Providing for Consideration of H.R. Small Business Broadband Deployment Act, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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, I rise in opposition to this rule and the first of the two underlying bills. The second one is largely uncontroversial. The first, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment bill--so- called Saving the Environment bill--the SENSE Act, actually leads to greater risks and more contaminations I will discuss; and then the second, the noncontroversial bill, is called the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act.

I'm a little curious as to why we are going through this particular rule process. This could be scheduled for a suspension vote. We could have possibly even done it with unanimous consent and probably finished it yesterday. But apparently the Republicans don't find that there is anything important that America wants Congress to address, so they have us debating bills that are largely not controversial that we could get done in a matter of minutes and, instead, are spending several hours debating these bills, one of which will go nowhere, the other of which we could have done very quickly to avoid this Congress having the real discussions that I believe the American people want us to undertake.

When I go back home and have townhalls and hear from constituents, I hear people crying out for a Congress that will do something about our Federal budget deficit and that will actually pass a budget. You will see later in my remarks I will mention that our previous question motion will be one that would require Congress to stay in session until we pass a budget, because there has been discussion--I hope it is not true--that the Republicans are thinking of giving up on passing a budget in the House and simply sending all of Congress home for a vacation.

I think, already, Congress is scheduled to finish Wednesday of next week. Most Americans have to work Thursday and Friday of next week. I don't know why Congress only has to work 2\1/2\ days. But that is what they are telling us. If we can't even accomplish a budget during those 2\1/2\ days, I don't know what we expect the American people to think we are doing.

So we should be talking about the tough decisions we need to make: How do we reduce the deficit and make the necessary investments in growth? How do we pass a budget? How do we fix our broken immigration system with one that works, one that secures our borders, unites families, and has a pathway to citizenship for those who work hard and contribute to our country? How do we make sure that we can improve and build upon the successes of the Affordable Care Act, recognize its shortcomings, and make the improvements necessary to move it forward?

But, no, instead, we are not doing that. We are taking up a controversial bill, the SENSE Act, that won't become law. It has a misleading title. It won't do anything to satisfy American energy needs and certainly will not help the environment, which is why it is opposed by many environmental groups. The SENSE Act makes anything but sense.

What would make sense, of course, is discussing and voting on a budget. What would make sense is passing immigration reform. What would make sense is making progress towards balancing our budget. What would make sense is investing in research to cure cancer. What would make sense is doing our best to make America secure.

But, no, instead, we are discussing something that the Republicans have given the title the SENSE bill to, perhaps to overcompensate for the fact that it simply doesn't make sense.

Now, Republicans know the SENSE Act won't become law. Instead, we are spending, I don't know, half a day, three-quarters of a day bringing up yet another partisan attack on the Environmental Protection Agency, whose job it is to protect our air. We all breathe the air. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, animals, and plants all breathe the air. What we need is common sense to improve our air quality and move forward. What we need are solutions to break through congressional gridlock.

Again, this set of rules in this bill--which I call upon my colleagues to vote down--is clear that the Republicans are not serious. They are either unable or unwilling to bring forward fresh ideas or address the issues that our constituents are crying out that we need to deal with. This bill is simply another form of pandering when we should be taking advantage of the few remaining weeks we have of session to address the real problems of our Nation.

Now, these two bills under one rule are completely unrelated. When the Speaker came into office, he promised we would move bills with regular order. I don't understand why we can't pass the noncontroversial one. I would have gotten it done already and then had more of an open process. We did an amendment in Rules Committee to allow for an open amendment process on the SENSE Act, but it was voted down on a partisan vote. Unfortunately, the two were combined under one rule, and I am very disappointed it is not an open rule.

We need to move forward on FAA reform, making sure that we reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration to keep our skies that we rely on for commerce and tourism safe and open. We face an imminent expiration of that. We need to reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act, the Higher Education Act, find a solution to the affordable housing crisis. And, yes, we need to pass a budget. All of those things should be done before Congress gives itself another vacation. I think that is common sense.

We wonder why, in poll after poll, Congress has an approval rating of 12 percent or 14 percent. I sometimes wonder who those 12 percent are. I wonder who those 12 percent are, because I haven't met any of my constituents that have said: ``Congress is doing great. Keep on doing what you are doing.'' I think they misunderstand the question and they are probably answering in the negative, because I don't understand how any American could be satisfied with a United States Congress that punts and punts and punts on issue after issue and instead spends its entire days and weeks, on the rare occasion when it is in session, debating bills that won't go anywhere and won't be signed into law and then promptly give themselves additional vacation time as an extra bonus while patting themselves on the back. That is not the Congress that the American people want.

First, let me talk about the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act. Again, it is a bipartisan bill. I think we could have done it on suspension or unanimous consent on Monday. We could have finished it.

I come from the private sector. I operated several businesses, grew them over time and played various roles. Do you know what? In the private sector, when you can get something done quickly, the last thing you want to do is draw it out, to spend a couple of days on it. So if we have something that Congress could have finished Monday evening so that we could get moving and discussing and debating the important issues that the American people are crying out for Congress to address, why didn't we do it then? Why didn't we do it then? If they are drawing out something and having us spend half a day on something, then I think, because of the hard work of many Members who collaborated on this, we could probably complete it in 10 or 15 minutes.

This legislation is important, of course. I think we can pass it. The bill would make the temporary exemption that the FCC granted to ISPs with 100,000 or fewer subscribers and extend and expand the cap to ISPs with 250,000 or fewer subscribers that addresses bipartisan concerns about speeds and costs and gives regulatory certainty to Internet service providers, keeps the exemption level at a level that protects consumers, keeps the Internet free and open, doesn't allow large Internet service providers to act as gatekeepers that favor some content over others; and Congress should take notice of the administration's statement on this legislation, which cautions about bills that move towards threatening the open Internet. But on this exemption, specifically, I don't think we have enough information to know whether it needs to be made permanent, so I support the efforts of this bill to spur the FCC to provide needed information.

Again, I think there are a lot of Democrats and Republicans who have worked hard on this bill. We probably could have dispensed with it on Monday. But, hey, here we are. We are dealing with it under this rule. I thought, if we are going through the rulemaking process, we should at least offer an open rule. Every piece of legislation, even if it is passable, ought to encourage ideas from Democrats and Republicans in amendments to make it better. But, no, under this rule, the Rules Committee shut down the open amendment process and is not allowing Democrats or Republicans to offer germane, relevant amendments on the floor to the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act.

Now, moving on to the SENSE Act--or the non-SENSE act, as I like to call it--it won't become law. We spend a lot of time debating bills that won't become law. In fact, this House, apparently for lack of anything more important to do, has voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 60 times. The good news is we are not doing that again today. I thank the Speaker for not having us repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 65th time this week. That would have been a waste of time.

Instead, the Republicans are being creative about how we are going to waste our time. This is a new way to waste our time. Rather than discussing the budget or the FAA reauthorization or childhood nutrition or balancing our budget or fixing our broken immigration system, rather than doing any of those important things, we found a new and clever way to waste the time of the United States Congress in debate of a bill that will not become law.

Now, thank goodness it won't become law because the non-SENSE act is bad for Americans and poor for our health. It is a convoluted, senseless manner going after the Environmental Protection Agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which is called CSAPR, and going after the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which is called MATS. Specifically, this bill would change the requirements for plants that use coal refuse.

Now, there are about 20 of these coal refuse plants in the entire country. What this bill would do is it would abandon the market-based approach for sulfur dioxide emission allowances in favor of a one-size- fits-all Federal Government approach. So this bill is effectively a Federal takeover of the regulatory structure around our coal refuse plants.

Again, it is a particularly creative way to waste Congress' time, and it is ironic because the Republicans often attack efforts to take away control from the States. They say: How dare you Democrats suggest that anything can be done better at the national level. How dare you suggest that. How dare you suggest something that contravenes the 10th Amendment.

Do you know what? In this bill, the Republicans are proposing taking away State authority and a Federal takeover, because currently States have control over the incentives and work with coal refuse plants, but this simply says the Federal Government should override that work.

Now, that seems hypocritical. It seems against the philosophy that many Republicans have come here arguing, and it leads me to believe that many proponents of this bill seem to value their special interest pork over their philosophical integrity.

Now, this bill would create a system that the government picks winners and losers rather than markets. CSAPR has a trading program that allows plants to conform to emissions standards in different ways, like trading emission allowances; and that program, that market-based program, would be thrown out of the window with this legislation and the keys would be handed over to the Federal Government. Even more astonishing is allowing coal refuse plants to slip through loopholes in order to balance our credits actually makes it harder for regular coal plants to meet their pollution reduction goals.

I honestly don't know if the Republicans have thought about the impact of this bill or what it would do.

Now, again, knowing that it won't become law is simply a creative way for Congress to waste its time as congressional approval sinks even lower. I know that the Republicans have often accused some Democrats of engaging in a war on coal, but with this particular bill, they are the ones attacking the coal industry.

The Republicans claim that this legislation is needed to allow coal refuse plants to be able to meet various air quality standards under the MATS rule, yet throughout the entire rulemaking process there hasn't been any evidence that they can't meet the standards that are already in place. That was recently confirmed by the D.C. circuit court.

Now, it is apparent that both CSAPR and MATS are workable, smart rules that approximately 20 coal refuse plants in our country can abide by in flexible, market-oriented ways. I want to be clear. Leaving coal refuse to spontaneously combust or seep into the ground via acid rain is simply unacceptable, and we need to be cleaning it up; but allowing the plants that are processing it to do so with a weak compliance system is harmful to our health, our homes, our communities, and the environment.

Simply put, this bill is an unnecessary, imprudent bill that does nothing to help our environment or put our country on the right track. I oppose the rule, in addition to H.R. 3797.

Today we could have shown the American people that Congress can come together and do something to solve important issues in a bipartisan manner, to keep our skies safe and open, protecting commerce, by reauthorizing the FAA to pass a bipartisan budget which balances our budget and deals with our deficit; to improve the Child Nutrition Act, the Higher Education Act, any of the myriad challenges that I hear about and, frankly, I believe my Republicans hear about in their townhalls.

I don't think when we are home and hearing from our constituents--by the way, I haven't received a single letter about this coal refuse bill. I haven't heard it in any of my townhalls or gotten calls from any of my constituents. They want us dealing with the pressing issues facing the American people.

We have 84 days of session left in this Congress. By the way, Congress works 84 days. Most Americans have at least 145 days that they go to work. As an example of that, Congress is scheduled to leave town next Wednesday, will have 2 days off that week, then 2 weeks off, then another day off. So that is the type of schedule we are running here.

People wonder what Congress is doing. The answer is we are not doing anything. When we are here, we are spending more time than necessary on uncontroversial bills and we are debating bills that won't become law, and then we all go home and take a vacation. That is the Republican Congress. That is the image of what the Republican Congress is and how they are running this institution. It spends a lot of time debating something that you don't even need to. It spends other time debating things that aren't going to become law, like repealing the Affordable Care Act over 60 times and like this non-SENSE Act, and then gives Congress much greater vacation time than the American people enjoy because, apparently, Republicans think this Congress is doing so well that we all deserve a lot of vacation.

Democrats want to stay here and work on the budget. That is going to be our previous question. We believe we should get a budget done. We would like it to be a bipartisan budget. It certainly is a governing majority. We encourage Republicans to pass a budget, but if they don't have the votes, then, by all means, let's do a bipartisan budget that makes sense for our country.

You will find us willing to roll up our sleeves and get to work, stay here this weekend, stay here next Thursday and Friday, stay here the following week. Let's get this done. This is the work the American people want to see done.

They want to see a budget. They want to see competence. We need to show people that Congress and competence are not mutually exclusive; yet, we continue to do the exact opposite by this course under this rule of debating a bill--and wasting a day--that won't even become law.

Now, look, we have an opportunity here. A vote on this rule is an important vote for that reason. If we defeat this rule--and I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so--we can truly send the message that we want to spend time debating the issues that the American people care about.

We want to fix the budget, the deficit, immigration, health care. Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work rather than continue to blame the President for this or that or blame the Democrats for this or that.

I am honestly curious. If we can't blame the President because he was on time with his budget and you can't blame the Democrats because we are willing to roll up our sleeves and work with you on a budget deal, who are the Republicans going to blame if they can't deliver a budget?

I remember the Republicans assailing the Democrats for not delivering budgets. I am sure my colleague will remind me of that yet again. But, again, that is something that you criticized us on.

If you can't deliver a budget yourself, what is the use of the American people even having the Republicans here? What use was that criticism of the Democrats for not delivering budgets on time if the Republicans themselves don't have the ability to deliver a budget?

Now, look, we can deliver a budget with you. If the Republicans are unable to because there is freedom this or liberty that or all these different buzzwords out there for people who don't want to vote for a budget, we are happy to work with the Republicans on a budget.

Ultimately, what comes out of this process between the House and the Senate is usually some bipartisan buy-in into the budget, anyway.

We are happy to start here with you. The perfect time to do that is now. The perfect time to do that is next Thursday and Friday and the following week. I think we owe the American people a budget rather than an enormous vacation, a paid vacation, for Members of Congress.

Look, we can do better by voting down this rule. I promise you we will do better.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker,

I would, of course, like to remind the gentleman from Pennsylvania that my mountains are higher than his mountains. I also want to let the gentleman know that my district is no stranger to coal mining as well. Coal mines in northern Colorado existed throughout my district and near my district in Marshall, Superior, Louisville, Lafayette, Erie, Dacono, Frederick, and Firestone. The mines employ thousands of people.

Just 2 years ago, we observed the 100th anniversary of the Ludlow Massacre, which was an attack by the Colorado National Guard and the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company guards on a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families in Ludlow, Colorado, on April 20, 1914.

Unfortunately, in that tragedy, two-dozen people were killed in that black mark on our Nation's labor history. I would like to think how far the United Mine Workers have come and how far we have come in protecting workers' rights.

Certainly we understand the legacy of not just coal mining in my district. The gentleman mentioned abandoned mines in the mountain territory of our district. We have many abandoned silver and gold mines. We have an active molybdenum mine right near my district. Many workers live in my district and, of course, mining remains an important part of the West and, of course, of the East as well.

Again, I would certainly advance the argument that even coming from a mining district, Congress spending an entire week, basically, debating these two bills is not something that justifies our time here.

The gentleman from Ohio rightly mentioned that Democrats did not produce a budget, and yes, that might have been one of the reasons the American people said, ``Okay. Republicans, we will give you a chance. You guys produce a budget.''

Do you know what?

If you guys don't produce a budget, you guys are blowing that opportunity, Mr. Speaker. If the Republicans can't deliver a budget, I think the Democrats have learned from experience.

I certainly will go out and campaign on--and I think many of my colleagues will say--``Look. The Republicans could not deliver a budget.''

Most Democrats have learned our lesson. We are going to get back in the majority and we are going to deliver a budget to the American people. I certainly will work very hard to do that.

I am proud to be one of about 16 Democrats and a similar number of Republicans who voted for a bipartisan budget in the last Congress. It didn't pass. It was the only budget that had Democrats and Republicans supporting it. Of course, it also had Democrats and Republicans opposing it in greater numbers, unfortunately; but that is at least the spark--the kind of idea we need to pursue--to be able to work together to govern this country.

Rather than spinning our wheels and spending a lot of time debating a bill that isn't controversial and a lot of time debating a bill that isn't going anywhere, we should take up important legislation. We should address comprehensive immigration reform; securing our borders, making sure that workers who are important to our country have a way out of the shadows; uniting families; and protecting the security of the American people rather than wasting time in trying to change commonsense rules for 20 coal refuse plants--rules that are working and that have been affirmed by the district court.

We could be addressing the Nation's pressing issues like climate change and carbon emissions and out-of-control student debt or how we can improve opportunities for the struggling middle class.

Rather than wasting the American people's time and taxpayer dollars on debating a special interest provision, we could take up the Email Privacy Act, which would protect the American people's privacy and which has 312 cosponsors--more than any other bill in this Congress and which has a solid veto-proof majority.

We could take up criminal justice reform, which I know many people on both sides of the aisle feel very strongly about and which I strongly support, which could improve our economy, reduce crime, reduce costs, and is a moral imperative; or as I mentioned, we could take up our budget, as is the duty and responsibility of Congress, rather than all go back to our districts and put on aprons and serve lattes and meet people in our local diners.

I urge the House majority to take up these important pieces of legislation, which are supported by a majority of Americans, that are critical to our economy and align with our values rather than to debate stale, unnecessary miner bills that won't even become law.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. It is a ``miner'' bill. I was spelling ``miner'' a different way than you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Does the gentleman from Ohio have any remaining speakers?

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his thoughtful remarks. Certainly there is no one in this debate who has called anybody a scoundrel or anything of the sort.

The specific concerns of Mr. Rothfus would best be addressed in Harrisburg. For the Republicans, that is the capital of Pennsylvania. Don't worry. I had to ask as well. That is where this could best be addressed. The Republicans have talked a lot about empowering the States to solve problems rather than always coming to Washington to solve our problems for us.

Guess what?

Harrisburg is empowered to deal with this issue today, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania would be best served in spending time with his Governor, the State regulators, and the State legislature to address the very issues for which he is trying to do this end run in coming to Congress to spend our time here, debating.

The gentleman from Georgia also mentioned that they are hard at work on the Budget Committee. I hope so. I mean, I trust the gentleman. I am sure they are. They are working. I hope that this Congress will stay in session long enough to see the results of that and to pass a budget. That is what our ``previous question'' motion would do. It would simply say that we prohibit the House from going into recess until we do our job and pass a budget. It is entirely consistent with the work that the Budget Committee is doing that will ultimately have to then be reflected in the rank-and-file membership on both sides being a part of that process as well, and we owe it to the American people to let that process be completed and to pass a budget.

I urge the Republicans to take up these important pieces of legislation that I have talked about--a budget, the FAA reauthorization, the Child Nutrition Act, securing our border and fixing our broken immigration system, balancing our budget, investing in infrastructure, tax reform. These are actions that I hear about back home every day I am back, and I think it is important that we act on them. They are important to our economy and they are important to our values as Americans--rather than debating bills that might feel good but won't become law and ultimately are not the right way to solve our problems.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source