Mark DeSaulnier

“The President is misusing taxpayer money to benefit himself. He charged the Secret Service high rates to stay at his hotels, spent public funds on luxury jets, and paid to put his name and face on government property.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my continued outrage over this administration’s abuse of taxpayer funds at the very time that Americans are struggling to pay their own bills. Here are just a few examples of this administration taking money, stealing money from Americans’ pocketbooks: During the President’s first term, he charged Secret Service 300 percent or more above the allowable rates to stay at his hotels while on duty. On his watch, the Department of Homeland Security spent 70 million taxpayer dollars on a luxury jet, and the President is converting a gifted Qatar Boeing 747 to use as Air Force One and plans to keep the plane after he leaves office for his personal use. A yet unknown amount of money has been spent renaming Federal buildings and putting the President’s name and face on banners, money, park passes, passports, visas, and more. This is not patriotism, my colleagues. It is vanity. It is corruption, and we should all be outraged. The silence by my Republican colleagues on this issue is deafening. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kennedy of Utah). Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.”

“I want to honor Dr. Kent Lee Sack, who recently passed away. He served as a combat surgeon in Vietnam and later cared for HIV patients in the Bay Area.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a friend and a local hero in the San Francisco Bay Area, Dr. Kent Lee Sack, who sadly passed away in June. Dr. Sack, after completing a family medicine residency at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, was drafted into the Navy after his residency, where he served as a Marine Corps surgeon in combat in Vietnam. Returning to the bay area after his military service, Kent became an early provider of HIV care during the AIDS epidemic and established social services for patients, deeply connected to his patients. Kent’s commitment to social justice led him to leadership roles in the Bay Area Physicians for Human Rights and the Rainbow Community Center in Concord, California. Kent will be remembered for his compassion and his commitment to equality. Please join me in honoring this great American and a dear friend, Dr. Sack, for his life of service to our community and our country.”

“I want the House to hold Hector Roos in contempt of Congress. He is a key witness in an ethics investigation, but he repeatedly ignored our subpoenas and refused to provide documents or testimony. People cannot simply ignore orders from the Ethics Committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution holding Hector Roos in contempt of Congress for his failure to comply with duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on Ethics. The investigative subcommittee, in the matter of Sheila Cherfilus- McCormick, repeatedly sought documents and testimony from Mr. Roos, who was a key witness in the matter. Yet Mr. Roos failed to comply with voluntary requests for information and multiple subpoenas in the 118th and 119th Congresses. While other witnesses did not fully cooperate with the committee’s investigation, Mr. Roos’ conduct went further. He simply ignored multiple subpoenas without asserting any valid legal privilege or basis for noncompliance. Despite his later claims that he affirmatively reached out to the committee after he was contacted about his noncompliance, Mr. Roos never communicated to an email address belonging to any staff, and he failed to respond to numerous emails and phone calls at the points of contact where he claims to have been reachable. The bipartisan subcommittee unanimously found, and the full committee agreed, that his conduct unnecessarily and significantly delayed the committee’s investigation and was thus worthy of a referral for criminal contempt proceedings. Compliance with the Ethics Committee subpoenas is not optional, as I have said before. This contempt resolution is meant to demonstrate to witnesses before the committee that obstructive conduct has consequences, and the committee will vigorously use all the tools at its disposal to thoroughly and swiftly investigate allegations of misconduct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to hold Michael Joseph in contempt of Congress. He repeatedly ignored our subpoenas to share documents and testify for an ethics investigation. People cannot just choose to ignore congressional subpoenas.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution holding Michael Joseph in contempt of Congress for his failure to comply with duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on Ethics. At a time when public confidence in Congress is at historic lows and the House’s ability to self-police Member conduct is under intense scrutiny, enforcing lawful congressional process is vital to delivering swift transparency and accountability for any misconduct. A witness who refuses to cooperate with the Ethics Committee hinders the thoroughness and swiftness of an investigation. If the committee must authorize and issue a subpoena for that witness, more delays result. If after those additional steps the witness decides to flout the subpoena, the committee is ultimately deprived of key evidence needed to resolve the allegations. A subpoena from the House Ethics Committee is not a suggestion. It is a lawful demand for information needed by the House to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities to enforce the official code of conduct, adjudicate violations, and to impose appropriate discipline. The investigative subcommittee in the matter of Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick repeatedly sought documents and testimony from Mr. Joseph, yet he failed to comply with voluntary requests for information and multiple subpoenas in the 118th and 119th Congresses. While other witnesses did not fully cooperate with the committee’s investigation, Mr. Joseph’s conduct went further. Twice he failed to appear for subpoenaed testimony in the current Congress, and he was made aware numerous times that his failure to comply with the subpoenas could result in contempt proceedings. He had notice of and was properly served all the subpoenas by the investigatory subcommittee, and he never asserted any valid privilege or basis for noncompliance. The bipartisan investigative subcommittee unanimously found, and the full committee agreed, that his conduct was contemptuous. His noncompliance also unnecessarily and significantly delayed the committee’s investigation. Contempt referrals like these are a rare step because almost all subpoenaed witnesses cooperate with the committee before contempt proceedings need to be initiated. But the rareness of this step should not obscure its importance. The effectiveness of the committee’s oversight hinges on the expectation that subpoenas cannot and will not be ignored. This contempt resolution is not intended to be a punitive measure. It is a deterrent to future noncompliance and obstructive conduct by witnesses in future investigations. With this resolution, we can establish a clear and necessary boundary for future witnesses. If you are subpoenaed by the committee, you cannot simply decide that compliance is optional. By demonstrating that noncompliance has consequences, this resolution will empower the Ethics Committee in its continued efforts to uphold civic confidence and the integrity of this body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to censure Representative Chuck Edwards. The Ethics Committee investigated him and found that he sexually harassed two female staffers for more than two years. He gave them expensive gifts, took them on trips, commented on their looks, and sent them personal texts and poems. The women felt uncomfortable and feared for their jobs, and both eventually quit. We must hold members accountable and protect our staff from harassment.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking the chairman, whom I have great respect for, and our collegiality is focused on enforcing the rules of this body. I also thank all of the committee members, who were thoughtful and bipartisan on this particular subject matter, and all of the things that come before the Ethics Committee. I also thank our nonpartisan, professional committee staff for their tireless efforts and devoted service to this House and this country. Our committee’s investigation of Representative Edwards’ conduct spanned 4 months and included interviews of 16 individuals and a review of nearly 1,500 pages of documents. Our subsequent censure recommendation reflects our bipartisan and unwavering commitment to a congressional workplace free of sexual harassment and discrimination. Unfortunately, Representative Edwards, in my opinion, failed that standard. For more than 2 years, Representative Edwards lavished two of his female staffers with gifts of jewelry, designer purses, shoes, flowers, gifts, and vacations, to name just a few examples. He commented on their appearance and dress in their congressional office, remarking favorably on their weight and telling them they looked pretty and breathtaking in certain clothing. He invited them on intimate one-on-one outings and trips to restaurants, casinos, and live performances. He sent them personal texts late at night and wrote them deeply personal letters and poems expressing his affection. He even skipped a vote series to decorate a Christmas tree at one of the staffer’s homes. These are not innocuous, isolated incidences. They are part of sustained, unprofessional, and inappropriate conduct by Representative Edwards toward two young women he employed. Neither individual felt free to reject Representative Edwards’ attention without fear of professional consequences. Despite attempts to communicate their discomfort, his behavior continued, and both ultimately left their congressional employment. One woman told the committee that she felt she could not resist Representative Edwards because she ``did not think having a Member of Congress against me would benefit my career.’’ This statement gets to the heart of the matter--the power and balance between Members of Congress and their staff. Representative Edwards’ interpretation of his own conduct does not change how the women experienced it. Whether or not he occasionally gave gifts to, or received them from, other staff is irrelevant to how he treated these two women, who felt his behavior was uncomfortable and unwanted. Representative Edwards may not have made physical advances or explicit propositions, but sexual harassment does not require either. His conduct was inappropriate, unwelcome, and, most importantly, created a hostile work environment. As a result, the House of Representatives lost two staffers, and, for that, I believe he should be censured. In the House, censure is not simply a punishment directed at an individual Member. It is a collective statement by this institution that we will and will not tolerate certain behaviors. Today, with this censure resolution, we can make our standard clear. Professional boundaries must be respected. When congressional employees say that conduct is unwelcome, they will be heard, and that conduct will not be allowed to continue. There must be zero tolerance for sexual harassment and misconduct in the Halls of Congress, but zero tolerance does not mean zero due process. Representative Edwards was fully informed of the allegations and sat for a voluntary interview. He ultimately waived certain procedural steps so that the committee could recommend a House-level sanction. In exchange for accepting this recommended censure, he reviewed and was allowed to respond to the committee’s report. For sexual harassment to truly have no place in the congressional workplace, the principle cannot exist only on paper in a committee report. It must be modeled for accountability. To deliver that accountability, to defend the integrity of this institution, and to affirm that every congressional employee deserves a safe and respectful workplace free from sexual harassment, I would urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the committee one more time for his work on this matter.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 6 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I am honoring Sue Rainey, who died last month at age 86. She served as mayor of Moraga and Walnut Creek, California, and spent decades helping families through a cancer support group.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and service of Sue Rainey, a remarkable public servant in the San Francisco Bay Area. Sue served as the mayor of Moraga, California, in the late 1970s and later as the mayor of Walnut Creek, California, from 2001 to 2010, where she worked diligently to develop that city into the business, retail, and arts hub that it is today. She also volunteered with the Cancer Support Community in the San Francisco Bay Area for over 20 years, ultimately serving as the board chair of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter. Thanks to her leadership in the cancer community, the chapter now supports over 100 families each year. Sadly, Sue passed away last month at the age of 86, a remarkable life of 86 years. She will be fondly remembered for her commitment to our community, for bettering the lives of thousands of people. Please join me in honoring the life and service of my friend, Sue Rainey.”

“Tobacco companies gave money to President Trump's group, and then the FDA made it easier to sell flavored e-cigarettes. Millions of young people use these products and get addicted to nicotine. I want Congress to speak out against this corruption.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage about recent FDA regulatory actions on e-cigarettes. On April 30, Reynolds American donated $5 million to MAGA Inc., a Trump-backed super-PAC. In the following 8 days, the President dined with top tobacco executives, and the FDA issued guidance making it easier for tobacco companies to sell flavored e-cigarettes. In 2024, 1.63 million middle and high school students in America used e-cigarettes, and nearly 90 percent of them used flavored products. The tobacco industry is openly paying bribes to advance policies that will get the next generation of young people hooked on nicotine. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in condemning this blatant, pay-for-play corruption and the harm it will inflict to generations of young Americans.”