Pramila Jayapal

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for pointing that out. The head of the American Academy of Pediatrics has come. We have had a number of forums where people have been able to ask questions. Our Members have been able to ask questions, and I am very grateful to many of the Members who have taken it upon themselves to go and visit these detention facilities, go to the border with us and on other trips as well, and see exactly what is happening. Because I don't think you can really imagine it unless you see it. I don't think you can imagine what it is like to go into a giant facility where children are being held, 6, 7, 8 years old, being held in cages with no place to sleep.

Ms. JAYAPAL. How do you process it? And I think that in the end, I continue to think about the ways in which we are criminalizing migrants, criminalizing people who are fleeing violence, tremendous violence in their countries. Just the other day there was an article in The New York Times, I think, that talked about in Honduras, which is where many of the parents that I met with that were in that Federal prison separated from their children, many of them were from Honduras. This article described how you have two choices: You either get killed by the gangs or you leave. That is the only choice you have. I also went to Tijuana. I think I was the first Member to go to Tijuana, and I met with a 15-year-old boy who had been shot in both knees. And he had a phone message on his cell phone from his mother who said: Please do not come back here. Just go. Just go. Get to the United States. Get to a place of safety. Seek asylum. I will be devastated to have you leave me, but I just want you to stay alive. What parent doesn't want their child to stay alive? And this young man who talked to me was a strong young man, but he started weeping, talking about how he had to leave his mother and come to the United States as an unaccompanied child. It was devastating to hear, absolutely devastating to hear. As we celebrate this 1-year anniversary--not celebrate, memorialize, I should say--this 1-year anniversary of this cruel, zero-humanity policy of family separation, I urge all of my colleagues to sign on to my Dignity for Detained Immigrants bill, to work in appropriations in every committee that we have, to remember that we still have children who are separated from their parents, still to this day. We still have families that are being separated from their parents as we speak. We still do not know how many thousands more children were separated from their parents as a result of this administration's cruel policies that undermine who we are. I see I have been joined by an incredible colleague, a leader on the Judiciary Committee, a leader in the Progressive Caucus, and also somebody who was on our trip to Texas, to the border, but also is from Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my colleague, for her comments on this.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her leadership, for her words, and for her work on this issue. I would just say that, as we get ready to close, here, this Special Order hour, we are thinking, keeping in our minds and in our hearts the thousands of families across this country and across the world that have been separated from their children, and we will do everything we can to continue to fight for justice. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, I am very proud to cosponsor this bipartisan amendment with my colleague from Minnesota to provide access to training on trauma-informed techniques for law enforcement and other agencies that respond to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. Unfortunately, as you well know, despite our best efforts, rape and sexual assault continue to be underreported, and the statistic tells us that, out of every 1,000 rapes, 995 perpetrators will walk free. One thing we can do to address this is to make sure that investigators have training on trauma-informed techniques to work with the survivors of sexual violence so that investigators don't further harm survivors. This is not just in the best interest of the survivor, but it is also to make sure that law enforcement can hold perpetrators accountable. I am particularly moved by the courage and the determination of Abby Honold, the namesake of this amendment, and many, many women across my State and across the country who have suffered the same situation as she has. Ms. Honold endured a brutal attack, and then she did something truly courageous. And let me just say, Madam Chair, that it is courageous to continue to submit yourself to investigation after a brutal assault. She took action to call attention to the importance of the trauma- informed services she received that helped her to pursue justice, and today, her work has resulted in this amendment to ensure that others will be able to provide the same kind of assistance that she received. So as we recognize Sexual Assault Awareness Month, I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, traditionally a bipartisan act in this Chamber. When Congress passed VAWA 25 years ago, it was a landmark achievement that sent a very clear message to people living in abusive or violent situations that we saw them, that we would stand with them. With each reauthorization, we continue to expand critical protections and make improvements like this amendment to better serve survivors. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), my colleague on this side of the aisle.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, we look forward to everyone supporting this amendment. We hope that we continue to operate in a bipartisan fashion in this Chamber to pass not only this amendment, but the full reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee for Congresswoman Waters to offer her amendment.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, better information allows us to develop better policy solutions, and that is all this amendment does: collects more information to address an unacceptable inequality. By mandating that the studies conducted by the Department of Labor explicitly address and include women of color in particular, we can ensure that no one is left behind. I urge all of my colleagues to support the gathering of this valuable information and vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, it has been a long road to get here, but today, women across the country of every race and ethnicity can stand tall and know that we value their work equally. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, what a moment of tremendous pride it is to be here in the 116th Congress under a Democratic majority as we finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. I rise in strong support of this bill, and I thank Chairman Scott for his tremendous leadership in shepherding this bill to the floor. I also thank the author of H.R. 7, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who has been a champion for women's rights her entire career. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a testament to her tireless dedication to the eradication of the gender pay gap, and it is by her leadership that we are here today on the verge of obtaining a more equitable workforce. I also thank Congresswoman Waters, who has long advocated for and fought for pay equity and been a beacon of courage for women across this country. We passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, which made it illegal to discriminate based on sex when men and women are performing jobs that require substantially equal effort, skill, and responsibility. We followed that up with title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, which, among other things, made it illegal to discriminate based on sex. And then 10 years ago, we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which made it clear that every single inadequate paycheck a woman receives is a new act of discrimination. And yet, inequality persisted. Today, women are paid, on average, only 80 cents for every dollar paid to men, resulting in a gap of $10,169 per woman, per year. And that pay gap doesn't discriminate. It exists in all occupations, locales, and regardless of education or work history. The Paycheck Fairness Act seeks to eliminate this gap by picking up where the Equal Pay Act of 1963 left off and strengthening protections for women in the workplace against retaliation, discriminatory screening, and legal obstacles to justice. This amendment to H.R. 7 will ensure that the data collected on behalf of the legislation will be inclusive of all races and ethnicities. Pursuant to section 6 of H.R. 7, the Secretary of Labor must conduct studies as well as provide information to employers and the general public concerning the means by which gender pay disparities can be eliminated. These studies are a critical step forward towards closing the pay gap. This amendment would clarify that these Department of Labor studies mandated by section 6 of the underlying bill must include not just information regarding pay disparities between men and women generally, but specifically for women of every racial and ethnic background. Mr. Chairman, in order to empower all women, we must continue to highlight the specific barriers faced by and the needs of women of color in the workforce. In 2017, the gender wage gap widened for women of color. While research found that women made 80 cents for every dollar paid to White, non-Hispanic men, women of color fared much worse than average: Black women were paid only 61 cents for every dollar paid to White men; Native American women were paid 58 cents; and Latina women were paid only 53 cents. That means that this year, Equal Pay Day, the date that marks how long women have to work into the year to earn what their White male counterparts earned in the previous calendar year, falls on April 2. But for Black women, Equal Pay Day isn't until August 22. Native American women's Equal Pay Day falls on September 23, and Latinas have to work nearly 11 full months into 2019 before they will see their Equal Pay Day on November 20. That is true economic injustice. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 24, to express the sense of Congress that Special Counsel Mueller's report be made available to the American people and to Congress. We cannot impugn the integrity of the American people by keeping this report silenced. For nearly 2 years, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team have investigated serious and credible allegations about obstruction of justice and collusion at the highest levels of our government. To date, Mr. Speaker, the investigation has led to the public indictment of three companies and 34 individuals, including the indictment of President Trump's former campaign manager and personal lawyer, seven guilty pleas, and one conviction following a jury trial. The allegations range from election interference, to lying to the FBI, to conspiracy to defraud the United States. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a Republican or a Democratic issue. I hope that my colleagues on the other side will understand that there should be nothing to hide from the American people about this investigation, a special counsel's investigation into whether there was interference in our elections. If my Republican colleagues have nothing to fear from this report, if they are willing to stand up for the Constitution, if they are willing to stand up for the American people and put that Constitution over party, over any individual, including the one that sits in the White House, then they, too, will join us in voting unanimously for this resolution. It is a big deal for the American people to maintain trust in our democracy and in our government. They have to know the results of the special counsel's report. This is, again, an American issue. It is about doing our constitutional duty to protect our democracy. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to having a unanimous vote on this resolution, passing it through and making it clear that we have nothing to hide. It is our duty to the American people.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, let me say how pleased I am to be with Ms. Tlaib today, leading the Special Order hour, and, Madam Speaker, how pleased I am to see you at the podium. This is a fantastic group of individuals who have joined us here in Congress, and I couldn't be prouder to serve with both of you and with others who are here as well. The topic of this Special Order hour is so important. It has been important to me, of course, but also to Members of Congress in general and to communities across the country, and that is the topic of healthcare. I wanted to break this down a little bit, in terms of where we are on this issue for people who are watching, because this is one of the beauties of the Special Order hour, that we get to talk about the issues that matter; we get to explain things; and we get to put forward our proposals and our ideas. I am so proud to say that, on February 27, I and my colleague, Representative Debbie Dingell, introduced the Medicare for All Act of 2019, and we had 107 original cosponsors. Those are the folks who sign on right as it is getting introduced. Of course, a bill gets introduced, and we always add people on after that. But this is 107 original cosponsors for this act that would build upon, improve, and expand Medicare so that it covers every single person in this country--universal healthcare, the idea that healthcare is a right and not a privilege. Let me start by saying that we Democrats are absolutely united around the need to shore up the Affordable Care Act. There is no question that there is work to do immediately on some of the things that were done to take away access to those with preexisting conditions, to strip away the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. We are 100 percent united around continuing to do that. However, we have to have a bold vision that addresses the healthcare crisis in this country that leaves 30 million people uninsured and 40 million people underinsured, without access to healthcare. We have to understand, in doing that, in the United States today, we spend, depending on what estimate you look at, about $32 trillion to $39 trillion on healthcare costs over 10 years. That is going up to about $50 trillion over the next 10 years on healthcare. That is about 18\1/2\ percent of GDP. If you look at every other major industrialized country in the world, what you see is that they provide healthcare, comprehensive care, to everybody in their country, and they do it at about half the cost, or less, of what the United States spends. You might think that you could look at costs of healthcare in this country and you could say: Well, America has the best healthcare system in the world, and that is why we spend so much. We have the best healthcare outcomes. Well, let's talk about that for a second. In the United States, we spend 18\1/2\ percent of our GDP on healthcare costs, yet we have the worst health outcomes of any peer country in the world. Today in the United States, we have the highest maternal mortality rate. We know what that is; that is moms dying in childbirth. We have the highest infant mortality rate. That is kids dying at young ages. We have the lowest life expectancy rate of any of our peer countries. In fact, we are the only industrialized country in the world where life expectancy is going down and not up. So we don't even have good health outcomes to show for our healthcare system. That is why Representative Dingell and I and our 105 additional cosponsors of the bill, and Representative Tlaib and many others who are part of this effort, have introduced the improved Medicare for All Act of 2019. What this bill does is it offers, first of all, comprehensive coverage to everyone in the country. We say that that includes primary care; it includes vision, dental, hearing; it includes mental health and substance abuse; it includes long-term services and supports, maternal healthcare, and more. Everybody in the country will have access to healthcare when you get sick, not when you need an emergency room, not when you simply can't take your illness anymore, but when you actually get sick. This bill is the first time that we will actually have long-term care supports and services included in this coverage. This is very, very important because it covers seniors, obviously, our elderly, as they get toward the end of their life, and it includes people with disabilities who have, traditionally, been left out of this entire sphere. What we do is we say that, instead of the current system where you have to get so poor that you have to be on Medicaid--you have to have a low level of income, be on Medicaid--if you want long-term supports and services, and the automatic default is institutional care instead of home care, we flip that on its head and we say you get to stay at home with the people you love. You get to be in your home as you are dealing with these incredible challenges that you may have. Our bill says no premiums, copays, and deductibles. We don't want you to have to think about that as you go to the doctor. This is very important, because you will hear this is a government takeover of healthcare. That is what opponents of my bill are already trying to tell you. I want you to hear this really clearly, if you are listening: We use the same network of doctors and hospitals that is already here. In fact, I bet, if we had a roomful here and I were to ask people how many of you have been told, or have a family member or a relative who has been told, that you can't go to a certain hospital or doctor because it is out of network, or you only get a certain coverage if you go, I bet everybody would raise their hands. I see people raising their hands right now. Good for you. I feel like I have an audience here. What our plan says is that you can go to any doctor or hospital. The government isn't taking over those services. It is not going to be a different government service. It is just the same as what you have right now. The only thing that changes is, instead of having to argue with five insurance companies--because maybe you have Medicare and you have Medicare Advantage; maybe you don't have anything at all; maybe you have a combination of things put together. Instead of having to argue with five insurance companies, you get to just say: This is a government insurance program. This is covered by one insurance program, a single payer. If you have heard that statement, that is what that means. This is the way that almost every industrialized country in the world does it. I think that we have to think about what the problem is here, why have we not been able to do this. We have, increasingly, seen our healthcare system, unfortunately, being moved more and more to a for- profit system that puts those profits over patients. If you look at, for example, the cost of pharmaceutical drugs in our country today, it is so much more expensive to get insulin treatment or cancer treatments or even an MRI in the United States. I have clients and constituents who drive to Canada, who go to other places, because they can't afford the drugs here, and they can buy the exact same thing across the border for significantly cheaper. We are having a crisis, Madam Speaker, where people are going to bed at night thinking about how they are going to pay their rent and pay for their cancer treatment, how they are going to afford to get the insulin treatments that they want. People are foreclosing on homes. In fact, two-thirds of all the bankruptcies today in the United States are due to medical issues, medical costs. GoFundMe has become one of the most popular insurance plans around, where people are just banking on the goodness of people to take care of their healthcare costs. That is simply not acceptable. If we want to take on this question of universal healthcare coverage, which, by the way, Teddy Roosevelt talked about in 1910, Harry Truman in 1945, President Johnson--this is not a radical idea. It is actually something that has been tried and tested. But here in the United States, the idea that we could provide universal healthcare for everybody, make sure that people get the healthcare access that they need, this is the time for it. Seventy percent of the American people actually agree with us. You might hear that that support goes down if you say some other things, but let's be really clear that the fearmongering out there is driven by for-profit industries that, unfortunately, have a lot to lose if a plan like this were to pass, because we would actually make sure that we are not only providing universal coverage but that we also have cost containment built into our system. That is what my bill does. We build in cost containment measures so that we can actually bring down the overall cost of healthcare in this country to what is standard in other countries around the world. This is incredibly important to us, and as we think about who gains and who loses in this, I believe that it is actually a win-win for everybody who is concerned about putting patients over profits. It is a win-win for doctors who have been trained to take care of patients but, instead, spend 25 to 30 percent of their time dealing with insurance companies and trying to do all the paperwork that needs to be there, trying to argue for a patient of theirs to be able to get the care they need. It is a win for hospitals that want to make sure that they know what kind of budgets they are going to have and that they can work within that. We have something built into our plan called global budgeting, which is actually the standard in other countries but is being tested in Maryland to great effect, where hospitals get an overall amount of money, and they get a global budget. We have that built in as well. It is a win for patients. This is the thing that is so important to emphasize again and again. Actually, before I get to the patients, let me say it is also a win for our businesses, particularly our small- and medium-sized businesses. I have a lot of business owners who might disagree with me on a few other issues, many of them are across the aisle--they are Republicans; they are independents. They come up to me and they say: Representative, I don't agree with you on this or this or this, but please, can you get the Medicare for All bill passed, because we cannot, as small businesses and even medium-sized businesses and, by the way, even large-sized businesses, deal with the growing cost of these insurance premiums that we are paying that are really just going to line the pockets of top CEOs. The CEO of UnitedHealth took home $82 million, even as people are not able to afford treatments and are dying. The other CEOs have taken in $52 million, $29 million. We have to make sure that the balance of something like healthcare, which is an essential, I believe, a common good in this country, that we are able to provide that to people. There are lots of other places where markets can work, but in this marketplace where you need to make sure that healthcare is provided to everybody regardless of whether you are rich or poor, regardless of where you live, regardless of the color of your skin, this is where the government comes in to try to help make sure that that is actually possible. This is a really important bill for us, and I am absolutely honored to have so many of my colleagues who are so smart on these issues, not only in liberal districts like mine but also in frontline districts, places that were held by Republicans for a very long time. My Democratic colleagues flipped those districts, and they ran on this issue. They ran on this issue, and they won on this issue, because they know, and their constituents know, that it is time to take profit out of this system and make sure that it once again gets focused on the healthcare of people. We also have an incredible coalition of labor unions that have come on board for the first time ever. Our teachers are on board, our machinists, our steelworkers. We have so many different unions that are on board this time. Our disability rights community is on board. Our women's organizations are on board, because for the first time, we make sure that everybody gets the care they need, whether they are a woman or a man, and we make sure that people have control over their reproductive choices. We are absolutely thrilled about this. I want to be clear about one thing, as I turn this back over to my incredible colleague from Michigan. This is not a messaging bill. I want to be clear about that. For the first time in the House of Representatives, this bill is over 120 pages long. It is a detailed analysis and layout of exactly how this would work. It ensures that everybody gets healthcare. It keeps the existing system of delivery that we have. We are not changing the system of delivery. It does not in any way say that insurance companies can't continue to operate. They just can't provide the same benefits that we are providing through the government insurance plan. That is actually the way Medicare works right now. You can't provide the same benefits because we don't want a two- tiered system. Now, if they want to provide benefits outside of what we provide, they are welcome to do so. That is how Medicare Advantage originally came in to being. Medicare Advantage plans, the benefits that are offered under those, would be included in our plan, so we wouldn't need those plans. But insurance companies are free to continue to innovate as they need to; and we have built in 1 percent of the cost of the bill for the first 5 years actually goes to a fund that ensures transition and appropriate support for workers in the insurance industries who may actually end up having to lose their jobs or to eventually transition into this new system that we have. We will, for the first time, thanks to Speaker Pelosi's support, and others' support, we will have hearings on this bill. And whether you agree or you disagree with the premise, what I would ask is that you understand how critical it is to address and finally get to universal healthcare in this country. This is a debate that should have been had on the House floor and in our committees a long time ago. We are finally going to have that with a number of different committees; and I am looking forward to continuing to help lead with all of my colleagues on ensuring that healthcare is a right and not a privilege; that you don't have to be wealthy to get basic healthcare; and that we improve the ultimate competitiveness of our businesses, our families, our communities, and the health, the basic health, the right to live with dignity and respect for all of our people.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, in conclusion, I would say this bill, H.R. 1, is about reclaiming our democracy, ensuring transparency and accountability for the American people. For evidence of obstruction of justice, public corruption, and abuses of power for any President and the people surrounding him, we believe that this bill is essential, and this amendment is essential. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, once again, I just reiterate that what we are saying is whether you are paid or unpaid, you have to go through the same security clearances; and whether you are paid or unpaid, you have to deal with the same ethics regulations. Particularly when unpaid employees are put into serious positions where national security clearances are required and where they have access to top secret information, we need to make sure that those ethics rules apply to everybody. Now, frankly, we didn't see this as a loophole in the past because it hasn't been exploited in the same way, but, unfortunately, that is what is happening now. Mr. Chairman, I think that this should raise serious concerns for anybody. We need to make sure that the people who are in our government are facing the same transparent ethics rules whether you are a relative of the person in the Oval Office or not. We have ethics laws for a reason. The United States is not a despotic country built on nepotism, and we need to make sure that it is in everyone's best interest when all of these employees are subject to ethics laws, including laws that prohibit employees from participating in matters in which they have a financial interest or from misusing their official positions. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues on the other side who are just quoting the ACLU tonight are with us on everything else that the ACLU supports. I look forward to seeing that. I got a little distracted in the last speech, so I wanted to remind people what we are talking about in this amendment, which is that we would not allow lobbyists that are working on behalf of foreign governments with gross human rights violations to actually pay a bunch of lobbyists and hide behind highly paid K Street lobbyists to get their agenda. They should just use the diplomatic process. It is not like they are not going to have a voice. They can use their diplomatic process. That is all this amendment is. It is a smart amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the incredible gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who has been leading this effort.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, this amendment cleans up the so-called legal defense funds. Many Americans don't know this, but it is perfectly legal for government employees to set up a fund to help them pay their legal bills when they are in trouble with the law. Amazingly, they can pack this slush fund with unlimited donations from wealthy individuals and large corporations. In other words, employees in the White House can fund their legal defenses with contributions from the President's campaign backers or people who want to influence the President's decisions. Not surprisingly, this President's team has set up a legal defense fund, the Patriot Fund, to help staffers pay for their legal fees related to the Russia investigation. The Patriot Fund was cleared by the Office of Government Ethics under the Acting Director, David Apol, who was appointed by--you guessed it--President Trump. Former Trump campaign staffer Rick Gates and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn have also set up legal defense funds. According to a political report from a month ago, Sheldon Adelson, who is the single largest donor to the Trump campaign, and his wife, Miriam, have each contributed $250,000 to the Patriot Fund, for a total of half a million dollars. The fund is flush, Mr. Chair. It is no wonder that one of Trump's former campaign staffers who has been interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee referred to the Patriot Fund as ``a real blessing.'' Trump lawyers have said that decisions about which staffers' legal funds are paid out of the Patriot Fund will not be related to whether the individual in question defends the President. But since the fund manager has sole discretion over who will benefit from the fund, it is almost impossible to know whether access to Patriot Fund dollars will be used to reward those who might be loyal to the President. That creates an extraordinary conflict of interest for any President, not just this one. It is time to put a stop to this in perpetuity. That is why I have offered this amendment to direct the Office of Government Ethics to promulgate regulations on basic requirements to ensure transparency of donations to legal defense funds in the executive branch and to ensure that Federal employees cannot obtain money from prohibited sources. These regulations will be similar to rules that are already established for Members of Congress, and I think that that is just common sense. My amendment closes loopholes and eliminates conflicts of interest in these legal defense funds in several ways. First, it limits the gifts and donations that can be made to legal defense funds to no more than $5,000 per person per year. Second, it prohibits registered lobbyists, foreign governments, and individuals involved in activities that are regulated by the agency that is employing the individual who will receive the legal defense fund dollars from contributing to their legal defense fund. Third, it clarifies that employees may not accept gifts and donations outside of legal defense funds to pay for legal fees and expenses from civil or criminal proceedings. And, fourth, it makes legal defense funds public by requiring that the source of contributions and the amount of those contributions be publicly disclosed. Mr. Chair, this is a sensible amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to speak on this amendment that simply requires unpaid government employees to comply with the same ethics rules as paid employees. President Trump has exploited this ethics loophole for his daughter Ivanka Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who both work in the White House. Requiring your daughter and your son-in-law to be subject to the same ethics rules as everyone else is simply basic common sense. It is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue, but it is core to our democracy and our national security. The purpose of ethics rules, Mr. Chairman, is to ensure that conflicts of interest do not interfere in the operations of our government. This is critical so that the American people trust that the people guiding our country's laws and policies are acting with the best interests of our country and the American people at heart and not foreign or business interests. But President Trump's hiring of his daughter Ivanka Trump, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as unpaid advisers has raised serious concerns. Shortly after the 2016 elections, Ivanka Trump participated in her dad's meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister as her namesake clothing brand, Ivanka Trump Marks LLC, was simultaneously negotiating a licensing deal with Sanei International, a company whose largest shareholder is the Japanese Government. In addition, her company received preliminary approvals for 16 new trademarks from China during the President's trade war with China. In one case, Ivanka Trump and Chinese President Xi dined together at Mar- a-Lago the same day that China approved the three trademarks for the First Daughter. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would stop lobbyists from working on behalf of foreign governments with gross human rights violations. Countries with human rights abuses should use the diplomatic process to express their views and not try to influence the American Government when hiding behind highly paid K Street lobbyists. H.R. 1, the For the People Act, is a historic bill that aims to restore the promise of our Nation's democracy and the culture of corruption in Washington, reduce the role of money in politics, and return power back to the American people. My amendment furthers this goal by limiting the role of dark money in our foreign policy. Take, for instance, Mr. Chairman, Saudi Arabia. After 9/11, Saudi Arabia was implicated in the most destructive attack on American soil in our history. Yet 15 years later, the country was the leading recipient of U.S. arms sales. For nearly 4 years, Saudi Arabia has perpetrated the worst humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, with U.S. military participation in its bombings and complicity in a blockade that has deprived millions of food and medicine. Despite the Saudis' indiscriminate killing of civilians, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has certified that the country has been protecting civilians just last year. Most recently, Saudi Arabia murdered U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi while President Trump rejected the evidence from his own intelligence agencies that Saudi Arabia's crown prince ordered the murder. How does Saudi Arabia maintain its relationship with the United States? It shouldn't surprise anyone that Saudi Arabia spent about $27 million on U.S. lobbying and public relations in 2017 alone. Individuals affiliated with the Trump administration like Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn have also taken substantial sums of money from foreign countries to lobby the American Government. Paul Manafort lobbied on behalf of pro-Russian forces in Ukraine in 2005, and prosecutors allege that Mr. Manafort was working on Ukrainian politics well into 2018, even after Special Counsel Mueller indicted him. He didn't even report the payments he was receiving for his lobbying efforts, in flagrant violation of current law. Though not charged with lobbying illegally, Manafort has still had a long history of lobbying on behalf of the world's most brutal dictators, including Mobutu Sese Seko, Ferdinand Marcos, and Jonas Savimbi. He is rumored to have accepted a briefcase from a Marcos affiliate with $10 million in cash to give to the Reagan campaign. Finally, Michael Flynn, President Trump's former National Security Advisor, worked on a $15 million plan to kidnap a political enemy of Turkish President Erdogan and fly him to an island prison. Mr. Flynn was paid at least $530,000 for lobbying on behalf of the Turkish Government between August and November of 2016. Mr. Chairman, he did not retroactively register as a foreign agent with the Justice Department until March 7, 2017. This is a commonsense amendment that brings transparency and ensures that we protect our system from this type of lobbying from those countries that have gross human rights violations. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, my amendment would simply make clear to the Department of Homeland Security that these funds, which Congress is specifically dedicating to the Coast Guard's environmental remediation efforts as a result of hurricane damage, cannot be reprogrammed to increase DHS's detention capacity. Madam Chair, this amendment is critical. Just a few months ago, we learned that DHS transferred $169 million from other agencies to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain and remove people. Madam Chair, $10 million of that money came from FEMA, diverting funds from the disaster relief agency at the start of the hurricane season when Hurricane Florence was heading toward the East Coast; $1.8 million of that diverted money came from the Domestic Nuclear Detention Office; $29 million was taken out from the Coast Guard's budget; and over $34 million came from several TSA programs. That is simply unacceptable. ICE continues to spend far above its appropriated funding to detain people, but these funds are being transferred from other critical agencies, in clear violation of congressionally mandated funding. As of January 1, more than 48,000 people were being held in ICE custody, even though they only have funding appropriated by Congress to detain 40,520 people. In the last appropriations act passed by this Chamber, we provided funding to ICE with the understanding that the funding amount would, ``require ICE to reduce the number of detention beds,'' in use before the end of the year. We clearly stated our intent to ICE, yet ICE has chosen to ignore the mandates of the United States Congress again and again. Moreover, the Government Accountability Office has found a number of inconsistencies and errors in ICE's own calculations for its congressional budget justifications. While ICE officials stated their budget documents undergo multiple reviews to ensure accuracy, ICE was not able to provide any documentation of such reviews, and the GAO concluded that ``ICE is not positioned to ensure the credibility of its budget requests.'' If the GAO concludes that ICE is not positioned to ensure the credibility of its own requests, then we need to be doing a better job of checking for accuracy and exercising oversight. And, most of all, we need to make sure that these funds that are being appropriated for disaster relief stay for disaster relief. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, I am going to yield to my colleague in just a second. But this should be easy to vote for because you yourself said there is nothing in here that provides funding for detentions. So I look forward to seeing the gentleman vote for my amendment because, actually, then you are saying there is no problem here, we are going to make sure that these funds actually go where they are supposed to, to disaster relief. That is all I am saying in this amendment is let's make sure that the funds we appropriate go to disaster relief, which is necessary, and States across the country--certainly in my part of the country-- wildfires, hurricanes--we have lots of issues we have got to deal with here. So, given that the gentleman just started his remarks with multiple statements saying there is nothing in this bill that would allow for this, I look forward to seeing your yes vote on my amendment. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, let me just say how pleased I am that we are on the same page, that disaster relief funding should go to disaster relief; it should not go to expanding detention beds, which are already oversubscribed. So I hope that the other side will be happy to vote yes on this amendment. And I would just say we are happy to have a discussion about immigration and all of the things we need to do to reform our immigration system at the right time. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.