Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the United States Census Bureau has just announced that California once again leads the Nation in poverty. It has the highest poverty rate, according to the widely accepted supplemental measure, of any State in the country: 15.4 percent.

The Public Policy Institute of California, when you expand this definition to include those living at or near poverty, estimates the number to be at 31.1 percent. To put that in perspective, an adult with one child living in San Francisco, one study found, would have to work 22 hours a day, 7 days a week just to cover basic living expenses.

This is significant not only because it means life is more difficult than it needs to be for millions of people in our State but also because our Governor, Gavin Newsom, has said that California is a model for the Nation. Another Californian, Vice President Kamala Harris, has said that California is a role model for what can be done around the country.

Newsom even recently put out a press release titled: ``10 Ways California Leads the Nation.'' That is the title of his press release: ``10 Ways California Leads the Nation.''

The items on this list range from the meaninglessly vague, like belonging and unity, to the downright farcical, like transportation, with Newsom citing high-speed rail, even though The New York Times estimates that the California High-Speed Rail won't be completed this century. Even if it is completed, it will be the slowest and most expensive high-speed train in the world.

Of course, what wasn't on Newsom's list of the 10 ways California leads the Nation is poverty, even though California has held that dubious distinction for many years running. So, I thought I would take a moment this morning to go through a few other things that were not on Newsom's list. That is, a few other ways in which California leads the Nation yet he neglected to include on his press release.

In addition to poverty, California also leads the Nation in homelessness. In fact, it was just announced our homeless population grew again to 186,000 people. At this point, over half the unsheltered homeless in the entire country are in California.

California also leads the Nation when it comes to crime. On the list of cities with the worst retail theft problems, California is by far the most represented of any State in the country, and that is one of the reasons businesses are closing left and right, especially in our major cities like San Francisco.

If you are a business trying to operate in California, especially a small business, California leads the Nation in many ways. California leads the Nation in terms of having the worst business climate, routinely rated as having the most business-unfriendly set of regulations. California, also for that reason, leads the Nation in business departures.

California also leads the Nation as being the number one judicial hellhole--that is the technical term that is used--and California rated as having the most frivolous lawsuits of any State in the country.

If you are a worker, California also leads the Nation. For most of this year, we have been number one out of the 50 States in unemployment. In the last few years, California has been number one out of the 50 States in wage stagnation. That is, worker wages have gone up less in California than in any other State.

California is also number one when it comes to restrictions on worker freedom, being rated as having the most onerous and arbitrary restrictions on the right to earn a living, including, most egregiously, Assembly Bill 5, one of the most notorious laws in the history of the United States.

If you are just trying to get by and raise a family, California leads the Nation in all the wrong ways when it comes to the cost of living.

We have the highest gas prices of any State in the country, about $1.50 above the national average. We are routinely in the top five when it comes to the cost of energy and electricity. We are number two in the country when it comes to water bills.

We are number two when it comes to the cost of housing and number one in the continental United States. Only Hawaii has higher housing costs than California does.

Largely, because of all this, we are routinely in the top few States in the entire country when it comes to inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient. Progressive California is leading the Nation in inequality.

If you are a citizen expecting a basic standard of service when it comes to public services, California also leads the Nation in dubious ways. We have the highest taxes of any State: highest income tax, highest gas tax. We have not only the largest budget but, by far, the largest budget deficit. This last year, California had a $68 billion budget deficit. Many other States were running a surplus.

California also leads the Nation in debt for our hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. Yet, despite all of this spending, California leads the Nation in terms of the disrepair of our roads, usually being in the top few States rated in terms of the lowest quality of our roads.

Our schools are also rated as among the worst in the country. We lead the Nation in illiteracy. That is, we have the lowest literacy rate in the United States. We also lead the continental United States when it comes to achievement gaps in our schools. Our education outcomes for students living in poverty are worse than any other State in the continental U.S. Only Alaska does worse in the whole country.

This Newsom leadership was compounded during COVID-19. California led the Nation in school shutdowns. It was the slowest of any State to get our kids back to school. Also, it led the Nation, first out of any State, in business shutdowns and church shutdowns.

California led the Nation in mandates by, for example, being the only State, Newsom being the only Governor, to announce a student vaccine mandate. Yet, California was also the slowest State in the country in actually getting therapeutics to people who wanted them.

There is one group for whom California's leadership--Gavin Newsom, specifically his leadership--might be viewed favorably. That is illegal immigrants. Currently, the San Diego border sector has the most illegal border crossings of any sector in the country. That is the first time that has been the case since the 1990s.

California also leads when it comes to the amount of money spent on illegal immigrants, being the only State in the entire country to offer free healthcare to everyone in the State illegally.

Now, as a result of all of this, California finally leads the Nation in one other way, and that is in U-Haul departures, U-Haul rentals on a per capita basis. California has now led the Nation 4 straight years when it comes to out-migration, the number of people leaving.

The effect is particularly pronounced in Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris' San Francisco, a city that, as it was put in the newspaper of record, the San Francisco Chronicle, is literally on the verge of collapse and, in fact, has been losing population faster than any major city in U.S. history, faster even than Detroit when it went bankrupt.

A former Governor of ours, Ronald Reagan, in his inaugural address as Governor, said that California should never take second place, but this was not what he had in mind, us leading the Nation in all the wrong ways.

So, when Gavin Newsom says California is a model for the Nation, when Kamala Harris says California is a role model for what can be done around the country, we can look at what has happened to our State for what the consequence of taking that playbook national will be.

It will mean more poverty. It will mean more homelessness. It will mean more crime, more inequality, a diminishment of economic opportunity, and an increase in the cost of living.

The good news, however, is this: California is not politically monolithic, and in my district in particular, we have established a different model, where we support law enforcement. We have compassionate and commonsense policies when it comes to things like homelessness. We support our workers and our small businesses. We are mindful of how we spend taxpayer dollars in a prudent way.

Because of that, we have maintained a quality of life, fighting against the headwinds of State policy that is much different than in places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland. It is why, while people are leaving California as a whole, they are wanting to move into my district. In fact, it is the fastest growing part of California and, in some sense, some of the fastest growing communities in the entire country.

I am very proud of the model that we have established in my communities, and I think that, actually, you are starting to see that spread to the rest of California. That is, while Newsom and Harris say California is a model for the rest of the country, Californians themselves are starting to reject that model in our own State.

We are starting to see, after the Supreme Court's Grants Pass decision, homeless encampments finally being broken up and folks being brought to services, getting to shelters, and getting connected with the services that they need.

We are seeing reckless district attorneys being recalled from office. We are seeing cities that defunded their police departments now refunding their police departments. We are seeing that one of the worst laws in the history of our State and maybe even the country, Proposition 47, which is largely responsible for the increase in crime, homelessness, and conditions of disorder in our cities, is on the verge of being repealed, at least in its major provisions.

There is an initiative, a citizen-led initiative, on the ballot right now that Gavin Newsom has fought tooth and nail every step of the way but that has overwhelming public support. According to a recent poll from the LA Times, it has the support overwhelmingly not just of Republican voters and Independent voters but also Democratic voters by a 19-point margin.

I believe that when this initiative passes, it will be a new day for California, that we will finally turn the page on the failed model of Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, and we can perhaps one day, as Reagan said,

start leading the Nation in the right ways again.

TART Connect Reaches Million Milestone

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Tahoe Truckee Area Regional Transit micro-transit service, known as TART Connect, for providing over 1 million rides in the North Lake Tahoe-Truckee region.

Since its inception in 2021, this free, on-demand, and curb-to-curb transportation solution has revolutionized public transportation in the Tahoe area. In order to participate in the program, residents and visitors simply order a ride from a mobile app and then, from there, can travel to a number of local spots or even connect to a mainline bus system.

Originally implemented in Placer and Washoe Counties, the popularity of this service has led to its expansion throughout the north shore and town of Truckee in the years since.

Recognizing that outdoor recreation and tourism is a main driver of Tahoe's economy, TART Connect provides a remedy to the traffic challenges posed by 15 million visitors per year. Not only has this program improved traffic conditions, reducing congestion and high vehicle volume on the roadway, but it also promotes environmental health and sustainability, protecting the stunning natural beauty of the Tahoe region while meeting the demands of economic growth.

Surpassing 1 million rides is a testament to the success of TART Connect and the vital role it plays in fostering sustainable and acceptable transportation options that enhance mobility and connectivity, enriching the lives of those who visit or live in Tahoe.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and California's Third Congressional District, I am honored to recognize TART Connect in celebration of this historic milestone.

Celebrating 40th Anniversary of Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area for its 40 years of protecting the remarkable ecological and cultural resources of the Mono Basin.

The basin is located immediately east of Yosemite National Park and hosts a diverse range of nature's beauty. From the famed Mono Lake at the heart of the basin to the volcanic Bodie Hills and the Mono Crater volcanoes, this area accommodates a plethora of thriving plant and animal species, some of which cannot be found anywhere else in the world.

Countless advocates devoted their efforts to the preservation of this unique diversity in the Mono Basin, which led to Congress' invention of the National Scenic Area in 1984. Mono Basin is proud to be the first in United States history of these National Scenic Areas dedicated by Congress, and it has continued to be a staple of rich history and wildlife.

Over the past four decades, the Mono Basin Scenic Area has committed itself to supporting natural resource protection and education, which can be found in its initiatives at the scenic area visitor center. Focusing on both the natural and human history of the Mono Basin, there are interactive activities, films, and galleries for patrons to explore.

The Mono Basin and its established centers and areas set a high standard for excellence in the preservation of ecological resources.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to join the United States Forest Service, Inyo National Forest, as well as Tribal, local, and State partners in celebrating the 40-year anniversary of the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area, and I applaud their ongoing efforts to maintain the natural beauty and history of the Mono Basin.

Recognizing the 100th Anniversary of Rocklin Boy Scout Troop 29

Mr. Speaker, I wish to mark and celebrate the 100-year anniversary of Boy Scout Troop 29, located in Rocklin, California.

Troop 29 was first chartered in 1924 in the historic Mother Lode region of Alta, Dutch Flat, and Gold Run. Reconstituting itself in 1949 and 1950, Troop 29 made its resurgence as an active force in Rocklin, and the Rocklin Lions Club became their official sponsor.

Since this debut, it has served as a youth-led troop that boasts approximately 60 Scouts at a time, who are focused on learning essential skills through an immersive merit badge system. This program bolsters the Scout values of leadership, citizenship, and responsibility, and works to build character in the next generation of leaders. They engage in a multitude of diverse fields, enriching our communities one project at a time.

Throughout the years, the Scouts of Troop 29, both alumni and current, have provided countless hours of volunteer service and leadership development in our communities. I applaud Troop 29 for their ongoing presence in Rocklin and their 10 decades of commitment to doing good and helping others.

It is because of organizations like Rocklin Boy Scout Troop 29 and the youth who participate that those around them are given a great sense of hope for the future. Their determination, resilience, and commitment to excellence of character is inspiring.

On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize Rocklin Boy Scout Troop 29 for reaching this significant milestone, their centennial celebration.

Celebrating Captain Annalisa Sanfilippo

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to celebrate and congratulate Captain Annalisa Sanfilippo on becoming the first female fighter pilot assigned to the 144th Fighter Wing in the California Air National Guard.

Annalisa is a graduate of Vista del Lago High School in Folsom, California, and attended the University of Oklahoma in 2020 to earn her bachelor's degree in meteorology. It was here during college that she had the opportunity to shadow Air Force officers in ROTC and ultimately set her sights on flying.

After graduating college, she worked as an air quality specialist in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District in Fresno, where she focused on forensic meteorology, determining sources of air pollution.

She just recently completed the F-15C fighter pilot training at Kingsley Field Air National Guard Base in Oregon and uses her degree in meteorology as an asset in her role as a pilot.

Annalisa will now go on to protect the constituents of California's Third Congressional District and the State of California with the 144th Fighter Wing, which provides air defense for the Western United States. The mission of the Wing is air dominance, a sentiment that Annalisa plans to fulfill and exceed in her position.

Her courage and commitment to her community and commitment to giving back to the place that she calls home is truly inspirational.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize Captain Annalisa Sanfilippo for her historic accomplishment, as well as for her heroic and invaluable service to our State and our Nation.

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

Madam Speaker, today, Sergeant Nicole Gee of Roseville was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor that Congress can confer.

Nicole's story has inspired millions across the country. Her heroism is cause for such pride in our community. Her loss remains so difficult to fathom.

A graduate of Oakmont High School, she was one of the 13 Americans killed during the withdrawal from Afghanistan. She had volunteered to go to the Hamid Karzai International Airport to help with the evacuation.

Her fellow marines will report that she worked tirelessly, foregoing sleep and rest to help as many women and children escape as she could.

Many have seen this heart-wrenching photo Nicole posted shortly before her death, holding a baby and saying how much she loved serving our country.

Over the last 3 years, we have continued to honor the legacy of Sergeant Gee. Her former high school, Oakmont, created the Sergeant Nicole Gee Memorial Scholarship. West Roseville is now home to Nicole Gee Road. The Women's Veterans Alliance now annually awards the Beyond the Call of Duty Award in Nicole's honor.

We will carry on the memory of Nicole's life and sacrifice in the years ahead and faithfully abide the solemn responsibility America owes to a fallen soldier: to honor, to memorialize, to never forget, so that Sergeant Gee's legacy will forever be woven into the fabric of our communities.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with an update on the condition of San Francisco, a city whose fate has been largely shaped by several politicians of prominence here in Washington, D.C. Foremost among them are Vice President Kamala Harris and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi.

I think it is important for all Americans to understand the tragedy of San Francisco and what has happened to one of America's most beautiful cities because the same radical failed policies that have caused San Francisco's decline and collapse are gaining increasing traction in Washington, D.C.

I want to go over just a few of the reasons why it is that as the San Francisco Chronicle put it last year, this city is ``on the verge of collapse.''

Indeed, in many ways, my entire State of California offers a preview of where our country has been headed, but San Francisco offers an even starker warning. It is the part of our State where failed policies, radical politics, and public corruption are in their most advanced stage and where residents are most rapidly fleeing.

In an article headlined ``San Francisco Falls Into the Abyss,'' UCLA economics professor Lee Ohanian writes: ``No major American city has failed at the same level as Detroit, whose population dropped from 1.85 million people in 1950 to about 630,000 today. Move over Detroit, here comes San Francisco, which lost 6.3 percent of its population between 2019 and 2021, a rate of decline larger than any 2-year period in Detroit's history and unprecedented among any major U.S. city.''

The city is declining faster than any major U.S. city in the history of our country. The reasons they are not a misery, foremost among them are crime, drug addiction, homelessness, waste, unaffordability, and failing schools, all a result of failed governance.

Let's just start with the crime situation in San Francisco, which is a city that has had a progression of self-described progressive prosecutors starting with now-Vice President Harris who has used that term to describe herself, progressive prosecutor, followed by others in her mold, George Gascon and then Chesa Boudin, who was ultimately recalled from office by voters.

On a State level, California law has essentially legalized many forms of crime, making theft of merchandise below $950 a misdemeanor, as well as the possession of even class A drugs.

In practice, this means offenders are rarely, if ever, prosecuted, and, in many cases, businesses have stopped even reporting losses.

San Francisco's anti-law enforcement policies have compounded these problems. For example, a few years ago in 2020, San Francisco defunded the police shifting $120 million away from law enforcement. If you park your car while in the city, the advice is just to leave the doors open and make sure there are no valuables inside. That will at least spare you the cost of replacing your windshield.

Last year, the Castro Merchants Association, representing 125 businesses wrote a scathing letter regarding the city's failure the address the lawlessness around them. One said: We are just seeing constant vandalism, constant drug use in public, people passed out on the sidewalk, people having psychotic breakdowns, it is just not something a small business owner should have to deal with.

On top of these general problems relating to crime, retail theft, and car thefts is the issue of drug use. Walking through San Francisco you will see open drug use and drug dealing with an open-air drug market scene that is so rampant that even last year Governor Gavin Newsom sent in the National Guard ostensibly to get it under control.

While California has among the highest rates of illegal drug use in the country. San Francisco is well above the national average with 22 percent of the population in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont area using an illegal drug in the last year. Tragically, the number of overdose deaths has skyrocketed from 222 to now 647 in a given year.

Things only got worse during the COVID shutdowns as far more people in the city died from overdoses than from COVID. Facing one of the most punishing lockdowns in the country, emergency room mental health visits increased substantially, especially for young people.

It certainly doesn't help matters that the supply of drugs is abundant thanks to the crisis at our border, largely overseen by this administration's border czar, Vice President Kamala Harris.

It should be noted that San Francisco declared itself a sanctuary city long before California became a sanctuary State.

On that note, the current Vice President also played a starring role when she was district attorney abiding by the city's sanctuary policies. Then when she was the State's attorney general, she actually paved the way for California to become a sanctuary State by opposing a Federal law meant to stop sanctuary jurisdictions.

A third issue that one will confront immediately in San Francisco is the explosion of homelessness. This is very much connected to the crisis of crime, drug use, and mental health.

Once again, while California leads the Nation in homelessness, San Francisco is worst of all. Between 2005 and 2020, the number of homeless increased from 5,404 to 8,124. During that same period, homelessness declined significantly nationwide. Within a 3-year span, complaints of homeless encampments to the city's 311 line increased from 2 to 62 each and every day. Meanwhile, the share of the homeless population that is unsheltered has also gone up in recent years.

Fourthly is the waste situation. Between 2014 and 2018 in San Francisco, calls about human feces doubled to 20,933. $100 million was spent on street cleaning in 2019 alone. In a 3-year span, the city replaced 300 lampposts corroded by urine. The overall condition in many areas is something that no American should ever have to experience, especially kids walking to school.

Speaking of kids, the San Francisco Unified School District has the second widest achievement gap of any school district in California with over 5,000 students. A CalMatters investigation from 2017 found that San Francisco had the worst Black student achievement rate of any county in California. Just 19 percent of Black students in San Francisco passed the State's reading test compared with 31 percent Statewide. This was before COVID. While California was last in the Nation in

getting students back to school, San Francisco was worst of all, keeping schools closed not only in 2020 but through the end of the 2020-2021 school year.

While they refused to actually operate schools, the district instead spent time on a commission to rename them, even proposing taking Abraham Lincoln's name off of an elementary school. The district then came up with a scheme to scam the State by pretending to open for the last 2 weeks of the school year in order to get millions of dollars in extra funding. Predictably, test scores have since plummeted even further.

The citizens of San Francisco, by the way, responded by recalling three of the school board members from office, each by over 70 percent of the vote.

A fifth issue is bureaucracy. It costs an estimated $100,000 to build one tiny home for the homeless, 10 times more than even other places in the bay area. Almost $1.2 million is the cost to build a single unit of affordable housing.

This is the city where it takes 87 permits, a thousand days of meetings, and $500,000 in fees to build residential housing projects. San Franciscan politicians boast that they brought home the bacon when they brought home a $1.7 million taxpayer-funded toilet.

As the San Francisco Chronicle puts it: ``San Francisco's bureaucracy isn't just incompetent and comically inefficient. It is a corrupting force in our city life.''

They say: ``Spiritually, yes. But also literally.'' They call it ``corruption born of needlessly complicated government bureaucracy.''

The public transportation system is a model of mismanagement, with the Bay Area Rapid Transit facing a $1.1 billion deficit over 5 years with trains that are dangerous to ride and that rarely show up on time. No wonder ridership has plummeted and they are projecting a $728 million deficit for the city as a whole over a span of 2 fiscal years.

Finally, there is the cost of living. A survey from the Economist Intelligence Unit found that San Francisco is 1 of the 10 most expensive cities to live in, in the world. The average rent for a one- bedroom apartment is over $3,500. According to data from the California Association of Realtors, a San Franciscan needs to make nearly $400,000 to buy a median-income home. The cost of utilities, groceries, and other goods is also well above the national average.

The city has simply become unaffordable for far too many people.

Now, this is the political situation. This is the reality on the ground in San Francisco, and it is directly linked to the political culture of radicalism that has developed in that city over the course of the last, say, one and a half decades. What is truly alarming is that many of the people who have had positions of leadership, like Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, and Nancy Pelosi, have assumed greater power over our State and over our country.

Indeed, California has seen its own population decline significantly. In fact, we led the Nation in outbound U-Haul rentals over the course of 4 years. Many of those problems I just discussed for San Francisco started to become problems for the entire State and are indeed now starting to become problems for the entire country.

I personally believe it is not too late to turn that particular city around. For proof, look at the communities of my district. While California as a whole is declining and 53 out of 58 of its counties are declining, the vast majority of my district is growing. Placer County and Folsom, for instance, are growing as much as anywhere in the State. Our communities are rated among the best in California to live, raise a family, and retire.

While California, as I said, leads the Nation in U-Haul departures, Roseville is the second-place city in the entire country in U-Haul arrivals. Many of the people leaving San Francisco, in fact, come to my district for safer communities, a more affordable cost of living, better schools, and an overall quality of life.

We still face headwinds of misguided policies enacted on the State level, but we strive to use the tools of local governance and community partnerships to do what is best for our citizens. This is the model that our State should strive for, and it is the model that many other States are following. It is the model for our country to reverse the policies that have gotten us so off track in 3 years.

If we are going to get ourselves back on the right trajectory as a country, then we should, indeed, look to San Francisco as a model, but it is a model of precisely what not to do.

Addressing Homelessness

Mr. Speaker, I share some news out of California just today where Governor Gavin Newsom has issued an executive order for State officials to begin dismantling thousands of homeless encampments on State properties and also encouraging local jurisdictions to do the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, this is in response to the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Grants Pass case. I asked the Supreme Court to do what it did in an amicus brief--that is to say, overturn a misguided Ninth Circuit decision and give our communities back the power to deal with homeless encampments and to have commonsense limits on the public spaces where they can be.

It is important to note that Governor Newsom did not join me in those efforts. He did file his own brief, but he explicitly opposed overturning this lower court decision that has handcuffed our local communities' ability to deal with homelessness.

I am glad to see now that the decision came out as it did and the Court sided with my view as opposed to his, he is seeing the benefits of the decision and is apparently ordering the State to deal with homeless encampments in as much as it can within its jurisdiction and encouraging local jurisdictions to do the same.

I know that, in my district, we already have had communities that have done a very good job limiting homelessness within the constraints that they have, but this decision is going to provide a new set of tools to address the problem in a more comprehensive and compassionate way.

There are other parts of California, such as San Francisco, where the homeless situation has gotten totally out of control. At least to their credit, some of the political leaders there have now realized that they no longer have an excuse now that the Supreme Court has ruled.

Mayor London Breed of San Francisco has announced she will be undertaking ``very aggressive'' sweeps of homeless encampments in that city. We are also hearing of action coming soon potentially in Oakland and in other cities across California.

I did an amicus brief in this case, calling on the Court to rule as it did because I believed it could be a new day for California. The issue of homeless encampments on our streets and sidewalks, in our parks, and on the paths of families walking their children to school or going to the grocery store has been one of the biggest problems facing our State. It has been causing communities to deteriorate. It has been associated with crime, sexual assault, waste, fires, disease, and many other problems.

It has also manifested a complete lack of compassion for the homeless individuals themselves who oftentimes don't go to shelters when available because they are struggling with substance abuse issues and mental health issues.

This Court decision is giving back to our communities the ability to place commonsense restrictions on where homeless encampments can set up in order to protect order, safety, and public health while also allowing the tools to connect these individuals with the services they need to turn their lives around, whether that is substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, other forms of counseling, family reunification, job training, and the like.

It has been shown time and time again that that is the way to help people turn their lives around and get back on their feet, whereas allowing people to simply live, fester, and all too often tragically die on our streets has proven to be a disastrous policy. Indeed, it has gotten to the point where California, at this time, has about half the unsheltered homeless in the entire country.

I do believe that this Court decision that has just come down, combined with our efforts to restore consequences for criminal activity with

what is now being called Prop 36, really can be a path back to sanity and a new day for California.

I am glad to see that the Governor has at least recognized the potential of this Court decision, and I encourage him to make good on these promises to deal with the State's own issues when it comes to State property and provide encouragement for local jurisdictions to do the right thing while respecting their autonomy and flexibility to meet the needs of their communities as they see best.

Honoring Lou Conter

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, we lost a true hero in my district, Lou Conter, who passed away at the age of 103 and was the last survivor of the attack on the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor.

I have just introduced legislation to honor the memory of Commander Conter by naming the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Auburn, California, as the Lou A. Conter VA Clinic.

I will share with folks in my district and across the country, since this is a true American hero, the text of this resolution.

``Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Congress finds the following:

``Louis `Lou' Anthony Conter was born on September 13, 1921, in Ojibwa, Wisconsin.

``Lieutenant Commander Lou Conter, the last remaining survivor of the attack on the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, was an American hero.

``On that fateful day, Petty Officer Conter helped evacuate shipmates who were blinded, wounded, or burned, even restraining some of his fellow shipmates from jumping overboard into the burning sea.

``In the days after the attack, he helped with recovering bodies and putting out fires. Lou Conter's heroic actions saved the lives of many of his shipmates on December 7, 1941.

``Following Pearl Harbor, Conter continued serving during World War II in New Guinea and in Europe as an enlisted naval aviation pilot assigned to VP-11, a `Black Cat' Squadron.

``Lou Conter would be awarded with the Distinguished Flying Cross for actively taking part in the rescue of 219 Australians trapped by Japanese troops in New Guinea.

``Later, in the Korean war, he served on the USS Bon Homme Richard as both an intelligence officer and a Navy aviation pilot. Following his service in the Korean war, he served as a military intelligence adviser to three Presidents: Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson.

``During the 1950s, Lou Conter played a prominent role in the establishment and development of the Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape training program.

``In addition to the Distinguished Flying Cross, he was awarded the Navy Commendation Medal and became the first recipient of the USS Arizona Medal of Freedom.

``Louis Conter retired from the Navy in 1967 after serving 28 years as a lieutenant commander.

``Following his retirement, he generously gave his time to share his personal experiences at veterans' ceremonies and by giving lectures to students.

``Lieutenant Commander Conter's lectures were popular with generations of local students who were equally fascinated and enthralled by his first-person accounts.

``He is eminently deserving of recognition for his decades of service to a grateful nation.

``Lieutenant Commander Conter passed away in Grass Valley, California, on April 1, 2024.

``The Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Auburn, California, shall after the date of the enactment of this act be known and designated at the `Louis A. Conter VA Clinic.' Any reference to such clinic in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be considered to be a reference to the Louis A. Conter VA Clinic.''

Commending Interns

Mr. Speaker, on National Intern Day, I recognize my three summer interns, who graciously came all the way from the great State of California to our Nation's Capital to serve in my Washington, D.C., office.

Amelia Sanchez recently graduated from Long Island University and was also a student athlete who shares a passion for public service. I commend her for the hard work that she has done, and I wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

The second intern I commend is Kevin Scanlan from Grass Valley, California, who recently completed his freshman year at Harvard. He previously distinguished himself as one of my top-performing interns during my 2022 election campaign for the House. His outstanding contributions were recognized statewide in California, culminating in the 2023 Kinder Award for exceptional campaign internship experience.

Following his graduation from Forest Lake Christian High School, Kevin pursued his studies in economics and government at Harvard College. He is deeply passionate about local governance and remains dedicated to fully representing and advocating for constituents to the best of his abilities.

Finally, I commend one of my longest-serving interns, Raghava Kodavatikanti. Raghava is a resident of Folsom, California, and recently wrapped up his freshman year at UCLA.

Even throughout his academic success, Raghava interned with my office while I was in the California Legislature and served in my district office last summer.

I truly could not be prouder of these three young men and women who have been outstanding public servants and have done such a tremendous job for our office. They have tremendously positive attitudes. They are smart. They are dedicated. They understand the importance of the work they do, the responsibility that comes with working for a congressional office, and the responsibility that runs between us and constituents.

I look forward to hearing all about their academic success and look forward to following what is to come next in their respective futures.

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

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks there have been growing concerns among many Americans relating to the capabilities of the President to carry out his duties. Not only that, but there have been concerns about the extent to which some in the White House, perhaps also in the Congress, have limited the ability of Americans to get access to the information that they need to form their own judgment as to those capabilities.

I think there is a lot that is going to need to be investigated in the weeks and months ahead in that regard.

I wanted to just highlight today what might be the most disturbing facet of this situation, and that is the systematic efforts by the Attorney General, the Justice Department, and the White House to illegally defy a congressional subpoena in order to deprive Americans of access to this sort of information.

I want to specifically highlight what is perhaps exhibit A, you might even call it a smoking gun, that the White House acted in a consciously political way and deprived Americans of access to information, defied a congressional subpoena, defied the idea of the separation of powers and checks and balances for purely political reasons.

For months, the Judiciary Committee, under its lawful oversight authority, asked for the Justice Department to produce the interviews that President Biden had with Special Counsel Hur. These interviews were conducted, of course, as part of an investigation into the President's mishandling of classified information. The ultimate report produced by Special Counsel Hur stated that there was significant evidence the President had broken the law, but he was not going to recommend charges for, among other reasons, the fact that the President exhibited diminished faculties and a poor memory in the course of these interviews.

The House Judiciary Committee had several legitimate bases to request access to those interviews, and, indeed, the Justice Department appeared to agree in as much as they did produce transcripts of those interviews. However, they have adamantly and consistently refused to actually provide the best available evidence of materials that they have agreed are pertinent to our oversight responsibilities, and that is the recordings themselves.

These recordings exist. There are audio recordings that continue to be suppressed and concealed from the American people.

What I have here is the letter from the White House counsel Edward Siskel written to the chairman of the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee formally invoking executive privilege. This happened after weeks and weeks and weeks of stonewalling from the Justice Department. It happened moments before a hearing was convened to hold the Attorney General to cite him in contempt. Suddenly, the President exerts executive privilege.

What they said in this letter, this line right here, is really the giveaway. You might even call it a smoking gun. It says: ``The absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings''--of course we had a legitimate need for them cited repeatedly in correspondence, but this is what he said: ``The absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal--to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes. Demanding such sensitive and constitutionally protected law enforcement materials from the executive branch because you want to manipulate them for potential political gain is inappropriate.''

First off, this might remind you of what we have been hearing now for weeks and for months about various videos posted online, that these were somehow selectively edited, these were deepfakes, these were eliminating context. We now know that all of that was fairly bogus in terms of what Americans have now seen plainly with their own eyes.

What is clearly going on in this paragraph is the White House is relying on a political justification for withholding materials, but they know they can't state that explicitly, so they simply accuse us on the committee of having a political motivation. You don't even have to read between the lines. It is stated right there directly that they are afraid that these materials would be used against the President for potential political gain. In other words, they are afraid that they would be politically harmful to the President. That is not--that is not--a valid legal basis for defying a congressional subpoena. It is not a valid basis for asserting executive privilege, and it is very revealing as far as what the White House knew about the recordings and about the concerns that the American people have in overwhelming numbers right now is they feared that what was

revealed in those recordings would be politically disadvantageous to the President.

As we continue to learn more about the efforts that have been undertaken by the White House to deprive Americans of their right to know the most crucial of information, I think that this report and this entire series of events related to the subpoena issued to the Attorney General is going to be a very important starting point.

Celebrating Proposition 36

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an important moment for the people of my State of California with the official qualification of Proposition 36 for the November ballot.

This is the initiative to end the era of Proposition 47 in California, which has been responsible for a huge increase in theft, other crimes, homelessness, drug use, drug overdoses, and a whole host of other problems.

The initiative has qualified for the ballot and will be voted on by Californians this November, and I believe it will pass overwhelmingly this November in spite of one of the most corrupt schemes in the history of our State that was cooked up by the Governor of California-- actually, a series of repeated schemes, all very novel and unprecedented in character, all directly meant to undermine the democratic process in California, all meant to continue to make our communities unsafe, and all of which, despite the Governor having an overwhelmingly supermajority legislature, failed.

The people of California, despite the Governor's best efforts, will have the chance to reverse one of the most damaging laws in our State's history. I think that it is simply important to note, for all Americans to see, when you have something like this that happens within our system where you have an elected official--in this case, the Governor-- who directly seeks to undermine the democratic process. After they tried and tried to stop this initiative from getting the requisite signatures to qualify for the ballot in every way, they began a scheme to try to remove it from the ballot, using a host of pressure tactics to try to get the organizers of the initiative to withdraw.

When that failed, the Governor came up with a truly unprecedented scheme where they inserted poison pills into a smattering of existing public safety bills in the legislature. These poison pills stated something truly incredible, which is to say that they would be automatically reversed if voters passed the end Prop. 47 initiative in November.

The point of this was to give the attorney general a pretext for lying to voters about what the initiative would do. They would say because now there was this poison pill that would reverse all of these public safety bills, if voters pass the initiative, then the initiative is actually an anti-public safety bill.

Fortunately, the legislature ultimately refused to do the Governor's bidding. They said this is too corrupt for us. We want nothing to do with it, and that plan failed. Then, in the eleventh hour, when it was past the deadline even to put an initiative on the ballot, the Governor offered up a Hail Mary where he said: Okay, I can't get the end Prop. 47 initiative off the ballot, so what I am going to do is to put on my own competing initiative, which is watered down, which is a very weak initiative, but that will be enough to confuse voters.

What is more, he put in there that if his initiative passed with higher numbers, then the other initiative would be wiped out in its entirety, even though there are a lot of things in it that didn't conflict.

It was literally a mechanism that the Governor proposed, drafted, and introduced in the legislature to overturn the results of a democratic election in California where the end 47 initiative could have passed with 60 percent of the vote. Nevertheless, it would have been null and void, according to the trick that the Governor tried to implement.

He even moved back the deadline for propositions to qualify. He even moved back the deadline for the secretary of state to number the proposition so that his own proposition--the imposter initiative, we called it--would get a higher number and then have a better chance of getting more votes. Fortunately, this scheme failed, as well.

Once again, his own supermajority in the legislature refused to do the Governor's bidding. So now, it is official. Californians will have the opportunity to vote on what has now been numbered as Proposition 36. It will be a fair vote where voters can decide whether we want to continue with this failed experiment or whether we want to return respect to our law enforcement officials, have appropriate consequences for thieves, be able to get drug offenders the treatment they need, and be able to hold fentanyl dealers accountable.

That is what this initiative is going to do. I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the concerted efforts by the Governor of California to thwart and undermine our democratic process in an attempt to keep our communities unsafe.

Supporting the SAVE Act

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, the SAVE Act, which requires individuals to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in Federal elections.

I am very grateful to say that I voted for this bill today and that it has passed out of the House of Representatives with bipartisan support, though not nearly as much bipartisan support as it should have.

In States like Massachusetts, Ohio, and Virginia, noncitizens have recently been removed from the voting rolls, and many of those noncitizens, it appears, have actually voted.

The Arizona secretary of state website is currently falsely promoting the idea that individuals who fail to present proof of citizenship when registering will be eligible to vote in Federal elections.

We also have several municipalities, including in California, that have explicitly authorized noncitizens to vote in municipal elections. H.R. 8281, the SAVE Act, seeks to address these problems in a couple of ways.

It will, number one, require an individual to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in Federal elections and, number two, provide States with access to existing Federal databases so they can clean up their voter rolls and remove noncitizens from the rolls.

This should be a pretty commonsense idea, that only American citizens should vote in American elections. It is astonishing to me that you had a couple of hundred people in the House of Representatives today who voted against this, although, fortunately, it did pass, again, with bipartisan support.

One of the objections to the bill was very interesting. The objection was: Wait a minute, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections. We don't need this law.

It is also already illegal for folks to cross our border illegally. It is kind of a tautology. It is illegal to immigrate illegally.

Does that mean it is not happening? No. Of course, it is happening in an overwhelming way unlike we have ever seen in our country's history, with millions and millions of people coming into this country illegally.

What we have learned from this administration's approach to illegal immigration is that simply having something be unauthorized under our laws is sometimes insufficient to address the problem.

While it is true it is already illegal to come into this country without being granted a pathway to be here legally, nevertheless, we need to pass bills like H.R. 2 that provide enforcement and safeguards and that ensure that the law is being followed.

In a similar vein, even though it is already illegal for noncitizens to cast a ballot, we need to have this legislation to put in place equivalent safeguards to make sure that it doesn't occur.

That is why I am encouraging the Senate to act promptly, now that it is in its court, to pass the SAVE Act to close the loopholes that are allowing this to happen, to enhance our election security, to minimize the risk of outside interference, and to restore and protect Americans' confidence in our elections.

Addressing FAFSA Deadlines

Mr. Speaker, every year, millions of high schoolers across the country who are interested in pursuing higher education fill out the Federal

Application for Federal Student Aid or FAFSA.

The FAFSA is designed to make post-secondary education accessible and affordable for students across the United States and let students know what Federal student aid, Pell grants, or work-study programs are available to them.

Traditionally, the FAFSA is released by October 1 every year, giving students, families, and schools plenty of time to decide what post- secondary education is right for them. Unfortunately, the Department of Education under President Biden has been unable to meet this standard. As early as 2022, the Department of Education refused to commit to the traditional October 1 release of the FAFSA application for the 2024- 2025 school year.

Mr. Speaker, 6 months later, in March, the Department finally admitted that it would be delayed until ``sometime in December,'' only to reveal in November that the launch date would be on December 31, the very end of December.

When the forms were finally released, processing of completed FAFSAs was delayed for months. Once processing finally began, millions contained calculation errors, rendering them useless for schools and requiring reprocessing. This caused great confusion for schools and families, and schools were forced to push back deadlines, causing uncertainty and stress for fall enrollment as if the process of applying for college isn't stressful enough.

Current law recommends FAFSA be released by October 1 but allows the Department of Education to delay the FAFSA release until January 1. Last year, the Department abused the statutory gap and continually failed to give a clear date for when the FAFSA would be released.

That is why I am cosponsoring a piece of legislation that passed the Committee on Education and the Workforce yesterday, the FAFSA Deadline Act. The FAFSA Deadline Act gives students, families, and schools much- needed clarity and stability by ensuring the FAFSA is released on October 1.

Choosing the right college is stressful, and students and families should not have to deal with added uncertainty from the Department of Education. This legislation will prevent any future delayed rollouts by the Department of Education.

I am proud to have supported it in committee, to be a cosponsor. I am hoping it will soon pass the House and Senate and be signed into law by the President.

Preserving Lake Tahoe

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent truly one of the most beautiful places in the entire world, Lake Tahoe, and I am very proud to be a sponsor of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act.

We got some good news just this week. The Senate has acted on this legislation to extend the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act for another 10 years.

Lake Tahoe is a national treasure, and we must honor our commitment to preserving it for generations to come, which is what this legislation seeks to assist with.

For over 50 years, Presidents, Governors, Senators, and Representatives from both parties have worked in a bipartisan fashion to protect the natural beauty and wonder of Lake Tahoe. I was honored to join many of them last year at the Lake Tahoe Summit and will be doing so again this August.

Nearly 80 percent of the land in the Lake Tahoe Basin is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service.

The bipartisan Lake Tahoe Restoration Act provides the Federal share for the environmental restoration projects in the basin in partnership with California, Nevada, local governments, and nonprofit and for- profit partners.

Since its enactment, a total of $104.7 million has been appropriated for the current Lake Tahoe Restoration Act as of fiscal year 2023, which is about 27 percent of the total authorization.

While Congress has steadily increased the pace of appropriations under the bill since its enactment, the act has a significant level of spending authority remaining under what was originally a 7-year bill.

Since its previous authorization, funds have gone to more than 700 projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and Lake Tahoe's waters are the clearest they have been in decades. We are keeping Lake Tahoe blue.

Nonetheless, that won't happen without continued work on the part of all of these stakeholders and the assistance provided by this legislation.

Lake Tahoe welcomes millions of visitors from around the world every year and is home to 55,000 residents. I remain committed to continuing the long history of bipartisan leadership that has preserved and protected this special place.

It is up to all of us working together to assure that future generations will continue to be able to experience the beauty that those of us who live or vacation or travel to Tahoe have the great fortune to experience.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to act quickly on this bipartisan legislation, and I urge the President to sign it into law.

Honoring the Memory of Jackie Weston

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I wish to take a moment to honor the memory of Jackie Weston, an Auburn resident and community leader who, sadly and tragically, passed away recently at the age of 40.

Jackie was an anchor to the local business community, serving as the chief executive officer of the Auburn Chamber of Commerce.

Her journey began when she moved to Auburn, California, in 1985, where she became an integral part of the community, graduating from Placer High School and embedding herself into the fabric of the community.

She dedicated herself to the betterment of Auburn, channeling her enthusiasm and dedication into countless community initiatives.

Jackie embodied the essence of leadership, tirelessly volunteering her time, organizing parades, nurturing the local business community, and extending a helping hand to all.

Her impact on Auburn has been profound, and it will be enduring, leaving an indelible mark that will resonate for a long, long time to come.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and California's Third Congressional District, I wish to extend my deepest condolences to Jackie's partner, Ian; her children, Solomon and Evelyn; and the countless others whose lives were touched by her remarkable spirit and generosity.

Celebrating the 25th Anniversary of Scott's Seafood Roundhouse

Mr. Speaker, I wish to mark and celebrate the 25-year anniversary of Scott's Seafood Roundhouse in Folsom, California.

In 1976, Scott's Seafood Grill & Bar opened in San Francisco, but it was in 1999 when John and Suzanne Cook brought Scott's to the Folsom community.

For the past 25 years, the bar and grill has served as a premier community establishment, engaging and enriching Folsom and the broader region with its quality food and service.

While it has always been located in Folsom, it moved 4 years ago to the city's historic district. Now located in the heart of Folsom, Scott's Seafood is becoming a local household name that was able to navigate through the immense challenges of COVID-19, as well as the devastating passing of the owner, John Cook, in 2022.

However, the resilience and continued passion for their business is very much evident in John's widow, Suzanne.

Scott's Seafood is known not only for their fresh seafood and delicious meals, but also for their commitment to actively participating in and serving their community.

It is a true honor to represent exemplary businesses, such as Scott's Seafood, here in Congress.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, it is my privilege to recognize Scott's Seafood Roundhouse for reaching this significant milestone of 25 years in business.

I congratulate them, and I thank them for all they do for our community.

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

Madam Speaker, today is a new day for California.

The United States Supreme Court has just issued a landmark decision relating to homelessness and has taken the course of action that I asked it to in an amicus brief that I organized on behalf of myself and several other Representatives from California and other Western States.

This decision gives our communities back the power to regulate homelessness in a smart, commonsense, and compassionate way.

Right now, homelessness in California is a crisis. It is a tragedy. It is a national disgrace. Half of the unsheltered homeless in the entire country are in California, and the consequences of that throughout our State have been profound.

The unchecked growth of homeless encampments is causing many of our communities to deteriorate. It is associated with crime, disease, open drug use, and many other problems.

Businesses are closing in California seemingly every day because of this problem. You have families that have to walk around tents or dodge needles just walking their kids to school or going out to get groceries. The problem has only continued to get worse and worse.

It is rooted, in many respects, in an extremely misguided and unique, across the country, decision from the Ninth Circuit, which covers California and some other States in the West. This decision, known as Martin v. Boise, tied the hands of States, cities, counties, and local communities in being able to deal with homeless encampments. It effectively has made it impossible to ban camping in public

places or to regulate encampments in our parks, streets, and sidewalks in a commonsense way, and limit the ability to set up tent encampments. This decision came from the Ninth Circuit in California covering law in California. Such a decision does not exist anywhere else in the country, yet our communities have been subject to it for several years now.

Today's decision from the U.S. Supreme Court finally looked at whether that local, lower court decision in the Ninth Circuit was correct. I wrote an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Boise decision. That is precisely what the Court did today.

This is an incredibly significant moment for our State. It is restoring the power to local communities that should never have been taken away, and it is a chance to truly turn things around. It presents an opportunity for a much better future in California.

We can now reclaim our public spaces, restore order, and reduce crime. We can make our communities safer and healthier. Our streets and sidewalks can become walkable and safer again. Businesses can return, and local economies can flourish. Our parks can become places for recreation and can be safe and pleasant for kids and families. Maybe most important of all, we can get homeless individuals into shelters and connect them with the services that they need to get back on their feet and turn their lives around.

This is the true tragedy of the situation that has been allowed to exist and fester and get worse and worse in California. We have so many people living on our streets and, all too tragically, nearly every day dying on our streets; who have substance abuse problems and who have mental health issues. Yet, because of the state of the law, they are not getting access to the help they need. These are folks that could lead great, happy, fulfilling lives, but because of the state of the law, they are stuck living in terrible conditions, unable to turn their lives around.

This decision also comes just one day after the California Secretary of State has certified for November a ballot initiative that would, in large part, overturn and amend proposition 47, which has also been linked to the rise of homelessness and crime in California. This initiative will restore appropriate consequences for repeat thieves. It will enable us to get treatment for repeat drug offenders, and it will toughen penalties for fentanyl dealers and help us get that crisis under control.

These two things, the reversal of the Boise decision and the opportunity to reform proposition 47, truly are a turning point for California. For those who look around and wonder every day what became of our beautiful State, today is a new day.

Our State has been heading in the wrong direction for some time, but I believe this is a chance to move in a totally different direction. This is a chance to restore common sense and improve the quality of life for all Californians. This is a chance to make our communities a better place to live, work, raise a family, and retire. It is a chance to become the State that leads the Nation in the right ways again.

California has so much to offer, so much potential, so much possibility. Today, I am as hopeful for our State as I have been in a very long time.

President Biden Should Release Interview Recordings

Madam Speaker, today, I am calling, once again, on President Biden to release the tapes of his interviews with Special Counsel Robert Hur.

The House Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena asking for these recordings, and Biden and his Justice Department have unlawfully refused and exerted executive privilege in a situation where that privilege is totally inapplicable.

We don't need to speculate as to why the administration is doing this. They have told us so directly. In a letter to the Judiciary Committee, the White House stated that they are afraid that the recordings would be used against the President and damage him politically. The thing is that is not an appropriate basis for defying a congressional subpoena.

Let's remember how this all started. After it was discovered that the President was unlawfully in possession of classified documents, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Special Counsel Robert Hur to investigate the matter.

After a monthslong investigation, Mr. Hur issued a report in which he found substantial evidence that the President had committed the crime of willfully retaining classified documents and his purpose for doing so was to assist him in writing a book that was going to be sold for personal profit.

Special Counsel Hur reported the significant evidence of crimes, but he did not charge the President. One of the reasons he said he did not do so, even though he testified that a reasonable juror could have voted to convict, is because he found, based on his experience with the President in the interviews, that he would come across to a jury as a-- I believe the quote was--``a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.''

The Judiciary Committee has multiple legitimate grounds for getting access to the materials surrounding this investigation. This is a basic oversight function. This is how it works when it comes to the separation of powers and checks and balances.

The committee has clearly articulated the rationale for being entitled to the recordings, yet the Justice Department has refused to hand them over. Then on the very day that the Judiciary Committee convened to issue a contempt citation against the Attorney General for defying the subpoena, suddenly there was an assertion of executive privilege.

However, there are several reasons that this is invalid. Number one is that the privilege has been waived, if there ever was a privilege. The White House has already released transcripts of the interviews, and so there is no rational basis for saying that the transcripts are not privileged but the interview itself, the recordings themselves, are privileged.

Secondly, the administration has now presented contradictory arguments for withholding the recordings. At first, they said we are not going to give them to you because we have already given you the transcripts and that is cumulative, meaning they are the same thing. Now the administration is arguing that they are so different that one is privileged and the other is not.

The main basis they have given for withholding the recordings is that this will somehow discourage witnesses in future investigations from cooperating with the investigation, but this argument has no merit whatsoever. Again, they have already handed over the transcripts. Whatever deterrent effect might exist, surely it would apply to the possible revelation of the interviews in printed form just as much as it would in oral form.

That being said, we also need to remember that the President was not just a witness in this case; he was actually the target of the investigation. If we are really looking at what effect this would have on future investigations, it would only apply to that very narrow set of investigations where a President is being investigated by his own administration.

Apparently, the argument that the President and Attorney General are making is that in that future, very narrow circumstance, if the President knows that the transcript of his interviews will be released, he will be okay sitting for the interview, but if he knows that the recording will be released then he won't. Obviously, this makes no sense whatsoever.

The reason that the White House is grasping for completely frivolous arguments is because they have actually already revealed their true motivation. They put it in print. They put it in writing. They said they are afraid this will be used against the President politically.

That is not the way the rule of law works. I find it offensive, as a Member of the House, that the White House and the Attorney General have so little respect for the separation of powers and checks and balances and are willing to put politics before the rule of law.

Today, I am once again calling upon the President and the Attorney General to follow the law, comply with the subpoena, and release those recordings to the public.

Vehicle Choice for Consumers

Madam Speaker, following the testimony before our committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, yesterday by

Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, I am again calling for the Senate to pass legislation that has already passed this House to stop California from banning gas-powered vehicles.

California has announced this ban, and now some 18 other States are going along with it, States that have linked their emissions policies to California. The ban is set to go into effect by 2035. This was done, by the way, simply by regulation, not even by a vote of the legislature.

Now, I am all for electric vehicles. I have many constituents who drive them. However, I think that it should be a matter of choice, that folks should have the chance and the opportunity to select what vehicle they want to drive.

The interesting thing about yesterday's testimony by Secretary Buttigieg is that he actually agreed with me. He testified several times, and confirmed in response to my questioning, that he does not favor a ban on gas-powered vehicles. He said that this should be a matter for consumers to choose. Supposedly that would appear to be the same position that I have, that this should be a matter of consumer choice.

Then I asked him whether he is against California's attempt to ban gas-powered vehicles, and the Secretary responded: This is a matter of States' rights. The State should be able to do whatever it wants.

Here is the problem. The Federal Government, the Biden administration, is actually enabling California to do this. California would not have the ability to ban gas-powered cars if it were not for the Biden administration giving it special authority to do so, giving California a waiver under the Clean Air Act.

This is something that California asked the Biden administration for and the Biden administration granted. Saying they are just deferring to what the State is doing, that argument has no merit. In fact, it is precisely the actions of the Biden administration that is allowing California to take this completely overreaching action of saying we are going to ban all gas-powered vehicles within about a decade.

I was very happy that legislation that I am supporting, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, passed the House of Representatives.

This would simply rescind the authority that the Biden administration gave California to ban gas-powered cars. It passed the House of Representatives, but it has been languishing in the Senate.

I think it is incredibly important that the Senate take action so that we restore the confidence on the part of consumers in California and now in many other parts of the country that their right to choose which vehicle to buy will not be taken away.

High-Speed Rail Boondoggle

Madam Speaker, following yesterday's testimony by Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, I am, again, calling for oversight and, ideally, the end of the high-speed rail projects in California.

The Biden administration recently awarded California high-speed rail $3.1 billion, and Secretary Buttigieg stood behind the project in his testimony yesterday.

However, this project has now been going on for 16 years. Its cost has multiplied many times over. Estimates are it is now around $128 billion, and The L.A. Times reported that there is a $100 billion funding shortfall even with the $3.1 billion that the Biden administration provided.

Yet, nevertheless, despite this enormous increase in cost and despite the fact that essentially nothing has been built for 16 years, the Biden administration is giving life support for the project in a way that will cause Californians to have to keep paying taxes to support it going forward and in a way, as well, that takes money and funding away that could have gone toward maintaining our roads and providing the transportation services that California so desperately needs.

I asked Secretary Buttigieg about a report from The New York Times that the bullet train actually is not even on track to be finished this century. It is not on track to be finished this century, and the Secretary disagreed with The New York Times. He said that it will be finished this century. In fact, he said that it would be finished by 2050, by mid-century, although he would not provide any further estimate other than to say that it should be completed within the next 26 years.

However, Madam Speaker, if you look at people who have been directly involved in the project, they say it is not going to be finished at all.

Michael Tannenbaum, who was the first leader of the High-Speed Rail Authority, said: I realize the system didn't work. I don't know how they can build it now.

Dan Richard, who was also chairman of the High-Speed Rail Authority, in fact, he was the longest serving chairman, said: I don't think it is an existing project. It is a loser.

Rich Tolmach, who is head of the nonprofit California Rail Foundation, said that it will never be operable.

Why is the Biden administration giving it $3.1 billion?

Moreover, why is a project that has a $100 billion funding shortfall allowed to continue?

The reality is that high-speed trains have been built in many parts of the world, and folks who travel abroad in America see it work. Indeed, one of the first operators of the High-Speed Rail Authority worked on it here in California for several years and then said: We are out. Enough is enough.

They left. They said that it is too politically dysfunctional here, so they decided to go to North Africa where they said it was less politically dysfunctional. Indeed, they did bring a high-speed rail train on line in Morocco in 2018.

This project has failed not because of the limits of the technology or even necessarily because of a lack of demand, it has failed because of political failures. At this point, our State would be much better served if we stopped throwing good money after bad.

I am fortunate and I am glad to see that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee led by Chairman Graves has opened up an investigation into the High-Speed Rail Authority. I believe it is about time there was finally some accountability for what might be one of the biggest boondoggles in the history of the United States.

recognizing pottery world

Madam Speaker, I now wish to recognize a few outstanding organizations in my district.

Madam Speaker, I wish to mark and celebrate the 50-year anniversary of Pottery World, a valued retailer in California's Third Congressional District.

Throughout the years, this business enterprise has served as a premier destination for one's home and garden design needs.

In 1974, Jim and Sharon Rodda started the business by setting up shop at an open-air market, Denio's Auction, in Roseville.

Their first outlet was on Auburn Boulevard where they sold salt and pepper shakers, dinnerware, and cookie jars.

While the style, times, and types of items sold at the store have changed, one constant has remained, and that is their commitment to selling pots.

Marked by the American entrepreneurial spirit, a passion for beautiful design, and tireless devotion, working 7 days a week for 7 years, the Rodda family's dream blossomed into a thriving business and became a family legacy.

In 2000, their second retail location in Rocklin opened, featuring a spectacular 30,000-square foot indoor showroom and a 3-acre outdoor display area.

The Rocklin retail complex is completed by the highly acclaimed restaurant, the Pottery World Cafe. In 2008, they opened their third store in El Dorado Hills.

Through this growth, their family business now employs over 80 people and offers thousands of unique luxury items, including pottery imported from seven different countries.

Pottery World is known not only for having a large selection of indoor and outdoor living amenities, fountains, pottery, and a boutique, but also for their generous spirit and participation in their community.

I applaud Pottery World for their five decades of contributions to our local economy and dedication to inspiring luxury home decor and design.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and California's Third Congressional District, I am proud to recognize and congratulate Pottery World for reaching

this significant milestone, and I wish them continued success in the years to come.

Recognizing Flights to Freedom

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize Flights to Freedom for their significant contributions toward fighting human trafficking.

Sadly, human trafficking occurs across our country in all 50 States, and it has become one of the fastest growing criminal activities in the world as an approximately $150-billion-a-year global criminal industry.

This form of modern-day slavery can include sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, child soldiers, forced labor, organ selling, financial bonding, forced marriage, and extortion.

However, Flights for Freedom is dedicated to partnering with law enforcement and government agencies to provide rescued human trafficking victims with private and safe air transportation to transport them to safety and reunite them with their family, loved ones, and support groups.

It is because of organizations like Flights for Freedom that children and other victims are able to find a way out of these horrific situations, recover, and lead a successful life.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and California's Third Congressional District, I am honored to recognize Flights to Freedom today for their dedicated efforts toward ending human trafficking and providing hope, as well as a way home.

100th Anniversary of Alice Piper Decision

Madam Speaker, I wish to celebrate the centennial anniversary of the Piper v. Big Pine School District of Inyo County decision which led to the desegregation of Native American youth in California public schools.

At a young age of 15 years old, Alice Piper, a member of the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of California, was joined by six other Native American students from Inyo County who sought to enroll in the new, local public school.

When they were denied entry due to their Native American heritage, these young students courageously fought for equality by taking their case to the California Supreme Court. On June 2, 1924, the Supreme Court of California unanimously ruled in Piper's favor, opening the door for Native American students in the State of California to attend public schools.

This ruling was cited as precedent in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education case, which, of course, established racial segregation in public schools as unconstitutional.

Alice Piper was a trailblazer in California history whose bravery and tenacity was instrumental toward expanding the civil rights and educational opportunities available to millions of students across the State, and eventually the country, for generations to come.

As a former educator myself, I am proud to stand on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and join the Big Pine Paiute Tribe and Native American communities throughout the State of California in commemorating, 100 years later, this landmark decision that changed the course of history and ended the racial segregation of Native American students in California schools.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a textbook example of the executive branch obstructing the oversight function of Congress.

The committees of jurisdiction here have clearly set forth the legal basis for compelling disclosure of President Biden's interviews with Special Counsel Hur. Now the administration has agreed with us inasmuch as they have produced the transcripts of those recordings. However, they have grasped wildly for some basis on which to withhold the recordings themselves. The most telling is that they have given contradictory reasons for doing so.

At first, they said they weren't going to hand over the recordings because they were cumulative of the transcripts, meaning they were so similar to the transcripts that we didn't need them. Later, they argued that, in fact, they are so different from the transcripts that one is privileged and the other is not.

When you have self-contradictory arguments being made, that is a sign that the true purpose here is obstruction.

Perhaps the most absurd argument we have heard is the supposed interest asserted by the administration for withholding the recordings, which is disclosing them might discourage witnesses from cooperating in future high-profile investigations.

In this case, the President is not merely a witness. He is the target of an investigation by his own administration. By the way, Special Counsel Hur testified before our committee that based on that investigation, a reasonable juror could have voted to convict President Biden.

What is the administration arguing the interest here is? It is that if somewhere down the line there might be another President who is subject to an investigation by his own administration, then the argument goes that if that President knows that the transcript will be released, then he will sit for the interview, but if he knows there is a chance that a recording might be released, then he won't cooperate.

This is an absurd proposition, Mr. Speaker, certainly not sufficient to override the legitimate oversight interests of the House of Representatives.

Frankly, this is not how we would like to be spending floor time, but the recalcitrance and obstruction of this administration has made it necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to name the following members of the Placer County Sheriff's Office to the 2024 Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll: Sergeant Isaiah Tchobanoff, Deputy Richard Porter, Deputy John Tannarome, Deputy Brandon Winschell, Deputy Paul Solbos, Deputy Kevin Hills, Deputy Joseph Durant.

On the night of May 2, 2024, deputies in the Placer County Sheriff's Office were on patrol in the city of Colfax in Placer County. The deputies observed a suspicious vehicle parked at the rear of a local restaurant that matched the vehicle description of one used while in the commission of a residential burglary earlier in the week of a Placer County citizen.

Deputies Solbos, Porter, and Tannarome attempted to contact the van occupant, who was verbally uncooperative and refused lawful orders to exit the vehicle.

Deputy Solbos called for his supervisor, Sergeant Tchobanoff, and Deputy Durant to respond and assist them. Deputies Winschell and Hills arrived a short time later.

While instituting a plan to deescalate the situation and remove the occupant from the vehicle safely, the driver of the van fired a gun from inside the vehicle, striking Deputy Porter in the upper torso.

Deputies at the scene returned fire, and Deputy Porter was immediately provided medical aid by deputies on the scene and was transported to the nearest helicopter landing zone by his fellow deputies awaiting an air ambulance.

Additional deputies and officers from outside agencies began arriving as Deputy Porter was flown to the nearest trauma center, Sutter Roseville Medical Center.

Deputy Porter spent four nights in the hospital surrounded by his loved ones and his colleagues from the sheriff's office. In tremendous news, he was released to go home on Monday, May 6, 2024, and was escorted home by the sheriff, undersheriff, and assistant sheriff, along with the command staff and patrol staff.

These law enforcement officers acted with the utmost professionalism and bravery on May 2, 2024. They trusted the advanced officer training the sheriff's office had provided and were calm, committed, and focused.

That night was a true testament to their unwavering commitment to the community they serve. Their actions embody the core values of the Placer County Sheriff's Office, and all Placer County residents can take enormous pride in these outstanding officers.

For their bravery and dedication to public safety, I am honored to include these fine law enforcement officers in the 2024 Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll.

In Remembrance of Aldo Pineschi

Mr. Speaker, it is with a very heavy heart that I wish to take a moment to honor the memory of Aldo Pineschi, a Roseville resident and community leader who passed away a few weeks ago on May 28, 2024.

Aldo was born and raised in Roseville, California, which is also where he decided to raise his family. Aldo attended the local high school and community college until he transferred to UC Davis, where he graduated with a degree in political science.

After his education, he worked in government relations and public affairs for 40 years and owned and operated Aldo Pineschi Consulting. Beyond his thriving career, Aldo placed his heart at the center of Placer County and served the communities within numerous leadership and volunteer positions.

His contributions to the region include his work with the Placer Business Alliance, with many of the area chambers of commerce, and several local nonprofits, such as Lighthouse Counseling, Visit Placer, The Placer Breast Cancer Foundation, and many, many more.

He raised scholarship funds for local students and was a driving force behind organizations that would help struggling families afford everyday necessities. He had a strong commitment to and understanding of the pulse of the local business community and was an invaluable contributor to the economic vitality and success of the region.

Aldo's wide diversity of accomplishments improved the quality of life and experiences for residents, businesses, and visitors in the area. It is because of the exceptional leadership and passion of people like Aldo Pineschi that Placer County and the communities that comprise it are such great places to live, work, raise a family, and retire.

Aldo will be remembered for many, many things: by his countless friends in our county, for his wise counsel, his innate kindness, and his care and consideration for those around him. As a pillar in our community, I am confident that the remarkable legacy he left behind in Placer County will be felt for generations to come.

Therefore, on behalf of California's Third Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I want to offer a heartfelt condolence to Aldo's wife, Lesli, children, Evangeline and Anthony, and the countless other lives that he touched throughout Placer County and the surrounding region.

Mr. Aldo Pineschi will be greatly missed, but his legacy will be felt for a very, very long time to come.

In Recognition of Johanna Tackitt

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to recognize an outstanding and prominent educator from California's Third Congressional District.

I would like to highlight a teacher from the Eastern Sierra Unified School District, Johanna Tackitt, who has dedicated 22 years toward a career in education.

Mrs. Tackitt earned her bachelor of science degree in elementary education from the University of Nevada, Reno, and a master's in advanced teaching leadership from Sierra Nevada College.

She proudly teaches at Antelope Elementary School in Coleville, California, where she has instructed classes of students in the third grade and transitional kindergarten and kindergarten.

As a young girl, Mrs. Tackitt became passionate about horses and barrel racing. Through this passion, she was inspired to become a teacher by her friend and mentor, Lauretta, who taught her dressage. She strove to emulate Lauretta's qualities of patience, positivity, and care, and later became a coach herself.

This ultimately led Mrs. Tackitt to the teaching profession, where she used these skills and values to become beloved by students, parents, and staff.

Her unique abilities as a former coach help her build trusting relationships with students in which she guides them toward reaching their goals, and thereby creates confident young students who believe in themselves and know they can achieve anything.

For these reasons and many more, Mrs. Tackitt was recently recognized as the 2022-2023 Mono County Teacher of the Year. She is known by others for her strong work ethic, patience, and knowledge, as well as for treating her students with respect, kindness, and empathy.

Students leave Mrs. Tackitt's classroom excited about school and learning, which is commendable. I applaud Mrs. Tackitt for her dedication to education, to the development of her students, and to promoting overall student success in academic achievement.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am pleased to recognize Mrs. Johanna Tackitt for her significant contributions to the Eastern Sierra Unified School District and to the students of Antelope Elementary School.

Recognizing Tahoe Forest Health System

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Tahoe Forest Health System for 75 years of providing exceptional healthcare services to the Tahoe region.

In 1949, Richard Joseph and his family donated the land necessary for the construction of the new hospital in Truckee. The donation was made with the desire to care for their local community members and in memory of their son, Levon Joseph, who was tragically killed during his military service in World War II.

The community rallied behind the idea of a new hospital, and under the legacy of generosity, the Tahoe Forest Hospital District was formed. In 1952, the hospital facility named the Tahoe

Forest Hospital officially opened its doors.

The original hospital consisted of 15 beds and 2 physicians. Since its inception, the Tahoe Forest Health System has grown along with the community it serves. The Tahoe Forest Hospital expanded to 25 acute care beds and 36 long-term care beds while also providing a wide array of critical rural healthcare services, including community health outreach programs.

The hospital service area now covers six rural counties, two States, and approximately 3,500 square miles. The hospital was further developed by building the Gene Upshaw Memorial Tahoe Cancer Center and the Incline Village Community Hospital, a four-bed critical access hospital offering 24-hour emergency care, as well as a variety of other clinical health services.

The Tahoe Forest Health System has contributed to the health and well-being of Tahoe residents and visitors for more than seven decades and is a vital resource for our local mountain communities.

Tahoe Forest Health has earned multiple awards, partnerships, and recognitions and sets a high standard for excellence in rural healthcare. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize the Tahoe Forest Health System in celebration of their 75-year anniversary, and I applaud them for their ongoing commitment to providing quality and compassionate healthcare services.

Overturn Proposition 47

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment this evening to bring the country's attention to one of the most shocking and twisted things I have ever seen in the world of politics, which is happening right now in my State of California.

There is a scheme playing out right now on the part of the State's ruling politicians to undermine a democratic election and make nearly 40 million Californians less safe. This relates to the crime problem in our State, which, of course, is not just a California issue.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been part of several field hearings in some of America's worst cities when it comes to high crime rates, including Chicago, Philadelphia, Manhattan, and right here in Washington, D.C.

It is perhaps in my State, in California, especially in cities like Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, where the problem is most pronounced, thanks in large part to a series of criminal laws that have been passed that are uniquely permissive and that are uniquely restrictive of the ability of law enforcement to keep our communities safe.

Yet, there is one law in particular that is at the root of many of the problems that we see in California when it comes to homelessness, open-air drug markets, retail theft, and smash-and-grabs. That is an initiative known as Proposition 47, which was passed in 2014 under the false name of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, and since that time has caused an epidemic of retail theft by eliminating virtually any consequence for stealing.

It has also had the tragic consequence of making it so we cannot get drug addicts who are living on our streets, in many cases dying tragically on our streets, in many cases for fentanyl and other drugs, where we can't get them the help they need now because it has decimated our drug court system. Prosecutors no longer have the ability to use a possible felony conviction as leverage to get offenders to sign up for treatment.

For the last decade, this very misguided initiative, Proposition 47, has caused these problems to build and build in California and has made our communities less and less safe, has made our quality of life in California lower and lower, has been a major reason why people have been leaving our State in record numbers when, for much of its history, California has been the State that everyone wanted to come to.

After a decade, over the course of the last several months, there has been a citizen-led effort in California to overturn the worst provisions of Proposition 47, to restore consequences for retail theft, to revive drug treatment for those who need it, and to take on the scourge of fentanyl that is ravaging far too many of our communities.

The people of California responded overwhelmingly, with over 900,000 people signing the petition to get this measure on the ballot. Just about an hour ago this evening, it was officially announced by the California secretary of state that the initiative has qualified and that it will appear on the November ballot. All indications are that the people of California will vote for it and end this radical failed experiment in our State and set our State on a new course.

Unfortunately, there are some who hold power right now in California who do not want that to happen.

I want to be very clear that this is not a partisan statement because the initiative has broad bipartisan support. For example, it is endorsed by the Democratic mayor of San Francisco, the Democratic mayor of San Jose, and the Democratic mayor of San Diego because it is just common sense that we need to restore public safety in California.

Yet, at the State level, the supermajority in the legislature, along with Governor Gavin Newsom, have decided that they should take matters into their own hands and deny voters the opportunity to bypass this bipartisan initiative.

How might they do this, you ask? It has already qualified for the ballot. The people have made their voices heard. It is official. What is their plan? This is the scheme that they have come up with that surpasses anything I have seen, perhaps, and I have seen a lot when it comes to the machinations of California politics.

Here is what they have done. The Governor and leaders in the legislature came up with their own package of bills that are ostensibly designed to promote public safety. In fact, most if not all of those bills are unobjectionable. Some of them are even positive, but they are really just tweaking at the edges of the problem.

None of them does anything to deal with the actual problems of Proposition 47. In fact, the bills by definition couldn't do that because Proposition 47 was a voter initiative, and it could only be corrected by voter initiative. The legislature doesn't have the power to do that.

Nevertheless, for whatever reason, maybe to look like they were doing something about the problem, maybe they genuinely wanted to help make communities safer, you had these bills that were introduced that would take some fairly modest steps in the direction of public safety.

We actually learned just a few days ago that there was a much more sinister purpose behind these bills. The leaders of the legislature will be introducing an amendment to these bills, which has what they are calling an inoperability clause.

What does that mean? They are stipulating in the language of the bills that if voters pass the initiative that is now going to be on the ballot in November, then those bills will automatically be repealed. They are putting in a provision that says that their own bills will be repealed automatically if voters make a decision that they don't like in November.

This is truly extraordinary. It is a threat to the people of California. Don't pass this initiative or we will weaken other criminal laws. It is a loaded weapon because the effect is automatic. The threat doesn't even need to be carried out; it is just there the moment the initiative passes, at least, this is the way they have designed it. Then those bills will be repealed, but the true purpose of this is even worse.

The true purpose is to mislead voters and give them an upside-down description of what this initiative will actually do. Because in California, the language that appears on the ballot when you go to vote that says, here is what this initiative will do, that language is written by the attorney general who is, himself, a Statewide-elected official.

The point of including what some are calling a poison pill, which says that if you pass the initiative, then these public safety bills are going to be repealed, is to influence the way that the initiative is written, an initiative that is supposed to be about helping to limit crime, reduce crime, and restore consequences. They will describe it in precisely the opposite way.

On the ballot, it will now say, oh, no, this initiative is going to repeal these public safety measures.

It is a deeply cynical scheme designed to undermine a popular voter initiative that is desperately needed to get our State back on track. I think that when people ask whatever happened to California, how did our beautiful State come to have all of these problems, where you walk through the streets of San Francisco or Los Angeles and you can't even believe that you are in the United States of America, how did this happen? This is how it has happened.

Unfortunately, we have political leaders who are willing to go so far as to undermine a democratic election and to make our State less safe in order to advance their own particular political goals.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely shameful; however, I have faith that at the end of the day, the will of the people will win out, and I think that people are frustrated with what has happened to our State.

I hear it every day. They are frustrated with machinations like this, and the people of California will find a way to make sure that this change that is desperately needed happens and that our State gets back on the right track.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 13 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 12, 2024, at 9 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to sound the alarm again about the rapidly advancing capabilities of artificial intelligence systems.

I will say at the outset that while in a sense this is alarming, it is also incredibly exciting. The level of innovation and the expansion capabilities that we are seeing hold the promise of making life better in countless ways for people across the country and around the world.

Yet, at the same time, the pace at which these capabilities are growing has unpredictable risks, as well. We are seeing more and more people who work at or have worked at the leading AI companies who are starting to sound this alarm, as well.

Today, we got a letter from employees of OpenAI, former employees and other researchers. This is according to WIRED reporting. A group of current and former OpenAI employees have issued a public letter warning that the company and its rivals are building artificial intelligence with undue risk, without sufficient oversight, and while muzzling employees who might witness irresponsible activities.

These risks, the letter says, range from the further entrenchment of existing inequalities to manipulation and misinformation and to the loss of control of autonomous AI systems.

As long as there is no effective government oversight of these corporations, the letter says, current and former employees are among the few people who can hold them accountable.

What the authors of this letter are calling for is protection for whistleblowers at the companies who bring to light information about what might be going on there that could be of public concern.

Now, there might, perhaps, be some role for us here when it comes to the question of protecting whistleblowers,

but I think there are a couple of other actionable steps that we can take to try to give a greater level of attention and scrutiny to a topic that truly merits it.

I will also say that I am quite skeptical of efforts that we see in several States now to try to regulate this innovation in a way that just stops it in its tracks. I think that the measures that I have seen are rather crude in their formulation and probably wouldn't work. If they did work, they would deprive us of innumerable potential benefits.

What we can do is try to find ways of promoting much greater transparency as far as what is going on at these leading companies so that we all can become more aware of the potential for new capabilities to emerge or for what those capabilities are when they do emerge in the lab.

I think it is worth exploring what sort of reporting and dialogue avenues we might be able to put in place, as well as using our ability to provide transparency and encourage public debate here through, for example, holding hearings on what is going on at some of these leading companies or on questions such as whether AGI, known as artificial general intelligence, is something that might be just around the corner and what the implications of that will be.

I think that given the profound ways in which this technology is already changing the world, and is very likely to do so at a whole other level in the not too distant future, we need to have as many voices as possible participating in these very urgent questions as to how we ensure that this technology continues to benefit humanity and how we can collectively control the risks in a way that is consistent with our values.

The final thing that I think we could do right now to really have a positive impact is to promote basic research or cutting-edge research when it comes to AI safety and alignment issues.

Today, one of the employees who left OpenAI made a statement saying: ``These systems are not ordinary software. They are artificial neural nets that learn from massive amounts of data. There is a rapidly growing scientific literature on interpretability, alignment, and control, but these fields are still in their infancy.''

There is a growing scientific literature on these fields of interpretability, alignment, and control, but they are still in infancy. What we need to do is try to propel that field into full maturity as quickly as possible because the pace of innovation is truly breathtaking right now as models are being scaled up and new capabilities are emerging. We need to do everything we can to encourage research that can be helpful in mitigating the risks as those capabilities continue to grow.

That is something we can do here. I have introduced a bill to do just that. It would provide grants for AI safety research as well as some reporting back from those who receive the grants.

A fundamental function of government is to catalyze research in areas where there might not be a commercial incentive. That is, perhaps, the most important thing that we could do now to try to prepare us for the future ahead and to ensure that we maximize the benefits while minimizing the risks.

Funding California's High-Speed Rail Project

Madam Speaker, I stand in strong support of the House Transportation Committee's investigation into California's so-called high-speed rail project.

This project has truly been a disappointment of historic proportions. It has now tripled in cost to $128 billion with little more to show for it after 15 years than one bridge to nowhere that was recently unveiled.

The House Transportation Committee, in addition to its Senate counterpart, is demanding documents on the Biden administration's decision to allocate substantial Federal taxpayer dollars to this highly questionable endeavor when there is no reasonable path forward for successful completion.

In fact, a New York Times expose found the train is not even on track to be completed this century. A lead operator several years ago abandoned the project to build in North Africa where it was ``less politically dysfunctional'' than California. That operator, by the way, brought a high-speed train online in Morocco in 2018.

The letter from Chairman Graves and Senator Cruz goes into some detail about the problems that have beleaguered the California High- Speed Rail Authority, CHSRA. It says: ``Despite California's reputation as a high-tax State, the high-speed rail project far exceeds the State's ability to finance the project, and it is now seeking Federal subsidies. In March 2023, CHSRA Peer Review Group, whose job is to evaluate CHSRA's funding plans, sounded the alarm. It reported an astounding `unfunded gap of $92.6 billion to $103.1 billion between estimated costs and known State and Federal funding' for the full San Francisco-to-San Diego system.''

The letter is requesting documents from the Department of Transportation concerning its decision to award $3 billion more to this project and to keep it on life support, which is a concern to California taxpayers not only because these Federal funds are partially our taxes but also because it is continuing to keep the project going so that more and more of our State tax dollars will have to go to it, as well.

Among the requests that are being made of the Department of Transportation is information concerning the Department's ``evaluation of the issues facing the CHRSA, including but not limited to the level of risk associated with the unbid, technically challenging elements of the project, including tunnels and viaduct; the low ridership projected for the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment; the remaining gap in funds needed for completion of the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, even after the recent awards of more than $3 billion; the lack of an independent review of the economic and financial justification for the project as noted by the peer review group; and the large gap in funds needed for completion of at least the phase I segment from San Francisco to Los Angeles; and DOT's plans to address the issues raised by the CHSRA IG and peer review group prior to obligating funds to CHSRA.''

Madam Speaker, I have been calling for this project to end for years. It is not even clear that if and when it is ever built, it will be anything close to state-of-the-art technology.

For Californians to have to continue to pay billions and billions of dollars more for this project when our roads continue to deteriorate and to be among the worst in the country despite us paying the highest taxes when it comes to gas is absolutely unacceptable. I am hoping that this investigation, which I will look forward to being part of as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, will play a role in finally bringing the project to an end.

Concerns About President Biden

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express grave concern over the Biden administration's decision to withhold information that is of very much legitimate public interest and concern.

Specifically, that is the audio recordings of President Biden's interviews with Special Counsel Robert Hur, which were subpoenaed but have not been turned over, and over which the President has now made an assertion of executive privilege.

I have discussed before the many legal problems--indeed, absurdities--of his assertion of executive privilege. I want today to make perhaps a more important point: That is that the administration is going out of its way to prevent the public from getting information that the public very much wants and needs.

During today's Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Merrick Garland, I asked him about Robert Hur and his report. I asked, first of all, whether he regrets picking Robert Hur to be special counsel, and the Attorney General said no.

I asked him about his statement when he appointed Robert Hur, about his long and distinguished career as a prosecutor, if he stood by that, and the Attorney General stood by that.

Moreover, he did not dispute any of the substance of Special Counsel Hur's report. For example, I asked him about Special Counsel Hur's finding that there was evidence the President willfully retained classified documents, and Attorney General Garland did not dispute that finding.

Indeed, when Special Counsel Hur himself testified before our committee a few months ago, I asked Special Counsel Hur if a reasonable juror could have voted to convict President Biden. Special Counsel Hur said yes. That is that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of President Biden for committing a felony.

Of course, President Biden has not been charged. The special counsel did not recommend charges. One of the reasons that he gave for not doing so was the President's ``diminished faculties and faulty memory,'' at other points referred to as ``poor memory'' or that his memory had ``significant limitations.''

Special Counsel Hur concluded that these factors would make it more difficult to obtain a unanimous jury verdict. I will say again the language from the report: ``diminished faculties and faulty memory.''

These were the conclusions that Mr. Hur reached based upon his interviews with the President. Again, Merrick Garland, Attorney General Garland, who is withholding these recordings, has not disputed any of the special counsel's findings.

Merrick Garland and now President Biden himself are withholding the evidence that Special Counsel Hur used to conclude that the President has diminished faculties and a faulty memory. There is nothing the President or the Attorney General could say to dispute that.

It is the inescapable conclusion of the fact that Attorney General Garland continues to stand by the Hur report and not dispute it.

That is a big problem because I am not myself offering any opinions here on the faculties or cognitive abilities of the President. I am simply quoting the findings of Special Counsel Hur. The public is very much concerned about these issues when it comes to the competency of the Commander in Chief. I don't think anyone would doubt that there is a legitimate public interest in whether the Commander in Chief does have diminished faculties and a faulty memory.

Again, the conclusion is inescapable, that we now have the administration withholding this evidence that is of great concern to the public, and the basis on which they are doing so is almost trivial. The basis on which they are doing so is that if they turn over these recordings, then somehow that will deter future witnesses from cooperating in future investigations because they don't want their words to become public.

Let's take that at face value. Let's assume that it is true, that there would be a deterrent effect or a chilling effect. The problem is that the Justice Department has already released transcripts of the recordings, so if we were to weigh the interests here, there is the undeniable public interest in whether the President has diminished faculties and a faulty memory, as Special Counsel Hur reported. That is the interest on one side.

The interest on the other side is whatever marginal added deterrence there might be from releasing a recording over and above a transcript with the exact words from that recording. One would have to conclude that that additional deterrence effect, to the extent that there is any, is quite small, quite marginal, negligible compared to the overriding public interest in the matter at hand.

Therefore, there is simply no justification for the Justice Department to continue to stonewall or the White House to claim executive privilege. Indeed, it is even more disturbing in light of the fact that the White House tried to alter the Hur report itself. Special Counsel Hur testified to our committee that the White House did request to make edits to the report.

I am, again, calling on the White House and Attorney General Garland to release these recordings of which the public has a legitimate interest in hearing so that they can draw whatever conclusions they might for themselves.

Appropriations Funds for Veterans

Madam Speaker, today we began work on passing the fiscal year 2025 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to maintain our commitment to our Nation's veterans and bolster our national security.

The bill provides a total of $378.6 billion in overall funding. This includes $337.4 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is $75.5 million more than President Biden's request. It includes $112.6 billion for medical care.

This is tremendously important to me and so many folks in my district. One of the things that we are most proud of in my district office is helping veterans get the care and the benefits that they deserve, and this bill will go a long way toward delivering on what we owe our veterans. Indeed, the bill takes away experimental programs and makes sure that the funding that is in the bill is there to fully support our veterans.

This bill is deserving of bipartisan support, and I will continue to support veterans and support the funding for veterans that they are entitled to. I am very glad to see that it is coming up for consideration and is on its way to passage and, hopefully, being signed into law very soon.

Congratulating Sarah Koligian on Her Retirement

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize Folsom Cordova Unified School District Superintendent, Dr. Sarah Koligian, who is retiring after 37 years in public education, the past 7 of which she spent serving Folsom Cordova schools.

Dr. Koligian was born and raised in California's San Joaquin Valley and attended Cal State University, Fresno where she earned her doctorate in education.

She began teaching in Fresno, where she was a resource teacher at Madison Elementary. She held various administrative positions and served as a superintendent for other school districts before joining Folsom Cordova in 2017.

In her role as superintendent for the Folsom Cordova Unified School District, Dr. Koligian supported over 20,000 students and almost 3,000 employees across 36 schools. Under her supervision, Folsom Cordova continues to be considered one of the top performing school districts in the region, with award-winning schools and programs.

During her tenure, she faced unprecedented challenges, including those related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite those obstacles, she received the Association of California School Administrators Superintendent of the Year award in 2021, which is quite the distinction.

Throughout her career, she also achieved many long-term goals for the district, including overseeing the opening of two new schools and expanding school resources by implementing transitional kindergarten, community schools, and growing career technical education programs.

Dr. Koligian is known by others for her expertise, enthusiasm, and devotion to her work. I applaud Dr. Koligian for her unwavering dedication to providing educational opportunity, promoting student success, and leading the school district through significant growth and achievement.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize Dr. Koligian for her leadership and nearly four decades of service to public education. I join the students, teachers, and parents of the Folsom Cordova Unified School District in wishing her the very best in her retirement.

Detective Jason Westgate Named to Third Congressional District Police

Honor Roll

Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to name Detective Jason Westgate of the Rocklin Police Department to the Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll.

With an exemplary career spanning over 29 years in law enforcement, Detective Westgate has demonstrated unparalleled commitment to justice, community safety, and the highest standards of law enforcement.

After joining the Rocklin Police Department, Jason quickly distinguished himself as a formidable force against narcotics and crime, earning positions such as canine handler, narcotics detective, SWAT officer, corporal, and eventually leading to his crucial role in the Tri-County Drug Enforcement Team, known as TRIDENT. His tenure in TRIDENT has been marked by significant achievements that reflect his dedication, strategic intellect, and leadership.

From 2016 onward, Detective Westgate and his drug-trained canine,

Maddie, have worked together to significantly disrupt drug trafficking operations, leading to the recovery of vast quantities of illegal substances and illicit money which might have otherwise devastated many lives and communities.

In addition to his field work, Jason's contributions to training programs for new officers and his involvement in community education on drug abuse prevention highlight his holistic approach to law enforcement.

He embodies the spirit of community policing by building strong relations with citizens and educating the younger generation, thereby nurturing a safer environment.

Throughout his distinguished career, Detective Westgate has earned numerous honors, reflecting his exceptional skills, reliability, and esteemed reputation among his peers, supervisors, and the community. These accolades include being named the TRIDENT Detective of the Year twice and a Chief's Certificate of Commendation, as well as recent recognitions from the Sacramento FBI and various local law enforcement agencies.

However, the most distinguished of his numerous recognitions is the International Narcotics Interdiction Association 2023 Officer of the Year award. This award serves as evidence of his exceptional impact and contributions to narcotics interdiction, not just on a national scale, but internationally.

His unwavering dedication and outstanding contributions to law enforcement deserve this high recognition, not only as a testament to his personal achievements, but as a beacon of exemplary service that inspires officers across the Nation.

Sheriff Mike Fisher Named to Third Congressional District Police Honor

Roll

Madam Speaker, I would like to offer congratulations to Sheriff Mike Fisher of the Sierra County Sheriff's Department for being named to the Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll. Sheriff Fisher has now been named to the honor roll twice in as many years.

As a sheriff in a small rural community, Sheriff Fisher wears many different hats. He runs the office, deals with budgets, handles recruitment and hiring, and is the head of the Office of Emergency Services.

At a time when many law enforcement agencies are struggling with hiring and retaining good, qualified candidates, the Sierra County Sheriff's Office has expanded and hired new, enthusiastic deputies who have become solid members of the community.

Although Sheriff Fisher deals with the same administrative responsibilities as in bigger counties, he also remains available to everyone in the community. He personally responds to questions and concerns of his constituents. He is approachable and responsive and cares deeply about all members of the community.

Public safety is Sheriff Fisher's primary goal. He has been instrumental in educating the community to prepare for wildfires. As director of emergency services, he has implemented several notification alternatives to alert the residents regarding emergencies and how to evacuate. He has also been a fierce advocate for Sierra County to retain landline phone service since cellular service in the area is not reliable.

In addition to these challenges, Sheriff Fisher is active on patrol and conducting investigations. He works closely with other departments and agencies, coordinating search and rescue operations in remote areas.

Sheriff Fisher has consistently and selflessly put the well-being of the county ahead of any personal considerations. He is willing to make hard choices to protect our community.

For his continued dedication to Sierra County, organizational leadership, and commitment to public safety, I am honored to include Sheriff Mike Fisher of the Sierra County Sheriff's Department in the Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll.

Officer Shannon Rauls Named to Third Congressional District Police

Honor Roll

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to name Roseville Police Officer Shannon Rauls to the 2024 Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll. Shannon joined the police academy in May of 2017 and graduated from the academy and was sworn in as a police officer in November of 2017.

Shannon is one of the unsung heroes of the Roseville Police Department. She goes to work every day, works hard, and is an exceptional representation of what it means to be a Roseville police officer.

Officer Rauls became a field training officer just 4 years after she became an officer. Field training officers have the single most important role in the entire department, as they train future officers. She is patient, sets high expectations, is a great teacher, and gives candidates the room to grow and learn.

Officer Rauls also works as a patrol officer and is an outstanding teammate with her fellow officers on patrol. She builds great relationships with her teammates, works hard as part of the team, and will hold teammates accountable when the standards of her team are not being met. She has an exceptionally high standard for herself and makes her peers around her want to raise their standards as well.

Finally, she is one of the original members of the department's reformed honor guard. They represent the entire department when they participate in a fallen officer service or memorial.

For every other assignment in the police department, the division commander has the final approval for who joins the team. However, the police chief personally selects every member of the honor guard because of how important this team is for representing the department.

Most of all, Officer Rauls is an example of what it means to be a Roseville police officer. She is a mentor and role model and an outstanding teammate for her patrol team. She is a great example of what police officers are really like every day, not necessarily what you always see in the news.

Officer Rauls works every day to make her community better, and she is very much deserving of a place in the Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll.

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

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 5, 2024, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Congratulating Matthew Gapinski for 42 Years of Dedicated Federal

Service

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for his words.

Today, the Education and the Workforce Committee held a hearing with the presidents of three universities: UCLA, Northwestern, and Rutgers.

At the hearing, I joined the Anti-Defamation League in calling for the resignation of at least one of them, but I will provide some reflection on what transpired today and what has transpired at several hearings that we have now had.

We have had the chance to hear testimony and question seven university presidents now, including Columbia, Penn, Harvard, and MIT. Two of those presidents, from Penn and from Harvard, have already resigned following the hearings.

What is striking about these hearings is just how difficult it is for these university presidents to answer in a straightforward way to the clearest questions of right and wrong. It is striking the way that they have been unable to take the most commonsense steps on their campuses to stop lawlessness and to curb this terrible rise in anti-Semitism.

When you look at the folks who testified today or, for that matter, any of the seven presidents we have heard from, I don't think there is any of us who would suggest that these individuals are themselves anti- Semitic or prejudiced, and, yet, they seem to believe that appeasing anti-Semites, appeasing anti-Semitic constituencies on their campuses and thereby institutionalizing, normalizing, to use the word that the Anti-Defamation League does, anti-Semitism at their universities, they seem to believe that is what they have to do in order to keep their jobs.

This is, itself, a fundamental failure of leadership and a reason to doubt the fitness of any of these particular individuals to lead major universities, but it also speaks to the overarching challenges we now face in American higher education where they feel the need, these leaders of our top universities, to cater to the most bigoted and backward forces at the expense of their own students' safety, well- being, and education.

I think it is vitally important that the Education and the Workforce Committee continues to shine a light on the horrible things that are unfolding at American universities, while at the same time trying to direct our higher education system in the direction of badly needed reforms because we have seen how many longstanding problems have gotten us to this point.

Mr. Speaker, I will go into a little more detail about what transpired today. I asked each of the three university presidents, the president of Rutgers, the president of Northwestern, and the chancellor of UCLA, if physically blocking a student from entering their campus on the basis of the student's race, ethnicity, or religion is an expellable offensive, and I was rather taken aback by the responses. Not one of them could give a simple ``yes,'' that is, by its very nature, an expellable offense.

Instead, they said it depends upon the circumstances, the context, and so forth.

I found that to be a rather shocking response. I think the correct response would have been: Well, yes, of course. If the facts show that someone is physically blocking a student from entering campus, is using force to deny them access to our university that they are paying tuition to, and they are explicitly doing so in order to exclude people of that person's race, ethnicity, or religion, that is by its very nature something that would mean you should never be able to set foot on that campus again, any individual who would engage in such conduct. Yet, not one of them could give that response.

What is worse is this, of course, is not a hypothetical situation. It is something that we saw happen repeatedly at several campuses and, in particular, at UCLA.

I played a video clip for the chancellor that showed exactly this happening: A Jewish student with a Star of David who was trying to gain access to his campus to go to class, who has his student ID card in his hand and a group of self-appointed enforcers lock arms and form a blockade to stop the student who tries to enter, who puts his hands in the air to show he means no harm, and they physically, by force, stop him from entering his own university.

I asked the chancellor of UCLA: Who are these people who formed these blockades? Are they students? He didn't know.

I asked: Have they been disciplined? He didn't know. It seems very clear that they got away with this absolutely monstrous conduct that should have no place in the United States of America.

To make things even worse, a member of the committee, the Representative from Minnesota, Congresswoman Omar, actually tried to minimize what had happened.

In her questions, she suggested that this wasn't such a big deal because there are other pathways available to that student. Apparently it is okay to block people from moving about, their freedom of movement, based upon their Jewish identity if there are other places that they are allowed to walk. It is absolutely unbelievable.

UCLA's response to this situation was, of course, deeply problematic in a number of other ways. The situation there was allowed to build and build and build. The encampment got larger and larger and larger, and eventually things spiraled out of control until eventually the chancellor did the right thing and called upon law enforcement to come and enforce the rules for those who refused to leave.

It never should have gotten to that point. Indeed, we now know that the police chief had advised the university not to allow an encampment, yet UCLA allowed it anyway.

Chancellor Block claims that there is a systemwide UC policy that prevented them from moving more quickly. If this is so, the University of California needs to change its policy.

If it is really true that the university will not seek the assistance of law enforcement until violence actually manifests itself, that is a deeply problematic policy on a number of levels. Number one, it allows for the violence to happen until you actually do anything to protect students. Number two, it allows for all manner of other illegal activity to continue unabated so long as those engaging in it characterize their actions as a protest.

We saw all kinds of illegal activity in this anti-Semitic encampment at UCLA. We saw self-appointed students set up checkpoints, as I mentioned before, stopping Jewish students from being able to get to class.

The university did very little, it would seem, to stop this from happening. Indeed, the chancellor couldn't even tell me what happened to the students caught on video who were responsible.

This particular university leader, Chancellor Block, has served for 17 years and is retiring. He will not be at that university very soon. I would leave it to the judgment of the UC system to decide what the consequences for him, in particular, should be, with just a few months remaining in his tenure.

I will say there is news just today that a new encampment has started at UCLA, and I would suggest that the chancellor needs to learn from what just happened and make sure that that is taken care of in short order.

Generally, I don't think it is my role to be deciding which university leaders should stay and which should go. Ideally, that would be decided upon using the appropriate channels and that when you have clearly fireable conduct, the board of regents, the governance boards, would take appropriate action.

Where I would draw the line on a broad level, on a general level, and say that anyone who crosses that line is unfit to lead a university is the line that was drawn by the Anti-Defamation League as well as the Brandeis Institute and others in the specific case of the president of Northwestern, who also testified today.

What was different about what happened at Northwestern from some other universities--and I believe Northwestern was the first prominent university to do this--is that the university president actually ended the encampment by giving the lawless members of that encampment what they wanted. He agreed to their demands. I want to go through in detail, just to have it on the record, what those demands were.

First, I will read you the statement from the Anti-Defamation League as well as the Brandeis Center and StandWithUs.

It says as follows: ``As the three leading organizations in the United States holding colleges and universities accountable for creating hostile environments for Jewish students, we are shocked and dismayed by the agreement Northwestern University President Michael Schill reached on behalf of Northwestern University with encampment protesters yesterday.

``For the last 7 months, and longer, Jewish Northwestern students have been harassed and intimidated by blatant anti-Semitism on campus, worsening since October 7.''

Yesterday, at the time this was written, ``President Schill signed an agreement with the perpetrators of that harassment and intimidation, rewarding them for their hate.

``For days, protesters openly mocked and violated Northwestern's codes of conduct and policies by erecting an encampment in which they fanned the flames of anti-Semitism and wreaked havoc on the entire university community. Their goal was not to find peace but to make Jewish students feel unsafe on campus. Rather than hold them accountable, as he pledged he would, President Schill gave them a seat at the table and normalized their hatred against Jewish students.

``It is clear from President Schill's actions that he is unfit to lead Northwestern and must resign. President Schill capitulated to hatred and bigotry and empowered and emboldened those who have used intimidation, harassment, and violence to achieve their ends. Instead of issuing fines and suspensions in accordance with university policies, he awarded protest groups with scholarships, professorships, and a renovated community home. Instead of permanently shutting down the encampment and making the campus safe for all, he told protesters they can stay until June 1. Instead of reaffirming a longstanding university policy rejecting the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign, he created new pathways to its implementation. And instead of holding the perpetrators accountable, he committed Northwestern to actively defend, protect, and shield students from anyone else, such as potential future employers who may choose to hold the protesters accountable for their harassing and discriminatory conduct.''

The statement concludes: ``A prestigious institution that is supposed to be preparing our students for the future catastrophically failed to teach responsibility, respect for community values, and the fundamental principle that no one is above the law regardless of how deeply or passionately they believe in their own cause.''

They reiterate: ``We call on President Schill to resign immediately and trust that if he fails to resign, the Board of Trustees will step in as the leaders the university needs and remove him.''

That statement was issued a couple of weeks ago--of course, before the testimony that we heard today. President Schill still has not resigned, and the board of regents still has not removed him. It can only be concluded that the board of regents is endorsing the institutionalization and normalization of anti-Semitism that President Schill is responsible for by appeasing these demands.

There is the substance of the demands, which are deeply rooted in anti-Semitism, and then there is also the means by which they were achieved, those means being force. This is what I found particularly upsetting about the agreement reached by this president, President Schill of Northwestern, as well as President Holloway of Rutgers: They congratulated themselves for it. They said this was the way to negotiate a peaceful resolution. As a matter of fact, the exact words of the president were that they negotiated with their students through dialogue rather than force, engaging our students with dialogue rather than force.

Every part of that statement is utterly preposterous. First of all, a lot of them weren't students. I believe he even admitted to that. Second of all, this was not dialogue. The president, for one thing, did not even consult with his own anti-Semitism committee to ask if they were okay with this agreement. In fact, six members of that committee resigned after he reached the agreement with the encampment.

When he was asked at the hearing today if he had consulted with Jewish students, he said that was impractical. What an utterly preposterous statement. He decides to change university policy in response to the demands of an anti-Semitic encampment, and he says it is impractical to even consult with Jewish students.

Engaging our students with dialogue rather than force--it wasn't just students. It was not dialogue; it was one-sided. The entire negotiation, as it was, was predicated on force. The only reason he talked to them at all is because they set up an illegal encampment that was used to terrorize students, and they refused to leave when they were ordered to.

What precedent does that set? What incentive does that set for others who want to achieve their objectives, even if they are unobjectionable objectives, that the way to get what you want on this campus is to use force, defy the rules, defy the law, refuse to leave when you are told to, to try to be as disruptive as possible?

What is worse is that after Northwestern University's president did this, we have seen this chain reaction where other universities are doing the same thing, one of which is Rutgers, whose president, President Holloway, was with us today. He reached a similar agreement. He said something similar. He said: ``We engaged students in a conversation that led to a peaceful resolution''--again, an utterly preposterous statement.

The entire negotiation was predicated on force. It was not a conversation. It was a one-sided agreement with only those who are willing to resort to the use of force in order to get their way.

I was glad to hear today, by the way--it was confirmed by President Holloway--that he is no longer under consideration to be the next president of Yale University, of which I am an alum. There are many of us who are deeply concerned about the message it would send if Yale, which has had many of its own problems when it comes to anti-Semitism on campus, accepted as its new president someone who was just responsible for institutionalizing anti-Semitism at his own university.

There have been others as well throughout the country, several of which are in my State of California. There has been one instance, at least, where there has been accountability.

The president of Sonoma State, after reaching an agreement with the encampment there with a number of deeply anti-Semitic provisions like cutting off study abroad to Israel and even scrubbing university materials of

any reference to Israel, and then even appointing the encampment as a permanent governing council to enforce that agreement, that university leader was placed on leave and has now resigned. That was the right thing for the leader of the California State University system to do.

However, there are other campuses in California, in the CSU and UC systems, that have reached similar capitulation agreements with the lawless encampments on their campuses and who have followed this same script of rewarding the use of force, of institutionalizing and normalizing anti-Semitism, of setting a precedent that the way to get your way on their campuses is to break the rules, break the law, refuse to do what you are asked to do. They all need to face discipline, as well.

There were a number of other remarkable statements at today's hearing with the three university presidents, though, of UCLA, Rutgers, and of course Northwestern. In particular, the president of Northwestern said that he will not be commenting on the speech of their students, faculty, or staff, a completely preposterous statement.

This individual has commented on all manner of political issues. I was able to find a number of examples just googling on my phone as he said it. The idea that he wouldn't call out, fire, or condemn a high- ranking university official who makes overtly racist statements absolutely defies belief.

Incredibly, when asked by my colleague Burgess Owens if he would have dealt with a KKK demonstration in the same manner, he said he would not engage in a hypothetical, refusing to even condemn this most offensive of speech--or more than speech, of course, when we are dealing with the conduct that we have seen play out on these campuses.

The president also said--and the president I am referring to is President Schill of Northwestern--that a police option on that campus was not possible. This is how he justifies appeasing the demands of the encampment rather than enforcing the law.

I find it quite difficult to believe that there couldn't have been a sufficient police response coordinating with local law enforcement to ensure that those who were in the encampment left.

It is absolutely hypocritical when you look at the record of this president, President Schill, who actually reduced police and defunded police when he was the president of the University of Oregon.

The committee, I know, is committed to continuing this investigation of anti-Semitism across American higher education, but it is also important to understand the need for broad reform in higher education based upon what we have learned.

There have been some encouraging signs lately. We saw, for example, MIT just recently said it is no longer going to require so-called diversity statements in the faculty hiring process. Even the Washington Post came out with an op-ed opposing the use of these diversity statements in hiring.

I think our work is only just beginning. The hearings that we have seen so far have been deeply disturbing.

It is highly important that we continue them and that we continue to keep an eye on every university that is failing to adequately address anti-Semitism in order to protect the students, to protect their safety, and to protect their right to an education.

We also need to think about fundamental reform when it comes to academic freedom, when it comes to free speech, when it comes to faculty hiring, and when it comes to so many of the other issues related to even the value of a higher education degree in America today.

I truly believe this can be a turning point. America's universities have long been national assets that have helped us to become the greatest country in the world, the greatest economy in the world, the leader in innovation on all fronts, and that is now in danger.

I look forward to continuing to work with the committee and colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We had a number of colleagues across the aisle who asked very good questions and expressed appropriate concerns today, as well.

I look forward to working together to reclaim our universities as national assets rather than the liabilities that they have increasingly become.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a concerning situation in the world of artificial intelligence that has developed over the last couple of weeks following the release of OpenAI's newest ChatGPT model, which has demonstrated some truly breathtaking, amazing features and capabilities that are going to have wide-ranging applications that I think we are only just beginning to understand.

After that release, there has been an exodus from the company of employees who are there to focus on issues related to safety. The reason for this was stated by Jan Leike, who is the leader of the team at OpenAI responsible for safety and alignment issues.

This is what Jan Leike said: ``I joined because I thought OpenAI would be the best place in the world to do this research. However, I have been disagreeing with OpenAI leadership about the company's core priorities for quite some time, until we finally reached a breaking point.''

I believe much more of our bandwidth should be spent getting ready for the next generation of models on security, monitoring, preparedness, safety, adversarial robustness, superalignment, confidentiality, societal impact, and related topics. These problems are quite hard to get right, and I am concerned we aren't on a trajectory to get there.

Jan writes: ``Over the past few months, my team has been sailing against the wind. Sometimes we were struggling for compute, and it was getting harder and harder to get this crucial research done. Building smarter-than-human machines is an inherently dangerous endeavor. OpenAI is shouldering an enormous responsibility on behalf of all humanity. But over the past few years, safety culture and processes have taken a back seat to shiny products. We are long overdue in getting incredibly serious about the implications of AGI,'' meaning artificial general intelligence. ``We must prioritize preparing for them as best we can.''

This is what the outgoing leader of safety and alignment issues at OpenAI recently said on Twitter, on X.

I am not intending to criticize OpenAI. I have no basis to assess the veracity of the claims that were just read. I, like everyone else, have been truly dazzled by what the company has been able to accomplish.

I think that this exodus of safety employees and this particular testimonial for the person leading the alignment team should be a wake- up call for many of us who have perhaps not been giving this issue of safety and alignment in the development of artificial intelligence the attention that it deserves.

In fact, I don't know if there has ever been a time where the consequences, the stakes, of a particular issue are so wildly disproportionate to the small level of attention that is being paid to it.

The basic issue here is that as AI systems become more advanced, as their capabilities become more sophisticated, the risks are heightened as well when it comes to many things--when it comes to privacy, when it comes to confidentiality, when it comes to potential misuses, which are limitless, and when it comes to the alignment of those capabilities with the well-being of the machine's creator, with the well-being of humanity.

This is an issue that the company has been focusing on at OpenAI. They have, of course, this whole team there.

There has been some discussion about what percentage of their overall compute has been dedicated to it. If you believe the testimony here, it is less and less, but the company itself, as well as perhaps to a greater degree other leading AI companies, understand this to be an extremely important issue, especially as these models scale up and become more sophisticated and new capabilities emerge, sometimes perhaps in an unsophisticated way.

The important thing that has been understood by many is that we need to make sure our ability, our sophistication in aligning those systems with our own objectives, proceeds in a way that is commensurate to the sophistication of their capabilities.

I am concerned that that is no longer the case, that perhaps things are developing more quickly on the capabilities end than on the safety end.

I think the wake-up call that we need to take from what has happened at OpenAI is that we simply can't rely on any particular company, or even all of them collectively, to prioritize safety to the extent that is needed.

I do think there is some role for us here in Congress to catalyze safety research and to try to ensure the proper incentives for companies to invest in safety as much as they are investing in product development and other things.

There are some States, and perhaps even some folks here, who are already proposing new regulations that would hamstring this new technology, that would stand in the way of developing more advanced models. Personally, I think that is the wrong approach for a number of reasons.

First of all, it is not at all clear that it is going to actually be successful in limiting the development of these technologies, and if it is, it would only apply to us here in the U.S. in our jurisdiction whereas our potential adversaries in other countries could continue to develop this technology unabated and in a way that poses a risk to the United States, our competitiveness, and our national security.

Moreover, to try to block the further development of AI will limit the manifold benefits that are now appearing before us, which are limitless.

As these models become more and more advanced, so, too, do their applications in the fields of medicine, in the fields of transportation, and, basically, in any field that you can think of.

We have seen applications already, and these applications are only going to become greater and greater and have enormous potential to save lives, to extend lives, and to enhance the quality of life.

The position, from a humanist point of view, should be one of not trying to hold the development of that potential back but, rather, trying to ensure that it proceeds in a manner that unlocks the benefits while mitigating the risks.

Those risks will, perhaps, become most pronounced as we work toward what is commonly called AGI, which was referenced in that series of tweets, artificial general intelligence.

There is a lot of debate on this topic among people who know a lot more about it than I do, but there are many who believe that it is not that far away, that it is much closer than we might have thought even a few years ago--that is, the creation of an AI system that has the capacity to outperform human intelligence across multiple domains or across all domains.

What is more, once AGI is achieved, if, indeed, it is achieved, then the capabilities could well accelerate in a very rapid manner from there on out.

That is why many who focus on issues related to AI safety have urgently emphasized the need to get the safety question right before that threshold is crossed.

Indeed, when Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, was here last year, I asked him straight up how close they were to developing AGI. He basically said they were one big breakthrough away. That was a while ago.

I don't think anyone really knows how close we are or what that will look like, but I think there is an urgent need to prepare for that day by doing everything we possibly can to ensure that as capabilities develop in an unpredictable way, we have done the groundwork to make sure that those capabilities are aligned to our objectives, serve human purposes, and don't have the potential to serve other purposes or to misinterpret their commands in a way that has grave consequences.

I have introduced a bill, a bipartisan bill, that I think is a modest proposal that will help us get there. It will have the National Institutes of Health create a grant program that will fund basic research into AI safety. I think that is something that would be helpful, that would be a start.

In fact, I ran the idea by the CEO of OpenAI itself, Sam Altman. He thought it was a good idea. I think that it would help us get moving in the right direction, but I think it is also important at the same time that we make sure that the companies themselves have the right incentives to prioritize safety and alignment in the way that is needed.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We also have an AI task force being led by my colleague from California Jay Obernolte, who has done some tremendous work in this area.

I think it is urgently important that we begin to think about our role in ensuring that artificial intelligence ushers in the best possible future while mitigating the risks that are in front of us.

Recognizing Folsom Police Department's Special Investigations Unit

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to recognize some truly outstanding individuals from my district.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to include the members of the Folsom Police Department's Special Investigations Unit for the Police Honor Roll. The SIU team consists of one sergeant, Sergeant Brandon Monsoor, and three detectives, Detective William Maslak, Detective Justin Cain, and Detective Andrew Graham, whose responsibilities include narcotics prevention and weapons enforcement along with fugitive apprehension. I believe that their work surrounding fentanyl poisonings throughout the last year is truly worthy of recognition.

Along with several other areas of this country, the city of Folsom has seen an increase in fentanyl-related deaths. These tragedies are the direct result of individuals who carelessly furnish this product to often unsuspecting customers on the illicit drug market.

In early 2023, the SIU team decided to address this issue by developing criminal homicide cases against drug dealers that knowingly sold this dangerous product. This was no small task, as these types of cases had never been attempted or prosecuted in Sacramento County. They began by coordinating with the Sacramento district attorney's office to determine the type of evidence that would be required to bring this type of case to conclusion. These cases are inherently difficult to prosecute. They require swift and relentless action by detectives upon notification of an overdose, a significant amount of digital evidence, and out-of-the-box investigation techniques.

In July 2023, SIU detectives were notified of a potential fentanyl poisoning within the city of Folsom. The victim was a 24-year-old female who recently moved to the area to begin work as a preschool teacher. The detectives worked all night to eventually identify her supplier, develop probable cause to arrest him for homicide, and coordinate with the district attorney's office. Approximately 48 hours later, her supplier was arrested for murder, the first case of its kind within Sacramento County.

Since that first case, the SIU team has successfully arrested three other individuals for manslaughter or homicide after knowingly supplying this dangerous drug to their customers. They remain the only investigative unit in our region to bring this type of case to the Sacramento district attorney.

The Special Investigations Unit has truly distinguished itself and had an incredible impact on the community we serve. I believe they have very much earned the right to be recognized on the Third District Police Honor Roll.

Recognizing Rebekah Perez

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Rebekah Perez, an English teacher at Loyalton High School in Loyalton, California. Rebekah is a remarkable and gifted educator who enriches the lives of her students and her community alike.

Before accepting her position at her hometown high school 8 years ago, Rebekah taught in title I schools in southern California for 5 years. Rebekah is one of those teachers who changes lives for the better. Her advanced placement students have scored in record-passing rates at Loyalton High School.

As a former educator, I understand the essential role that a teacher plays in the lives of their students, and Rebekah has high expectations for her students. She provides excellent support to ensure they can meet those expectations.

Knowing that reading literature and participating in thoughtful discussions

are essential for rural students to get a glimpse and understanding of the bigger world, its diverse cultures and complexity drives Rebekah's work.

Active in her community, she serves on the board of her church and as a 4-H project leader. Her big laugh and huge smile makes students, colleagues, and parents alike feel like they have come home and are deeply cared for. Rebekah's positive leadership at Loyalton is reflected in a sign she has made for her classroom. I love this. It says: ``Get excited, people.''

Whether teaching English, providing academic advisement, leading the accreditation process, serving as a senior class adviser, or coaching young people, Rebekah brings infectious, joy-filled excitement to all those around her.

Loyalton High School shines so bright because of her great work, and we are forever grateful that she has chosen to teach at Loyalton High School.

Therefore, in honor of her passion, dedication, and her commitment to her students' success, it is my privilege to recognize Rebekah Perez as the truly outstanding teacher that she is.

Recognizing Elaina Stoll

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to recognize the outstanding and prominent educators of California's Third Congressional District.

I will briefly highlight a teacher from the Bishop Unified School District, Elaina Stoll, who has dedicated 34 years of her career to educating the students of her community.

Ms. Stoll graduated from Bishop Union High School in 1983 and then returned in 1990 to serve and spend two decades as a primary teacher. She later became a reading specialist for Bishop Unified and continued to further her education by obtaining her master's degree in education administration with an emphasis in reading.

Ms. Stoll has worked tirelessly on strengthening Bishop's Reading Intervention Program, implementing phonics-based small group instructional strategies, and creating systemic improvements across the grade spans.

She approaches her work pertaining to students with high levels of enthusiasm and love and strives to meet best practice standards. She is known for her unique ability to motivate others to meet the high standards set by her performance.

I commend Ms. Stoll for her exceptional dedication to education and to promoting student success and academic achievement.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am pleased to recognize Ms. Elaina Stoll for her significant contributions to the Bishop Unified School District and to the students of the Bishop community.

Recognizing Elizabeth Isaacs

Mr. Speaker, I will take a moment to recognize Ms. Elizabeth Isaacs, a kindergarten teacher in the Folsom Cordova Unified School District at Oak Chan Elementary School.

Ms. Isaacs teaches kindergarten at Oak Chan and has been employed there since 2015. However, her experience goes back 19 years.

Ms. Isaacs' mission is to make the world a better place, and she finds herself continuously motivated by the positive impact she has on her students' lives.

Ms. Isaacs teaches in innovative ways to keep her students motivated and engaged and is passionate about instilling her students with the knowledge and tenacity that is needed to help each child reach their full potential.

Just the idea that she is contributing toward this development of her students brings her great joy and satisfaction.

Ms. Isaacs' students and the opportunity to teach kindergarten have contributed to her unwavering commitment to education. Every day, she comes to class feeling cherished, challenged, and fulfilled.

Growing up, Ms. Isaacs learned how education has the power to affect meaningful change in the world. Even as a child, she enjoyed playing school with her siblings, where she took on the role, of course, as the teacher.

Both of her parents were educators, and she grew up helping set up bulletin boards in her mother's classroom at White Rock Elementary in the Folsom Cordova Unified School District. Additionally, she appreciated being able to observe her father's lectures as a professor at the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

It is a true honor to represent exemplary teachers such as Ms. Elizabeth Isaacs in the United States Congress. Therefore, in honor of her passion, dedication, and belief in the transformative power of education, in honor of her commitment to her students' success, it is my privilege to recognize Ms. Elizabeth Isaacs as the outstanding teacher that she is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge passage of the Ensuring Safe and Ethical AI Development Through SAFE AI Research Grants Act. This is bipartisan legislation that I have introduced.

Just recently, the company OpenAI unveiled the latest chat bot model which had some truly amazing new features. Yet shortly after that, there was an exodus of employees from the company devoted to safety with one of them even saying that this part of the company is not receiving the compute that it needs to.

Now, I don't know if that is true, and I don't know the particulars of what is going on in that company, but it does underscore the fact that we cannot rely or assume that companies are devoting the attention to safety issues that they should.

I do think there is a role for the Federal Government to catalyze cutting-edge AI safety research. That is what my legislation does, and I think it is of the highest urgency that Congress assure that as we look ahead to the limitless potential benefits of AI, that we do whatever we can to understand the risks and take the steps that we need to mitigate them.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share a remarkable moment from a committee hearing this week with Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.

Mr. Becerra began his testimony by saying that we can now manage COVID like we do the flu.

I asked Mr. Becerra: If that is true, then what about these 30 colleges and universities across the country that still have COVID-19 vaccine mandates?

That is, they require students to get a vaccine in order to enroll, and they will expel students who do not comply with that mandate.

I asked the Secretary: If it is true that we can now manage COVID like the flu, then will you call on these 30 universities that, right now in May of 2024, still have COVID vaccine mandates?

The Secretary refused to do it. He is just fine with these institutions continuing to impose these exclusionary policies.

Now, at this point in time, it is so beyond the pale to continue to have these mandates that I think it is important to specifically call out the universities that still have them. Of course, we now know there was never any public health justification for universities to have COVID vaccine mandates, and it certainly was not consistent with the values of our country or the values of higher education. Nevertheless, to still have them now is so beyond the pale and so utterly absurd that I think we should recognize each and every university that still has them.

There is Cal State University Cal Poly Humboldt, CSU Dominguez Hills, CSU San Francisco State, Harvey Mudd College, Mount Saint Mary's University, Pitzer College, Pomona College, University of San Francisco, Scripps College, Mitchell College, Trinity Washington University, Clark Atlanta University, Morehouse, Morris Brown College, Oglethorpe University, Spelman, Methodist College, Dillard University, Southern University System, Wellesley, Wayne State University, Franklin Pierce, Mount Saint Vincent, Kenyon, Oberlin, Wooster, Reed, Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore.

I am calling on these 30 universities to end their COVID vaccine mandates immediately and end their status as bastions of ignorance in American higher education.

Madam Speaker, 2 days ago, I rose on the floor of this House to call for the resignation of the president of Sonoma State University in California.

This institution is one of a disturbing number that has chosen to deal with this highly disruptive trend of encampments on campuses not by evenhandedly enforcing university rules and enforcing the law but, rather, by caving to the demands of this small minority of unlawful protesters, appeasing their desired changes in university policy in order to make university policy anti-Israel and anti-Semitic in nature.

What happened at Sonoma State was particularly egregious. In response to the demands of the illegal encampment, the university president agreed to divest, agreed to an academic boycott, agreed to even scrub any mention of Israel from university materials. Perhaps worst of all, he agreed to convert the unlawful encampment into a permanent advisory council with the members of the encampment responsible for picking who was part of it, and they would then have the power to enforce these anti-Israel policies going forward.

We finally have a little bit of good news in that this call was heard by the chancellor of Cal State University, and that university president is now on administrative leave. Of course, that doesn't go far enough. He has no business leading the university in our State or in this country when he is willing to institutionalize the anti-Semitic demands of those who are disrupting the university by unlawful means.

Unfortunately, Sonoma State University is not alone in California, as can be seen right here from these headlines. There are a number of other universities within the California State University system, within the University of California system, and in other institutions, public and private, across our State and across the country, where suddenly administrators have decided to negotiate with these encampments and to reach agreements with them based on what they want.

It is hard to overstate just how perverse this truly is. Let's leave aside for a moment the substance of what they are agreeing to and just consider the message that this sends, the precedent that it sets, that the way to get what you want on a university campus is not by presenting a reasoned argument or by convincing the governing body and your fellow students and other stakeholders. Rather, it is to try to use force to get your way.

These unlawful encampments, as we heard in an example from a student at Harvard in a committee hearing the other day, are refusing to leave. They are occupying public spaces. They are disrupting the function of the university.

In this particular example, they had self-appointed campus monitors who would follow Jewish students around on campus and monitor their activities.

We have seen examples of occupying buildings. We have seen students being stopped from entering the campus, entering the library, and entering other public spaces. We have seen loud disruptions that stop academic activities from proceeding.

In a number of cases, universities have responded in a way that is also unacceptable, which is by canceling classes, canceling graduation ceremonies, and thereby punishing all students.

The message this sends is that we are going to give those who are engaging in these unlawful activities, many of them not students, by the way, and with a lot of funding coming from the outside, what they want. We are going to reward those tactics. What exactly does that encourage in the future? Of course, what it does is encourage these tactics to be repeated.

The reason that these tactics are being resorted to is because those who are behind the encampments know that their argument is completely morally bankrupt and bigoted and would never prevail in a reasoned dialogue, which is why it is such a farce that some of these university leaders have patted themselves on the back and said that dialogue is the answer, negotiations are the answer.

The problem is they are only giving voice to those who are creating the disruption. When these so-called negotiations are going on, it is only those who are responsible for the problem that are being listened to. We are not seeing any evidence that they are bringing in representatives from Jewish student groups or, for that matter, the broader law-abiding student body to come and have their voices heard. Rather, they are elevating this small, disruptive minority and privileging their despicable points of view.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter that I have written to the leaders of our public education systems in California.

This is to President Drake, the president of the University of California, and Chancellor Garcia, who is the chancellor of California State University. I will read a few excerpts here. We are sending them this letter today, and I am hoping that it will put a stop to this incredibly disturbing trend.

``Over the past month, campuses in both the UC and CSU systems have been disrupted by illegal encampments. These encampments violate university rules, violate the law, and have given rise to other disruptive activities posing a threat to the safety, civil rights, and learning of students.

``Some UC and CSU campuses have responded by rewarding the perpetrators and incorporating their anti-Semitic demands into university policy. Specifically, a number have agreed to boycott, divest, and sanction (BDS) programs relating to Israel. Just this week, we saw Sonoma State's president agree to end all study-abroad programs in Israel and divest from companies associated with Israel. President Lee even went so far as to promise to scrub university materials of references to Israel and to convert the illegal encampment into a permanent `advisory

council' charged with enforcing the new anti-Israel policies.''

The letter then goes on to list several other examples within the UC and CSU systems at UC Riverside, UC Berkeley, CSU Sacramento, and CSU San Francisco.

The letter continues: ``Irrespective of the merits of these policy changes--which, to be clear, are altogether unmeritorious, bigoted, and quite possibly illegal under California's anti-BDS law--allowing a small minority to get their way through force is no way to run a campus. It is not clear what efforts, if any, these campus leaders made to consult with Jewish student groups or the broader law-abiding student body before capitulating to the demands of encampment participants.

``There is an urgent need for systemwide action in both the UC and CSU systems to restore order on campus, stop the adoption of BDS policies, and, where appropriate, appoint new campus leadership.''

I am a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee and chair of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, and I am actively involved in the House of Representatives' ongoing investigations of anti- Semitism and higher education. I tell these university system leaders that I would like a timely response as to what steps they are taking to avoid further damage to California's universities, which have long been a tremendous asset to our State and country.

I will, of course, share with the public the response that I receive from these university officials. Moreover, this next week, we have the leader of one campus, UCLA, who will be appearing before our Committee on Education and the Workforce to be held to account for the horrifying events that unfolded on that campus, thanks to the university's failure to take action to protect students.

Questions for the CDC

Madam Speaker, I call the House's attention to an extremely concerning statement made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, at a hearing this week.

I asked Secretary Becerra about the illegal Chinese biolab that had been discovered in California with very close ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

This lab was discovered in Reedley, outside of Fresno, early last year and was discovered to have many dangerous pathogens. Some were labeled in Mandarin, and some were labeled in some code that was not decipherable.

There were 32 refrigerators and freezers containing pathogens like E. coli, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HIV, malaria. There were about a thousand mice, some of them dead by the time they were discovered, that were, by some reports, genetically engineered to carry the COVID-19 virus.

At the time that this was discovered, I called for an investigation and, eventually, the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party produced an incredibly disturbing report about how this lab had been set up by a gentleman named Jesse Zhu, who had come from China and ran several companies linked to the CCP.

He had then gone to Canada, where he started a company designed specifically to steal American IP. He was found liable in court for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, so he eventually fled as a fugitive to the U.S., where he eventually set up this lab that was illegal, violating all sorts of laws, and had all manner of code violations.

It wasn't exactly clear at all what the lab was for because they said it was there to make test kits, such as pregnancy test kits and COVID test kits, but that is actually not what they were doing. The test kits they were selling were coming from China or being sold as counterfeits. Mr. Zhu, by the way, is now under Federal indictment.

I asked Secretary Becerra at this week's hearing if he can tell us with confidence that there are not similar such labs operating secretly and illegally throughout the United States. He said, no, that he could not say that with confidence.

This is an incredibly disturbing situation. I am authoring bipartisan legislation with Representative Costa designed to close the regulatory loophole that allowed for these dangerous pathogens to be in this lab undetected.

I also have recently sent a letter to the Director of the CDC, Mandy Cohen, which is under the jurisdiction of Secretary Becerra's Health and Human Services, because one of the truly disturbing parts of this story is that the CDC completely dropped the ball and ignored the situation long after it had been discovered.

The Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party's report found that local officials in Reedley had begged the CDC to come in and investigate after they found this lab and that CDC repeatedly ignored them and even hung up on them.

I have spoken with the city manager myself, and she said that their calls for help from both the Federal Government and the State were completely ignored, and it was only after Representative Costa, who represents that area, got involved that the CDC finally came to investigate.

Even then, their investigation was completely inadequate. Incredibly, they didn't test any of the actual samples, so some of these were labeled with E. coli or hepatitis or whatever it was, and they just sort of assumed that that was accurate. Some of them were labeled in some indecipherable code. We don't know what was in there, and they didn't bother to test those. There is a refrigerator labeled Ebola that was found by officials afterward that completely escaped the CDC's notice.

I have sent a letter to Director Cohen, asking for an explanation as to how it is that the CDC ignored and then failed to sufficiently investigate this danger to public health with pathogens that the CDC itself cites as being of grave danger to human health and communities.

These are the questions that I have posed to Director Cohen:

Why were local officials ignored by the CDC?

Why were none of the unlabeled agents tested?

Why did the CDC falsely claim that it could not test unlabeled select agents when they have previously tested unlabeled select agents in many cases, such as when anthrax was sent to this building?

Why did the CDC order State officials not to test any samples themselves even though this will result in an abatement order requiring all samples found in the lab to be destroyed?

How did you miss a freezer that was labeled Ebola?

How did this lab escape detection in the first place?

What is the CDC doing to prevent future labs of the same nature from being built?

What pathogen enforcement gaps allowed the illegal importation of deadly pathogens? What efforts are being made to crack the code that was used to label various vials on site? Is there any investigation into what the Ebola samples were being used for since there is little market for Ebola tests, making a financial motive unlikely?

Indeed, there is little apparent financial motive for the activities in the lab, given that the kits that they were selling were coming directly from China.

We also know that Mr. Zhu, who ran the lab, put it there, and he is now under Federal indictment. He was receiving regular payments from China while the lab was in operation.

I would ask the director for a timely response to these questions, and I am also urging my colleagues in the House to pass my legislation with Representative Costa so we can do everything possible to get to the level where we have the confidence that Secretary Becerra--now by his own admission lacks--to say that there are no other CCP-linked, illegal biolabs operating in this country.

Citing Attorney General Garland for Contempt

Madam Speaker, I will address an extraordinary development that happened yesterday right before a Judiciary Committee hearing in which we ultimately voted to cite the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland, for contempt of Congress, for defying a congressional subpoena.

Just minutes before this hearing happened, we received a letter from the President's counsel, Edward Siskel, invoking executive privilege with respect to the materials that our committee

has been seeking. Those materials being recordings of President Biden's interviews with Special Counsel Robert Hur.

I will take a moment to address just how absurd this invocation of executive privilege is. Indeed, I will identify the six absurdities of this invocation of executive privilege, but first a little bit of background as to how we got here.

In 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered an unprecedented raid of Mar-a-Lago, purportedly in search of classified documents. This became awkward for the administration when it was soon revealed that President Biden himself had various classified documents scattered about his personal properties. Attorney General Garland, in an attempt, I suppose, to appear even-handed, appointed a special counsel. He appointed Robert Hur special counsel to investigate President Biden's possession of classified documents.

Earlier this year, we received the report from Special Counsel Hur, and the report found considerable evidence that President Biden had willfully obtained classified documents in violation of the law. He found evidence as to each of the elements of that criminal offense. I asked Special Counsel Hur when he came to testify before our committee, I asked him a simple question: Could a reasonable juror have voted to convict the President? Special Counsel Hur answered yes.

Now, it is important to note that while some in that hearing tried to cast aspersions on Mr. Hur's integrity, when Merrick Garland appointed him, he praised him, praised his long and distinguished career as a prosecutor.

Now, despite those findings, Special Counsel Hur opted not to charge the President, citing his age and the lapses in memory that he displayed during his interviews with Hur.

The Judiciary Committee sought access to these records of those interviews, given the obvious public interest in matters pertaining to the Commander in Chief's competency or, for that matter, his potential criminality. Eventually, the Justice Department responded by producing redacted transcripts of President Biden's interviews with Special Counsel Hur. However, they continually refused to produce the actual recordings of those interviews with shifting explanations over time until the Judiciary Committee was forced to convene a hearing yesterday to cite the Attorney General for contempt because the subpoena that had been duly issued for those materials was being defied. Attorney General Garland refused to comply with it.

It was only moments before that hearing yesterday, after months of back and forth, that suddenly this letter lands from the White House that says, well, we are invoking executive privilege with respect to those recordings of President Biden's interviews with Special Counsel Hur.

Now, I will go through the six absurdities of that particular use of executive privilege.

The first is just the timing. As I have already mentioned, this had been going on for a long time and it is only right when we are about to begin a hearing that they suddenly come in and invoke this privilege.

The second absurdity is that this is not at all what executive privilege is meant for. Executive privilege is a facet of the separation of powers that is designed to protect the President's internal deliberations so that, for example, his advisers can give unvarnished advice when it comes to policy decisions and don't have to fear that anything they say, even if it is advice that the President doesn't ultimately take, will suddenly be made public. That is the purpose of an executive privilege. It is to protect these internal deliberations of the President on matters of policy.

This is an entirely different situation. It is not pertaining to the collaborative discussions involved in policymaking, rather it is the adversarial situation of an investigation of the President himself and the President's interview with his investigator. There was no decision on the part of the President that was being made; it was a decision on the part of the special counsel that was being made as to whether or not the President ought to be charged with a crime. The justification for executive privilege simply doesn't exist in this scenario.

The third absurdity is that the President had already waived the privilege. At the time that this was invoked, when we received the letter yesterday, we already had the transcripts of the interview that had been produced. So how exactly is it the case that the transcripts of the interview are not privileged, but the recordings of the interview are?

The fourth absurdity is that the justification for invoking the privilege completely contradicted the justification that the Attorney General had been giving for not complying with the subpoena in handing over the recordings. The Attorney General has maintained throughout this process that he doesn't need to hand over the recordings because they are cumulative; meaning, they are the same as what has already been produced, so they don't need to keep producing the same thing. Now we have the President's counsel coming in and saying that, no, they are actually different. They are so different, the transcripts versus the recordings, that one is not privileged and the other is.

The fifth absurdity of this letter from the President's counsel is that it explicitly cites a political motivation for invoking the privilege. The President's counsel, Edward Siskel, states a fear that the recordings will be used ``for potential political gain.''

Suffice it to say, a fear of political fallout, a fear of adverse political consequences, is not an adequate basis for invoking executive privilege.

Now, the letter tries to couch it a little differently. The letter says: Well, what we are actually afraid of is that the recordings are only being requested for political purposes and that once they are obtained, they will be sliced and diced and used to politically damage the President. However, that amounts to saying exactly the same thing as we fear the political consequences of handing over these recordings.

There is no precedent nor will there ever be a precedent in any court or otherwise for executive privilege to be invoked explicitly for political purposes or to spare the President political embarrassment.

The final absurdity of this invocation of executive privilege by President Biden is there will be a chilling effect if he hands over the recordings; that this will make it less likely that witnesses will cooperate in future law enforcement investigations, and there are several layers of absurdity to that claim.

The first is that they have already produced the redacted transcript of the interview. So they are saying there is not going to be a chilling effect for cooperation if someone knows a transcript could be revealed, but there will be a chilling effect if the actual recording is released.

However, the problem is deeper than that because the statement I just read, the justification that was given by the Attorney General and given by the President's counsel, is that this is going to deter witnesses from participating in the future. The President is not a witness. He was the target of an investigation initiated by his own Department of Justice.

What exactly is the chilling effect here? Who does it apply to? The only possible future scenario that this could affect is if at some point in the future another President is under investigation by his own administration.

What is the fear? If we release the recordings here that that future President will not want to sit for an interview? Well, the President in that situation would have to answer for his refusal to cooperate, which would be a pretty good incentive to be cooperative in the first place.

Whichever way you look at this, there is simply no legitimate basis for invoking executive privilege in this scenario, which is why the Judiciary Committee did move ahead yesterday and pass a resolution citing Attorney General Garland for contempt.

I would encourage the President and the Attorney General to ensure that this does not have to go any further and the way to do that would simply be to hand over the requested recordings. Let the American people see them for themselves.

Truly, the President should never be in a position where he deprives the

public of information of this kind, especially when it pertains to vital matters of his competency and culpability with respect to the matters being investigated.

This is a clear case of the public's right to know, and so I would encourage the administration to do the right thing here, albeit very belatedly.

Recognizing Placer County DA Investigator Brandon Olivera

Madam Speaker, I will now move on to recognize some truly outstanding individuals in my district.

Madam Speaker, I recognize District Attorney Investigator Lieutenant Brandon Olivera who has served as a law enforcement officer since 1996.

In his 27-year career, he has worked on patrol, in investigations, as a SWAT operator, and currently leads one of California's most successful narcotics investigation units.

Lieutenant Olivera works collaboratively with local, State, and Federal agencies to investigate drug trafficking organizations with the goal of reducing their impact on the northern California Central Valley region.

Lieutenant Olivera has led his team to remove 4,447 pounds of methamphetamine, 129 pounds of cocaine, 135 pounds of heroin, and 643 pounds of fentanyl from the streets of our communities. Those are truly staggering numbers.

In 2021 and 2022 alone, his team seized 344,465 counterfeit fentanyl tablets.

Currently in America and California, we are losing our youth to fentanyl at a truly alarming rate. In 2021, California lost 224 young people between the ages of 15 and 19 to fentanyl overdose. In America, while drug use among youth has trended down from 2019 to 2020, overdose deaths have increased 94 percent from 2019 to 2020 and 20 percent from 2020 to 2021.

In the same period, drug trafficking organizations have changed marketing tactics, creating rainbow or multicolored fentanyl tablets. These tablets look similar to candy, making them even more enticing, tragically so, to our Nation's youth.

Lieutenant Olivera has led the fight against these dangerous narcotics making it to our communities. He and his team, in fact, seized the first rainbow fentanyl trafficked in the Central Valley of California. The work done by Lieutenant Olivera has certainly saved lives, though few will ever understand how many.

Through his dedicated service and his dedication to protecting our community from drug trafficking organizations, Lieutenant Olivera truly has made our community and its surrounding areas a safer place to live. I thank him for his years of service and dedication.

Honoring Outstanding Educator Kellen Wirth

Madam Speaker, I wish to take a moment to recognize an outstanding educator, Mr. Kellen Wirth, in California's Third Congressional District.

In his 8 years of instruction as a science teacher in the Loomis Union School District, Mr. Wirth has made remarkable contributions within the Ophir STEAM Academy as well as in the general Loomis School District as a whole.

Kellen's tireless efforts have resulted in significant academic achievements, as demonstrated through his 5E Lesson model, a hands-on approach to engage collaboration and critical thinking.

Moreover, Kellen's reach spans well beyond the classroom as he takes on various roles such as leading science camps and innovation programs, showcasing his true commitment in instilling a sense of wonder and passion in his students.

Alongside these achievements, Kellen is also serving on the Curriculum Team and coaching multiple sports, exemplifying his holistic dedication in serving students.

On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize educator Kellen Wirth for his years of hard work in our schools.

Commending Jennifer DeBortoli

Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight a teacher from Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District in Roseville, Jennifer DeBortoli, who has dedicated 31 years of her career to educating the students of her community while acquiring accolades of high regard.

Jennifer DeBortoli is a distinguished educator and exceptional leader who contributes significantly to her school and district. She has a passion for writing and leads the Area 3 Writing program at her school as well as spearheading Spark the Fire Committee, fostering a love for literature with students. She also mentors new team members by offering valuable insights into lesson planning, guided reading, and GLAD strategies.

Jennifer's impact extends beyond her immediate school, as she conducts districtwide staff development and has become a sought-after resource for teachers looking to bring writing to life for their students.

I commend Mrs. DeBortoli for exuding an immense level of passion and commitment to student success, which has no doubt redounded to the benefit of many, many young people in our community.

Amanda Coppa Commended as Outstanding Educator

Madam Speaker, I wish to take a moment to recognize Amanda Coppa, an outstanding educator in California's Third Congressional District.

As an English and history teacher, Amanda embodies the essence of going above and beyond for her students, ensuring that each student receives an exceptional education.

Amanda's tireless efforts have resulted in significant academic achievements, as demonstrated through significant improvements in CAASPP test scores for students with disabilities alongside a remarkable increase in overall scores.

Moreover, Amanda's reach spans well beyond the classroom as she takes on various leadership roles as a behavior committee member, W.E.B. leader, Safe Schools Ambassador leader, and Read-In coordinator, highlighting her true commitment in building a positive environment for her students.

Her enthusiastic dedication and unwavering connections with students enrich the lives of both her students and her peers.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize educator Amanda Coppa for her years of hard work in our community and the enormous difference she has made in the lives of her students.

Honoring Julie Ferguson

Madam Speaker, I wish to take a moment to recognize an outstanding educator of California's Third Congressional District.

The communities I represent offer both outstanding public and private school education to our students, due in large part to the dedication, sacrifice, and hard work of our communities' teachers.

I would like to recognize Julie Ferguson, a dedicated third grade teacher from the Roseville City School District at Brown Elementary School. Julie began her teaching journey in 1998 and has continued to influence and better the youth of our district for the last 26 years.

Mrs. Ferguson has been a dedicated master teacher to countless student teachers. She participates in all professional development with a student-first focus, and she has written numerous grants to help obtain resources, giving her the ability to provide better experiences and opportunities for her students.

Julie Ferguson is the definition of a teacher-leader and will be serving as RTA co-president this upcoming year. I thank her for being a faithful, positive, and thoughtful educator contributing to the development of our communities' students.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor on behalf of the United States House of Representatives to recognize Julie Ferguson for her outstanding contributions as an educator in California's Third Congressional District. She is making and will continue to make, I know, an enormous difference in the lives of her students.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the Israel Security Assistance Support Act.

President Biden's threat to withhold aid from Israel is reckless, unjustifiable, and indecent. It flies in the face of the bipartisan support this House recently showed for continuing support of Israel. The American public understands the importance of the American-Israel relationship, how it is in the national security interests of both countries.

The American public understands that Israel is our longstanding ally, a democracy in a region that has very few of them; whereas, Hamas is a terrorist organization that has committed historic atrocities and would not hesitate to do so again.

The President is catering to the most radical elements of his party, the sort of elements that have unleashed chaos on college campuses across this country. It is vitally important that reasonable people on both sides of the aisle come together to reassert our support for Israel as it struggles against this terrorist organization.

Madam Speaker, a couple of days ago, the former Democratic majority leader of this body called out the radicals in his own party who are reflecting the talking points and rhetoric of Hamas, which, of course, wishes for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Unfortunately, it now seems that these radical elements have won out in terms of influencing policy in the White House and, as the former majority leader of Democrats in this House stated, in terms of getting their views that reflect the views of Hamas to become official policy of the White House.

The President's recent statements suggesting that he will withhold vital security assistance for Israel are appalling and absolutely unacceptable. They fly in the face of the strong bipartisan vote that this body recently took to provide support for our vital ally, Israel, as it seeks to make sure that Hamas can never do again what it did on October 7.

The President's actions, moreover, threaten to prolong the conflict that currently exists and are a threat to the long-term peace and stability of the region.

I am glad that we now have legislation before us that will rebuke the President and will ensure that the security assistance that this House has already approved finds its way to our ally, Israel.

I also speak in support of H.J. Res. 1213, which denounces calls to defund the police that have been so damaging to public safety and to law enforcement across this country.

In my own State of California, we have a number of jurisdictions, like in San Francisco, the East Bay, and Los Angeles, that did defund police and were then forced to restore that funding and to backtrack.

The reality is this is just one of a number of policies that have caused crime in California and many other places in this country to spiral out of control and have made the job of our law enforcement officers more and more difficult, to the point at which many departments are having a very difficult time with recruitment and retention and making sure they are fully

staffed and have the personnel that they need to keep their communities safe.

Policies like defunding the police, policies that have removed the consequences for criminal activity, policies by district attorneys who refuse to enforce the law, and sanctuary policies where individuals who are here illegally and commit serious crimes cannot be turned over to the immigration authorities are destructive policies that have manifested a disrespect toward our men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every single day to keep our communities safe.

Madam Speaker, I urge strong bipartisan support for this resolution denouncing calls to defund the police, and I hope that we can swing the pendulum further in the direction of the support that our law enforcement deserves so that we don't continue to face these problems with recruitment and retention and so that we can keep our communities safe.