Mark DeSaulnier

Mr. DeSAULNIER

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

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of a long-time community leader, Dr. Irene Huston. In her early years, Irene and her family moved from Mississippi to the Bay Area in the ``Second Great Migration'' to escape racist labor and housing practices. Irene attended Contra Costa College before earning a Bachelor's Degree from International Seminary in Plymouth, Florida. Today, Dr. Huston holds graduate degrees from Phoenix University, Antioch Christian University, and Elbon-Solutions College of Ministry, as well as an honorary degree from the National Theological Seminary of the Commonwealth University. Although her interests and successes cast a wide net--she has served as a lecturer at San Jose State University, opened her own clothing boutique, and authored several books and a play--her focus has always been the church. Dr. Huston has been in the ministry for 50 years, and has devoted the majority of this time to supporting women and families. She is internationally ordained and has ministered around the world, including in India, Nigeria, England, and Israel. Additionally, at home in California, she worked with the West Contra Costa Unified School District's adult education program. Irene has founded a number of faith-based service organizations, including Irene's Women's Faith Foundation, and she continues her efforts today to motivate and empower young women and serve her community. Please join me in wishing Dr. Irene Huston a happy 81st birthday, and in thanking her for a life of service and dedication.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and service of longtime Walnut Creek resident, Mr. Frank Bryant. Frank was born on April 24, 1936 in Elko, Nevada to parents Howard and Charlotte Bryant. After his family moved to California, Frank attended San Jose State University before settling in Walnut Creek with his wife Susan. Frank and Susan resided in Walnut Creek for over 50 years. Throughout this time, Frank was deeply committed to serving the East Bay community. An architect by trade, Frank designed several commercial and residential buildings throughout Walnut Creek. A strong partner with the City of Walnut Creek, Frank designed a community theater and renovated an East Bay landmark, the Borges Ranch House. Frank also used his architectural expertise in his positions on the Walnut Creek Design Review Commission, the Civic Arts Association, and the Walnut Creek Planning Commission. As a further testament to his commitment to the community, Frank was a founding member and the first president of the Kennedy-King Memorial College Scholarship Fund, an organization that pays tribute to two American heroes while helping provide students access to educational opportunities. Please join me in honoring Frank Bryant, whose devotion to public service had a profound impact on his community.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, just briefly, while I respect some of the issues brought up by my colleague, I do think, if the data is already there and they are supplying it for the Department of Education, we should make it relatively easy for the Consumer Protection Bureau to get that same information and, if needed, get more. As a former business owner, these are the kind of performance standards I would not be afraid to show to my clients; and I would think that Congress and the American people, considering the importance of this investment, at a minimum, would require these kind of performance standards. So I would hope that Members on both sides of the aisle would support the effort in a spirit of transparency, and performance standards for privately-held companies. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, first of all, let me recognize the chair of the committee, my friend from California, for her steadfast work to defend American consumers. Madam Chair, students are in a difficult situation nowadays in the knowledge-based economy, where we are told over and over again that America, to be competitive, has to have an educated workforce, and we need more and more young people to go into college and then to graduate school; not to say that we don't have needs for people to get out of high school and go into career tech. But these generations are burdened with unbelievable student loans, and they are also burdened with, in urban areas, high housing costs and also lower wage expectations. We have to fix this; and one way to fix it is to have more oversight and performance standards for those companies, those for-profit companies, in particular, that control 93 percent of the market of Federal student loans. Madam Chair, 44 million Americans hold an estimated $1.5 trillion in student debt. Over 1 million borrowers defaulted on their student loans last year. Default is a financially devastating event that affects the individuals many times for the rest of their lives, as it affects their credit standing and also their ability to get a house, and to get a good job. Default is a financially-devastating event, as I said. In the past decade, the Federal Government created several repayment plans designed to assist borrowers in financial distress, but the default rate remains stubbornly high. One major reason is the student loan servicing industry. These for- profit companies operate with little oversight nor accountability. Evidence shows that servicers often provide inaccurate information and inadequate customer service, making the already complicated process of enrolling in the correct repayment plan close to impossible. My amendment would simply require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to collect and publish data from student loan servicers, providing a first-ever look at how these companies perform at serving American consumers. That is important. These are basic performance standards that I would think all of my colleagues across the aisle would want in any business practice-- particularly for-profit companies--they would want performance standards for them, if they are publicly-traded they would want them for the shareholders and, most importantly, for American consumers and students. For example, this amendment would show if student loan servicers are making it easy for their customers to recertify their incomes for their repayment plans. We know that this is a common roadblock to successful repayment. This amendment would simply require the CFPB to fulfill their statutory duty and provide needed oversight and transparency of this important industry. Everybody should agree that more information, in this instance in particular, is in everyone's interest and everyone's interest in the future of this country and future generations. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I would hope that all the Members would support this amendment. It provides us valuable information by a source that we all value, the National Academy of Medicine, and it will get to this argument of my colleagues across the aisle. If their argument is right, then the public and the Congress will see it; it will be verified. If it is different--and I believe it is--we will start looking at the real value of private investment and the return on investment that is due the American public. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to find information that will help with the high cost of prescription drugs in the United States, to help inform this institution and the American public. Mr. Chair, I have a form of noncurable blood cancer. In my pocket is a pill I take every day that keeps me alive. It costs $500 a day. Most of the research that developed this pill was at the Department of Defense and the National Institutes for Health. American taxpayers did the basic research. Earlier today, we had a long hearing in the Committee on Oversight of a similar situation where most of the development for an HIV lifesaving drug was developed at the University of California in San Francisco with NIH funding and no funding from the drug supplier that is now making billions of dollars. What my amendment does is direct the Academy of Medicine to get the information to differentiate what is basic taxpayer healthcare and how much that contributes to these billions of dollars of profits of pharmaceutical companies. It is not to say that these private investments are not good, but are they low risk and high reward or are they high risk and high reward? That is to say: Are the investors getting a really high risk based on what the taxpayers have done in investment? All this amendment does is direct the Academy of Medicine to come back with that information. We hear arguments from our Republican colleagues often that we need these investments in private-sector pharmaceutical companies. I don't disagree, but we need to know what portion of it is actually returning a reasonable rate of return. We want to attract those investments. Absent this kind of information, it is just a political opinion and argument. My amendment would get to that information that is so important to this debate. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and service of Leonard McNeil, a long-time resident of West Contra Costa County. Leonard first discovered his passion for advocacy while attending California State University, Fresno and was a founding member of the campus's Black Student Union. A strong opponent of the Vietnam War, Leonard protested the draft by moving to Canada, where he helped create the Vancouver Black Action Group and demonstrated against the Vietnam War and British and Canadian imperialism. After returning to the United States in the 1970s, Leonard completed a vocational program at the University of California, Berkeley and was an ironworker for over 15 years. In that capacity, he worked within his union to fight the exploitation of immigrant workers and end discriminatory practices. Leonard then pursued a career in local politics and served on the San Pablo City Council. During his tenure, McNeil helped create affordable housing programs, pushed for free public internet access, created the San Pablo Economic Development Corporation, and supported programs that aimed to improve relations between the police department and the community. Leonard was also a professor of Political Science at Contra Costa College, a position he held for nearly 10 years. As a professor, he pushed students to think critically and engage in political discussions. Leonard will be sorely missed and his lasting impact will long be remembered in the East Bay community.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to follow the previous discussion that was taking place under Mrs. Torres' amendment, having spent a long time in California on air regulation as an appointee to the California Air Resources Board by three Governors--Republicans and Democrats--where we worked in a bipartisan fashion under Federal regulation in the Clean Air Act, and California regulation, first to improve the air quality for Californians, but other States that followed us under the U.S. Clean Air Act, on criteria pollutants, but now to do it on carbon. So my amendment would direct the administration to work with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the negative economic impacts to the United States' global competitiveness and to our workforce by leaving the Paris treaty. Our experience in California has been, by transitioning to renewables and alternative fuels, one of the best arguments--of course, secondary to saving the planet, in my view--is the economic benefit. So, I hear and I respect some of the conversations and perspectives from people from different parts of the country, but that has not been our experience. Our experience has been that we passed a bill in 2006 that I was involved with in the legislature that called for the California Air Resources Board to drop CO2 emissions by 2020 to 1990 levels. We were told by industry that there was no way we could do that. We are actually on track to do that. In fact, the last Governor, Governor Brown, signed legislation to decrease our CO2 levels and, again, directed the California Air Resources Board to implement a strategy to do that in regulations to 40 percent by 2030. On the renewable side, we went to 33-1/3 percent, a third of our renewables by 2020 on the stationary source side, and the industry came when I was in the legislature and said: We can't do this. We want your help. We went through with it, and, in fact, we did it. So now there is legislation saying that by 2030, we should decrease it or only have 50 percent renewables. So what has that done to the economy? Our economy is the fifth largest in the world. We get more venture capital in the United States for renewables and alternative fuels than the total, combined research investment in venture capital in the other 49 States. We get half of the venture capital in total in the whole country into California, and it continues to provide for transition and new jobs. Many of our workforce are transitioning from fossil fuel to renewables. When we get mass-produced electric cars--and I am fearful that my grandchildren will drive Chinese electric cars--but we know that our car companies are transitioning and being somewhat successful and we hope that they will continue to be, as General Motors has indicated it would. It is in our best interest to continue this movement. My hope is that we would work collectively with the people who are being displaced, whether they are coal miners in West Virginia, or refinery workers in the four refineries in my county, to make sure that they don't lose out as the new economy takes over. The world benefits and the economy benefits. So that is the purpose of this amendment. I do want to say that right now, 3.3 million Americans now work in clean energy jobs; 2.3 million different jobs are energy efficient; and 318,000 jobs are in California. The World Bank has an analysis that says the Paris accord will contribute $23 trillion to the world economy. So on the basis of that and the fact that there are three times more jobs in the renewable and alternative fuel right now in the world than there are in the fossil fuel industry, I think that my colleagues should support this amendment so that we get the facts from the National Academy of Sciences, and the administration can see that what we are supporting not only benefits the planet and public health, but it benefits the economy and the future of American competitiveness. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of a long-time community leader, Dr. Diane Dooley. Diane has been a leading pediatrician in Contra Costa County for forty years, making it her life's work to protect the lives and health of children. Throughout her career, Dr. Dooley has been an advocate of children's health issues such as childhood obesity, oral health, and mental health. In addition to her medical practice, Diane was also instrumental in the founding of Healthy and Active Before 5, a collaborative in Contra Costa County that works to prevent childhood obesity and promote healthy practices and environments. For the past twelve years, Diane served on Healthy and Active Before 5's Leadership Council, volunteering countless hours of her time. During her tenure, the collaborative provided funding and technical support to local organizations, and identified and mapped safe places for children to play in various cities across the county. She also developed a marketing campaign to raise awareness of the health risks of sugary drinks. After years of service, Dr. Diane Dooley is now retiring from Healthy and Active Before 5. Please join me in wishing Diane good luck in her retirement, and thanking her for a life of service and dedication to the youth of our community.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Bob Schroder, a longtime resident and public servant in Walnut Creek, California for over 30 years. Bob began his career in local politics in 1960, when he was elected to the Walnut Creek City Council. He served on the Council for 16 years, including three stints as mayor. Throughout his tenure on the City Council, Walnut Creek went through a transformation, including increased development in the area. Following his time on the Council, Bob was elected to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, where he continued his legacy of facilitating and shaping development. He also served as a member of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and was the founding chairperson of the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, now County Connection, earning him the nickname ``Mr. Transportation.'' Throughout his time in local government, Bob exhibited an unwavering commitment to serving and improving his community. As a public servant, he was always willing to put aside political differences for the sake of the community. Bob will be sincerely missed by those who had the pleasure of knowing him and will be remembered for contributions to Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues who have joined me today. We started an informal group, actually, after the instance that the congresswoman talked about in Denver. The same ownership owns the Bay Area News Group and the Los Angeles News Group, and there were similar layoffs there. And in the Bay Area, being there, but also being there seeing the demise of local news, seeing the Chronicle in San Francisco, still owned by a local publisher, but then having the rest of the newspapers--almost the entirety of what was the bedrock of local news outside of San Francisco, for the other 7 million residents in the Bay Area--almost 7 million people--they have seen these large layoffs like Denver has. I will say that, in my native town of Lowell, Massachusetts, the same company owns that newspaper, and a similar event has happened there. There is nothing wrong with people making money, wanting to make a larger return on their investment; however, this is, I would argue, a very unique institution for democracy. As Jefferson said, ``Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press. . . .'' As Brandeis said: How people get their information, these are not things that you can separate. They are mutually intertwined. So, we need the ability to have this, and particularly for local government. When I started almost 30 years ago in the city of Concord, California, with a population of about 130,000 people, there was a gentleman named Larry Spears who had written for years for the Oakland Tribune and then for our local newspaper, The Contra Costa Times, a county of about a million people--not a small county. He was in the front row. There are still journalists in that front row, but we need people--and more of them--in every front row. Mr. Spears knew the relationships, how people got elected to city council, who was appointed to the planning commission. Having him there made a difference. It is human nature that, if you don't have someone watching, you are going to have human nature sometimes do things that it wouldn't if somebody who was professionally charged and trained to be able to explain to the general public what is happening and why it is happening was there. People will talk about the truth and deep truth, ``truth'' being the simple explanation of what actually happened and ``deep truth'' being the meaning of why people took those physical actions. This is what journalism is about. It is both being able to explain why a legislator or a city council member or a county supervisor did what they did and why they voted. But, as important is understanding why they did it. Did they do it for the reasons that they said that were part of the agendized items, or were there other influences behind their thoughts? And, can we explain ourselves so that the public can understand why we took that choice. And the ability of somebody to be able to communicate in an objective way what we say is important to democracy. So, I hope that today is the beginning of a discussion. Mr. Cicilline talked about his bill that I am proud to be a coauthor of that we introduced today. I think it is probably the most important. We have many, many newspapers supporting it. We hope that there will be, obviously, a wave of support. Editorial boards, we ask for your help. Any interested citizen can contact my office. I have a simple name to remember as far as Googling it. Let us know how you can help. If you are at a journalism school, if you are a journalist and you have ideas, give us ideas. These are constitutionally difficult issues. The Congress shouldn't be, as Congresswoman DeGette said, deciding how the First Amendment is orchestrated, I should say, or organized. But we should be supportive because, if we are successful, it is because of independent journalism out there. I would say that it is important that we have people who write, so that people who read and cognitively accept complicated issues will not become lazy. We often get told that it is about our messaging, but messaging is a two-way street. It requires the person who is speaking, or writing, to be able to communicate in a succinct, profound, empathy-filled way, but it also requires us, as citizens, to be listening and understand that sometimes issues are complicated. Well, how do you find that out? I would opine, as Mr. Postman did in 1985, that--and we know more about this now in terms of neuroscience and cognitive development and exercise--the more we read, the more we practice at our writing skills, the more we practice at our communication skills in general, the deeper our knowledge and the greater our capacity, cognitively, to understand and problem-solve. So I would make the hope that this is the beginning of something that we will do good bipartisan work on and will allow for newspapers, as Jefferson said, to allow for democracy to exist and to prosper. And lastly, in Lincoln's comment that I started with when he said: If you let the people know the facts, the country will be safe--our Speaker has a favorite quote where she says another Lincoln quote that says: Public opinion means everything. No statute, no public proclamation, Lincoln said, has any meaning if the people do not support it and it has their sentiment. I would argue this other quote from Lincoln is equally as important: If the American people know the facts, the country will be safe. We need to provide the professional journalism to make sure they get those facts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Cicilline for the nice comments. This bill is extremely important, and I am proud to follow the gentleman's leadership in getting it passed and getting it signed. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the great State of Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank those watching and my colleagues who will join me in the next half hour to talk about journalism, the importance of journalism in the United States and the importance of journalism to democracy. Abraham Lincoln once said: Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe. The challenge is, how do we get them those facts? For professional journalists, there is nothing more important. They don't always make us who hold office happy. Sometimes, we disagree with them. Sometimes, we think they are not being fair. But they are extremely important to the success or failure of American democracy. Neil Postman, in 1985, in his book, ``Amusing Ourselves to Death,'' wrote about his own belief in 1985 that how people got information in journalism was changing too dramatically, and he was just talking about the media in terms of television news. Think about how much that has changed since 1985. Mr. Postman talked about the Lincoln-Douglas debates and that thousands of people would go and listen to those debates because Douglas and Lincoln took the time to write out what they would say and how they anticipated answering questions. People would listen without speakers and without any kind of amplification of what they were saying--thousands of people--for as long as 6 or 7 hours, with a break for dinner. Mr. Postman's whole argument was this was cognitively different, that when you read something that was prepared over and over again by people who were really good writers, people responded differently and they accepted factual information in a different way than we were learning to accept facts. Now, in 2019, with this administration and with social media and 24/7 news, I think Mr. Postman would be horrified about how Americans get their facts, how they cognitively process them, and how they engage as American citizens. There is nothing more important than, as Lincoln said and I would opine, that Americans get journalism with factual content, with the professional expertise of people, many of whom have gone to school, to journalism schools for undergraduate degrees, often for graduate degrees, who go out to work for not a whole lot of money but to be able to investigate, get to the facts, and then communicate. Too many of us underestimate those talents. Maybe we have become spoiled. But what has happened is a consequence of many things. The business model has changed. Being from the bay area, Craigslist changed classified ads, and that is a revenue source to print journalism. But now as it moves to digital, a group of us wants to talk about what we can do appropriately in Congress and maybe work with--not maybe, but work with State and local officials to talk about how we can appropriately support professional journalism so we can get back to that point where Americans are engaged in a very deep way in their discussion with government and, specifically, with local government. Most Americans--and maybe it is because I came from local government--learn about democracy, oftentimes, at the local level. They know the people who are in the city council and on the school board. An issue comes up. Their kids start to go to school, and they take an interest in the governance and superintendent and the superintendent's bosses. They care about the curriculum. Maybe there is a land use decision at their city council, and so they start to learn about democracy in a meaningful way that way. Heretofore, except in the last 10 years with the demise of local journalism, for a variety of reasons, they don't get that information. They get a lot of information about Congress. They get a lot of information about the President of the United States, and some information still at the statehouse, but not nearly as much, and very little at the local level. I will say there are heroic people out there who are still doing great local journalism, but because of the business model and because of consolidations, that has become, I am afraid, very ill. So just in terms of the definition of the problem, in 2017, estimated daily U.S. newspaper circulation--that is print and digital. So when we focus on, ``Oh, well, print is gone; forget about it,'' we realize that the business model has changed. But there is a digital model here that we can see in The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle. There is still a model. But their ability to talk about local news is where we have to get more effort, I think, in understanding, as citizens. Circulation, print and digital, in 2017 was 31 million for weekday and 34 million for Sunday. That is down 11 and 10 percent, respectively, from each previous year. The chart next to me shows the steady decline. Newspaper consumption--that is digital and print--has been falling every year since 1994. Today most Americans get their news from television and social media, the primary way they get their information. Fifty-five percent of Americans are regularly tuning into TV to consume that news information. In contrast, only 20 percent of Americans regularly get their news from a physical newspaper. Only 38 percent of Americans regularly get their news online. In 2017, advertising revenue for the entire newspaper industry was $16.5 billion, a 10 percent decrease from 2016. Then there are consolidations, an issue that I know Mr. Cicilline will talk about, the consolidation of the print newspaper business in particular. And I will say this for the bay area where I live and represent, in the bay area, newspapers, at their peak, had about 1,500 journalists. This is for about 7.5, 7.75 million people, in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country that is very diverse, 1,500 journalists. These aren't support people. These are writers, professional journalists. Now there are less than 300 serving those same 7.5 million people in an area that is growing and has one of the most innovative and fastest growing economies in the world. It is not just the bay area. Since 2004, 1,800 local papers have been closed or merged. What traditionally happens--and there are two large companies that do this--is they go in and buy the newspaper and then sell the assets. So very rarely now--when you go around to a city or a town where it used to be a prominent building was the headquarters of the local newspaper, those buildings have been sold. The San Jose Mercury News had a prominent building in downtown San Jose right by city hall. In Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Times still thrives because it has local ownership, fortunately; but that L.A. Times building, a beautiful art deco that was so much a part of the history of Los Angeles, was directly across the street from city hall. There was a reason for that. The Examiner and the Chronicle in San Francisco were prominent downtown. These were icons. Well, a lot of these consolidations came about, and they sold these iconic buildings where people worked. Then, of course, they sold the print functions because there was less to do and a lot of the distribution. But they also laid off and eliminated a lot of the journalists, and that is where we get our information. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 39,210 people worked as reporters and editors in the newspaper industry in 2017. This is down from 44,000, about 15 percent from 2015, and 71,645 in 2004, about a 45 percent nationwide decrease. About one-third of the large U.S. newspapers have suffered significant layoffs. Additionally, journalists' wages remained low. In 2017, the median wage for an editor was only $49,000, while the median wage for a reporter was about $34,000. If you are in a place like the bay area, Los Angeles, New York, D.C., or Boston, you can imagine what the cost of living does to that kind of income for people whom we rely on to provide us information. There is hope, however: some newspaper groups like the one in Philadelphia that has coordinated and consolidated with a nonprofit model and is refocusing its mission on producing excellent journalism to inform the public and focusing on local journalism. There has been a spike in attendance in university journalism programs in spite of the numbers I just told you since this President took office in 2017. Through programs to reengage citizens, particularly students, in the importance of journalism and reimagining how we fund print and electronic newspapers, we can ensure that journalism remains a bedrock of the country and a check on its power as it always has been. As someone from the bay area who has had a relationship with our innovation and our tech companies, for Google and Facebook, they make millions of dollars off of journalists, and we think that they should contribute to that amazing asset that they have right now, largely free of charge. So we look to them to partner with us so that these platforms can be platforms not just for profit, but platforms for democracy, where local journalists can put their wares out there and be able to benefit from it just as they benefit from it. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who is my wonderful colleague from San Jose, in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and service of a longtime Pittsburg resident, Ms. Betty Conner. Betty was born on May 20, 1936 in Sondheimer, Louisiana to parents Maggie and Ray Frost. She soon made her way to Contra Costa County, and Betty spent 73 years as a resident of Pittsburg and graduated from Pittsburg High School in 1964. For 29 years, Betty served the community and worked as a nurse for Contra Costa County Social Services. For a decade, Betty and her husband of 50 years, Douglas, used their retirement income to cook lunches for children in downtown Pittsburg. After Douglas' passing in 2009, Betty continued serving meals with the help of her granddaughter, Tanicia Currie. In 2014, Betty's community efforts were officially established as a non-profit organization called Branches of Community Service. Now, Betty's annual backpack and toy drives service over 125 children and her free Saturday lunches continue to be a trusted and important resource for Pittsburg youth. Betty and Douglas' contributions to the Pittsburg community have been celebrated. Douglas was honored by the City of Pittsburg with a cement plaque at the local park across from the Conner residence and Betty was recognized as a Woman of the Year for Contra Costa County. Betty is survived by her five sons and many relatives. She will be sincerely missed by those who had the pleasure of knowing her, and will be remembered for her endless service to the community.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of a longtime area union leader, Mr. Robert Sewell, and to wish him well in his retirement. Bob is a second-generation plumber, and like his father before him, a proud union member. After beginning his career as an apprentice with Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 159 in 1979, Bob has remained a member for nearly 40 years, serving as an officer and a prominent member of union leadership. In 2002, Bob was elected as the union's Financial Secretary Treasurer and has served as its Business Manager since 2016. Among many other responsibilities, Bob led the Local in partnering with other regional unions to negotiate project labor agreements. Thousands of residential units in Contra Costa County benefited from his efforts to ensure that all workers earn a living wage and benefits. Bob has also been a leader in collaborating with community organizations to encourage environmental responsibility in development, and has promoted workforce training through his role as the chair of the Local's Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee. After a long career of fighting for working people, Bob is now retiring. Please join me in congratulating Mr. Robert Sewell for a life of hard work and service, and in wishing him luck in his next chapter.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 208 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 208, providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 24, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress. The rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a closed rule. The rule self-executes two amendments to simply clarify that the resolution is calling for the release of the special counsel's findings in addition to any report. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. Finally, the rule provides standard recess procedures for the period of March 15 through March 22. Mr. Speaker, when the Justice Department named the special counsel for the Russia investigation, acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said: ``A special counsel is necessary in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome. Our Nation is grounded on the rule of law, and the public must be assured that government officials administer the law fairly.'' This investigation has been about following the facts wherever they may lead, getting to the truth of Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, and ensuring government is transparent and accountable to the American public. This does not predetermine the outcome of that investigation. It simply expresses that the report of the special counsel should be made available to Congress and to the American people. The public, including my constituents in California--our constituents in California, Mr. Speaker--want to know what happened. Nearly 9 in 10 Americans in both parties say the investigation should produce a full public report on their findings. Not only do the American people want to know, but they deserve to know. Congress needs to preserve their ability to know. Our election system is an integral part of what makes us the beacon of Western democracy. Any and all attempts to undermine this system is an attack on our country's values and cannot be taken lightly. This is a serious investigation with consequences for our elections, democracy, government, and the future of this country and democracy itself. There is no one with more intimate knowledge of Russia's involvement in our election than the special counsel. To date, this investigation has resulted in 34 people and three companies being criminally charged; nearly 200 charges filed; seven guilty pleas; one conviction following a jury trial; and the investigation, while costing $25 million, has recovered approximately $48 million in assets from tax evasion. Mr. Speaker, eight Federal and congressional intelligence and national security groups believe Russia interfered in our election, with the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluding that Vladimir Putin personally ``ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election'' to ``undermine public faith in the democratic process.'' The last time our country had a special counsel operating under the same rules as this probe was in 1993 to investigate the Waco siege and allegations of government wrongdoing. Prosecutors posted their final report directly on the internet with hundreds of pages of exhibits and timelines. The American people must receive the same transparency when this report is released. I encourage my friends across the aisle to support the release of this report. We have commitments to support it from three House Republican leaders, including the minority leader, the minority whip, and the Republican Conference chair. I hope all my colleagues across the aisle will join us in this vote to ensure that we are on the record that we will share one of the most important investigations of our time within these halls and with all of America. This is happening on our watch, and it is our job to be faithful to our oath to defend and uphold democracy. As Justice Brandeis famously said, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me join with my friend from Georgia in noting how important it is that you are presiding, my good friend, with lots of history between the two of us in our political life in California and our education, I might add to the Jesuits. I want to say to my good friend, I look at this as one of those opportunities where we may not get a headline. Unfortunately, too many of the headlines talk about how divisive it is here. Certainly, there is a lot of that. But when I go home and do townhalls--and I do a lot of them in northern California--when this question comes up about polarization, I talk about all the times we do work together that don't get out, certainly, in the headlines, because that is not what sells advertising, apparently. I think this is one of those moments that we aspire to that, that we actually aspire that somebody picks up on this; that all of us, in these extraordinary circumstances, are being faithful to our oath; that we make sure that the things that may have happened, that apparently did happen, that the public needs confidence in us. When we look every day, including today, at the affronts and the attacks on so many institutions in America, and this institution having had challenges, this might be one of those opportunities, at least for us, to say: We agree. We may have differences of opinion about who did what, but we have faith. For me, I think history will say that this special counsel is one of those providential Americans. With his background, with his determination to believe in fidelity and truth, we were lucky to have this person at this point in time. I put my faith in this institution. I put faith in the special counsel. In this instance, I hear from you, my friend from Georgia, that we are going to put our faith in this institution and one another, that we can show the American people that this is, indeed, more important than party, and it is more important than any of our individual political careers. I did want to mention, Mr. Speaker, that this is a sense of Congress and that this is not the first time we have brought a resolution like this to the floor. In fact, just last week, we brought a resolution to the floor to send a message to the American people that Congress is united in condemning anti-Semitism and bigotry in all its forms. There are people who criticized us for bringing that and thought that it was unnecessary, but we brought that to the floor. A majority of Republicans joined Democrats, an overwhelming majority, in voting for it. Leader McCarthy called it a resolution to make a statement. Whip Scalise said, regarding the resolution, ``We must all take a strong stand against hatred and bigotry wherever we see it, and I am glad this resolution makes'' sense. We agree with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that passing these types of resolutions can make a strong statement. Although they may seem to some as unnecessary, these statements on these kinds of important issues, I believe, are very necessary for this institution to make, particularly when they are bipartisan. Today, we are letting Attorney General Barr and everyone else know that we are all united behind one common principle, which I believe he agreed to in his confirmation hearings, which the Member from Georgia alluded to. That complete transparency, consistent with law, is vital to the success of our democracy. The American people deserve to have access to this report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.