Pramila Jayapal

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. There really hasn't. And I want to say that, if you look at the budget, you really get a sense of where the priorities are. They are not investing in climate. They are cutting healthcare dramatically. They are not investing in jobs and infrastructure. Now, as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) said, when I was in the State senate--it was actually a Republican-controlled senate--together, we worked on a package and we invested $16 billion into infrastructure because we knew that that was good for Republicans and for Democrats. If you look at what this President has to say, this was a tweet that he just put out: ``Really great numbers on jobs and the economy. Things are starting to kick in now. . . . '' But the thing is that, this week, the White House is calling this ``Made in America Week.'' Well, maybe somebody should let the President know that everything should be made in America, because I happen to take a look at some of the products of the Trump Organization--and I am talking about Ivanka Trump's products and all of the President's organizations' products--and here is what I found: Here is one of the products of Donald J. Trump's signature collection, made in Mexico. Here is another one from Ivanka Trump, made in China. So if the President is so incredibly committed to making things in America, I have a proposal--and perhaps we should have an amendment to this effect--that he should start with the Trump Organization. In fact, much of the steel that was put into buildings that were built by the Trump Organization was not steel that was made here in America. I actually have one of the largest steel manufacturing plants in my district in Washington State. Nobody ever thinks about it that way, but we do have steel being manufactured in Seattle. And we are in a situation now where this President and this Republican-controlled Congress has yet to introduce a single bill that would actually invest in jobs or infrastructure. In fact, the budget takes money away from job training. It takes more money out of infrastructure investment than it puts into infrastructure investment. And when you think about the Federal Government's role in infrastructure--of course, we all want public-private partnerships, where possible--the Federal Government has a very strong role in making sure that we are investing in all of our infrastructure, not only our roads and our bridges, but also all of our water sources, and making sure that we are investing in transit. These are all ways to put Americans back to work. Yet, for a President who ran a campaign based on jobs and infrastructure and a Republican-controlled House, we have yet to see a single job emerge. And even the jobs that he says he has created, recently reports that he had created 45,000 coal mining jobs, but, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what we have seen is the numbers show only 800 jobs created in the coal mines.

Ms. JAYAPAL. I just wanted to go back to this question of Medicaid, because I think you have raised such an important program that is really a mainstay for the American people. A lot of people don't understand exactly how much it covers. You have mentioned 62 percent of seniors in nursing homes. One in four births in this country is covered through Medicaid. I was just talking to our good colleague, Mr. Yarmuth of Kentucky. Over half of the births in Kentucky are covered through Medicaid. Then if you look at kids with disabilities, Medicaid covers 60 percent of kids with disabilities. So when you talk about cutting $1.5 trillion from Medicaid, as was the case between TrumpCare and what was proposed in the budget, which I know our good friend from Florida is going to talk about, you actually had $1.5 trillion in cuts to a program that serves 72 million Americans. So it really is a travesty when you think about how much this program supports.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JAYAPAL. I thank the gentlewoman for raising that because this elimination of TIGER grants affects cities across the country--red States, blue States, Republican, and urban. We have a lot of those TIGER grants that have paid for our roads, rails, transit, ports, and new transportation projects. Perhaps I will turn it back to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin. Would you be surprised to know that the budget actually slashes job training programs for distressed workers by 65 percent?

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Congressman Brian Higgins and I introduced H. Res. 441, legislation that would require a Congressional Budget Office score before a floor vote. This resolution clearly enshrines in House rules a fundamental and very simple principle of good governance: namely, we should know the budgetary and practical impact of legislation before we vote on it. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it should not be necessary for us to introduce this legislation. For years, the CBO has been an important nonpartisan player in crafting legislation and giving an independent assessment of what a bill costs and whom it will benefit or whom it will hurt. Unfortunately, we have seen House leadership rush major legislation to the floor without a CBO score, preventing Members from knowing the impact on their constituents and the budget before voting. The most egregious example, of course, was the May 4 vote on the TrumpCare bill that barely passed this Chamber and would strip 23 million Americans of healthcare. That bill was rushed to the House floor before it had a CBO score, and Members voted blindly on it without knowing the impact on their constituents. Our resolution simply says transparency, accountability, and know what is in the bill. No score, no floor; it's that simple.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous and divisive amendment that is the latest attempt to criminalize the religious beliefs of Muslims in this country. Let me remind my colleague from Arizona that our country was founded on the principle of religious liberty, and the First Amendment guarantees that right. In calling for a strategic assessment, this amendment tramples on our Constitution's separation of religion and State, singles out the Muslim religion, its practices and leaders, and it does nothing to keep our Nation safe. In fact, fear-mongering undermines trust and national security, and pits neighbor against neighbor, community against community, and is an insult to our American Muslim communities. This amendment doesn't even apply its arbitrary surveillance equally, because if it did, it would include assessments of White supremacist terrorism or terrorism committed against abortion clinics and doctors. Mr. Chairman, our fight against terrorism is not against any religion. It is against the acts that are committed and those who commit the acts. It violates our Constitution and runs counter to who we are as a nation. Frankly, it is horrifying, and I urge my colleagues to resoundingly oppose it.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that this is conditional because we still don't have a budget resolution. So in the absence of a budget resolution, the reality is we are looking at a budget that could potentially raise $676 billion for defense, but at the expense of all of the other programs that we have mentioned. And the reality is that families in the armed services also care about education, about healthcare, about roads, and about everything else that is funded in domestic spending. So we have to make sure that these two things are interconnected. And, yes, we have got to make sure that the State Department is funded and that we continue to push for a budget that keeps parity between defense and nondefense discretionary. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, the reality is that our economic security is part and parcel of our national security, and so it is in line with these values today that we introduce Amendment 334 to the National Defense Authorization Act, which states a sense of Congress that any appropriated increase to the combined national defense budget and the overseas contingency operations budget are matched dollar for dollar by nondefense discretionary spending increases. For years now, these spending increases have occurred concurrently and equally, keeping important parity between defense and nondefense discretionary spending. Because genuine national security depends on the health, vibrancy, and safety of our communities, we must ensure that the spending parity continues and that this Democratic Party principle carries on into fiscal year 2018. Nondefense discretionary spending includes a host of funds that are crucial to the American people, from education to research, to veterans' healthcare, to transportation and even homeland security. NDD funding is absolutely essential to moving our country forward. Mr. Chairman, as vice ranking member of the Budget Committee, I echo the comments made earlier by our ranking member, Mr. Smith, about the dysfunction that we have, as we have yet to consider a fiscal year 2018 budget resolution, and we have only 23 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins. The effort to push through $696 billion in defense spending will trigger sequestration under the Budget Control Act, and our communities will pay the price in cuts to vital programs. This is senseless brinksmanship, and we must reject it. Sequestration would, further, hinder job creation and stall economic growth by cutting $2 trillion in discretionary spending for infrastructure that makes our communities thrive: roads, bridges, transit, railroad systems, broadband, ports, airports, waterways, schools, and safe, clean water systems. It will erode our investments in education, worker training, public health, and community development that strengthen the middle class and working families; and these shortfalls, Mr. Chairman, will hurt the American people and our economy and make us less secure as a nation. Budgetary gimmicks don't make our Nation safer either, and that is why in the People's Budget, which we introduced in the Progressive Caucus, the overseas contingency operations budget is actually zeroed out, as it is essentially a zero accountability slush fund used to avoid the restrictions imposed by the Budget Control Act. Some have pointed out that $10 billion of the $631.5 billion for the military base budget needs is actually labeled OCO purely as a technicality to evade the Budget Control Act caps. This is in addition to the clearly marked $65 billion of OCO funds. By including OCO funding one-to-one match in our amendment, we are sending a message that we will not accept these efforts to undermine the best interests of our country and its people. Increasing opaque funding sources comes at the expense of our Nation's infrastructure programs, education, and all the other things that I mentioned earlier. So to the extent that Congress provides relief from the post-sequestration funding levels for our military, responsible Members of this body should be united in insisting that the same relief would apply to domestic discretionary spending. This amendment underscores the reality that economic security is national security. For these reasons, and to support the continuation of this important principle, we urge support of this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1215. First of all, my home State of Washington is one of those States where our Supreme Court has ruled and said that caps are not constitutional. So this bill is an intrusion of our States' rights. This bill also clearly puts the interests of big corporations over everyday people and sends a signal to medical and health providers that they can act irresponsibly, perhaps to make more money, and get away with it. Let me give you a very real example of what happens when hospitals put profit over people. The neurology program at Swedish Medical Center-Cherry Hill in Seattle is under investigation for negligent care arising out of a program designed to incentivize neuroscience doctors to take on heavy caseloads of complicated cases that lead to serious errors and even death. One of the patients was Talia Goldenberg, a talented and vibrant young woman. Talia went in for a cervical spinal fusion with a neurosurgeon who had been embroiled in numerous investigations. And as a result of gross medical malpractice, Talia died. According to a Seattle Times investigation, numerous problems surfaced around her care--or lack thereof--and attention to the surgery and medical complications that arose from it. When Talia went in for her surgery, she was filled with hope. In thinking about the life that she might have after surgery, she wrote this: So who am I? I am an artist, a dreamer. I am a stationary biker. I am a woman, a girl, a person. I am a skier. I am an aspiring pole vaulter. I am a reluctant, yet faithful, believer of the power of lucky underwear. I am someone with a voice. Talia died. She is one of the many tragic instances of people losing their lives to medical malpractice, and, even in my own office, two of my staffers have lost three of their grandparents due to medical malpractice. We have to make sure that we have consequences when we entrust our healthcare to someone, and there are grave errors. For the sake of Talia and so many others like her who have dreams that are violated by preventable errors, we must defeat this bill. A ``no'' vote is a vote for the American people.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 325.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, Representative Raskin. Mr. Speaker, it is great to have you presiding over the Chamber as well. It is all of our new Members here, and Representative Khanna from California, who is going to be taking over as co-chair of this Special Order hour for the Progressive Caucus. Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure that the American people understand exactly what is going on. This is a bill that the Senate has been negotiating in private. It has been 13 men discussing healthcare for all Americans across this country in a secret room. That is really what has been happening. Today we saw a draft of this bill, and the prevailing wisdom, when the bill passed the House, was that the Senate would completely revamp the bill. But according to The New York Times, it said: The Senate bill ``once promised as a top-to-bottom revamp of the health bill passed by the House . . . instead maintains its structure, with modest adjustments.'' It is the same bill. It is the same bill. And in fact, in some ways, it is a little bit worse because the cuts to Medicaid, while they don't take effect as quickly and they are more gradual, they are actually deeper than the House cuts to Medicaid. There are other things in the bill that have been done, really, in part, to affect how the American people see the bill but don't change the basic provisions of this bill. Part of the reason they delayed the cuts to Medicaid is so that they hope that they can get a better CBO score, Congressional Budget Office score, which the American people should know the last time around, the second time around after the first time the bill was about to come to the floor and then it got pulled from the floor because there weren't enough votes in the House, the second time when it did pass, it passed without a CBO score. It was not scored. The reason it was not scored was because there was a belief that that very narrow passage in the House would not happen if Republicans and Democrats found out that the bill, as ``revised,'' was actually just as bad. So the bill that passed the House still took away health insurance from 23 million Americans. This is where we are today: a bill that has been crafted in secret but is essentially the same bill. I have received more than 9,000 calls and letters from constituents who have been very clear that Congress needs to do all it can to protect our seniors, to expand Medicaid, and to defend the gains that have been made over the last 7 years. And you know what is really ironic about this whole situation is that, if you think about some of the things that Republicans said about the Affordable Care Act when it was being passed--here is a quote. In 2010, Speaker Paul Ryan said: ``After months of twisting arms, Democratic leaders convinced enough members of their own party to defy the will of the American people and support the Senate health bill which was crafted in secret, behind closed doors.'' Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said: ``When it comes to solving problems, Americans want us to listen first, and then, if necessary, offer targeted, step-by-step solutions. Above all, they're tired of a process that shuts them out. They're tired of giant bills negotiated in secret, then jammed through on a party-line vote in the middle of the night.'' That is what Speaker Ryan said and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said when the Affordable Care Act was being debated. But here is the thing: When the Affordable Care Act was being debated, Democrats actually threw open the doors in Congress. They held over 100 Senate hearings. I wasn't here. This is based on actual reports and documents and files from Congress. There were over 100 Senate hearings, 25 consecutive days of consideration, and 161 amendments from Republicans. Many of those amendments were accepted into the bill. This is a completely different process. We didn't have a single hearing on this bill. The bill came to the House floor, and there was some debate, but it certainly wasn't 100 hearings. It wasn't 25 days of consideration. There weren't 161 amendments. There weren't any amendments that were accepted from Democrats because there was no amendment process. And now, in the Senate, we are going through the same process where a bill that is about the healthcare of hundreds of millions of Americans across this country is about to come to the floor, and they are not going to accept any amendments, certainly not from the Democratic side. Maybe they will take a few amendments from the Republicans before it comes to the floor. I don't know. We will have to see. But there is no debate on this. How can we talk about the process of democracy and even of civility and the ability to work together if we didn't offer the other side a chance to weigh in? This bill will take away health insurance from millions of people, and it will make it less affordable for those who still have insurance because it is not very different from the House bill, and we already know that that is what the House bill does. It would raise out-of-pocket costs for middle class families with higher deductibles and cost sharing. It would essentially defund Planned Parenthood by blocking people with Medicaid coverage from accessing preventive care at Planned Parenthood health centers for birth control, cancer screenings, and STD treatment and testing. And it would cut the essential health benefits protections. Now, what are the essential health benefits protections? We talk about that phrase, but a lot of Americans don't know exactly what that means. So here is what it means. It means that if you buy insurance, then you can be assured that that insurance is going to cover certain things. It will cover, for example, hospitalization. It will cover if you get cancer. It will cover some of your treatments that you need for cancer, certain things that are included in that. Mental healthcare is part of that essential health benefits coverage. That is what it means. Otherwise, an insurance company can sell you something, and it can even say we cover, you know, X, Y, and Z, but when you get to the hospital because you are sick, you will find out that it doesn't actually cover hospitalization. So this was an attempt to say, there is sort of an essential understanding, an essential set of things that would be covered. We will guarantee you that they will be covered if you buy insurance. Now, I want to talk about Medicaid for a second, because this is one of the biggest travesties of the bill that is being proposed by the Republicans in the Senate. This bill would literally decimate Medicaid. And between the Medicaid cut of over $800 billion in the healthcare bill in the Senate and the budget cut that is proposed of over $600 billion, let me be clear that we are talking about almost a $1.5 trillion cut to Medicaid through these two mechanisms. I want to talk about what Medicaid is because a lot of people might think that Medicaid just covers poor folks, which, frankly, I think we should cover poor folks. Let's be clear about that. But I want to tell you what Medicaid actually covers. It covers half of all the births in the United States. It covers insurance for one in five Americans. It covers treatment for 220,000 recovering people with drug disorders, including those who suffer from opioid abuse. It covers 1.6 million patients, mostly women, who get cancer screenings, and STD testing. It covers 64 percent of all nursing home residents. It covers 30 percent of all adults with disabilities. It covers 39 percent of all kids in this country and 60 percent of kids with disabilities. So if you cut half of Medicaid, which is what a $1.5 trillion cut to Medicaid would include--it would be half of what we spend on Medicaid today--a program that covers 74 million Americans across this country, 38 million Americans would lose their coverage. No wonder, as Mr. Raskin said, this healthcare bill has had such low approval ratings in the House, and now it is the same bill in the Senate. Americans understand that whether you live in blue America or red America, whether you live in rural America or urban America, whether you are a man or a woman or a child, whether you are young or old, one of the great things about this country is that we are a country that believes in trying to provide for people when they get sick. Now, we have been trying to do that for a long time, and until the Obama administration and the Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, we weren't doing that. But in Washington State, my home State, when we passed the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid expansion allowed us to cover an additional 600,000 people across our State. We cut the uninsured rate in half, and we created over 22,000 jobs across the State, including in rural areas. So what we need to do now is to stop this bill from moving forward because it would be bad for the American people. It is that simple. It is going to kick Grandma out of her nursing home. It is going to stop a kid with asthma from getting an inhaler. It is going to put a premium on being an elder American. If you are an older American, you are going to pay four to five times as much as anybody else. Why? You just have to ask why. So who benefits from this bill? This bill is a transfer of wealth from middle class Americans to the wealthiest Americans, corporations in this country. So this is about tax cuts for the richest. Sheldon Adelson, who is a Republican donor, casino magnate, he will get, if the Senate bill passes, he will get a $44 million tax cut in 2017 alone. How are they paying for that? By cutting Medicaid, taking away protections for preexisting conditions, for seniors, for average Americans. Mr. Speaker, that is just not right. It is not right if you are a Democrat. It is not right if you are a Republican. It is not right if you are an Independent. It is just not right. And, yes, the President is correct on this point: It is a mean bill. It is mean; it is cruel; it is unjust. And I hope we defeat it. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, all over the country, millions of Americans are celebrating Pride Month and our LGBTQIA communities across the country. In fact, this week I will join tens of thousands of Washingtonians at our annual Seattle pride events. We will come together to support our family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues; we will come together to celebrate the advancement of LGBTQ rights in our country; and we will come together to celebrate the second anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed our commitment to the principle of marriage equality in this country. But this year, we also come together to acknowledge that we have seen a spike in hate crimes, an increasing coarseness of public discourse, and greater fear-mongering for political gain. We have a lot of work to do. We intend to protect every advancement that has been made and continue demanding progress toward full protections in employment and housing, safety for our transgender brothers and sisters, and equitable access to healthcare and other services. There is a lot to celebrate, but much more to do to ensure the promise of equality for all in our Nation. That is what this month has been about, and we celebrate it.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Raskin for his leadership in the House. It has been a great honor to co-chair the CPC Special Order hour here every week on the floor. Since I have just been elected the first vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, I, unfortunately, won't be continuing to do that. But I am still going to be right here for these Special Order hours, because I do think that they are an important opportunity for Members to talk about issues all at once, and to kind of pick an issue, and then to focus on it. Obviously, today, we are talking about the testimony from former FBI Director James Comey. This was highly anticipated testimony, and I would be willing to guess that a lot more people, perhaps, even watched the testimony than watched the inauguration. But I think we learned a great deal from former Director Comey. I appreciate that he was willing to come and testify, and he said some very important things. In that testimony, Mr. Comey confirmed that President Trump sought to influence the FBI investigation into his campaign's ties to Russia, including that of Michael Flynn. While the President had claimed that he did not ask former Director Comey to drop the investigation, Mr. Comey actually testified under oath that Trump's directive was clear, and that this was apparently so off-putting that he began to memorialize their meetings. Every single meeting he had with President Trump, he would have the meeting and then go back to the car and immediately take notes on the meeting, and that is troubling. That was something that former Director Comey never did with previous administrations. And one of the things that stuck out to me in his testimony is that he had actually asked--he felt so uncomfortable with the interactions that he was having with the President, because I think the American people need to understand, the FBI is built to be an independent organization. The reason that the term of the FBI Director is 10 years is because it was a signal from Congress that even though the FBI Director does serve at the pleasure of the President--and Mr. Comey was clear about that in his testimony today--the President has the ability to hire and fire the FBI Director. But the reason Congress signaled through legislation that the term of the FBI Director should be 10 years was because they wanted to send a signal that this body is incredibly important, and the independence of this body is incredibly important. The fact that Mr. Comey, as FBI Director, felt so uncomfortable about these interactions with the President--nine interactions with the President. I think he had only two interactions with President Obama during his entire term, and yet, in just the first few months, he had nine interactions with President Trump. He actually asked Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein not to leave him alone with the President. That is really a remarkable, scary thing that he would have to ask for that, and it certainly should have raised some red flags and should have triggered some action from the Attorney General, or the Deputy Attorney General. It did not. He never received an answer to that. Mr. Comey also said that he expects the special counsel's investigation to look into the possibility that Trump's actions were an obstruction of justice. He said that this did fall within the investigation scope. So while he didn't directly say that Trump was directly under investigation, he did say that the President's behavior does fall within the investigation's scope. That, frankly, does nothing to dispel any concerns that are out there amongst the American people, and many of us in Congress, that President Trump's campaign did not collude with Russia. Apparently, he did not seem particularly concerned about whether or not Russia did interfere in the elections but was more interested in whether or not his circle of friends, Michael Flynn, was under threat. Former Director Comey also confirmed that Michael Flynn is under criminal investigation, and he raised more questions about Attorney General Jeff Sessions. As I have spoken about on the floor before, Attorney General Sessions should not have been involved in the firing of James Comey in the first place. He had recused himself from all things related to the investigation into the campaign's ties to Russia because of his involvement with the Trump campaign, and so that was good. We thought that was a very good move that he made to recuse himself, but then he immediately went and was directly involved in the decisionmaking around the person who was leading the investigation, in fact, involved in the decision to fire the person who was leading the investigation. Mr. Comey also hinted that Jeff Sessions had more contact with the Russians than maybe we even knew about. He could not speak to that in a public setting. He said that is for a classified setting, but, obviously, that raises a lot more questions, and the American people certainly deserve the truth. One of the biggest takeaways from the testimony was this: President Trump gave many changing reasons as to why former Director Comey was fired. And former Director Comey spoke to this today. He said, at first, it was because it was the handling--it was because of Comey's handling of the Clinton emails. Then it was that he had lost the support of the FBI agents, something that James Comey responded to, and said: ``Those were lies, plain and simple.'' Actually, Mr. Comey spent quite some time really acknowledging the work of the organization, the FBI organization, and the agents, and everything that he has done. I certainly got the impression that he felt very deeply upset by any indication that perhaps it was because his agents didn't want him to be there. What Mr. Comey pointed to is that eventually the President, in his own words, admitted that he fired James Comey over the Russian investigation, and then, right after that, actually said to the Russians that the pressure has now been taken off now that Comey has been fired. Those are all incredibly disturbing. And I am sad, Mr. Speaker, that the Republicans--some Republican colleagues, not all, but some--have tried to dismiss the President's actions as ``mistakes made by a new President who is learning how to do his job.'' Speaker Paul Ryan went so far as to say: ``He is new at government. Therefore, I think he is learning as he goes.'' This is just 1 day after the Speaker said that it is obviously--that was his word--not appropriate for the President to ask for Mr. Comey's loyalty. So which one is it, Mr. Speaker? It is unacceptable to excuse the President's actions simply because he is not a career professional, especially when we are talking about something of this magnitude--the magnitude of interference in our election process in the United States of America by a foreign government. We do not have any information still about all of the ways in which a President of the United States, this President of the United States, may be indebted to some foreign government because of their actions with the election. It has been repeatedly reported that the President does not sit for briefings, does not read the reports that are provided to him, does not stick to speeches on policies that are written for him, and, frankly, shows very little interest in participating in the administrative responsibilities that most Presidents go through in order to learn what is a very big job. Yes, the job of the President of the United States is a very big job, and anybody who gets into that job, just as I do in this body as a new Member of Congress, we try to learn the rules. We go to the people who know the most. We ask them to give us briefings. We suck up as much information as we possibly can so that we understand both content and process. But, unfortunately, this President has not done any of that, and he has made many unforced errors. Frankly, he has put our national security at risk by giving secrets away to Russia, insulting key allies who have now said that they won't share information with us because they don't trust that we are going to be able to keep it secret. NATO and our allies in the European Union, where I just came back from, everybody around the world is unsure of what leadership, if any, to expect from the United States of America. Angela Merkel said it the best when she said: We can't rely on anybody else anymore. And she said: We, as a European Union, have to just come together and rely on ourselves. And while that is great for the European Union, I am glad that there is something that has happened here that has drawn the European Union together. It is an incredibly important entity for the world and has been doing remarkable work. But what I would hope, Mr. Speaker, is that countries around the world know that the United States is going to continue to take global leadership, is going to continue to demonstrate that global leadership, and, most of all, is going to be trusted to make relationships and respect the rules of those relationships. The American people are aware that the President's background is not in politics. However, the White House is not ``The Apprentice.'' Had a new employee in The Trump Organization made as many errors as have been made in this administration, he would have been fired a long time ago. The American people deserve better. And not only do we demand that the President not intervene in any negative way in Director Mueller's investigation--and we are very pleased that Director Mueller has been appointed. I believe that was an incredibly important step that Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein took to appoint somebody with the credibility that Mueller has--but we hope that this investigation will continue, because I think it is important for the American people to understand that this is not an independent investigator, or prosecutor. This is special counsel. So that still means that anything that Director Mueller finds in his findings, his reports, they do get run up the chain of command at the Department of Justice. So if you watched yesterday's Senate Intelligence Committee hearings, you might have seen Senator Kamala Harris discuss this and ask Rod Rosenstein if he could assure that there really would be independence, that neither Rosenstein nor Jeff Sessions would get involved in trying to change or influence, in any way, whatever Director Mueller comes up with. She was not given that assurance yesterday, unfortunately, and so we still don't know. But we have to hope and believe that the President and this administration will preserve the independence of the special counsel and will take all of the findings and the recommendations as to what they are presented and not try to change them. I really believe, Mr. Speaker, at this point, that while the special counsel is an important step forward, I join my colleague Mr. Raskin and many others in this caucus, in our Democratic Caucus, in calling for a special commission, an independent commission, similar to the 9/ 11 Commission, filled with citizens--not with Members of Congress but with respected citizens--and people with expertise, as well as those citizens, to actually come together and think not only about the immediate impact of how we get to the bottom of what has happened, but, really, how do we prevent this going forward? What we are talking about is the sanctity of our democracy; we are talking about whether our elections can be free of influence from other countries; we are talking about if an American citizen casts a vote here in the United States for the President of the United States, that that vote is not being influenced by a foreign government who has hacked our elections, or worked in collusion with a campaign for the President of the United States; and that ultimately, whoever we select, whether it is this President or any President in the future, that that President must be responsible to the American people. That is what democracy is about. We don't want any President, now or in the future, to ever be in a situation where there is information that can be used against them, where they could be blackmailed, leveraged, or where they are actively colluding with any government outside of this country. These are our elections. It is what makes this country great. It is why so many people from all around the world look at America with tremendous gratitude, with tremendous respect, even awe for the way in which we have constructed our democracy. That is part of what goes on in this Chamber, and we need to know that the election of the President of this great country is always an election that the American people have faith in, and that democracy is preserved. Mr. Speaker, I think what James Comey's testimony showed us today is, we got a lot of answers, but we didn't get enough answers. There is still more information that we need to find. There is more information that the Senate Intelligence Committee needs to find. There is more information that the President may have to provide, and there is more information that the American people are going to demand in order to ensure that we get to the bottom of where we are, that we get an independent commission established, and that we allow Director Mueller, in his investigation, to proceed without any interference. That is the least that we have to be willing to do, and we have to be willing to put country above party as we try to ensure that we understand exactly what has happened. The American people deserve that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission itself said that widespread failures in financial regulation and rampant predatory lending practices were key drivers of the crisis. This bill ignores those lessons and takes us so far backwards, Mr. Speaker. Real people are struggling to recover from that 2008 crisis, still, and instead of rolling back protections for consumers, we should be investing in jobs for everyday Americans. We should be making sure that the guy on Main Street or the woman on Main Street has a chance against those big banks and against all those predatory practices. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support consumers and working Americans and to oppose the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act. This bill will have a devastating impact on the ability of regulators to protect everyday Americans from future wrongdoing on Wall Street. If you support consumers, you must oppose the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act. If you want to make sure that consumers have a fighting chance against those big banks and against illegal practices, then you must oppose the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, because this act guts the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In nearly 6 years, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has returned nearly $12 billion to 29 million Americans hurt by illegal financial practices, reduced $7.7 billion in consumer debts while winning $3.7 billion in compensation for consumers, and it has benefited nearly 50 million households in the form of new protections shielding consumers from surprise costs in terms on their mortgages and their credit cards. Now, at a time when we have a student loan crisis in this country, $1.4 trillion in student debt, we have to make sure that we are protecting families, students, and young people around these predatory debt collection practices and all working families around predatory lending. My home State of Washington was proud to work with the CFPB on those new regulations that would actually protect working people, make sure that they have off-ramps if they get into predatory loans and make sure that we regulate that industry. The benefits of Dodd-Frank are not limited just to consumers, by the way. Big and small banks have benefited: lending is at record highs, and 2016 data from the FDIC shows that those banks are doing pretty well. The financial crisis, which destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth and wreaked havoc on the financial lives of millions of families, was not a random event.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that crimes against children are particularly egregious. It is our duty as members of Congress to do everything we can to prevent these crimes and hold offenders accountable. However, I felt compelled to vote against H.R. 1842, H.R. 1862, and H.R. 1761, as each of these flawed bills would increase the application of mandatory minimum sentences in the U.S. criminal justice system. Judges already have the ability to impose harsh sentences in these cases as they see fit. Mandatory minimum sentences make it impossible for judges to take context or circumstance into consideration, which eliminates judicial discretion and compromises the futures of those at the hands of our justice system. Mandatory minimums create a glaring disproportionality between crime and according punishment and subsequently expand prison populations, strain resources and structures of support, and disproportionately impact communities of color. Because of my stance on this issue and my steadfast resolve to fight any expansion of mandatory minimum sentences, I have voted against each of these bills. I remain committed to protecting our children and doing everything in my power to prevent crimes against children from happening, but expanding mandatory minimums is not the answer. I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle as we continue to pursue critical reforms to the criminal justice system.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). She has been such a champion on progressive issues for so long. Barbara Lee still speaks for me across the country.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who has also been a leader in the Progressive Caucus on so many issues, from the death penalty to immigration to healthcare.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Again, I am very pleased as the Congressional Progressive Caucus to be able host a Special Order every week. We pick a different topic every week, for those of you that are just beginning to listen. This week we want to focus attention on what we believe are some of the most serious and pressing issues facing our country today around the Trump administration's ties to Russia, around the firing of James Comey, and the many, many issues that have come forward over the last several months, but certainly in the last week. Since last Tuesday, we have borne witness to a slew of alarming events within the White House and the Department of Justice. Last Tuesday afternoon, we received word that the President had fired FBI Director James Comey from his position. That position, by the way, is a 10-year term. Congress designated it as a 10-year term specifically to ensure that we could protect any administration and the entire country against any conflict of interest that may come up. Obviously, that did not convince the President that he should keep Director Comey. So we heard that he fired him. It seems as if each morning we wake up to a barrage of firings, tweets, or untruths that continue to erode the public's confidence in our democracy. So what do we know today? Certainly, we don't know enough, but we do know that the President fired Director Comey under the guise of being unsatisfied with how he handled Secretary Hillary Clinton's email investigation. But if that were the case, then why didn't he fire him months ago? Why now? Why did he choose to meet with Russian officials the day after firing Mr. Comey? Mr. Trump's attempts to use Clinton's emails to divert attention from Comey's investigation into the campaign's ties to Russia are, unfortunately, very disingenuous, and I think that they are proving to be unsuccessful. Despite his claims that Mr. Comey was not investigating him, the President must have been concerned about what Director Comey would find because the firing, interestingly, came just days after Director Comey had requested additional resources for the investigation. White House officials attempted at first to say that the blame for the firing was Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's fault. They said it was at his recommendation. Attorney General Jeff Sessions weighed in on that decision as well. But, in fact, shortly after, the President went on television and said that, no, this was his decision regardless of what had been proposed, this is where he was going to be. On Wednesday, just 1 day after firing then-Director Comey, the President welcomed the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov; and the Russian Ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, into the Oval Office for a closed press meeting. Let's not forget that Kislyak met with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn during the campaign, a meeting that Flynn then lied about. I think this is very important because there were a number of Trump administration or Trump campaign officials that met with Russian officials over the course of many months before the election. Those meetings in and of themselves are not a problem. The problem, however, is that these individuals continued to lie about those meetings, and that makes you wonder: What fire is there where the smoke is? Why would they lie about these things? We certainly don't know that. We have been unable to get the transcripts of that conversation because the President has not been willing to release them. Russian President Vladimir Putin is more willing to make that information public than our own President, but I find it outrageous that President Putin would actually propose to be sort of the backup of this information for the President. We are not looking to President Putin to provide corroboration of these meetings. We actually need an independent ability to look at the facts of this case. On Monday, the news exploded with reports that the President released highly classified information to Lavrov and Kislyak during their discussion at the White House. This is extremely alarming. It is true that the President has the right to declassify any information, but the information that was shared was so sensitive that the United States had not even shared it with our allies. The President's decision to divulge that information to foreign officials--particularly Russian officials with whom our relationship is contentious at best--is dangerous and reckless. There is no doubt in my mind that this will hinder our ability to build international coalitions to actually be able to share information with allies who provide that classified information to us with the understanding that we are going to protect that and guard that. Should any classified information then be declassified for some reason, it is done in consultation with the country that provided that information and with national security advisors. None of that happened in this situation. President Trump also tweeted during the campaign that Hillary Clinton and her team were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive and highly classified information. So this seems like a particular irony. The President claimed that Hillary Clinton's lack of ability to handle classified information actually made her unfit to be President. Speaker Paul Ryan said this: ``It is simple: Individuals who are `extremely careless' with classified information should be denied further access to it.'' Reince Priebus, Trump's Chief of Staff, took it one step further, saying: ``Those who mishandled classified info have had their sec clearances revoked, lost their jobs, faced fines, and even been sent to prison.'' So this is a situation that we have to take extremely seriously. Before we could even fully engage and vet that news, however, reports then came out that President Trump had actually asked FBI Director James Comey to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn. According to sources close to Comey, this request came just 1 day after Michael Flynn was fired. This is truly a new low. If this is true--and we are trying to get to the bottom of this--it would absolutely constitute an obstruction of justice. The President has put obstacle after obstacle in the way of any real investigation that gives us the information that we need to protect our national security and the American people. In the 118 days since the Trump Presidency began, it has been scandal after scandal. The latest events have escalated this crisis to an even higher level. As I mentioned, the FBI Director serves a 10-year term specifically in order to be able to carry out these independent investigations free of partisanship or political pressure. The firing of James Comey and the fact that he was asked by the President for loyalty--again, this is apparently in Director Comey's memo, which we hope to be able to see--and to abandon the investigation against Michael Flynn are extremely serious offenses. They hurt our democracy and they hurt our country. The President has tried to distract us time and time again, but we actually know that the American people deserve better. History smiles kindly on those who stand up and put country over party and on those who ensure that in the darkest of times and the most difficult of times, the times when we face a constitutional crisis, where our Nation wonders what direction we are going in, the times when we know that the need to preserve the institutions of democracy and justice are most necessary, those are the times when we need people to speak out on both sides of the aisle for the facts, for the truth, and for democracy. This should not be a partisan issue. We are seeing that starting to emerge from our colleagues across the aisle. I commend those Republicans who have begun to ask for information, documents, and hearings; and I hope that more of my colleagues will join us in the pursuit of truth and in the pursuit of justice. Last night we received news that Robert Mueller, who is the former FBI Director, has been appointed as special counsel for the investigation into the Trump campaign's ties with Russia. This is an extremely distinguished man. He has served the country with tremendous success and loyalty, and we are hopeful that Mr. Mueller will diligently investigate the allegations against Michael Flynn and other members of the Trump campaign with veracity and free from political influence. However, we still maintain that an independent commission is necessary because a special counsel answers to the Attorney General, who can then overrule decisions that they make or even fire them at any time. So the appointment of Robert Mueller is a good first step, but it cannot be the last. Director Mueller will still be in the chain of command under the Trump-appointed leadership of the Justice Department. He cannot take the place of a truly independent outside commission that is free from Trump's meddling. I think that is why it is so important that we all join in signing the discharge petition that was introduced yesterday by my colleagues, Representative Swalwell and Representative Cummings, who is the ranking member on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. This discharge petition would essentially allow for a bill to move forward that would establish an independent commission that we could truly trust to seek justice. The commission would interview witnesses, would obtain documents, would issue subpoenas, and would receive public testimony in order to examine whether or not the Russian Government did, in fact, interfere with U.S. elections and how they carried that out. This is a really crucial step to take because it is not only about the short term and the immediacy of what is in front of us--extremely important, the commission would deal with that as well--but it is also about how do we ensure that these things don't happen again? What did happen, first of all, and how do we make sure that we continue to protect our democracy in the face of what 17 independent intelligence agencies said, which is that the Russians hacked our election in the United States? There is a lot we need to understand. We need the special counsel, but we also need this independent citizen commission not made up of Members of Congress, but appointed by the House and the Senate leaders of both parties in equal numbers so that we could actually have people who look at this from the perspective of all of America and not tainted by even the vestiges or the appearance of party. Apparently when President Trump heard that special counsel had been named, he laughed out loud, saying that this is ``the greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history.'' No, Mr. President, we are seeking the truth. As the American people have shown us, they are not backing down, and we will continue to fight for this truth. Now, in that vein, I also wanted to mention that my colleague, Representative Raskin, and I actually introduced a package of bills that we are calling the Trump transparency package. It is because we really believe that the American people deserve better. We believe that the American people deserve from us transparency. So what this package will do is, first, it will clearly forbid government officials from accepting anything of value from foreign governments in exchange for an official act. It would prohibit government employees from using their positions to further the financial interests of the President. It would ensure that the President's press pool continues to exist so that the American people receive honest answers, and it would require the President and his family to publicly report any foreign business deals that exceed $10,000. These are simple steps. They are not egregious and they are not outrageous. They would apply to anyone. They are not partisan. They are about transparency and accountability so that we know that the President of the United States and that others in government are actually accountable to the American people--not to their financial interests, not to their bank accounts, not to their stock portfolios, not to their hotels and golf courses, but to the American people. We have to hold every administration--and certainly this one--accountable. So now, more than ever, it is our moral duty to defend the Constitution, and this bill package goes a step in the right direction. So I hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would actually cosponsor the Trump transparency package with us so that we can continue to fight for the American people, for democracy, and for the notion that America is willing to question itself and for the notion that America is willing to always put our hands on that moral arc of the universe to push it more quickly towards justice. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize National Infrastructure Week. In my first few months in Congress, I made it a priority to meet with elected officials from every municipality and jurisdiction in my Washington State congressional district. I met with them to understand their critical transportation and infrastructure needs. Today I am releasing a report on those needs. I am proud that my district continues to draw in more and more people and that we have assets like a natural deep water port that facilitates commerce from across our State. Unfortunately, between 1990 and 2015, as our State's population increased by 45 percent, Seattle has now got the second worst evening rush hour traffic in the country. We have failed to invest in our infrastructure. This administration made promises but has done nothing to actually fulfill those promises to invest in infrastructure and to ensure that our country actually moves forward. Instead, it has just been lurching from crisis to crisis. Investing in infrastructure is not only essential, it creates jobs. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that I fight for my district's priorities and to ensure that Congress invests in our infrastructure.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Frederick Van Hoose, Executive Director of the Northwest Field Office of SourceAmerica, who is retiring after 40 years of service. Mr. Van Hoose grew up in the agricultural heartland of eastern Washington, where he learned at a young age the value of honest work. He also came to understand work as a social connection--an activity that, in bringing people together for a common purpose, validates our collective worth and impact on each other. After receiving his bachelor's degree from Central Washington University and his MBA from City University of Seattle, Mr. Van Hoose built a career centered on the needs of persons living with disabilities. As an executive manager at Provident Industries in Yakima, Washington, and Northwest Center Industries in Seattle, he developed employment opportunities that increased the quality of life for hundreds of workers with disabilities. In March 1997, Mr. Van Hoose secured a position as an Operations Manager with National Industries for the Severely Handicapped--now SourceAmerica--a non-profit agency that works through the provisions of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act to facilitate meaningful employment for persons living with disabilities. Mr. Van Hoose has helped scores of non-profit agencies build business systems to expand their capacity to compete for contracts, and he has worked with Federal procurement professionals to find contracting solutions that enhanced the double bottom line: quality services and products for a fair price, while supporting access to employment for persons living with disabilities. During his tenure with SourceAmerica, Mr. Van Hoose has served as a model of the selfless spirit and inspired leadership that has helped the program grow to employ many individuals living with the full range of disabling conditions, including many wounded warriors. Mr. Van Hoose's dedication to enhancing the lives of Americans living with disabilities extends to his personal life, as he serves as guardian to a man living with a severe disability. For his years of dedicated service, it is appropriate to express our deep appreciation for Frederick Van Hoose's long and exceptional career and his outstanding volunteer service, and to wish him well on his retirement.