Pramila Jayapal

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for leading and for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear about where we are with TrumpCare 2.0. This bill still strips 24 million Americans of health care, cuts $880 billion from Medicaid, and increases premiums for the majority of Americans. It still has an age tax if you are 50 to 64 years old, and cuts maternity care and coverage for substance abuse disorders. It still gives $1 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest millionaires, billionaires, and corporations on the backs of working people who will pay more and get less. TrumpCare 2.0 adds insult to injury because my Republican colleagues would like you to believe that they are going to cover preexisting conditions. That is just not true. American people, be clear: this will not cover preexisting conditions, and 133 million Americans with those preexisting conditions will suffer. There are kids like James Kish, an 8-year-old in my district who has a brain tumor and literally stands to die if this bill passes. Mr. Speaker, hundreds across this country are calling our offices and weeping. We should all weep that this bill is coming to the floor. We should vote ``no.''

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act. There is nothing in this bill that provides any flexibility to working families. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we all seem to have names for this bill, but mine is that it should be called the employer flexibility act because that is what it really does. It gives employers flexibility to not pay for time worked. It is a smoke-and-mirrors promise that ultimately helps employers but hurts workers. The choice between overtime pay and comp time is a false choice for workers, Mr. Speaker. We know what happens in the reality of the workplace. The vague promise of time off in the future is often never realized, and many hourly workers may feel compelled by employers to forfeit their overtime pay to accept comp time. Workers do need more flexibility, more money, and more control over their lives, but this bill is a cruel joke on workers. At a time when America's working families are strapped for both time and money, this bill takes time away from families and offers them less money in every paycheck. In the end, there is no guarantee that employers will let their employees take the time off when they need it. Here is the story of Camilla, from my home State of Washington. This is what she wrote: It was my first job out of college. I was given comp time in lieu of overtime pay. I worked so much overtime that, in just over 6 months' time, I had accrued 2 weeks of comp time. When I scheduled my time off, I was told I could not take the time off, as I had not worked there for a full year. I had already purchased airfare. I ended up quitting my job. zMr. Speaker, I urge our Republican majority to go back to the table and return with legislation that provides real flexibility to American families: raise the minimum wage; ensure that hourly workers have paid sick leave; make sure that families don't suffer from pay discrimination. That is what the American people expect us to be working on. Not false choices in the name of flexibility.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, this Special Order is for the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and I am so proud to be a vice chair of that caucus and to lead the Special Order hour with my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin). We do this once a week, and we try to take up topics that we think are of great interest across the country to our constituency. So I am very proud to have the Congressional Progressive Caucus leading the way on so many issues that are important, from education to transportation, infrastructure to, of course, today's topic, which is the tax plan that was released yesterday by President Trump. The tax plan that was released yesterday--and I have to start by saying I am not sure this is actually the plan. I am not sure that a one-page document constitutes a plan. This is not even a two-sided document. It is a one-sided document. This is what we are reacting to. And it is similar to the tax plan that candidate Trump spoke about during the campaign. So we will do our best with what has been put forward as a plan, but this plan, in our estimation, when you look at what it contains, really amounts to nothing more than a one-page document full of handouts to the rich. The Secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, yesterday said, during a press conference, that one thing that this President has done very well--this is a quote: ``One thing this President has done very well is listen.'' Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree with that. Two weekends ago, there were 190,000 Americans in red States and blue States across the country who were on the streets asking for the President to release his tax returns in the same way that every other President of the United States has done in modern history. Unfortunately, this President has not listened. As a candidate, he said he would release his tax returns. As a President, he has refused to do so. He didn't listen when women and their allies took to the streets in the biggest march in American history to demand that he respect women, protect Planned Parenthood, and support equal rights for women. And this President certainly didn't listen to the millions of Americans who were outspoken in their opposition to the Republican healthcare plan that essentially took $1 trillion off of the backs of working people and folks who need health care across this country and transferred it to the wealthiest in our country. The reality is this President, unfortunately, has not been listening to the American people. If you look at that healthcare plan, just as an example, only 17 percent of the American public actually supported TrumpCare. This President has not been listening, to now put forward another plan on health care that again suggests that we should actually take away essential health benefits from people, take away the opportunity for people to have preexisting conditions covered, and, once again, leaving an additional 24 million Americans stripped of their health care. So in this tax press conference yesterday, it became very clear that the administration doesn't have really an idea of exactly what the plan is going to look like, except for the fact that it will be good for business. Secretary Mnuchin said: ``Under the Trump plan, we will have a massive tax cut for businesses. . . .'' Despite all of President Trump's broken promises, we have to believe that this may actually be true. Let's not forget that the Secretary of the Treasury was a C-level executive at Goldman Sachs and his loyalties have been with Big Business. The tax plan, as we have been given it on this one-page document, is a gift-wrapped tax cut to the highest earners and corporations. The claim is that it was written to create jobs and spur economic growth and help low- and middle-income families, but what it really does is drastically reduce tax rates for Big Business to just 15 percent. That tax break isn't just for cooperations; it is also for pass-through firms. Let's be clear about what pass-through firms are. Pass-through firms are entities that wealthy people and companies use in order to funnel money and have lower tax rates. Among these companies is The Trump Organization. This is why, in asking for the President's tax returns, this is not just an ask that doesn't have any meaning. It is not a partisan ask. We have 190,000 Americans in the streets in red States and blue States asking. When we know what is in the President's tax returns, then we have the ability to make sure that we understand, as the American people, whether any plan he proposes is in the interest of the American people or whether it is in his own financial interest. According to the Center for American Progress, 70 percent of partnership and S corporation income goes to the top 1 percent of U.S. households by income. So when you propose a tax cut for these pass- through entities, we are talking about a tax cut for the people in the top 1 percent of this country. We are not talking about a tax cut that benefits middle class, working families. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities provided a specific example where a lawyer making $1 million a year could funnel their income through that pass-through and could actually save $180,000 a year. There is no doubt that this President would himself benefit from this tax plan, although we can't say exactly how much, because we haven't seen the tax returns and we don't know exactly which financial interests he has and how much he would benefit. However, his own lawyers reported that nearly all of his 500 or so businesses are--don't be surprised--pass-throughs. If we accept this assertion from his lawyers that his assets are worth more than $10 billion, then this tax plan or tax ploy, depending on how you want to see it, would actually save the President of the United States millions of dollars, but it would not benefit millions of working families across this country who actually need to see our tax system reform so that it is more fair. When asked how these tax cuts were paid for, Secretary Mnuchin said they would be so effective at bolstering the economy that it would pay for itself. Now, we have seen trickle-down economics before in this country, and it is a nonsensical idea that this tax plan would bolster the economy. We have seen the disastrous effects of trickle-down economics specifically on low-income and middle-income families. The Tax Foundation estimates that reducing the business rate for companies and pass-throughs to 15 percent would actually reduce revenue in this country by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. They also found that, at the very best, the plan would only spur enough growth to pay for less than half the cost of the tax cuts. Low-and middle-income Americans would ultimately pay the price, not Big Business. Now, this is similar to what we saw in the healthcare plan. In the healthcare plan, if you remember, what we saw was a proposal to cut $880 billion from Medicaid and take that money and essentially give a trillion dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest. So if you were in the top 4 percent of income earners in this country, you would have gotten a tax cut of about $200,000 a year. But if you were in that age that we like to call seniors, between 50 and 64, you would have an age tax and you would have to pay up to $15,000 more on your premiums. So that is why some of my colleagues across the aisle actually called that healthcare plan a downpayment on a tax plan. It was supposed to be the beginning of a tax reform plan that, again, moved more money to the wealthiest in our country. We are seeing a State-level microcosm of this playing out right now in the State of Kansas where the State passed massive tax cuts, including exempting pass-throughs from State taxes. The result? More than 333,000 residents changed their income to funnel through pass-throughs in the first year alone. What happened in Kansas when this was pushed through? State revenue went down by an additional almost 2 percent, costing $206 million in 2013 and $472 million the following year. Today, the State faces a $1.1 billion shortfall, and residents are paying the price in lost programming and services. But the promise that was made at the time that this plan was pushed through in Kansas--the same kind of plan that is being proposed today at the Federal level-- the promise that was made was that it would kick-start the economy. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, that hasn't happened either. Economic growth in Kansas is happening at just half the national average. Because here is the thing: tax cuts don't just pay for themselves, and there are plenty of experts on both sides of the aisle that will attest to that. A sheet of paper is not a plan, and everyone knows it. When reporters pressed Secretary Mnuchin and the National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn for details, they failed to provide anything of substance. A reporter asked Cohn three times what the tax cut would look like for a family of four making $60,000 per year. I have a lot of those families, Mr. Speaker, in my district. I believe we have those families in red States and blue States, working people across this country who believe that America should be and must be a land of opportunity for people who work hard. Maybe they are not the richest people in the world. Maybe they are not the richest top 1 percent in this country. But they work hard, they earn a good living, and they deserve to have fairness in our tax plan. Now, when Mr. Cohn was asked three times by this reporter what the tax cut would look like for a family of four making $60,000 a year, he replied it is ``gonna mean a tax cut'' three times in a row. Instead of getting answers, though, and when he was pressed, reporters were told over and over again that they would get more information later and that the administration is in ``robust talks.'' Well, I am a Member of the House, and supposedly those robust talks are happening with the House and the Senate. We all represent the people of the United States. We want to all be a part of the conversation, and we demand to know specifically, as we look at this plan, how this President, his family, and his Cabinet will benefit from the tax plan. That is only fair, Mr. Speaker, that we understand exactly how this tax plan would benefit the person who is proposing the tax plan. Is this tax plan for the American people to see relief, or is it for the President and his best friends to see relief? The reality is that this is about an issue of trust. The American people deserve to know whether they can trust this President and this administration to act on their behalf. So far, unfortunately, this administration has continued to throw the middle class under the bus, whether it is threatening to cut funding for Meals on Wheels, which is part of the budget proposal in cutting the CDBG programs, or whether it is in proposing a healthcare plan that cuts vital health care from millions of Americans. So we are intent to stay extremely vigilant. I see that we have a couple of colleagues from the Progressive Caucus. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a colleague on the Judiciary Committee, a strong champion for working people in Texas and across our country.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for eloquently articulating so many of the issues that are in front of us right now, including, once again: What exactly is this administration doing for people across this country, both those who voted for him and those who didn't, but middle class Americans who are trying to make sure that this country stays a land of opportunity? Mr. Speaker, so the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my distinguished vice chair and co-chair of this Special Order hour, may control the remainder of this hour, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congresswoman so much for her leadership and for her work on all of these issues. I was listening to the gentlewoman as I came in and thinking that I couldn't agree with the gentlewoman more on, first of all, the need for us to do a lot of work to continue to increase our presence and our ability to really effect policy decisions in the best ways, but also to celebrate the accomplishments of Jeannette Rankin as well as all of the Congress Members that are here. I am so proud to represent the Seventh District in Seattle. When I ran for the State senate, it was my first run for elective office. I became the only woman of color in the State senate. But our State has traditionally been very strong with women's leadership. We are fortunate to have two women Senators. We have had a woman Governor and a woman mayor of the city of Seattle. So we have, I think, made some strides that have been very important to the well-being and the welfare of our State. Unfortunately, we have taken some steps backwards in the last couple of years. The numbers of women in legislative office at the State level have gone down, but I do believe that Republican and Democratic women, together, have put together a strong agenda for the things that we care about around families. I am very pleased to have already worked with one of the members of your caucus across the aisle, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, on a letter around domestic violence victims and the immigration system. I am very pleased about the work that the gentlewoman has championed and that we intend to, together, lead around making sure that families have security for themselves and for their children. I rise to congratulate the gentlewoman for what the gentlewoman is speaking about today, for the work that the gentlewoman has done, and to say that I remain very committed to trying to find all of the areas where we women, together, can put forward priorities that are important to us. We do joke that, if they would just turn the keys of all elective office over to women, I think we would get a lot of things done--and no disrespect to our incredible male colleagues who have been right there with us every step of the way. So I am looking forward to this time here in the House of Representatives. I am proud to also be the first Indian-American woman ever elected to the House of Representatives. I think that as we think about getting women into office, we also should continue our work on making sure that women of color enter elective office and that the representation of people here in this great Chamber that we are so honored to serve in reflects the representation that we have across the country of women, of people of color, of African Americans--as the gentlewoman mentioned in her speech--of immigrants, and, actually, of people who have been born outside of the United States. I think I am one of just about a dozen Members of Congress who were not born in the United States but have the great honor and privilege of becoming a United States citizen and now serving in this great body where only 11,000 or so people have served before in the history of our country. So I thank the gentlewoman again for her leadership. I look forward to working with the gentlewoman. I appreciate her yielding in her Special Order hour. Hopefully, it is a great symbol of the things we can do together.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Not on Foreign Affairs, unfortunately, but we work on immigration issues together.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague from Maryland (Mr. Raskin). It has been such a pleasure since coming to Congress--and it seems difficult to believe that it has been almost 3 months--but it has been such a pleasure to co-lead this Special Order hour with the gentleman and to really bring to the public all of the issues that we feel are so important in the Progressive Caucus, issues that have ranged from the issue we are talking about now with the Supreme Court nomination, to issues around health care, immigration, the Muslim ban, and many others. I think that the vision that we are trying to make sure people understand for the Progressive Caucus and certainly for Democrats is a vision of inclusion, a vision that respects the rights of everybody, regardless of what gender you are, regardless of what race or religion you might be. This moment is, in fact, very important. Tomorrow, Senate Republicans will attempt to push through President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. I stand with my colleague, Mr. Raskin, and with our other Democratic colleagues in the Senate who are opposing this nomination because I truly believe that confirming Neil Gorsuch to this position would be a devastating backslide for numerous communities. I want to go through some of the communities that would be affected and how. Women, people of color, people living with disabilities and members of the LGBTQ community will have to wonder if the conservative majority on the Supreme Court is going to systematically remove their protections and strip them of their rights. Unfortunately, Neil Gorsuch, though an accomplished justice in his own right, does have a track record of doing that throughout his judicial career. So this isn't as simple as saying: Well, you blocked our nominee; therefore, we are going to block your nominee. No. This is about the issues and the refusal he has had to answer some of the questions before the committee. I did want to reflect briefly on the fact that yesterday was Equal Pay Day. Ninety-four days into the year, Equal Pay Day symbolizes the amount of extra time that it takes for a woman to earn the same amount as a man. We have got to work--I see the heads nodding up there in the Chamber--extra hard for an additional 3 months and some days in order to earn the same wages as a man. When you break it down by race, the gap widens even further. Black women working full time year round only earn 63 cents to the dollar. For them, Equal Pay Day comes on July 31. Latina women earn a mere 54 cents, which means that their Equal Pay Day--get this--is November 2. Over a lifetime, the financial losses that women face due to this gap are immense. On average, a 20-year-old woman will lose $418,000 over the course of her 40-year career. For Black women, they will lose $840,000. Latinas will lose more than $1 million. Now, why do I bring this up in the context of Judge Gorsuch? Because I believe that as we mark Equal Pay Day, we need to know that we will have a Supreme Court Justice who will, in fact, crack down on the gender pay gap and enforce the law. Unfortunately, Judge Gorsuch has a history of prioritizing big business over people. In fact, he has ruled in favor of employers in two-thirds of the employment and labor disputes that have been brought before him on the basis of discrimination. Let's be clear: Equal Pay Day and the situation that women face is about discrimination. Gorsuch ruled against an African-American man who claimed that he was fired because of racial discrimination in Johnson v. Oklahoma Department of Transportation. In Poindexter v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Sequoyah, he ruled against a man who argued that he was demoted because of his political views. His opinion in Strickland v. UPS was particularly troubling. The court ruled in favor of a female employee who had been discriminated against based on sex. Judge Gorsuch, though, wrote a dissenting opinion, despite the fact that the woman's male colleagues testified that she was required to attend counseling sessions while they were not, even though she was out performing them. The court ruled in her favor, but, again, Judge Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, went out of his way to undermine her. Perhaps the clearest example of Gorsuch's affinity for big business was his ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, which many people across the country may know about. He ruled that private corporations should enjoy the same constitutional protections as people. Not only are people being told that the money of corporations represents protected speech, but women across this country are being told that those corporations can make decisions about women's health care and their rights to make decisions about their own body. This case sent a clear signal that Judge Gorsuch is no friend of women's reproductive rights. It isn't a surprise, frankly, that this President chose him, because he does fit right into this administration's all-out assault that we have seen since the beginning of this Congress on women's rights to make decisions about their bodies and their health care. Judge Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion arguing that the Affordable Care Act forced employers to violate their religious beliefs by providing birth control. It is our right to choose whether and when we want to have families. But rather than coming to the conclusion that corporations should be required to allow women to make their own healthcare decisions, Judge Gorsuch made it very clear that he stands with big business and against women's rights. His appointment is a deep threat to something that I have appreciated my whole life and that women before me have fought for so hard. His appointment is a threat to Roe v. Wade, which has protected women's rights to abortion access. Trump has said many times that he intended to appoint a Justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade. While being questioned in his confirmation hearing, Judge Gorsuch sidestepped all of the questions on this issue, but his views are obvious. He has questioned and argued against the legal foundation of a woman's right to choose, and he has been critical of the decisions of Roe v. Wade's and its reliance on the right to privacy and the substantive due process rationale. That is unacceptable. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and it has helped save the lives of millions of women across our country. We need to make sure that we protect that right to choose and continue to allow abortion access in this country. Judge Gorsuch has also taken actions that signal his support for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Of course, we remember the doctored videos that came out to destroy Planned Parenthood's image. Utah Governor Gary Herbert attempted to defund the organization, but the tenth circuit issued an injunction. Gorsuch stood with the Governor. He even went so far as to push for a rehearing by the full court, without being asked by the Governor. The court refused. Gorsuch issued then a dissenting opinion that relied on the very fallacies that the Governor was pushing. We cannot afford to have this critical vote on the Supreme Court go to someone who so clearly intends to undermine women's fundamental and constitutional rights. Judge Gorsuch has also shown that he presents a threat to the LGBT community. In 2005, he wrote that people should rely on the ballot box to achieve marriage equality. During his confirmation hearing, he was asked about cases that involve LGBT people as a class. This qualification is important because it adds heightened scrutiny. Apparently, Gorsuch was not comfortable with this, because he dodged the question. That is alarming. Our LGBT community does face discrimination at extremely high rates. This is not a speculation; it is fact. Gorsuch could not even give a straight answer when Senator Dianne Feinstein asked if he agreed with Justice Scalia that there is ``no protection for women or gays or lesbians under the equal protection law.'' With States around the country attempting to pass discriminatory bills, it is crucial that we have a Supreme Court Justice who will apply that heightened scrutiny. Finally, people living with disabilities are also fearful of this appointment and the possibility that Judge Gorsuch might be our next Supreme Court Justice. In Luke P., a case involving a severely autistic student, Judge Gorsuch ruled that a State can provide an education offering minimal educational progress to students with disabilities. Rather than requiring States to fulfill their responsibilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Judge Gorsuch was satisfied with putting a student's learning potential at severe risk. In the middle of his confirmation hearing, the current Supreme Court unanimously overruled his decision. What does that say about his judgment? Do we want a Supreme Court who gets it wrong on so many issues? Judge Gorsuch should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. The fact that Senate Republicans are threatening the nuclear option if Democrats filibuster his appointment is just terrifying. It would have long- lasting consequences, and it is inappropriate to select a man for this key position to the United States Supreme Court who makes decisions about so many issues that affect all Americans across our country. It is not right that they would make that on a purely partisan ideological basis. There should be a 60-vote threshold. We should make sure that they understand that, if they do this and they go to the nuclear option, it will have long-lasting consequences for them in their districts, in their offices, and also for the entire country.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Raskin of Maryland, for his incredible leadership and for the opportunity to continue to lead the Special Order hour for the Progressive Caucus here every week. And every week we do try to pick a different topic. For those of you in the audience, we pick a different topic, and this evening that topic is the ties to Russia of this administration. Yesterday, Sean Spicer told veteran White House correspondent April Ryan that she was ``going to have to take `no' for an answer'' when she asked him about the President's collusion with Russia. Well, Mr. Spicer, we are here to tell you that we will not just take ``no'' for an answer. We are not going to sit back and believe everything that is coming out from the White House when there is mounting evidence that President Trump's campaign may have colluded with Russia to tip the election in his favor. And for those of you who saw the Judiciary Committee today, we had a resolution of inquiry from Representative Hakeem Jeffries and Ted Lieu about this very issue in relation to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his ties to Russia. Let's not forget that President Trump's former national security adviser and campaign adviser only lasted a record-setting 24 days in the role because he blatantly lied about meeting with Russia's Ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, during the campaign. So what other ties to Russia have been confirmed? There are so many of these ties that I thought it might be helpful to have a diagram and to really show exactly what the connections have been between top Trump officials during the campaign who are now the same officials that are serving in the White House and are the President's close and personal confidants. The fact that a diagram is even necessary tells us something. Let's start at the top with the President himself. President Trump has a long history with Russia. His first trip to Moscow was actually 30 years ago. He went to explore potential real estate opportunities. His relationship with the country has clearly grown. In the late 1990s, Trump started banking with Deutsche Bank, which has since been investigated for funneling Russian money offshore. Soon after that, he linked up with a Russian company called the Bayrock Group, which has ties to the Mafia and to criminal interests in Russia. Their partnership was integral to helping to expand The Trump Organization to new heights, with properties springing up across the country. His ties to Russia only grew deeper. In the late 2000s, several Russian businessmen bought properties from The Trump Organization, netting them hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. Now, let's fast-forward to 2016 when then-candidate Trump was building his team. He brought on Carter Page, who is now under investigation for communicating with Russian officials. And, in fact, it was the Trump campaign's former manager, Corey Lewandowski, who gave Carter Page the green light to visit Moscow just last July. A couple of weeks later, Mr. Page met with Sergey Kislyak, but he said that he will not reveal the details of that conversation to the public. This is a very important, consistent fact that we see. Our resolution of inquiry today that we debated in the Judiciary Committee was about the release of information so that we understand what is going on. Without any accusations, what we are trying to say is let us investigate what these ties are, what the conversations were, and let us determine, in an independent, bipartisan way, let us determine that there has not been collusion, and let us make sure that there is no foreign government that is affecting our democracy. So various members of Trump's team met with Russian officials during the campaign. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions didn't just meet with officials, he lied about meeting with officials during his confirmation hearing. And again, the top prosecutor in the United States of America lied under oath during a confirmation hearing. This cannot be ignored. Once again, we are not saying don't have conversations, but don't lie about them. Don't make us wonder what happened during those conversations. How do we trust the Attorney General of the United States of America to fairly and impartially preside if he has shown that he is willing to make false statements just to get the job? He is not the only high-level Trump official who has been blatantly dishonest with the American people. Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, was put in place by President Trump and resigned due to the shady backdoor dealings that put him in the pocket of Russian officials. He was paid $45,000 to attend a state-sponsored gala dinner and sit at the table of Vladimir Putin. These connections are more than just mere coincidence. And in addition to Flynn, Page, and Sessions, there are several others who have been implicated: Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort; former campaign adviser, Roger Stone; his personal lawyer-- all of these folks are up here--his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, are all under investigation for their connections to Russia. And now President Trump's son-in-law, who has become one of his top advisers, is under investigation as well for his actions during the campaign. Not only did Jared Kushner meet with Ambassador Kislyak, he met with the Russian bankers as well. And the White House has claimed that the meetings were ``diplomatic,'' but it is deeply troubling that one of the bankers that he met with was Sergey Gorkov. I want to be clear about who this person is. He is a graduate of the Russian Academy of the Federal Security Service, which is an academy that is tasked with training individuals to become members of Russia's security and intelligence forces. He is now the chairman of the Vnesheconombank, and he was appointed by Putin, himself. This is not a mom-and-pop bank. This is a state-owned corporation that has been under sanctions by the United States for the past 3 years. And that is a big deal. Jared Kushner, whose family is worth nearly $2 billion, has real estate interests around the world, sat down, allegedly under the auspices of his role with the President, to chat with this owner of the bank. A spokesperson for the Kremlin has alleged that this meeting was ``absolutely the bank's prerogative'' and that the Russian Government was unaware of the meeting. We need more information to know what happened in that meeting because, otherwise, where there is smoke, we think there is fire. So we need to have the information so that we can actually determine what is happening with these connections because, if somebody from the Trump campaign and the Trump administration is meeting with Russian officials and they don't want to tell us why or what is discussed, then we have to start wondering whether the conversations are in the interest of the American people or in the interest of the Russian Government. We also have Rex Tillerson, President Trump's Secretary of State, who has strong business ties to Russia and was awarded the Order of Friendship from Vladimir Putin in 2013. This is the highest honor that Russia can bestow on noncitizens. Just 2 years prior, Tillerson had struck a massive $500 billion oil deal with the Russian Government. Now, we could go on and on with this, but what is important for the American people to understand is that we have expectations that the President of the United States and that his Cabinet are working in the interests of the American people. We have expectations that, if a deal is struck, it is not for the benefit of some other country or for the personal benefit of any individual in office, but that it is for the public's benefit. And if a deal is struck that takes benefit away from the public in order to give it to a foreign government or to an individual personal interest of our government, then that is an enormous disservice to our democracy, and, of course, there are constitutional ramifications for all of this. This administration has tried to tell us that the conversations between Trump's advisers and high-level Russian businessmen and officials were about diplomacy. Yet this shroud of secrecy that continues every time we try to get information, every time we try to make sure that there is an independent, bipartisan investigation, the shroud of secrecy continues, and it begs the question: If this is really about advocating for the interests of the American people and not the Russian Government or the pocketbooks of Cabinet members, then why the secrecy? What is there to hide? We don't understand that. If there is nothing to hide, then let us have the information. There have been plenty of requests to do that in a classified way in case there is some information that is classified. But why are the President's campaign advisers and officials denying under oath that they have communicated with Russia only then to be forced to walk back their statements or recuse themselves, as Jeff Sessions had to do, or to even resign? Foreign policy is key to American interests, but these backroom conversations and subsequent lies are doing nothing to make the American people feel confident in an administration that is supposed to represent them. It is clear that there is a strong tie here that was only strengthened during the campaign. But let's be very clear about what is the connective tissue in all of this, in all of these lines that go back and forth. What is the connective tissue that connects all of this? It is money. How did we get to this point? Of course, we remember the hacking of the election that occurred last year. It is in the process of being investigated, even though the chairman of the Intelligence Committee feels that his first duty is to the President and not to the members of the committee. But last year, President Trump defended Vladimir Putin by placing the blame on the Democratic National Committee to distract the American people; and then, in July, he outright urged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails, saying: ``Russia, if you are listening, I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.'' In December, a CIA assessment concluded that Russia was trying to help then-candidate Trump win the election. Why? Because they know that they have an ally in President Trump. They have someone who is willing to do business with them, even if it may not be in the best interests of the American people. They know that they are well connected at every level of his administration. And let's be clear about who we are talking about with Mr. Putin. This is a dictator, a human rights abuser, somebody whom Republicans and Democrats, alike, have said we cannot be associated with. You have heard of ``The Manchurian Candidate.'' In the most recent election, we may have ended up with the Kremlin candidate, and the script truly writes itself. We were hoping to have a chance to get to the bottom of this, as I said. We were hoping to have a chance to get to the bottom of this in a hearing in the House Intelligence Committee, but we never got the chance. Last Tuesday, Representative Nunes went to the secret briefing in a National Security Council facility, and what he found apparently wasn't good for the President because he ran over there to tell the President. Instead of doing his duty and reporting the information to the House Intelligence Committee, he went straight to the White House with his findings. And he is supposed to be chairing an investigation into what happened, not being the runner for information to the President. After briefing President Trump, Representative Nunes canceled the hearing, denying Americans the opportunity to hear from former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. And Ranking Member Jim Himes was right when he said that ``the Monday hearing last week was, I'm sure, not to the White House's liking.'' He went on to say: ``Since Monday, I'm sorry to say, the chairman,'' Chairman Nunes, ``has ceased to be the chairman of an investigative committee and has been running interference for the Trump White House.'' This is absolutely unacceptable. The fact that we are questioning whether or not several members of the President's Cabinet--not just one, not even just two, but several members of the President's Cabinet, including the President, himself--are guilty of collusion with a foreign government is a downright outrage. In my home district, the Seventh District of Washington State, I have been receiving numerous calls, hundreds of calls from constituents since day one, saying: How can this be happening in this democracy? How is this possible in America? How do we make sure that our government is representing us and not a foreign entity? Why is it that somebody would lie about whether or not they had a conversation with the Russian Government if there was nothing to hide? People are losing faith in the United States Government. It is a crisis of democracy when people can't trust that their government is actually trying to get to the bottom of what is going on and actually representing the interests of the American people. The White House may have a friend in Representative Nunes, but I want the American people to know that they have a friend in us. We won't back down on our demands. Representative Nunes should recuse himself from this investigation. There is no way we can expect a full and impartial investigation after what has just occurred. This should not be a partisan issue. Every Member of Congress, Republican and Democrat, should be demanding to know the facts. We are not making judgments. We want to know the facts. If there are facts that we don't know that say, no, there were very legitimate conversations, there was no collusion, then we are done. Why tie up the airwaves with this? So tonight, as we think about where we are in this debate and we think about the fact that, for 3 months, this administration has been under the shadow of secrecy, under the shadow of mistrust from the American people, there is a very easy way to clear all of the names of the people who are on this list, including the President of the United States, and that is to ensure that we have an independent investigation; to ensure that Representative Nunes recuses himself and steps down as the chair of the Intelligence Committee, given what has happened; and to ensure that, at the end of the day, we remember that the Government of the United States of America, the President of the United States of America, the Congress of the United States of America, our one duty is to represent the people of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for his leadership.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding and for his tremendous leadership. Mr. Speaker, this reckless Republican plan is a betrayal of the American people. How is it a betrayal? Callously stripping 24 million people of health care is a betrayal. Putting an age tax on people aged 50 to 64 who will pay up to $14,000 more in annual premiums is a betrayal. Gutting essential benefits like maternity care, prescription drug coverage, emergency services, and fundamentally destroying protections for Americans with preexisting conditions is a betrayal. Slashing Medicaid by $880 billion and stripping the safety net for our seniors, our kids, and people with disabilities is a betrayal. The burden of all of this, Mr. Speaker, will fall on the States, who will have to come up with billions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about freedom or choice. This bill is a travesty, and the American people will pay the price. This is not a healthcare bill. The only people who benefit are millionaires, billionaires, and insurance companies, who will get $1 trillion in tax benefits while working Americans pay more and get nothing. Mr. Speaker, this bill is pure greed, and real people will suffer and die from it. Vote ``no,'' and protect our care.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague from Connecticut so much for that incredibly compelling testimony of why we cannot let this bill pass. Let me summarize what you heard in this last hour from Members across our country who are terrified. Frankly, this plan--TrumpCare, the pay more get less plan, the broken promises plan--might actually pass. We have to make sure that it does not pass. So, in summary, TrumpCare strips healthcare coverage from 24 million Americans. It cuts $880 billion--that is almost a trillion dollars-- from Medicaid expansion, and it gives $600 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and corporations while cutting benefits for seniors, working families, and the most vulnerable among us. Frankly, we don't know everything it does because there have been amendments after amendments that have been passed today. We still don't know what the full impact of this bill is, yet they are pushing through a vote tomorrow if they can get enough votes to pass it. TrumpCare is going to raise the cost of health care by about $14,000 for those between the ages of 50 and 64. That is the age tax you have heard about on the floor tonight. And it is going to raise premiums for almost everyone. It puts a 30 percent penalty for getting health care to anyone who suffers any kind of a catastrophic event that throws you off of health care. If you lose your job and somehow you end up without health care for a couple months, you are going to have to pay 30 percent more in order to get your health care back. You heard from Representative Kennedy about mental health, you heard from Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton about work requirements, and that is just a piece of what this TrumpCare bill does. Tomorrow I will join my Democratic colleagues and hopefully enough Republican colleagues who know that our job is to make sure we provide health care for everyone across this country. Tomorrow I will vote ``no'' for the 24 million people who will lose their coverage. I will vote ``no'' for the almost 15 million people who will lose their coverage under Medicaid expansion alone. I will vote ``no'' for the millions of low-income women who rely on services from Planned Parenthood. I will vote ``no'' for the tens of thousands of people who will literally die each year if the Republicans succeed in repealing the health care that we have now. Let's be clear that the Republican majority has been passing legislation and voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act for 7 years, yet they could not come up with a plan that would, in fact, do what they promised, which is to make sure that we are covering more Americans at lower prices. As my friend, Representative Raskin, said, this is not a healthcare plan. A healthcare plan would cover more people. This is a tax plan to take the benefits that working families were receiving on healthcare coverage across the country and convert it into tax benefits for the wealthiest, $600 billion in tax benefits. People around the country are calling in to say if you care about the American people and if you care about providing health care for all of us, this is a bad plan, you should not vote for it. And Republicans are hopefully listening to constituents across the country, to their Governors in Republican States, Republican Governors who have said how much Medicaid expansion has helped their States. They have asked and pleaded for people to keep what we have; to make it better, yes, but not to strip $880 billion away. Just recently, Paul Ryan, the Speaker of our House, was quoted as saying that he has been dreaming about yanking health care away from the people who need it the most since he was ``drinking at a keg.'' This is what he said: ``So Medicaid, sending it back to the states, capping its growth rate, we've been dreaming of this since I have been around--since you and I were drinking at the keg. . . .'' Well, I don't know what he was thinking about when he was drinking at the keg, but I can tell you that what we have been dreaming about as Democrats, as people who care about the health care of people across this country is that we cover people, that we don't put anyone in a position where they are one healthcare crisis away from bankruptcy, that we make sure that kids can get asthma inhalers, that we make sure that grandma and grandpa can go into the nursing home and get the care that they need. If we pass this bill tomorrow, those grandparents are not going to have the care that they need. Nursing homes are going to shut down. We are going to take away jobs from rural areas, rural hospitals across this country. Mr. Speaker, today, as we close this Progressive Caucus Special Order hour, I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I believe we all have the interests of the American people at heart, and if we do, then I hope we will stop this TrumpCare bill from moving forward tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the good gentleman from Minnesota for his tremendous work and for his words. As the gentleman spoke, I think about all the names that we could call this bill that is before us. We can call it TrumpCare, we can call it the pay more get less bill, and we can call it the broken promises bill. But I think what the gentleman's words have shown us is that this is a bill that is going to deeply affect 24 million Americans across the country and tear them off of their health care, and that is just not acceptable. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley). It is a great honor to introduce my colleague who is a champion for so many issues.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Kennedy so much. As the gentleman was talking, I was thinking about the simple rule that we are all better off when we are all better off. I appreciate everything that you just said. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to yield to the gentleman from the great State of Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Grijalva. I am so proud to introduce my colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Joe Kennedy. Two weeks ago, during the Energy and Commerce markup on TrumpCare, the gentleman actually forced Republican lawmakers to admit that the bill--their bill, the TrumpCare bill--would not guarantee essential healthcare benefits for the millions who are covered under Medicaid expansion, and, later, the gentleman went on to give an incredibly compelling speech about this bill not being an act of mercy but being an act of malice. I hope that the gentleman is now going to tell the American people exactly why he said what he did. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the State of Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Ms. JAYAPAL. I thank the gentlewoman from California. Now it is my tremendous honor to introduce and yield to the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a dear friend and somebody that has been on the streets and been a leader on so many issues, from immigration reform to healthcare.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Rhode Island for his incredible leadership on so many issues and for reminding us again that 24 million is just a number, but behind that number are all of the people and all of the stories that will be impacted. Mr. Speaker, now it is my great honor to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), my good friend, the chair of the Asian Pacific American Caucus here in the House.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Watson Coleman for her excellent statement. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be voting on the American Health Care Act. We are doing this in spite of the fact that we just found out that there is an even more dire and harsh plan. We still have not received the Congressional Budget Office's estimates of what that plan will do, but we do know that TrumpCare will throw at least 24 million people off of their health care. Tonight, for the next hour, I am proud to help lead our Congressional Progressive Caucus Special Order hour with my distinguished members from the caucus. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my colleague on both the Judiciary Committee and Budget Committee and a champion for people of color and folks across this country.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Norton is right: the uninsured rate in my home State of Washington got cut more than half. So we are down to not quite as low as you, but 5.6, I think now, compared to over 13 percent before the Affordable Care Act. I often get to co-chair this Special Order hour with my good friend, a brilliant colleague. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from great State of Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, once again, it looks like we need to school our colleagues on the Constitution. I thank Mr. Raskin for consistently doing that. Now it is a great honor to yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the dean of the congressional delegation, a champion for women and families, paid leave, and health care across our country.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, late last night, in a callous betrayal of the very people who elected them, Republicans hatched up the latest plan to deprive more than 24 million Americans of their health care. Let me say that again. 24 million people. In fact, perhaps more because we have yet to receive the CBO estimates on this latest plan. This incarnation of TrumpCare would freeze Medicaid expansion in its tracks on top of the $880 billion cut that was already in the bill. In my home State of Washington, this plan would put in jeopardy 600,000 people assisted by Medicaid expansion, people who have gained access to critical treatments for substance abuse, diabetes, and cancer screenings. Dominic in Seattle has a son who, along with many others who suffer from asthma and other respiratory diseases, will not be able to afford his inhaler anymore. Nursing homes will shut down and throw thousands of grandparents out with no help. New so-called work requirements will add even more obstacles to healthcare coverage for our most vulnerable. TrumpCare will strip coverage from 24 million. It is past time for my colleagues to reject this pay even more for even less plan.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, this evening I rise to speak on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and I believe some of my colleagues will be joining me, to talk about the budget that has just been released by this President. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that while it is being called a skinny budget, we call it the billionaire's budget. It is the same misguided, rambling, unfocused, bloated giveaway to rich and corporate interests that has been offered for years. My belief is that a budget is a statement of our values. This budget ensures that the rich get richer at the cost of working people, the environment, and the future of our country. Funding has been axed for nearly 20 agencies, from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In addition to elimination of these important agencies, the billionaire's budget guts funding for several other important agencies. You can see here by this chart from The Washington Post exactly what is happening: the Environmental Protection Agency chopped by 31 percent; the State Department cut by 29 percent; Agriculture cut by 21 percent, the Labor Department by 21 percent. And the cuts go on through every single agency of critical importance to the American people: Department of Health and Human Services, Commerce, Education, Housing and Urban Development at a time when we have a tremendous housing crisis in this country. Transportation, from a President who said that he was going to invest in our infrastructure, yet here you see that the Transportation budget has a 13 percent cut. Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the cost of security for the Trump Tower is $183 million a year. The budget for the National Endowment for the Arts is $148 million a year. There are some other cuts that we could do if we were that concerned, but let's talk about housing. Housing access and affordability is squarely on the chopping block in this billionaire's budget. With a $4.3 billion cut, HUD will lose its Community Development Block Grant program. Now, some people don't know exactly what the Community Development Block Grant program does; and, in fact, it sounded like Director Mulvaney didn't know that either when he was asked about a critical program that is funded through this Community Development Block Grant program, and that is funding for Meals on Wheels. There are communities across this country that fund their Meals on Wheels program, which is funding for meals for the elderly who cannot get to somewhere where they can get a meal, and so we take them a meal. That is Meals on Wheels, an incredibly bipartisan, beloved program. Unfortunately, that would go away because the CDBG program would be cut; and, therefore, the Meals on Wheels program would be cut. These programs are an integral part of building up our communities, both through affordable housing as well as through some of these critical programs that go as wraparound services to affordable housing. The city of Seattle, which I represent, is currently in a state of emergency due to its housing crisis. Right now, there are around 3,000 people experiencing homelessness in the city and nearly 10,000 in the surrounding areas--veterans, families, LGBTQ youth. This is unacceptable. Access to stable housing is absolutely critical to making sure that members of our community are safe and able to access the services they need to get back on track and live full lives. Let's talk about Health and Human Services. The Department of Health and Human Services is facing an 18 percent cut to its funding, which could have devastating--and I am talking about life and death-- consequences here, absolutely devastating impacts. It would decrease the funding for the National Institutes of Health, for cancer and medical research, critical programs that help us to figure out how we save lives in this country and actually are part of the innovation that the United States offers. Gutting this funding would put us at a grave disadvantage, and it would put people's lives at risk. Transportation, another critical area that this President promised that he was going to invest in. He was going to make sure we were bringing forward jobs, that we were investing in our infrastructure, our crumbling roads and bridges, making sure that we are investing in critical transit and transportation projects. But in this budget, the Transportation budget is facing a 13 percent cut. That is nearly half a billion dollars from the TIGER grant program, which has allowed our country to carry out critical infrastructure improvement projects not just in one kind of a city, not just in urban areas, but urban and rural areas alike. The billionaire's budget would also cut funding to all new fully funded grant agreements, including some really important projects in cities across the country. In Seattle, our critical streetcar project would be cut; and light rail expansion, which we have been working on for years, the State has invested in a bipartisan way--when I was in the State senate, we actually passed a $15 billion transportation infrastructure package because we knew that we had to deal with the transportation infrastructure needs of business, of our communities across the State and the influx of people into our State. We agreed in a bipartisan way that this was something we needed to do. Part of that agreement included being able to fund the next phase of light-rail across our region. Our Sound Transit CEO, Peter Rogoff, calls this budget a ``body blow.'' I couldn't agree with him more. We are looking at potentially a $7.7 billion cut to Sound Transit. These are major transportation projects for our cities. They would create jobs, which is what this President said that he wanted to do, is create jobs. But by gutting these funds and gutting investment in transportation infrastructure, we will be stopping the very projects that are going to create those jobs and help our cities and rural areas make the necessary upgrades that they need to thrive. Mr. Speaker, one of the worst areas that is hit in this budget is the environment. This billionaire's budget is an all-out assault on our environment and efforts to fund research and curb climate change. President Trump has found ways to wreak havoc on our efforts to protect our planet by, in this budget, cutting climate research and protection funds to multiple departments. This isn't just the Environmental Protection Agency, but we are talking also about NASA space exploration and many other areas that ensure that we preserve this planet for the next generation. I have got a 20-year-old, Mr. Speaker, and when I was running for Congress, he said to me: Mom, you have got to work on climate change. It is one of the most important issues facing my generation. You are the stewards of our lands. If you don't take care of this planet, then we won't have anything left and my children won't have anything left. This is my 20-year-old son telling me this. Mr. Speaker, I promised him I would do everything I can for his generation and future generations to protect our planet. Unfortunately, one of the biggest cuts in this budget is to the Environmental Protection Agency. This is a 32 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency. This decimates all of our work on climate change, all of the research that we need to do so we know how to protect our climate, all of the work on environmental justice programs, which is really essential when you think about who is taking the burden of climate change. It is our low-income communities, communities of color, and other vulnerable and marginalized communities. I have always believed that we should rename the EPA. Environmental Protection Agency makes it sound like it is something off in the distance, like it is about something out there. But, in fact, what the Environmental Protection Agency does is monitor our water so that we have clean water to drink and use. It monitors our air so that we have clean air to breathe and we don't have asthma and other respiratory diseases that come with air that is so polluted that we can't even survive in it. It ensures that we are protecting human health. We could rename the EPA the Agency for Clean Water, Clean Air, and Human Health, and I think that that would cover a lot of what the EPA does. The EPA's cut is going to result in 3,200 lost jobs. That is 20 percent of the department. Research programs would be discontinued both domestically and around the world, and programs like the Clean Power Plan and numerous restoration projects, including a critical restoration project in the Puget Sound, the Puget Sound Restoration, would lose 93 percent of its funding. This is true of the Great Lakes region. There are places in Republican and Democratic districts across this country that are going to suffer and see environmental protection being rapidly undone. President Trump has made it painfully clear that he and his administration are enemies not only of the environment, but of the science that tells us that yes, we must address climate change because it is real and it is manmade. Yet, we are fighting efforts to consistently undermine the research and the science that shows us exactly where we are as a country and what we must do in order to protect our environment. Let me talk about education for a second. With the appointment of Betsy DeVos to the Department of Education, President Trump has signaled that his administration has every intention of doing whatever they can to privatize our education system. The billionaire's budget takes the first steps in that process. It increases charter school funding by $168 million and it adds $250 million to create a new, private school choice program. It cuts $3.7 billion in grants that go toward after-school programs, aid programs, and important teacher training. This budget would decimate Head Start. Head Start is a program that has been shown to be successful. When you invest early in kids' education and you make sure that you give them that early support, it definitely has an impact in diminishing and breaking that school-to- prison pipeline. These are investments that save us money in the long run. Not only are they the most humane thing to do and the right thing to do, but they are actually cost-effective programs that stop us from having to spend millions of dollars down the line when people can't get a great public education. We should be investing in our public education program and making sure that we are helping kids to go all the way from early learning to higher education. That is the foundation of a great country, when we are educating and investing in our students to have that kind of a great education. Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague from the Progressive Caucus is here. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the wonderful Representative from that State, because I know he has got somewhere to go right after this. I invite him to come up here, and I thank him for his leadership on all issues constitutional and otherwise.