Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bipartisan approach to autonomous vehicles reflected in the SELF DRIVE Act. As ranking member of the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, I have been so pleased to be able to work with Chairman Latta to reach agreements on the legislation before the House today. It is not the bill I think that either one of us would have written on our own, but it does reflect a bipartisan agreement that we reached after months of negotiation, and I appreciate that very much.

Autonomous vehicles have great potential to improve safety on our roads by reducing accidents caused by human error, which most accidents are. My goal throughout this process has been to make sure that this technology is deployed safely and that we also advance existing safety technologies.

The SELF DRIVE Act lays out a framework for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA,

to promote safe adoption of AVs. Mandatory safety assessment certifications will ensure that NHTSA receives the data that it needs to evaluate safety as autonomous vehicles appear on our roads. Within a year of enactment, NHTSA will lay out a priority plan for what new safety standards need to be written and which existing standards must be updated. In addition, the bill requires manufacturers to write cybersecurity and consumer privacy plans as they develop AV technology.

The legislation allows for exemptions to existing vehicle safety standards. For example, there may be some vehicles that really don't need a steering wheel. It is hard to imagine now. But we ensure that NHTSA explains its process for granting any safety exemptions. The maximum number of exemptions per automobile will scale up incrementally.

To receive an exemption, a manufacturer must show equivalent safety, a manufacturer must report crashes involving exempted vehicles, and exempted vehicles must be listed in a public database.

This bill also has safety improvements that go beyond autonomous vehicles. NHTSA will work to improve the performance of headlamps. In 2 years, NHTSA will issue a rule requiring an alert system to warn drivers if a child or pet is left in the backseat. Already this year, 37 children have died from heatstroke after being left in hot cars. This hot cars provision, which Congressman Tim Ryan, Congressman Peter King, and I introduced as a standalone bill, will save lives.

A broad range of stakeholders have been involved and will be involved in the future of self-driving workers. That is why we set up an advisory council which will include industry, academics, labor, State and local government, consumer advocates, and environmental experts.

As self-driving cars are developed, we must examine critical issues. Will seniors and people with disabilities share in the benefits of autonomous vehicles? Ensuring accessibility may require further policy changes. We also need to grapple with the disruption self-driving cars may cause in employment. Even though this legislation generally excludes commercial vehicles--and additional clarity may be needed-- self-driving cars may displace workers who make their livelihoods behind the wheel.

Once the House passes this bill, I look forward to working with stakeholders and our Senate colleagues to send consensus legislation to the President's desk. I believe we could go further to improve consumer safety and strengthen protections to put consumers in control of their data. We must also keep working to refine the Federal, State, and local roles in ensuring safe roads and protecting access to courts when necessary.

Mr. Speaker, today's vote is the next step in that process. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the SELF DRIVE Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I thank him for his support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee and a major contributor to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), a member of the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee and someone who has put in a lot of time and effort on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of New York (Ms. Clarke), a member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), my colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Congressman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the sponsor and my partner on the HOT CARS Act, included in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just say some thank yous. I thank the chairman of our subcommittee, Chairman Latta, for his great work. I also thank Chairman Walden, and, of course, all of the staff on his side of the aisle for their work to help us reach this bipartisan agreement. I especially want to thank them for the inclusion of the HOT CARS legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Pallone on our side and also thank Michelle Ash, Lisa Goldman, Caroline Paris-Behr, and my staff, Matt Hayward, for their great work on the subcommittee on this legislation.

We will continue working together to send consensus legislation. I appreciate the opportunity to work with Chairman Latta and to get this to the floor today as a suspension bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect Monica, an Illinois DREAMer with a nursing degree, who has dedicated her life to taking care of others.

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Dr. Wanda Wilson, CRNA, MSN, PhD, of Cincinnati, Ohio. Dr. Wilson will soon complete her tenure as the CEO of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) whose headquarters are located in my district. I am proud that Dr. Wilson has led the AANA as their CEO and Executive Director since 2009, a job she began after serving as President of the AANA in 2007. She has been an extremely effective leader on behalf of her CRNA colleagues.

Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) are advanced practice registered nurses who administer approximately 43 million anesthetics to patients each year. CRNAs practice in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered: traditional hospital surgical suites and obstetrical delivery rooms; critical access hospitals; ambulatory surgical centers; the offices of dentists, podiatrists, ophthalmologists, plastic surgeons, and pain management specialists; and U.S. military, Public Health Services, and Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare facilities.

Prior to her time at the AANA, Dr. Wilson enjoyed a career as the nurse anesthesia educational program director and professor of clinical nursing for the University of Cincinnati's College of Nursing, Nurse Anesthesia Major. The highly regarded Cincinnati program includes a primary clinical site at the University Hospital in Cincinnati, where she maintained her clinical skills while directing the education of 28- 32 nurse anesthesia students per year. Dr. Wilson received her doctorate degree in nursing science and physiology and a master's degree in nursing from the University of Cincinnati. She also earned a bachelor's degree in nursing and a bachelor's degree in science from the University of Cincinnati; her nurse anesthesia diploma from Cincinnati General Hospital; and her nursing diploma from Holzer Medical Center in Gallipolis, Ohio.

During her time as CEO of the AANA, Dr. Wilson has been a prominent advocate for patients, practitioners and students of nurse anesthesia before federal agencies and members of Congress. She has worked tirelessly to promote anesthesia patient safety and the value of CRNAs to our healthcare system, recognition of CRNAs as Full Practice Providers in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), proper implementation of the provider non-discrimination, and appropriate recognition of the full scope of CRNA practice including pain management and related services in Medicare.

I extend my sincere congratulations to Dr. Wilson today on a job well done. Her service to the AANA, her patients, and her students and her commitment to advancing the nurse anesthetist profession as a leader, educator and advocate are unrivaled.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of today's sanction legislation, which I am so happy to find has complied with the Iran nuclear agreement, something I worked very hard on, as did many here.

Experts, the international community, and even some of President Trump's own advisers agree that the Iran nuclear agreement is working. In June, the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Iran is within the limits set by this historic deal. There are serious issues left to be addressed with Iran, especially in regards to human rights violations and ballistic missiles, which this bill covers.

The Iran deal took Iran's nuclear weapons off the table and allowed us to deal with these remaining challenges. Withdrawing or violating the agreement would be an enormous mistake. This bill upholds our agreement with Iran while also holding Russia and North Korea accountable for their actions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I, too, want to thank all of the Members and staff who were engaged in preparing this bill for a vote on the floor of the House.

I wanted to focus on two of the amendments that are included in the bill--I am grateful for that--that I sponsored.

First, it includes my amendment to create a pilot project to evaluate postmarket safety of medical devices. It also includes my amendment which states that Congress and Federal agencies need to work together to lower drug prices. Everyone has been impacted by rising costs of prescription drugs, which is why 60 percent of Americans believe addressing the cost of prescription drugs needs to be a top priority.

The drug pricing crisis cannot be attributed to a single bad actor or a few blockbuster drugs. A recent study found that 97 percent of widely used brand name drugs had a price increase that exceeded inflation.

This crisis requires a comprehensive solution that increases transparency; lowers prices for patients, Medicare, and Medicaid; and ensures that every American can get access to the drugs that they need.

It is time for Congress to get serious about lowering the cost of drugs for Americans, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the wartime service of longtime resident of the Village of Morton Grove, Illinois.

Earlier this month, the Consul General of France in Chicago, Vincent Floreani, recognized J. Herman Sitrick as a French Knight of the Legion of Honor. The award recognizes Mr. Sitrick's extraordinary bravery and critical contribution to allied efforts to liberate France from Nazi occupation.

Joining the United States Army as a teenager, Mr. Sitrick participated in the D-Day landings on the beaches of Normandy, helping to open a second allied front in occupied Europe and suffering a shrapnel wound in the process. He fought with his unit as allied forces pushed back German forces across Europe.

In January 1945, Mr. Sitrick found himself stationed in the Ardennes Forest, participating in what history calls the Battle of the Bulge. It was during that action that Mr. Sitrick had the quick thinking and bravery to capture twenty-one German soldiers as they sought shelter from the biting cold--turning them over to reinforcing units the next morning.

I am forever grateful to J. Herman Sitrick for his service. We must not forget what he and so many other service members went through in World War II as they risked, and in many cases sacrificed, their lives to defend freedom.

I also want to recognize the efforts of the French government, as they work to recognize

veterans who have done their duty and deserve recognition.

I thank Mr. Sitrick for all that he's done for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3003.

In jurisdictions within my district, Cook County, cities like Chicago, Evanston, and Skokie, which are immigrant rich, we have adopted sanctuary cities, sometimes called welcoming cities, ordinances in order to reassure immigrants that they can, with safety, talk to law enforcement within our jurisdictions.

Skokie Mayor George Van Dusen said: ``It has taken the Village of Skokie years--decades really--to form the bridges that we have of trust with our immigrant community.''

These policies work. A January study found that sanctuary cities tend to be safer and have stronger economies than not.

This bill would push communities to abandon sanctuary city policies, breaking down that hard-earned trust between immigrants and law enforcement. Turning law enforcement into immigration enforcement makes cities less safe.

Mr. Speaker, it makes immigrants less likely to report crimes. This bill protects criminals in our communities and not victims.

I urge my colleagues to vote for safer communities and vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1215.

My Republican colleagues seem to have a fixation with caps. In their healthcare bill, they slash Medicaid and, for the first time in its history, cap Federal funding. The result: hospital closures, reimbursement and staffing cuts, reduced access, and lower quality. Now, in this bill, they want to impose another cap, a cap on noneconomic damages for injured healthcare consumers.

So who will be hurt?

It will be people like the 76-year-old woman whose tailbone had to be removed because her bed sores went untreated for 12 days or an 81-year- old resident who died because her ventilator was dislodged, alarms sounded, and no one responded.

How about the family of a 92-year-old man who died after suffering from malnutrition and dehydration and was found with live insects in his eyes and mouth?

How do we put a $250,000 value on those injured?

Besides, this is a solution looking for a problem. There is no medical malpractice lawsuit crisis. Between 2000 and 2015, the number of claims dropped more than 40 percent and the amount paid fell 23 percent.

But we do face a medical crisis. Nearly half a million Americans die every year from preventable medical errors, and many more are permanently injured. This bill does nothing to solve that problem. Instead, it just takes away the right of the injured consumers.

And if you believe that average Americans should not be barred from the justice system as they seek to hold wrongdoers accountable, then you must oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Raskin for yielding to me.

I am very proud and excited to be here because we have so much at stake right now.

I wanted to point to this incredible photo that we blew up from today's news. Fifty people with disabilities were forcibly removed and arrested outside Senator Mitch McConnell's office today. They were there to protest what could happen to them and the 10 million Americans who rely on Medicaid to live a life--often still struggling, but a life with more dignity because they have Medicaid.

I want to take some time to thank them for so passionately but peacefully resisting against the cruel Republican bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. People were pulled out of their wheelchairs and ejected at the order, I presume, of the leader of the Senate to make space in front of his office. They were exercising their freedom to protest for themselves and for others in their situation. As I said, 10 million Americans with disabilities rely on Medicaid.

The Affordable Care Act incentivizes States to offer home and community-based care under Medicaid. The Republican bill would undo that. It would make it very likely that States would eliminate that home care and community-based care.

Now, I have worked for years with people with disabilities, and I know some of them have struggled to get out of nursing homes and to be able to live in the community which, by the way, is actually less expensive than taxpayers paying for people to be in nursing homes. This has been a tremendous battle for the disability community to be able to live independently.

That ability is threatened. By the way, even the amount of money that would go to nursing homes would be cut dramatically, or could be.

Right now, one-half of the cost of nursing homes and home care and community-based care is paid for by Medicaid, and $800 billion was cut out of the House bill. I hear that the Senate bill is even worse. So this monstrosity of a bill would do a countless amount of harm to millions and millions of Americans. Just about everyone will be affected.

So, today, I want to focus on the damage it would do to two groups in particular: Americans age 50 to 64 and people with disabilities whom we saw represented by the courageous protesters today outside Senator Mitch McConnell's office.

This bill would impose a crippling age tax on people 50 to 64 years old, which means that they will be either unable to afford insurance altogether or be forced to pay thousands more for it every year.

This is the same age tax that was in the House's version of the bill. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office gave this example: It estimated that a 64-year-old who makes $26,000 a year could see his or her premiums rise by over 800 percent. That would be in the area of about $14,000 a year. How does that work? There is simply no way she would be able to keep her insurance.

The Senate bill would allow individual States to undermine the essential health benefits package that is in the Affordable Care Act that ensures older Americans have insurance that actually covers the services they need. Without those essential benefits, insurance companies could end coverage for prescription drugs, for cancer care, for emergency care, and much more.

On top of those attacks on Americans age 50 and older, the bill also guts--as I pointed out--the Medicaid program which is absolutely essential for people with disabilities, both young and old.

Medicaid pays for nearly half of all long-term care in our country, and that includes, as I said, not just care provided by nursing homes, but home and community-based and personal care services that allow people with disabilities to live independently, sometimes to even travel to Washington, D.C.

We fought really hard to provide those home and community-based services. We expanded access to them in the Affordable Care Act. This mean bill not only undoes the progress, it moves us backwards by slashing Medicaid funds and turning it into a capped program, capping the amount of money that may go to every person. The Senate bill is even meaner than the House. Caps would rise more slowly and cause even more damage.

So it is no wonder that the AARP, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the National Council on Independent Living, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the American Medical Association, and the American Nurses Association, really all the providers of healthcare, say no to this disastrous bill.

It spells disaster for anyone who depends on Medicaid. That includes pregnant women, infants, children, people with disabilities, and adults--including low-income seniors. The bill is also devastating for women's health. It defunds Planned Parenthood. Let's remember Planned Parenthood is often the only clinic within driving distance of people in rural areas.

Sometimes it is the only clinic available in medically underserved areas for things like cancer screening, primary care, birth control, testing men and women for HIV/AIDS, et cetera. It defunds Planned Parenthood and targets private insurance plans that would cover abortions.

So we really have to ask ourselves: Who benefits from this bill? Who wins if TrumpCare were to pass?

Well, there is an answer. The ultrawealthy individuals who get a massive tax break from this bill--that is why they want to cut all those hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicaid--they are the winners.

Insurance, prescription drug, and medical device companies also get a huge tax break in this so-called healthcare bill.

Yes, they call it a healthcare bill that benefits only the healthy and the wealthy. I know which side and whose side I am on.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Congressman Joaquin Castro, for yielding to me.

I am so proud to rise in support of H.R. 2484, the Women, Peace, and Security Act, which I introduced along with my partner, Kristi Noem. We have been working on this bill for quite a while.

I want to really thank Chairman Ed Royce for not only his eloquent words today and his clear description about why this is so important, but for working closely with us to make this day a reality. I am hopeful that we will be able to go through the Senate and get this bill finally enacted.

The Women, Peace, and Security Act promotes the participation of women in the peace process and is a step forward for our security and our economic prosperity as well. When women are involved in peace negotiations, a peace agreement is more likely to last. In fact, the International Peace Institute found that a peace agreement is 35 percent more likely to last for at least 15 years if women participate in drafting the agreement. The study also found that with each 5 percent increase in women's participation in the political process, a nation is five times less likely to use violence when faced with international crisis or conflict.

When women and girls are equal partners in all aspects of decisionmaking, countries are more likely to be peaceful and economically prosperous.

Despite the strong evidence in favor of women's political participation, women remain underrepresented in conflict prevention, conflict resolution, and the post-conflict peace-building efforts that are happening around the world, and the United States can help to change that.

The Women, Peace, and Security Act will build upon the 2011 National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, which made clear that the meaningful inclusion of women in peace and security processes is imperative for national and global security. And you heard how in Northern Ireland and all the way to Rwanda, the participation of women has been absolutely essential.

Our legislation establishes women's participation as a permanent element of U.S. foreign policy. It would encourage the United States to assist women mediators and negotiators by addressing barriers to their equal and secure participation in the peace process.

It would institute comprehensive training modules on the protection, rights, and specific needs of women in conflict and require the administration to evaluate the impact of U.S. foreign assistance on women's meaningful participation.

In addition, Women, Peace, and Security Act would require the President to report to Congress its strategy to promote women's participation in conflict prevention and resolution, and it would empower Congress to exercise oversight of that strategy's implementation.

The United States plays a crucial role in encouraging peace agreements all over the world. By making sure

that we bring women into the peace process, we can improve national and global security.

So, once again, I just want to thank Congresswoman Noem, my partner on this bipartisan legislation, as well as Chairman Ed Royce and Ranking Member Eliot Engel, for their support. I want to thank the many advocacy groups who have been persistent throughout these years in bringing it to us, the evidence of the success of women when women participate in the peace process.

So I thank the gentleman again for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Xavier Joy should have spent this week enjoying the summer, working with the students he loved so much and thinking about his future. Instead, we are mourning the loss of this exceptional young man, who wanted nothing more than to care for his family and friends and continue his commitment to community service.

Xavier had already accomplished so much in his far too-short life. He touched many, many lives, as witnessed by the outpouring of sorrow and love from friends, family, and community leaders. He was a help and an inspiration, especially for children and young students struggling to overcome barriers and improve their lives.

Xavier was the cherished son of Nykea Pippion-McGriff and Ra Joy. Ra served my office and the residents of the 9th Congressional District for six years and went on to lead the Illinois Arts Alliance and serve as executive director of CHANGE Illinois. Like his father, Xavier was drawn to people and excited about making a difference.

A graduate of Whitney Young Magnet High School, Xavier attended Morehouse College and played football. He certainly had many life choices ahead of him, but he clearly caught the bug for public service from both his parents, as was evident in his work as a special education classroom assistant, and his time at City Year Chicago. He chose the path of empowering others. He was a mentor and a role model for students in Chicago and Evanston schools. He already had achieved so much but sadly we will never know what heights he would have reached.

Tragically, Xavier was a victim of the epidemic of gun violence that is plaguing our country and destroying the futures of so many bright, smart and giving people. His senseless death is a cause of incredible grief and loss, but it should also inspire all of us to follow his call to serve, to end gun violence and to ensure that every child has the tools and the support he or she needs to succeed.

As a mother, I cannot begin to understand the grief that Xavier's parents are feeling. My heart is aching for Ra and his wife Falona, Nykea and her husband Arthur, his brothers and sister, and his friends and family. I hope there is some comfort in knowing how many people loved Xavier, how many were touched by his kindness and caring, and how many will continue to hold him in their thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Barry Cooper, who has dedicated 41 years to federal service. His work in the Federal Aviation Administration has ensured safer, more efficient travel for all Americans; and he is worthy of every recognition he has received.

Barry is retiring as the Regional Administrator of the Great Lakes Region in Region and Property Operations in Des Plaines, Illinois. He began his career in federal service in 1976, working for 12 years as a civil engineer. Barry then became an Associate Program Manager in 1988 of Airway Facilities, now Technical Operations. He continued to move up in the FAA; and with each position he took on, the word ``manager'' was a recurrence in his title. This is indicative of Barry's incredible leadership skills, showing a clear trust from his peers to grant Barry greater responsibility.

Barry spearheaded the establishment of the Chicago Area Modernization Program Office in 2003. Nearly 15 years later, the office is still active. He created a team of people, each with diverse goals, and united them to build a coalition with the City of Chicago as operator of O'Hare International Airport. Through this office, Barry facilitated a process in which the City of Chicago, through a reimbursement process, paid salaries for the extra employees needed to meet a shortened deadline for the Environmental Impact Statement.

It has been a pleasure to work with Barry for the last 10 plus years. My office and I have worked closely with the FAA on many issues regarding O'Hare Airport, mainly as it relates to the O'Hare Modernization Program. Barry was our ``go to'' expert with any questions we had and he was always responsive and easy to reach. Even if he was travelling, he would call me or my staff back as soon as he landed. Over the years, my office has requested several meetings or briefings on different matters and it was very easy to set up a meeting with Barry or his staff.

Barry also had a way of taking complex technical matters and making them easy to understand. I recall attending the FAA workshops at William Howard Taft High School in 2015 regarding the 2015 Re- Evaluation of the O'Hare Modernization Environmental Impact Statement. Barry walked around the auditorium with me explaining the different poster boards displayed around the room. Barry's knowledge was so vast and he was always so kind, with that infectious smile on his face. I will miss working with him.

Please join me in recognizing all the contributions Barry Cooper has made over the last 41 years. I extend my best wishes to Barry as he enters this new stage in life and makes many more wonderful memories with his wife, children, and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 80th birthday of an outstanding consumer advocate and dear friend, Joan B. Claybrook.

Joan has championed consumer safety both inside and outside of government. She started her public service as an analyst at the Social Security Administration. In 1966, Congress created the National Traffic Safety Bureau--now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Joan joined the new agency early on, helping to set the foundation for auto safety policy in this country. She left NHTSA to work at U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Public Citizen before returning in 1977 to serve as NHTSA Administrator under President Jimmy Carter.

Joan's post-government career is equally distinguished. For 27 years, she served as President of Public Citizen, a leading advocacy organization for health, safety, accountability, and fairness. As ranking member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over auto safety, I have worked with Joan many times over the years on issues from requiring rear back-up cameras to stopping the sale of cars under recall. She testifies frequently before my subcommittee, and I always value her insight.

Even after she retired as President of Public Citizen, Joan remains a strong advocate for consumers. She continues to serve on the Public Citizen board and as Co-Chair of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. When a pressing auto safety issue arises, I know it is only a matter of time before I hear from Joan.

People owe their lives to Joan Claybrook's public service and advocacy. That is why her extraordinary work has been recognized by prominent institutions, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, Consumer Federation of America, and Georgetown Law Center. As Joan celebrates her 80th birthday, I want to celebrate her enormous contribution to consumer safety. Every American goes through the day a little safer because of Joan.

Senior citizens, beware of the Financial CHOICE Act. This bill repeals the best interest rule, which ensures that Americans that are saving for retirement get financial advice in their best interest.

Bad advice has real costs. Steven, a 69-year-old Vietnam veteran in Illinois, lost $147,000 in retirement savings when he got advice that handsomely profited his so-called investment adviser but devastated him.

This bill guts the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which prevents financial exploitation of senior citizens.

In December, the CFPB took an action against three crooked reverse mortgage companies that deliberately failed to tell seniors that they could lose their homes.

The Financial CHOICE Act is dangerous. It is dangerous for older Americans, it is dangerous for all Americans, and it is dangerous for our entire economy. It puts us all at risk. It is the wrong choice for America, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Jayapal and the Congressional Progressive Caucus for convening this 1-hour discussion about our democracy at risk.

I don't think it is really an exaggeration that what we are seeing right now is our democracy actually under attack. Unfortunately, it is from our own White House.

I think Americans around the country, regardless of their political party or even political persuasion, are kind of shaking their head and saying: What the heck is going on?

Every day, there is some sort of a new and disturbing revelation. We found out that the President of the United States just seems to have blurted out highly, highly classified information in a meeting with the Russian Ambassador and the Russian Foreign Minister--information that was passed on, it seems, from the Israelis, but actually could put some of the people who are doing the most delicate work on the ground in some danger. And then, of course, last week, the President fired the FBI Director, James Comey.

As a Democrat, I certainly have had problems in the past with James Comey. I think that he helped influence the outcome of the election. But it turns out that on national television the President basically admitted, after giving various explanations of the firing, that it came down to the Russian investigation.

Then we find out that James Comey actually took notes of a meeting with the President where the President asked him to drop the investigation of General Flynn and his connection to the Russians. It is a real question of what is going on.

It was an important step when, yesterday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein took the important first step of appointing a special counsel to investigate the Russia connection and the relationship between this administration of President Trump and the Russians.

I am really happy. I was on the Intelligence Committee when Robert Mueller was the FBI Director. I have to tell you that I feel very confident in his independence and his integrity. I know that he, importantly, would not allow the FBI to work with the CIA when they wanted to torture people, essentially, by using enhanced interrogation techniques. So I feel good that he is a very good choice.

But having done that, today I was happy to sign a discharge petition to create an independent commission that would also be looking into even the larger picture about what was going on with the Russian influence campaign involving itself in our elections, and then also, what was the connection between the Trump administration, Donald Trump himself, did they collude on influencing the election?

It is important to do both. They are complementary. They don't do the same thing.

I am going to quote from Adam Schiff, who is our ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. I think he put it really well: ``The value an independent commission adds is you have a body that is truly independent of any political consideration and also has all the resources it needs and a single focus on the oversight of what Russia did, how we need to respond in the future, and it brings that political independence and staff and resources on task. So those are two different needs, and I think they're complementary, not in competition with each other.''

The other reason I am very much in support not only of the special prosecutor, but of the independent commission is because, then, Congress has a role here. Congress itself is saying--hopefully, Republicans and Democrats. We have two Republicans right now on our discharge petition that would force the bill to come to the floor that would say that we, together, think that this is worthy, our democracy is worthy of this kind of in-depth investigation.

Finally, let me say we would find out a lot about the relationship of the President and Russia, plus other conflicts of interest, if we could see his tax returns, like every other President has done. Release his tax returns.

Again, I would hope that this has not devolved into strictly a partisan issue. All Americans should say: Let us look at those ties the President may have in countries around the world or with companies at home.