Mark DeSaulnier

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 713 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 695 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 695, providing for the consideration of H.R. 4863, the United States Export Finance Agency Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services, makes in order 21 amendments, and provides for a motion to recommit. It also provides that, upon passage of the rule, H. Res. 661 and H. Res. 693 will be hereby adopted. Additionally, it makes the motion to discharge H. Con. Res. 70 in order on November 21 if offered by Representative Gabbard, debatable for 20 minutes. Lastly, the rule extends the positive work of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress to the conclusion of the 116th Congress. Mr. Speaker, given that the United States is the third largest exporter of goods in the world, maintaining and supporting this industry is imperative for our economic well-being and for good-paying jobs across the country. In 2018, we shipped over $2.5 trillion worth of commercial aircraft, machinery, industrial supplies, consumer goods, and agricultural products overseas. The Export-Import Bank, or Ex-Im Bank, plays a large role in supporting that business. Through direct loans, medium- and long-term loan guarantees, working capital, and insurance, the Ex-Im Bank steps in where private financing is unavailable and has been supporting American exporters for nearly a century. Because of work like this, in the last 10 years, Ex-Im has created 1.7 million American jobs. Over the last several years, we have seen the Bank go through a lot of unnecessary political turmoil. After successfully reauthorizing the Bank in 2015, the Senate has failed to confirm board members. Under current law, without Senate action, the Bank was left almost inoperable. The effects were felt across the Nation, and in my own district, it was affected there. In the past 5 years, my district in northern California has been home to nine exporters, of which seven are small businesses and five are owned by women and minorities. After Senate negligence left the Bank unable to do its work, today there are only three exporters remaining in my district. In today's bill to reauthorize the Bank, we make substantial improvements that not only address the political problems displayed in the Senate, but also improve and diversify the Bank's activities. In short, the United States Export Finance Agency Act will help support even more jobs, with new emphasis on small business, women- and minority-owned businesses. As a former small business owner, I am encouraged by this effort. To stay on top, the United States must stay competitive. This bill gives us that chance to help workers, help businesses, and help our economy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. It is always a pleasure to be down here or on the Rules Committee with my friend from Georgia. I appreciate what we agree with, and I appreciate the passion that the gentleman brings when he disagrees with us. I do want to say, as we fight for these things, there was a famous Frenchman who President Reagan used to quote, the quote was: ``Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.'' So somewhere in there, in this process I think we try to find the best product we can. I believe what we have in front of us is that product. And I do also think and commit to this that we can always do better. Mr. Speaker, a vote for this rule and this bill is a vote to promote American-made jobs, goods, and the American economy. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question. The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 695 At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 2207) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 2207.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first want to recognize my colleague from Oklahoma and his passion, his history on this bill, and his argument. I also want to thank him for the bull analogy, although I am not sure how the chair of the committee might take that. Having said that, I do want to say to my friend from Georgia a little bit about his comments. I find myself in agreement whenever I come down here on much of what Mr. Woodall says in terms of the aspiration of working more together and still keeping our unique perspectives on things. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that he would admit that the chair of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, and the ranking member--certainly, two of the Members I respect the most, in addition to my colleague. We have had these debates in the committee, and I think that there is an earnest effort of both parties to do better. As you said, we can do better. So I would like to thank my colleague for mentioning and referring to the instances when we did agree. I would like to remind us all that Mr. McGovern has been very insistent on the 72-hour rule, which has been helpful. We have done a higher percentage of structured rules to date, and fewer closed rules to date, under his leadership than we did under the previous Congress. Just 2 weeks ago, not that this is a baseball game, there were three times as many Republican amendments in the natural resources bill as there were Democratic. Having said that, I think we can do better. I do want to note to my colleague that I am a cosponsor of the Adoptee Citizen Act, a great piece of legislation with great authors. As we continue to try to do more together and better together, I think you know I yearn to serve in a body like that, where we have legitimate differences of opinion from our perspective, from what our constituents expect, and there is honest respect for both sides, that we create a work product that is probably more reflective of both. I have said that before. We have had this discussion. In this instance, I think we are trying to do better all the time. For me, and I know for the chair and our staff, we want to continue to work with the gentleman to do better. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their leadership on this and my friend from Texas for yielding. I rise today as a proud sponsor of the Rosie the Riveter Congressional Gold Medal Act and thank my colleagues again for their bipartisan leadership on this bill. During World War II, thousands of women joined the war effort at the Kaiser Shipyards in Richmond, California, now home to the Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front National Historical Park, as part of the National Park System, where they produced over 700 ships, the most productive shipyards in history. These brave and dedicated women broke barriers by taking jobs as riveters, welders, and electricians, forever changing the role of women in the workforce. They embodied the ``We Can Do It'' motto. Among them is Betty Reid Soskin--a constituent, a friend, and a pillar of my local community--who is now the National Park Service's oldest serving ranger and works at the Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front National Historical Park at the age of 98. She has been instrumental in educating thousands of visitors about the Rosies and sharing her experience as a young Black woman working on the home front. I am so proud to have this important piece of history in my district, and I urge my colleagues to support this tribute to the Rosies' invaluable service to this country.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Madam Speaker, from the very start of this inquiry, the White House has obstructed the House of Representatives. The White House has ignored duly authorized subpoenas and has tried to prevent witnesses from testifying. The White House has also directed other agencies to do the same. The Department of State, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Office of Management and Budget all have refused to produce a single document in response to valid subpoenas. This is an unprecedented cover-up. The White House and its defenders in Congress have tried to justify it with baseless procedural claims that contradict the Constitution and historical precedent. History will judge us all. After today, there are no more excuses for those who want to focus on process instead of substance. After today, there are no more excuses for those who want to ignore the facts instead of defending the Constitution. And there are no more excuses for those who turn a blind eye while the President pressures foreign actors to interfere with our democracy.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, as the first amendment, I don't want to belabor many of the points that have been brought up in the general debate by my friend from Illinois and my very good friend from the Bay Area. I do want to say, as someone who has been in elected office in the San Francisco Bay Area for a long time, where so many of the innovations around social platforms and communications have taken place--much of it in Ms. Lofgren's district--how proud I have been of them. But how now--appropriately I think--skeptical I am of their ability to unilaterally, or merely by themselves, enforce the proper protections for American democracy. That is why I think this bill and this discussion are so very important. We know from the Mueller report that 126 million Americans were contacted, either directly or indirectly, just on Facebook by the Russians. We also know the outcome of the Presidential election was based on less than 80,000 votes in three key States in the electoral college. We know that Mr. Mueller said that this was a systematic attempt by the Russians. And we know also that the President's appointed FBI director has said recently, ``Russia attempted to interfere with the last election and continues to engage in malign influence operations to this day. This is a threat we need to take extremely seriously and to tackle and respond to with fierce determination and focus.'' Mr. Chairman, we also have talked a lot, in the last few years, about the role of the Federal Government, State governments, and local communities, and I agree with how diffused our historic relationships are. But here is an instance in my amendment. It is a simple one. It is to give the States and local jurisdictions the information they need to be aware of some of these influences that are afforded by this bill. My amendment is very simple. It requires that when the FEC is made aware of credible targeted disinformation campaigns, that affected States must be notified within 30 days. I think that is a fairly simple amendment. I would hope, in the spirit of bipartisanship, my colleagues would agree with that. Thomas Jefferson famously said that, ``We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.'' We know that disinformation hurts participation when done effectively, as it was just a short time ago in the recent Presidential election. And we also know that effective oversight and this government's engagement of both parties at the Federal level, the State level, and the local level, when we are open, honest, and afford transparency to American voters, they will participate at a higher rate and also at a more knowledgeable rate. It is our responsibility to recognize that disinformation is a threat to the participation that is vital to our continued success as a democracy, and it is our responsibility to act. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from Illinois' baseball metaphor earlier, and I would say that for this metaphor, I disagree. I think his call is wrong. I think this amendment is a simple strike. As he knows, the bill requires other agencies to give the information to the FEC. They are merely a collector, in many instances, of the information, so they are the appropriate body to disseminate that information. That is what my amendment does. I don't disagree or think that it is appropriate to debate the gentleman's other aspects, which may be true or not, based on his perspective. The amendment is basically consistent with the bill that the information goes here, and it should be disseminated to the States. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of esteemed public servant, activist, and great American Betty Reid Soskin. Betty is a constituent, a friend, and a pillar of Contra Costa County in the Bay Area in California. She is fondly known as the National Park Service's oldest serving ranger, at 98 years old, and is assigned to the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond, California. As an interpretive park ranger for the past 13 years, Betty has educated thousands of visitors about the Rosies and her own experience as a young Black woman working in Richmond during World War II. She worked as a file clerk for the Boilermakers Union A-36, a Jim Crow, all African American union auxiliary. Betty has been an activist her whole life. She fought for civil rights during Freedom Summer, was an activist against the Vietnam war, helped with faith-based racial healing work in the Unitarian Universalist church, and became a delegate to the 1972 Democratic National Convention. Betty also served as a legislative aide for a Berkeley city council member and as a field representative for two California State Assembly members, which led to her involvement in designing the Rosie the Riveter National Park. Her advocacy ensured that marginalized communities' narratives and stories were included in the park's historical exhibits and resources on the war efforts in Richmond, California. In 1995, Betty was named a Woman of the Year by the California State Legislature. She was also named one of the Nation's 10 outstanding women in 2006 by the National Women's History Project. In 2015, she was formally recognized by President Barack Obama, who gave her a silver coin with the Presidential seal. Born in 1921, Betty has lived through many pivotal moments in U.S. history and is a crucial voice in speaking to the value of American democracy, the realities of the African American struggle, and the importance of continued progress. In an interview for a feature in Glamour magazine, Betty said, when she was Woman of the Year: ``Democracy has been experiencing these periods of chaos since 1776. They come and go. And it's in those periods that democracy is redefined. History has been written by people who got it wrong, but the people who are always trying to get it right have prevailed. If that were not true,'' Betty said, ``I would still be a slave like my great-grandmother.'' Betty's colleagues, fans, and friends deeply admire her activism, her leadership, and her dedication to social justice and to America. Her positivity, sense of self, and commitment to doing what is right and preserving and honoring our past continue to inspire us all. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating and celebrating this wonderful American's dedicated service and in wishing her a speedy recovery and good health. Her strong spirit and perseverance are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 629, providing for consideration of H.R. 1815, the SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Testing Act. The rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services. It self-executes a manager's amendment that makes technical changes. It also makes in order four amendments, two Democratic and two Republican. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3624, the Outsourcing Accountability Act, under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services. Finally, it makes in order two Republican amendments to H.R. 3624. Mr. Speaker, the bills before us this week are consumer protection bills. Together, these bills make an effort to give everyday Americans access to clear, digestible information that will help them make informed investment decisions. Mr. Speaker, inequality in this country is at a historic level. The experience right now is on par with the Great Depression and the gilded age. Without adjustments like the ones proposed in these bills, it can only get worse. The most visible indicator of wealth inequality in America today may be the Forbes magazine list of the Nation's 400 richest Americans. In 2018, the three men at the top of this list--Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and investor Warren Buffett--held combined fortunes worth more than the total wealth of the poorest half of Americans. Three men had more wealth than 160 million Americans. In 1989, the bottom 90 percent of the U.S. population held 33 percent of all wealth. By 2016, the bottom 90 percent of the population held only 23 percent of wealth. The wealth share of the top 1 percent increased from about 30 percent to approximately 40 percent over the same period of time. The tax bill just passed by the House last session doubles down on this troubling trend. In 2019, a person in the bottom 10 percent gets a $50 tax cut, and a person in the top 1 percent gets a $34,000 tax cut. At the same time, millions of poor and middle-class people are expected to see their taxes either stay the same or actually increase in the long run. Before us today, the Outsourcing Accountability Act makes one simple but meaningful change to existing reporting requirements. It would add a requirement for publicly traded companies to annually report foreign and domestic employment statistics to the SEC: Are your employees working in the United States or are they working overseas? By publicly reporting this data that already is collected, companies are providing important information to their investors, consumers, and American workers, with no additional burden on their business. As Heather Slavkin Corzo of the AFL-CIO said recently: ``What gets measured gets paid attention to by a company''--and, I would add, their investors. As a former union member and a current member of the House Committee on Education and Labor, I think we in Congress should do everything we can to incentivize companies to invest in American workers and not to offshore their work. This administration has done everything in its power, in my view, to give corporations even more power at the expense of their employees-- and these effects are being felt in households across this country. Mr. Speaker, the other bill before us is the SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Testing Act. All we are asking for in this bill is to make sure that the data we are collecting for consumers is easy to understand so it can be used in the way it was intended. Field testing allows average investors to pilot a form that the SEC is planning to use and be a focus group on whether it is user friendly and the results are understandable. A recent form that was field-tested revealed that everyday Americans were ``deeply confused'' about the information the form was supposed to be communicating. In this specific instance, we are talking about how a company discloses any conflicts of interest it may have in providing investment advice. Close to 7 million people in my home State of California and 55 million people nationwide, most of them low and middle income, don't have access to retirement benefits at work. We are talking about people who work for small businesses, whose companies just cannot afford the expense of financial products on the market. In stark contrast, the financial sector takes around 25 percent of all corporate profits in the United States, represents 7 percent of the U.S. economy, and creates a mere 4 percent of jobs. Mr. Speaker, this bill makes it easier for people who are trying to build a secure retirement for themselves and their families to understand the investment advice they are receiving and whether it is in their best interest. We have an obligation to our workers who sacrifice and provide so much for our country to give them something in return. These two bills, taken together, help put consumers in the driver's seat. One requires information already collected by companies to be shared, and the other makes sure that consumers understand the information they are being given. The only people who should be opposed to these bills are big businesses who may be afraid of what the public will learn about their practices. The goal should be to give every American worker a secure retirement and protect consumers. Why wouldn't we want to take every step to get there? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 629 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend as well. It is always a pleasure to hear the gentleman's words of wisdom. I am reminded of a story that you will hear if the docent has the time at Monticello, when somebody asked Jefferson when he first opened: Mr. Jefferson, why do you have a bust of Mr. Hamilton opposite you? You don't agree on anything with Hamilton. Jefferson said: That is the point. That is why it is there. So, I appreciate the comments. I look forward to further conversations up in that room. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank my colleagues-- Congresswoman Axne, Congressman Casten, and Chairwoman Waters--for their leadership on these commonsense bills to protect American consumers and workers, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a comment to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my friend, as we do this. I, first of all, express my respect and affection for him in the short time I have gotten to serve with him, and I agree with almost everything he said in his statement, with a possible exception of his prediction on the next election. But other than that, I, too, yearn to be part of this institution, this marvelous institution that solves problems as a premium, where you take a liberal perspective and a conservative perspective, where both respect one another and understand that, by listening to both, we actually get a product that is more reflective of the whole. Having been someone who served at the city level, the county level-- county commissioner--at the State level, and now in Congress, it is discouraging to be here and not be as engaged as I hoped to in problem- solving and respecting differences of opinion. So we will get through this. The Speaker likes to quote Lincoln: With public sentiment, anything is possible; without it, nothing is possible. I believe he continued on to say: No statute has real force. So that is good for us to remember, that we have to go back to our townhalls, as we all do, and sometimes some of the most difficult parts of those townhalls is telling friends that you disagree with them, that there is another side of the story. So, with that, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend, for his reflections and his hopes for this institution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave