I am quite surprised that the old adage of ``practice makes perfect'' is far from true with regard to the Republican approach to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 45 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman if he has any remaining speakers.

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

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have two bills before us under this rule, which I will briefly discuss before getting into the more important topic of what bills are not being considered on the floor of the House this week. Notably, despite comprehensive immigration reform's having passed the Senate with more than two-thirds support, despite the fact that there are more than 10 million people here in this country illegally, despite the fact that our borders are porous and that people are sneaking across, as well as illicit goods, despite the fact that we have no meaningful workplace enforcement, despite the fact that farmers and the faith-based community are crying out for reform--the business community, the tech community, labor--there is no immigration bill on the floor of the House today. Instead, we are discussing two bills. We are discussing one SGR fix. Now, that sounds obscure to people, ``SGR fix.'' What is that? This is the reimbursement rate for doctors under Medicare, and there is a budgetary fiction that long predates me in this place. I assume that, at the time, Republicans and Democrats created this elaborate budgetary fiction together as this degree of budgetary fiction requires both parties' most creative thoughts to possibly put it together. So we pretend every year that there are going to be large cuts to Medicare. I think Republicans and Democrats know that that is not likely to happen. Those cuts would completely gut Medicare. Doctors would drop Medicare patients if those cuts were to occur. So each year and sometimes shorter than a year--sometimes 6 months, sometimes 3 months, sometimes 2 years--Democrats and Republicans have to come together to figure out how to avoid those automatic cuts that otherwise occur. That discussion is about how to pay for avoiding those cuts each time. Democrats have suggestions to pay for it--let's eliminate oil and gas loopholes; let's use the overseas contingency fund. Republicans have ideas about how they want to pay for it--in this case, the 52nd repeal of ObamaCare. By the way, they want to keep all of the taxes from ObamaCare; they just want to get rid of some of the benefits. So they are going to keep all of the taxes from ObamaCare--those Republicans love those taxes--but they are getting rid of some of the benefits. That is the secret of what they are using to pay for it, just so you know. The real discussion is how to do it, but in this case, the Republicans are presumably so embarrassed about their pay-for--the fact that they are using the ObamaCare taxes to pay for Medicare--that they are slipping it into the rule in what is called the ``deem and pass'' language, or what is characterized by some as the ``demon pass'' language. This rule says: The amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. That means there is not even going to be a vote on the actual way to pay for avoiding the Medicare cuts. It is in the rule, itself. This is the most costly rule I have ever seen. This rule costs $138 billion of ObamaCare taxes that the Republicans want to use. This is an expensive rule, Mr. Speaker. If there is a real desire to talk with Democrats about ways to pay for the Medicare SGR fix, also called the ``doc fix,'' we are happy to do it. We were hoping that you would allow a Democratic pay-for sponsored by Mr. Tierney, who will talk about the previous question. Our idea is to use the Overseas Contingency Fund to avoid any cut to Medicare beneficiaries, but this rule does not allow us to do that. This rule doesn't even allow the House to vote on using ObamaCare taxes to pay for SGR. It includes the ``deem and pass'' language in the rule, itself--a rule, itself, that includes self- executing language that costs $138 billion. That is one expensive rule, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly hope my colleagues vote ``no.'' This rule also includes H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act. As my colleague said, those of us in the West feel that whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting about. I think the debate on the Rules Committee last night and the upcoming debate here on the floor will probably reflect that old adage. The genesis of this particular bill is something that Mr. Tipton and I and, I think, many Members of this body agree on. We wanted to address a narrow dispute between the U.S. Forest Service and ski permit holders that directly impacts my district and impacts Mr. Tipton's district. I support Mr. Tipton's efforts in that regard, and I was hoping we could have gotten the bill to a point where it would have passed near unanimously or unanimously. Instead, this bill has become a job-killing Republican water grab that even the counties that it was designed to help oppose. The counties in my district that have ski resorts--Eagle, Rand, Summit County, famous resorts like Winter Park, Vail, Arapahoe Basin, Breckenridge, among others--now oppose this bill because it will destroy jobs in their counties by destroying recreational opportunities like white-water rafting, fishing, year-round tourism opportunities, which are critical to the economic success of my district. These changes to this job-killing Republican water grab have caused this bill to snowball into an effort that will hurt our rivers' health, destroy recreational opportunities, and the underlying bill jeopardizes the agreements that leave waters in streams and rivers, which allow our tourism industry to be so vibrant. Even some of the counties, as we mentioned in the Rules Committee yesterday--certainly not all of those counties--like Pitkin County and the home of Aspen and Mr. Tipton's district, also oppose this bill. Again, there was an overreaching decision by the U.S. Forest Service that required ski area permittees to transfer the ownership of water rights to the Federal Government. In 2012, that water directive was overturned by a U.S. District Court judge. It is important to note that I believe in the purpose of this bill, and I hope that we can address it through the amendment that I have offered, which allows for 20 minutes of floor debate under this bill. This bill can still be saved by this body's endorsing the amendment that I have offered as part of this bill, which is also supported by ski area representatives from across the Mountain West, along with my colleagues from Colorado Ms. DeGette and Mr. Perlmutter. Unfortunately, this job-killing Republican water grab bill uses the ski area directive as a pretense for making wholesale job-killing changes. Look, ski areas have been a punching bag for U.S. Forest Service's misguided policies for the last decade. I think we can find common cause around a narrow solution. In that time, the Forest Service has changed the ski area water policies four times. It has inconsistently enforced others' water clauses. It has left ski areas subject to the agency's whim. They are very capital-intense ski areas. They are the major economic driver of the mountain areas of my district, but they have been at the whim of sometimes arbitrary Federal actions. Ski areas collectively hold water rights worth hundreds of millions of dollars that are critical for their businesses. Now, my colleagues might wonder what kind of improvements a ski area might want to make. In 2011, this body unanimously voted to support the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act, which allowed ski areas to expand summertime activities, like zip lines and mountain biking. Amongst some of those other summertime activities that ski resorts benefit from are white-water rafting, fishing--the very kinds of recreational opportunities that will be impacted by this job-killing Republican water grab. I entered several pieces of testimony into the record in the Rules Committee yesterday--statements from water districts and from counties--with regard to how this bill will impact recreational opportunities in Colorado. Along with Ms. DeGette, Mr. Perlmutter, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Cartwright, and Mr. Huffman, I was proud to offer an amendment that would fix and address the issues in H.R. 3189 and return the bill to its original purpose. The amendment ensures that any U.S. Forest Service directive will not condition ski area permits on the transfer title of any water right or require any ski area permittee to acquire a water right in the name of the United States. The amendment ensures the long-term viability of ski areas, and it makes sure that this bill is not the job-killing Republican water grab that it has become. It is important to note that the narrow dispute that was the genesis of this bill could have been solved with a suspension measure. We have offered language repeatedly to Mr. Tipton and his staff, to the committee and its staff, but we were not taken up on that offer, sadly. Instead, we have before us a job-killing Republican water grab bill that would devastate my district. Instead, the manager's amendment was offered, as well as additional language in committee. This bill is riddled with problems that are not addressed. The bypass flows issue is not solved in the manager's amendment, which does address the Endangered Species Act component but does nothing to address the issues around the Forest Service, BLM, Interior, and Agriculture agencies that also have relevant authority under a number of statutes, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Forest Service and Park Service Organic Act, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, to impose bypass flows. Simply put, the manager's amendment doesn't make the necessary improvements to make this a bipartisan measure--they are simply window dressing for a job-killing Republican water grab. Let's talk about some of the issues in the underlying legislation. In the West, water rights are State-based, and any challenge to a right or to the system itself is a very delicate proposition to years of precedence and claims, subordinate and senior, with regard to water. As a result, this legislation only serves to cast doubt on the complicated laws and authorities that make up our Nation's and State water laws, and that companies, individuals, and counties have made decisions on and already have economic investments in. In addition, this bill, absent my amendment, muddles the message of disapproval over the 2011 decision. What exactly are we saying with regard to this bill? A bill that was meant to address the needs of ski areas because of the 2011 directive instead has become an all-encompassing, job-killing Republican water grab, which is not even a clear signal of our unhappiness with the original directive. I think not only would there be a much cleaner path to actually become the law of the land if we were to consider a targeted approach encompassed by the amendment that I have offered, but it also, even absent becoming law, would send a clear and unambiguous message to the U.S. Forest Service of congressional disapproval of the directive. Instead, I think they will just shrug their shoulders and say, That is that crazy House of Representatives. This bill is not going to become law. This bill will not have any impact--and the message is lost with regard to the 2011 directive. If they think this is the House's reaction--muddled, job-killing, water-grabbing--to this sort of thing, what is to stop them from doing this again? What is to stop them from targeting ranchers? What is to stop them from targeting recreation areas? When this kind of thing occurs, we need a targeted reaction that can become law or a clear and unambiguous message that the House will not stand for it. In summary, this rule contains $183 billion in ObamaCare taxes that are spent for another purpose and allows two bills to come to the floor, both of which could be negotiated in good faith with the Democrats, and both of which have not. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I am prepared to close. I have 6 minutes, and I wanted to yield to the gentleman if he has remaining speakers who wanted to speak before I close.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), to further discuss the rule that allows for the debate of the job-killing Republican water grab and the bill to keep ObamaCare taxes and remove the benefits.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, sadly, with these two bills, while the Republican job- killing water grab bill and the ObamaCare tax bill are both not going to become law, they both have a genesis in a real issue, one that calls for bipartisan cooperation, one that affects the water rights of ski areas that we have offered language in an amendment that would address, the other, my colleague, Mr. Kind, addressed. This body has a long tradition of coming together around figuring how to pay for SGR. Now, the gentleman mentioned February 6 the language was available. The language regarding the SGR fix is not what is in dispute. The way of paying for the SGR fix is what is the topic of debate between Democrats and Republicans. That language was not seen February 6. That language is not even going to be voted upon under this rule. It is contained in the rule itself. Sadly, while we take up our time on these bills that are not going to become law, we continue to avoid action on the pressing issue of reforming our immigration system. In August, a number of us sent a letter to Speaker Boehner saying that he should introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation. If he failed to do so, we would work with a diverse group of our colleagues to introduce a bill for comprehensive immigration reform in the House. There were crickets, and so my colleagues and I, in October, introduced H.R. 15, comprehensive immigration reform, a bill that has bipartisan cosponsors, over 200 sponsors from both sides of the aisle. Immigration reform is supported by an unprecedented coalition, including business and tech companies, faith leaders from across the country, police, security specialists, but most importantly, the American people, who are sick and tired of having over 10 million people in our country illegally. We need to restore the rule of law. We need to allow American families to succeed in our country and to live their dreams. We need to have control of our border. We need to implement mandatory workplace authentication to ensure that people who are here illegally cannot work. Every day that passes is a failure of this body to address these issues, and the solution to all of these issues, workplace authentication, securing our border, uniting families, those are all in H.R. 15. Look, we are ready to talk. If you don't want to bring H.R. 15 to a vote, Mr. Speaker, what are your immigration bills? What is the package of bills that will address these? Because we know it will take a multifaceted approach. A wall alone on the southern border doesn't solve this issue. The day after that wall is erected, there are still 10 million people here illegally, and the fact that half the people who are here illegally don't sneak across that border, they come here legally and then they outstay their welcome and work illegally. So this requires a solution that I think this Congress is capable of. I think we can work together. Rather than consider divisive, job-killing water grab bills, rather than consider divisive ObamaCare tax bills that the Republicans want to use ObamaCare taxes, rather than repeal them, let's come together around immigration reform. House Republicans need to reject offensive and unproductive rhetoric and show real leadership that the business community in our country is calling out for. A few weeks ago, a Wall Street Journal op-ed criticized Republicans' failure to act on commonsense reform. The Wall Street Journal said: ``Republicans have killed immigration reform for now, but the Farm Bureau study shows that in the real economy it's still needed.'' We could increase GDP by 3.3 percent. We can raise American wages by $470 billion with immigration reform. We can create 121,000 jobs for Americans each year by bringing comprehensive immigration reform to the floor. Over 70 percent of the American people support immigration reform. It is time to act. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the reasonable solution that would permanently fix the SGR and is offset by capping spending on the Overseas Contingency Fund. 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, just as the storied competition between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox works to improve both teams, so does school choice and empowering families to choose the public school that best fits their kids to improve all of our public schools. Our Education and the Workforce Committee this week had an excellent hearing on charter schools, which I encourage my colleagues to look at the record of. We heard testimony from across the country about the tremendous role that charter schools are playing as part of our public education system in ensuring that all students have access to a quality education. In addition to charter schools, making sure that States have policies like Colorado does for open enrollment within a district and between districts, parents should be empowered to choose their neighborhood school, a magnet school, a charter school, another public school, with an educational model that fits the unique learning needs of their kid. In this way, we can ensure that the next generation of American children are prepared to succeed in the 21st century.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, I want to come to the floor to wish the Republicans a happy anniversary. I brought a gold ring. This is the 50th repeal of ObamaCare. I want to wish my colleagues a happy 50th anniversary for the appeal of ObamaCare. Like any marriage that lasts 50 years, it takes a lot of work. The American people have shown that they want this marriage to last. They have shown that by reelecting Barack Obama as President. They have shown that by electing a Senate that won't even consider a repeal of the Affordable Care Act; but also like any marriage, it takes work along the way to improve it, to work at it, to make changes to it. Democrats stand ready to work with President Obama, to fine-tune this wonderful marriage celebrating the 50th anniversary of its repeal here today, to make sure it endures for another 50 repeal votes by the House Republicans here in the coming months. We are ready to make the changes that we need to, to ensure that the Affordable Care Act works for every American. There are issues in the implementation in my district. Two of my counties, Summit and Eagle County, have among the highest insurance rates in the exchange in the entire country, these two counties. That is due to a problem that the State had in implementing it, but we would love to work with Republicans on a Federal fix for Eagle and Summit County, and the other Colorado counties that are affected by it. I would be proud to work with my colleagues to replace the revenue and the medical and device tax with other sources of revenue to ensure that the Affordable Care Act works. There are a lot of great ideas, and perhaps it is time that, rather than continue to celebrate anniversaries of repeal, that we enter couples counseling sessions today, and we work together in trying to find common ground. Rather than talking about repealing ObamaCare and going back to a system we know wasn't working, in which 40 million Americans didn't have health care insurance, in which Americans and my constituents and yours were frustrated that, year after year, rates were going up 10, 15, 20 percent--rather than going back to a formula we know didn't work, let's enter couples counseling and work together to make health care work in our country, to talk about a path forward, with the President, with Democrats, with Republicans, with Independents, to ensure that these cost increases that have been epidemic the last couple of decades come to an end, that we can extend coverage to more American families, that we can ensure that the quality of health care that is our Nation's pride can continue to be available to Americans, regardless of their economic background. I reserve the balance of my time.

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