Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, at university after university, we have been seeing acts of moral cowardice and failures of leadership as university presidents cave to the demands of lawless encampments and anti-Semitic demands like cutting ties with Hillel or divesting from Israel or ending study abroad in Israel.

Today brought the most egregious example yet where Sonoma State in California, not far from my district, not only agreed to the full set of BDS demands of the encampment but also agreed to convert the encampment into a permanent governing authority to assure that that agreement is enforced in a sufficiently anti-Semitic manner. I am not kidding. You almost can't believe this is real.

It says the council here will be composed of members from the encampment, faculty, staff, administrators, Palestinian alumni, and other interested students as determined by Students for Justice in Palestine.

Any university leader who is entering into these kind of agreements is elevating groups who are willing to engage in lawless action and to pursue their despicable agenda by force while silencing other groups and silencing any debate to the contrary.

Any president who would agree to this is not fit to lead a university in our State or our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a resolution that I am introducing in this House and that I hope will receive prompt passage and bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this administration's proposal to cut funding for the charter school program.

This is an incredibly important program for many charter schools across the country in allowing them to start up and offer an option to students in communities across the United States.

Now, prior to this year, this administration's support for charter schools has been tepid at best. Funding for the charter school program has remained flat as funding for various other parts of the education budget has increased substantially.

Yet, this year, the administration went a step further. Its proposed budget for the Department of Education proposes a $40 million cut to the charter school program from $440 million to $400 million.

Now, Secretary Cardona was asked about this at today's hearing, and he explained: Well, the Fiscal Responsibility Act requires us to make budget cuts--so he decided to go after charter schools.

Mr. Speaker, that makes no sense whatsoever. The Department is asking for a significant increase in its budget this year, a $3.7 billion increase, so that its overall discretionary budget is $82.5 billion.

They are asking for a $3.7 billion funding increase while cutting funding for the charter school program by $40 million.

Mr. Speaker, I am in strong opposition to these cuts. I hope that this House will push back on them in a bipartisan manner because the reality is that charter schools across the country have made tremendous progress in closing achievement gaps and expanding the options that are available to parents.

In fact, a recent study out of Stanford validated the work that charter schools have done and the results that they have gotten in closing achievement gaps that have persisted in other parts of our public education system.

The reality is that there are far too many communities in this country, particularly in my State of California, where schools simply are not getting the job done. There are communities where the neighborhood school--that young people, that kids are assigned to--does not teach them to the read in the way that it should, does not teach them math in the way that it should, leaving them ill prepared for success in life.

In many of these communities you have charters like Kipp Academy and many others that have started up and have done things differently. These are charters that have had high expectations, that have made significant gains, that have gotten kids reading above grade level and outperforming their peers at other schools in math. These charters are putting them on a path of future opportunity and success in life, but that is exactly what this proposal from this administration is going to cut funding for.

It should also be noted that even in communities that have good public schools--like in my district, we have a number of truly outstanding traditional public schools--charter schools are still of value.

We have a number of terrific charter schools as well, and they might be right for some families but not for others.

The entire point is that not every student is the same, not every family is the same. By allowing a variety of options, some of which might have different focuses or a different approach to pedagogy or options that might offer immersion education or a focus on career technical education, this empowers parents to make the choice that is right for their child and their family.

I find it completely unacceptable that this administration is withdrawing support for charter schools.

I also find it unacceptable that my State of California has taken a number of steps in recent years to make it more difficult to start up, to operate, and to renew charter schools.

What we need to do is look to the success that many charters have had and to draw lessons that we can then use to improve public education across this country so that every child in America has access to a quality education as they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to a forthcoming increase in the gas tax in California. It almost defies belief, but California's gas tax is about to increase yet again, reaching $0.60 per gallon.

Now, the State already has the highest gas tax in the country and by far the highest gas prices. As of today, Californians pay $1.70 more per gallon for gas than the national average and $0.53 more per gallon than the next closest State.

I will say that again: We pay $0.53 more per gallon than the State with the second-highest gas prices. Even if you were actually to eliminate the entire gas tax in California, $0.60 per gallon, we would still have the second-highest gas prices in the entire country.

I am calling on Governor Newsom and the legislature to act to make sure that this gas tax increase does not go into effect.

Californians are already suffering under inflation and the price of groceries and the price of electricity as

well, which is the second highest of any State in the country. The last thing they need is another increase to the gas tax.

I am calling on State lawmakers to stop this gas tax increase. As a matter of fact, what they should really do is suspend the gas tax entirely.

It wouldn't bring prices down to a reasonable level, but it would provide folks throughout our State with relief that they very much need.

Recognizing Sergeant Major Douglas Power

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now recognize a few outstanding individuals and organizations within my district.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize retiring Sergeant Major Douglas Power for his distinguished service with the United States Marine Corps, most recently as the government and external affairs officer for the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center in Bridgeport, California.

Doug entered the Marine Corps Reserve in August 1980 and went on to graduate from boot camp and transfer to Active Duty in 1985.

After first transferring overseas in 1987, his deployments to various locations, including Korea, Kuwait, and Iraq, underscored his commitment to defending our country.

Throughout his more than three decades of military service, Sergeant Major Power displayed an unwavering dedication to service and leadership.

Deservingly, he was awarded multiple decorations and medals, demonstrating the legacy of honor and sacrifice that he established.

He retired from military service in 2012, at which time he began his new career as the government and external affairs officer at the training center.

After 12 years of faithful dedication to civic service and community engagement, he retired from that role this year, on April 30, 2024.

I am proud to represent outstanding servicemembers like Sergeant Major Power in Congress. I thank him for his service to our district and our country.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize Sergeant Major Douglas Power for his heroic and valuable service to our country and community, and I wish him the best in his retirement.

Recognizing Stacey Simon

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize retiring County Counsel Stacey Simon for her 25 years of service to Mono County.

Stacey has served the people of Mono County for more than two decades, most recently as county counsel, and never wavered from her goal of making the county a better place.

Throughout Stacey's tenure, she not only skillfully handled the routine business of the county but also guided Mono through various complex problems and challenges, including the uncertainties of COVID- 19.

Additionally, she played an instrumental role in many local projects, most notably the construction of the Lee Vining Community Center and preschool program, the county's solid waste franchise system, implementation of HIPAA, housing developments, and much more.

Mr. Speaker, it looks like we had an issue with our graphic, so I am going to start over.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize retiring County Counsel Stacey Simon for her 25 years of service to Mono County.

Stacey has served the people of Mono County for more than two decades, most recently as county counsel, and never wavered from her goal of making the county a better place.

Throughout Stacey's tenure, she not only skillfully handled the routine business of the county but also guided the county through various complex problems and challenges, including the uncertainties of

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Alpine Watershed Group for receiving the 2022 Forest Service Volunteers Program Citizen Stewardship and Partnerships Award.

The Alpine Watershed Group is a community-based nonprofit organization in my district that is dedicated to conducting essential water quality monitoring, habitat restoration, and education programs throughout Alpine County.

Over the span of more than two decades, the Alpine Watershed Group has been an instrumental partner to the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the United States Forest Service.

In 2022 alone, the Alpine Watershed Group planned and recruited for multiple volunteer events in the forest, including large watershed and forest restoration projects, trash and roadside cleanups, tree planting, and watershed monitoring.

Due to the help of their volunteers at the annual Creek Day event, 72 bags of trash were removed, amounting to more than 500 pounds; 25 bags of invasive weeds were removed; 102 willow stakes were installed; 600 feet of fence in Hope Valley were removed; and a beaver dam analogue in Faith Valley was constructed.

In addition to these efforts, the group provides continual outreach and environmental education programs that support the United States Forest Service's mission to care for the land and serve the people. Their devoted efforts have made an indelible impact on our national forests, local watersheds, and the Alpine County community.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize the Alpine Watershed Group for this outstanding accomplishment and commend them for their significant contributions and dedication to promoting the sustainability of our Nation's natural resources.

Celebrating Soroptimist International of Loomis Basin's 50th

Anniversary

Mr. Speaker, I wish to mark and celebrate the 50-year anniversary of the Soroptimist International of Loomis Basin club.

Over the span of five decades, they have made a significant contribution in the Loomis community and Sacramento region by investing in the development of women of all ages and fostering a passion to make both our local and international communities a better place.

The Loomis chapter of Soroptimist International was founded 1974 with the mission to provide women and girls with the access to education and training they need to achieve economic empowerment.

In addition to hosting and participating in many local events, they provide scholarships and grants for women to improve their economic status while honing valuable skills to further their education and help with employment opportunities.

Their dedicated efforts have made a meaningful difference in the lives of women and girls, and it is an honor to represent exemplary organizations like the Soroptimist International of Loomis Basin here in Congress.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize the Loomis Basin Soroptimists and their 50 years of dedication to the women of our community.

Recognizing Sergeant Major Douglas Power

Mr. Speaker, we are recognizing Sergeant Major Douglas Power again so we have the appropriate accompanying graphic.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize retiring Sergeant Major Douglas Power for his distinguished service with the United States Marine Corps, most recently as the government and external

affairs officer for the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center in Bridgeport, California.

Doug entered the Marine Corps Reserve in August 1980 and went on to graduate from boot camp and transfer to Active Duty in 1985.

After first transferring overseas in 1987, his deployments to various locations, including Korea, Kuwait, and Iraq, underscored his commitment to defending our country.

Throughout his more than three decades of military service, Sergeant Major Power displayed an unwavering dedication to service and leadership.

Deservingly, he was awarded multiple decorations and medals, demonstrating the legacy of honor and sacrifice he established.

He retired from military service in 2012, at which time he began his new career as the government and external affairs officer at the training center.

After 12 years of faithful dedication to civic service and community engagement, he retired from that role this year, on April 30, 2024.

I am proud to represent outstanding servicemembers like Sergeant Major Power in Congress. On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, it is my honor to recognize him for his distinguished service to our community and our country.

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 7 o'clock and 39 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 8, 2024, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, the spread of tent encampments and all of the associated illegal and anti-Semitic activity at our universities is deeply disturbing, disruptive, and dangerous. We are seeing scenes that absolutely defy belief, that I never would have expected to see in this country.

At UCLA, Jewish students are being physically blocked from entering campus or going into the library. Our university administrators have allowed this to happen. It never should have gotten to this point.

Enough is enough. I am calling on university leaders to work with law enforcement to immediately clear the encampments, arrest lawbreakers, and put a stop to this chaos.

Cancelling classes, as some universities have done, punishes all students and is not the answer. The Education and the Workforce Committee is expanding its investigation to California, and the chancellor of UC Berkeley will be testifying in a few weeks.

We are closely watching events at our universities and will hold university leadership accountable for inaction.

Madam Speaker, I stand in strong support of this resolution condemning Iran's unprecedented missile and drone attack on Israel.

However, it is important to note that for the people of Israel, attacks and threats from Iran are far from unprecedented. Every single day, the people of Israel face attacks from Iran's terrorist proxies that literally surround the State of Israel: Hezbollah, the Houthis, and, of course, Hamas.

We saw the consequences of Iran's massive support for these terrorist proxies play out in horrifying fashion on October 7. Now, with this latest unprecedented attack directly from Iran, we saw almost all of the missiles and drones intercepted. This is a testament to the strength and the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship, both in terms of the partnership that has allowed Israel to develop such an impressive capacity to defend itself and in terms of the collaboration that was on display.

I am glad that we will soon have an opportunity to provide long overdue support for Israel in this time of such great importance for the region.

Something else, though, is equally important to note about what happened last weekend, and that is that you had regional allies, other countries in the region, also rally to Israel's defense. This is something the likes of which we have not seen before, and it speaks to the extraordinary success of the Abraham Accords to usher in a new era of peace in the region. This, of course, is exactly what Iran does not want. This is the reason for their desperation. They understand what is unfolding if they do not respond, if they do not somehow stand in the way of it.

This is a time not only for the United States to stand with our ally, Israel, but for every nation around the world that values peace, freedom, and democracy to do so as well.

I strongly support this resolution. I would hope it passes this House with strong, unanimous, bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, COVID-era school shutdowns were the most consequential political failure of at least the 21st century. We are finally starting to see some recognition of that, yet we still have not fully reckoned with the sheer breadth and scale of the harm that was done to so many people and to our entire country.

We haven't had nearly the level of accountability for those who were responsible for these decisions, and we certainly haven't seen the fundamental change to public education in this country that what happened ought to have catalyzed. Nonetheless, at least we are starting to see some recognition of the harm that was done and the mistakes that were made.

Here is an article from The New York Times: ``What the Data Says About Pandemic School Closures, Four Years Later.''

``The more time students spent in remote instruction, the further they fell behind. And, experts say, extended closures did little to stop the spread of COVID.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a few excerpts from this article.

It says: ``Some schools, often in Republican-led States and rural areas reopened by fall 2020. Others, typically in large cities and States led by Democrats, would not fully reopen for another year.

``A variety of data--about children's academic outcomes and about the spread of COVID-19--has accumulated in the time since. Today, there is broad acknowledgment among many public health and education experts that extended school closures did not significantly stop the spread of COVID, while the academic harms for children have been large and long- lasting.''

Dr. Sean O'Leary, a pediatric infectious disease specialist who worked with the current American Academy of Pediatrics, says: ``There is fairly good consensus that, in general, as a society we probably kept kids out of school longer than we should have.''

The article continues: ``A growing body of research shows that pandemic school closures came at a steep cost to students. At the State level, more time spent in remote or hybrid instruction in the 2020-21 school year was associated with larger drops in test scores, according to a New York Times analysis of school closure data and results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. . . . `'

``At the school district level, that finding also holds, according to analysis of test scores from third through eighth grade in thousands of U.S. districts, led by researchers at Sanford and Harvard. . . . Learning remotely, they fell more than half a grade behind in math on average, while in districts that spent most of the year in person they lost just over a third of a grade.''

The article continues that ``larger gaps remaining among students that lost the most ground to begin with. Students in districts that were remote or hybrid the longest--at least 90 percent of the 2020-21 school year--still had almost double the ground to make up compared with students in districts that allowed students back for most of the year.''

``As districts shifted toward in-person learning as the year went on, students that were offered a hybrid schedule . . . did better, on average, than those in places where school was fully remote, but worse than those in places that had school fully in person.''

In particular, Mr. Speaker, young people in low-income communities suffered the most. The Times notes that ``the combination--poverty and remote learning--was particularly harmful. For each week spent remote, students in poor districts experienced steeper losses in math than peers in richer districts.''

The article continues that ``other things were also associated with worse student outcomes, including increased anxiety and depression among adults in children's lives, and the overall restriction of social activity in a community, according to the Stanford and Harvard research.''

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the article notes that closing schools did not appear to significantly slow COVID spread.

By the fall of 2020, ``there were initial signs that children were less likely to become seriously ill, and growing evidence from Europe and parts of the United States that opening schools, with safety measures, did not lead to significantly more transmission.''

That was clear in the fall of 2020 at the time when so many schools remained closed.

Dr. Noble, who directed the COVID response at the UCSF emergency department, said: ``Infectious disease leaders have generally agreed that school closures were not an important strategy in stemming the spread of COVID.''

In addition to The Times' acknowledgment here, Mr. Speaker, we also have a new study out of Stanford's Hoover Institution that shows that because of the reduction in lifetime earning potential for students because of the learning loss they experienced, it is going to have a truly staggering economic impact on our country.

The study finds that our Nation will lose some $31 trillion--that is trillion with a t--$31 trillion during the 21st century because of this catastrophic policy.

Now, while this Times article is collecting data 4 years later, this was all very clear at the time from nearly the beginning of the pandemic. I said so myself when our Governor, Gavin Newsom, in early July of 2020 ordered California schools to be closed for the coming school year.

I released a statement saying:

Today's decision elevates the appearance of safety over

actual student safety. A growing body of evidence suggests

school closures do little to flatten the academic curve while

they are a calamity for kids.

I certainly was not alone in saying so. On June 29 of 2020, the American Academy of Pediatrics said it ``strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.''

I did a survey of my district at the time. This is June and July of 2020 heading into the 2021 school year. Mr. Speaker, 6,028 people responded, and over 80 percent said they wanted an in-person learning option to start the school year; yet, our Governor, like many others, did not abide by their wishes. He shut down schools across the State.

However, tellingly, he sent his own children to in-person private school at the exact same time that he was expelling millions of less fortunate kids from California public schools.

That tells us everything we need to know about the fact that he knew that his policy was the wrong thing to do.

While California was the very worst State in the country, dead last out of all 50 States in getting kids back to school, many States in this country reopened their schools far too slowly.

Although many did, in fact, open for the fall of 2020, and their children experienced very little learning loss. That is further evidence of what the data made very clear at that time.

Now, the Biden administration, for its part, was complicit in all of this. The administration, for example, had all of the wrong priorities. He went after the Governors who refused to do child mask mandates rather than criticizing the Governors who refused to open schools.

The Education Department even sued the Biden administration. They even sued States that opted not to do child mask mandates--mandates, by the way, that flew in the face of all available evidence and ran directly against what the WHO recommended in some cases and our counterparts in Europe.

The administration sued Governors for refusing to enforce child mask mandates, and, yet, would not criticize Governors who refused to open schools.

I asked the Secretary of Education about this myself at a hearing last year.

I said: Did you ever criticize Gavin Newsom or Governors like him for refusing to open schools?

Did you ever encourage them to open schools?

He could not give me a single example of when he did so.

The blame for this disastrous set of policy decisions lies first and foremost with the State leaders who made them, but the Biden administration was very much complicit in the harms of something that are going to be with our country for a very long time.

Mr. Speaker, why is it important to still focus on this now that we are through the pandemic and kids are back in school?

In one infamous article in The Atlantic the writer proposed that we have a pandemic amnesty, we just forget everything that happened, and we avoid revisiting the mistakes that were made. However, I think that is exactly the wrong thing to do for a few reasons.

The first is that it is an insult to the millions and millions of kid across this country who have suffered so much, who suffered dramatic learning loss, whose learning, lives, and careers are now going to be held back, who suffered from a mental health perspective, from a social development perspective, who weren't able to play youth sports and who suffered so many other things because of what political leaders, people in power, knew to be the wrong decision.

What is more is this harm is still ongoing, the harm that kids suffered and the learning loss that they suffered. They have not regained the ground that was lost, and, frankly, we have not done nearly enough to try to provide the support that is needed to help students regain those losses more quickly.

Finally, what happened during the COVID era provided a window into the broader failures in public education in many parts of this country. California, for example, even before COVID ranked last out of the 48 States, in the continental U.S., second to last out of all 50 States when it came to education outcomes in low-income communities. Then, lo and behold, California also had the worst COVID policies with the longest school shutdown.

Those facts derive from the same underlying cause which is that our public education system simply is not about the kids. We see that right now in the ongoing attacks on charter schools where this administration has tried to cut grants for charter schools, where California has made it much more difficult to open and to replicate high performing charter schools, and where just last week, the second largest school district in the country, the Los Angeles Unified School District voted to restrict the operation of charter schools in what is largely a failing district.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have a long way to go to fully come to terms with what happened in education during the COVID era in this country and certainly a long way to go to make the necessary reforms to ensure that every child in this country gets the education they deserve, but at least the acknowledgement we see here is a start.

Recognizing Shigeru Ochi

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a truly remarkable veteran and community member in my district, Mr. Shigeru Ochi, for his 100-year milestone birthday.

On February 26, in Folsom, California, Mr. Ochi celebrated a century's worth of life experiences and history, which included many notable events and personal accomplishments, as well as much adversity and hardship.

Mr. Ochi was born in 1924 and was raised in east Los Angeles, where he experienced the economic downturn of the Great Depression. Less than 2 months before he was to graduate high school, World War II commenced and was underway.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Ochi and his family were ordered to an internment camp in Inyo County due to their Japanese ancestry.

After being released from the internment camp 1 month after his 19th birthday in 1943, he went on to pursue higher education at Macalester College in Minnesota. He was able to complete 1 year at the college before being drafted by the U.S. Army.

Despite the challenge of living through incarceration in an internment camp, Mr. Ochi recalls being eager to show his loyalty to the United States by serving in our military.

As part of his service, he graduated from the Military Intelligence Service Language School and was deployed to Hiroshima, where his family originated, to support his fellow soldiers and assist in post-war efforts.

Following his service in World War II, he completed his degree. Then, in the spring, the Graduate Record Exam was administered nationally for the first time, and he received a perfect score in math. This score, in addition to his excellent academic record, earned him a full scholarship to MIT for graduate school, where he graduated at the top of his class in 1951.

Throughout his life, Mr. Ochi has continually exhibited the qualities of determination, resilience, and perseverance, and he is known by all who know him for his devotion to his family, community, and country.

I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Ochi at his 100-year birthday celebration. It was truly a wonderful experience. He is such an inspiration, and I am honored to represent exemplary individuals like him in the U.S. House. He embodies the American spirit of patriotism and is an inspiration to our entire community.

Therefore, on behalf of California's Third Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize Mr. Shigeru Ochi for his centennial birthday, and I wish to express our Nation's gratitude for his heroic and invaluable service.

Recognizing Daniel C. Holler

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the retiring town manager for the town of Mammoth Lakes, Daniel C. Holler, for his years of service to the Mammoth Lakes community.

Mr. Holler has served the people of Mammoth Lakes for more than a decade with an overall career of public service of over 36 years. Mr. Holler began his government career in 1987. Throughout his career, he worked for many different municipalities, including the city of Glendora, the city of West Covina, Douglas County in Nevada, and, lastly, the town of Mammoth Lakes.

During Mr. Holler's tenure as Mammoth Lakes' town manager, he successfully managed the town's budget and 106 full-time employees; assumed a leadership role in four disaster declarations, including extreme weather events and COVID-19; promoted housing projects and programs; invested in parks and recreation amenities; improved recycling programs; and enhanced overall services in the town of Mammoth Lakes.

Mr. Holler achieved a wide diversity of accomplishments to improve the quality of life and experiences for residents, businesses, and visitors of Mammoth Lakes. One particularly noteworthy accomplishment was his leadership in the development, funding, and partnership supporting a new community recreation center, home of the LA Kings Ice at Mammoth Lakes and the Mammoth Rec Zone.

It is because of the commitment of people like Mr. Holler that Mammoth Lakes is such a great place to live, work, and raise a family.

I personally saw how effective he was when Mammoth was hit by really unprecedented extreme weather and storms last year. The task of clearing the streets, making them drivable, and the million other challenges that this weather presented were incredibly difficult to deal with. Yet, he managed them ably. The snow was cleared from the streets in time. You wouldn't even be able to believe how quickly he and his entire team was able to do that. It tells you a lot about the caliber of his leadership.

I am confident that the legacy he built of hard work, resilience, vision, and service will continue in the town of Mammoth Lakes for many years to come.

Recognizing U.S. Sergeant Maciel Hay

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the outgoing COO of the Folsom Chamber of Commerce, Sheri Merrick.

Before working with the local small business community, Sheri started her career in the dental industry as an office manager and bookkeeper. In that position, her passion for the dental industry grew, inspiring her to expand her education in the dental field.

She went on to attain over 19 years of managing experience and teaching whole-body health education with a focus on the connection between the mouth and the rest of the body.

Through innovative marketing approaches and educational tools, she helped many dental offices thrive in a down economy. From there, she established her own consulting and community engagement company and worked closely with the Folsom Chamber of Commerce.

In 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, she took up her passion for small business full time by joining the Folsom Chamber of Commerce team. During that time, she played an instrumental role toward helping many organizations face and overcome the challenges surrounding the pandemic.

For almost 7 years as a whole, Sheri devoted her time and talents to Folsom businesses. Through my own experience working with Sheri, I can attest to the ambition and enthusiasm with which she performed her role. I commend her for the lasting contributions she has made toward promoting the business environment, economic vitality, and quality of life in Folsom.

It is because of remarkable people like Sheri Merrick that Folsom is such a great place to live, work, and raise a family.

While she will be greatly missed in Folsom, I am confident that her breadth of knowledge, experiences, and abilities have uniquely positioned her for her new role as the executive director of the Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce and that she will continue to make a very positive impact.

On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize Sheri Merrick for her hard work and dedication to the Folsom business community, and I wish her the best of luck in her new role.

Recognizing House Education and the Workforce Committee

Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the House Education and the Workforce Committee's passage yesterday of my resolution under the Congressional Review Act to nullify the Biden administration's new independent contractor rule.

The resolution passed the committee yesterday. It now has over 60 cosponsors and has a companion measure led by Senator Cassidy in the Senate.

The Biden administration's rule is one of the most harmful regulations that we have ever seen issued in this country. It is explicitly modeled on California's disastrous law known as AB5, which has cost people their livelihoods in over 600 professions and led to heartbreaking story after heartbreaking story of people who lost their careers, who lost everything.

A recent study out of George Mason shows that AB5 in California led to a 10.4 percent decline in self-employment and a 4.5 percent decline in overall employment.

Now, the Biden administration is threatening to do the same damage to our entire country. Tens of millions of freelancers and independent contractors will be affected by this new rule.

Just to take one example, there are hundreds of thousands of truckers who could be taken off the road, throwing our supply chains into chaos. It is by no means an exaggeration to say that the livelihoods of millions of Americans are now at risk.

The administration's new rule, which not even the administrator of the Wage and Hour Division could give us any answers as to how it will be applied at a recent hearing of my subcommittee that I convened, is so overreaching that it has already prompted four separate lawsuits on procedural grounds, statutory grounds, and constitutional grounds.

To add insult to injury, the administration has, of all people, brought in to enforce it Julie Su, who was the labor secretary in California and, in that role, was the architect of AB5 and ruthlessly enforced it to such devastating effect.

Ms. Su remains unconfirmed. For over a year, she has been in an acting capacity, and the Senate returned her nomination to the President last year amid bipartisan opposition. Yet, the administration has kept her in that role, apparently one of the main reasons being so that she could enforce it in the exact same damaging way that AB5 was enforced in California.

Of course, I am continuing to call on President Biden to do the right thing, to withdraw Ms. Su's failed nomination and to withdraw this disastrous new independent contractor rule. Barring that, Ms. Su and President Biden should, at the very least, put the rule on hold, suspend it until the ongoing litigation's outcome is clear. The business community and millions of workers across this country will otherwise be in a state of great and highly damaging uncertainty.

In the meantime, I will continue to build support and work with folks on both sides of the aisle to pass this resolution under the Congressional Review Act so that we can spare millions of American workers from the same fate that folks have suffered in California and to protect the right to earn a living in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, last week, President Biden presented his State of the Union Address, and the reviews from the public show it to be the most poorly received of any that has ever been measured, since the State of the Union has appeared on television. It is no secret why.

The President's tone and his general approach to the address really encapsulated why a lot of people are so turned off by politics and the work of our government these days.

The partisanship and the eagerness to cast blame and to scapegoat rather than to seek common ground and find solutions is exactly why so many people are so frustrated with the direction of our country.

On top of that, the President said a lot of things that just simply didn't accord with reality, so today, I want to present the 10 most false and misleading statements from President Biden's State of the Union address.

First, near the beginning of his speech, President Biden said not since President Lincoln and the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault here at home as they are today. I am afraid that President Biden has a very short memory because we all just lived through the COVID era.

Starting in March 2020, the most basic freedoms and tenets of democracy were not just assaulted in this country, but they vanished entirely in many places.

Governors like Gavin Newsom in California declared the legislative branch abolished and barricaded Capitol buildings--this Capitol itself was barricaded--ruling by executive decrees, even threatening to declare martial law.

Citizens were not allowed to leave their homes. Businesses were not allowed to open their doors. Children were not allowed to go to school or play sports.

People of faith were not allowed to worship or even gather for Bible study. Beaches were declared off-limits. Curfews were imposed even for adults having dinner with one other couple in a private residence.

Pedestrians were tackled literally for not wearing masks while walking around outdoors. Employees were fired from their jobs. Kids were expelled from school. Consumers were banned from coffee shops over their personal medical decisions.

Social media users were suspended for deviating from the government- approved narrative, even if they happened to present true information.

It is understandable why Biden would like to pretend that none of this ever happened, but we all lived through it, and the scars will be with our country for a very long time.

A second related statement that the President made is that the pandemic no longer controls our lives. The truth is, the pandemic never controlled our lives. It was government actions in response to the pandemic that controlled our lives.

If you look at the data now where you had different States that took very different approaches in dealing with COVID, what we have learned is that States like California, which had by far the worst lockdowns and restrictions on personal freedoms, where people's lives were controlled far more than any other State, actually had among the worst public health outcomes as well.

What you see on the part of many and, in particular, the Biden administration is that it is very clear that this was, in many ways, the worst set of policy decisions our country has seen in modern times.

Restrictions on personal liberty, damage to our economy, and damage to our children was done for absolutely no reason.

There is an attempt to pretend that none of this ever even occurred, which is what the President's remarks in his State of the Union is an example of, but even more so, look at the testimony of members of this administration before Congress this term.

You had Education Secretary Miguel Cardona give false testimony to the Education and the Workforce Committee when he claimed that he never encouraged States to adopt student vaccine mandates when he did precisely that.

You had Health and Human Services Secretary Becerra claim in testimony before our committee that he never forced anyone to do anything and didn't impose a toddler mask mandate when, in fact, Head Start, which is under his jurisdiction, did have a mask mandate for 2- year-olds and up, which flew in the face of even the policy of the European counterparts of the CDC and the World Health Organization. Mr. Becerra, by the way, could not point to one public health benefit of that policy.

You also had Douglas Parker, who is the head of OSHA, in testimony before my subcommittee claim that the Biden administration never tried to do an employer vaccine mandate when, in fact, they tried to do just that, which would have applied to tens of millions of Americans if the United States Supreme Court had not struck it down.

The third statement from President Biden was a statement that he has already cut the Federal deficit by over $1 trillion. This is just plainly numerically false.

When President Biden took office, the national debt was $27.8 trillion. Today, it is $34.2 trillion. In just a few years, it has gone from $27.8 trillion to $34.2 trillion.

The reason is no mystery. The President went on a massive spending spree with bills passed that included multiple trillion-dollar increases in spending, which, of course, has not only increased the debt beyond anything that we have ever seen but is what triggered this inflation crisis that is still causing so many American families to struggle.

That brings me to the next statement of the President during the State of the Union, which is that now our economy is the envy of the world. Far from being the envy of the world, our economy is a source of great dissatisfaction from the folks who live in our country.

A recent New York Times poll asked: Do you think the economy is better or worse than it was 4 years ago, or is it about the same?

Mr. Speaker, 21 percent said it is better; 63 percent said it is worse. Three times as many people said the economy is worse today than it was 4 years ago.

The Times poll also asked: Thinking about the Nation's economy, how would you rate economic conditions today? Mr. Speaker, 28 percent said either excellent or good, and 72 percent said only fair or poor--28 percent to 72 percent.

A related statement from the President's State of the Union was that wages keep going up, and inflation keeps coming down. Both are demonstrably false.

In fact, since President Biden took office, real wages and take-home pay have decreased in some sense because folks are not getting the same number of hours that they used to be getting. When it comes to inflation, here are just a few statistics for you. Prices today at this point compared to 3 years ago, the price of gasoline has gone up by over 33 percent, the price of hotel

rooms by 31 percent, the price of household energy by 29 percent, the price of transportation by 27 percent, the price of airfare by 23 percent, the price of groceries by 21 percent, the price of restaurant meals by 20 percent, the price of used vehicles, new vehicles, housing, rent, overall inflation, personal care, furniture, all in the high teens. The list goes on.

Here is the thing: The President's statement that inflation is coming down, that is not any source of great personal satisfaction or encouragement for folks who are having to deal with these prices.

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, recently noted we don't expect to see a decline in the overall price level. That doesn't tend to happen in economies.

We don't expect to see a decline in the overall price level. It has not happened yet, and it is not going to happen, according to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The irresponsible spending policies of this administration have unleashed inflation and a rise in prices that is not going away for American families.

In President Biden's State of the Union, he also said that to remain the strongest economy in the world, we need the best education system in the world. The problem is that this President's policies have made it more difficult for us to have a good education system, let alone the best education system in the world.

Last week, we held a hearing in the Education and the Workforce Committee on charter schools, which have been shown across the board to produce tremendous results in expanding opportunity, lowering achievement gaps, and increasing student achievement across the board. Yet, one of the first things that the Biden administration did as soon as he took office is to go after charter schools and cut charter school grants, not to mention the school shutdowns that were enacted across this country in States like California. This President never came out and did a single thing to get Governors like Gavin Newsom to let kids go back to school.

We are going to be dealing with the harms from these school shutdowns for a very long time. If we look at all the mistakes during COVID, perhaps there was no bigger one than the school shutdown that did so much harm to so many kids.

President Biden also stated: `` . . . on my first day in office, I introduced a comprehensive plan to fix our immigration system, secure the border. . . .''

He did no such thing. He did quite the contrary on his very first day in office and his first days in office with dozens of executive actions that made the border less secure. The results were utterly predictable.

We now have had 8 million illegal border crossings since the President took office.

He set the all-time record in his first year. He broke that record in his second year, and he broke that record in his third year.

For several years, going back to 2014 before he took office, there had only been 5 months, a handful of months, out of all of those months and all of those years, where there were more than 100,000 people that crossed the border illegally. That figure has been met each and every month since President Biden took office.

You can look at exactly what he did and trace these consequences to that change in policy, those unilateral changes in policy, where he ended the migrant protection protocols, remain in Mexico; he instituted catch and release; he ended title 42; he ended the border emergency. He completely distorted and warped the parole and asylum systems to let tens of thousands of people into the country.

These are the things that he did when he took office. The idea that he came into office and proposed fixing our system and securing the border could not be more out of touch with reality.

The President also stated that he is ready to fix it, referring to the border. That is what he said: I am ready to fix it.

If he was ready to fix it, he would have fixed it. He would have reversed the unilateral actions that he took when he became President that have caused this unprecedented number of people to come across the border.

What is more, he could provide encouragement for the Senate to pass the Secure the Border Act, H.R. 2, which we passed in the House toward the very beginning of last year. It has been gathering dust over in the Senate. The President hasn't done that.

If he was truly ready to fix it, if he was ready to fix the crisis at our border, he would have done so.

The ninth false and misleading statement from the President's remarks are that violent crime has fallen to its lowest offense level the last 50 years.

In reality, violent crime still has not gone back to what it was before COVID. What is more, property crime has skyrocketed across the country, including a huge increase in vehicle thefts.

The Judiciary Committee has held field hearings in Manhattan, in Chicago, right here in Washington, D.C., where we have seen the absolute horrifying amounts of violent crime and the number of victims that are being created as a result.

We see cities in California, like Los Angeles and San Francisco and Oakland, where they are literally collapsing.

In Oakland, Governor Newsom just sent in extra law enforcement because the crime there is so out of control.

In Los Angeles, the police will tell you not to go outside wearing jewelry to avoid getting mugged.

In Oakland, the In-and-Out just closed its first-ever restaurant because it wasn't safe for their customers and their consumers.

In Oakland, Taco Bell just announced that its four restaurants are no longer going to have indoor dining and they are no longer going to accept cash.

In San Francisco, we see more and more businesses leaving each and every day. Even the store that inspired ``Toy Story'' that has been there for decades recently closed, as well.

Madam Speaker, the final truly misleading statement from the President that for many, many Americans could not be more false, is when he said that, ``tonight we can proudly say the state of our Union is strong.''

Americans overwhelmingly disagree with that statement. They are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the direction of the country.

It is time for change. It is time for a new direction. My hope is that the President would have recognized that, would have acknowledged his mistakes when it comes to the economy, when it comes to the border, when it comes to public safety, and proposed a new direction, proposed turning the page.

I would have been very happy to work with him if he had done that. I am still happy to work with him in any way possible, if it is going to change his approach to the economy, to immigration, to crime, and to several other areas.

Unfortunately, we have not seen that yet. As someone who comes from California, I can tell you where we are going, because we have already seen it play out in California.

This President continues to copy California's failed policies. He believes Gavin Newsome when Newsome says that California is a model for the Nation. In fact, California is losing people each and every day. It is very sad.

What used to be the State where anyone can get ahead, it has now become the State so many can't wait to leave behind. For the fourth straight year, we have led the Nation in one-way U-Haul rentals.

If Joe Biden's administration continues to copy California's policies, we are going to see similar results for the entire country.

Independent Contractor Rule

Madam Speaker, I think yesterday will be remembered as a very important and notorious day in the history of the United States workforce for two reasons.

First of all, it was the 1-year anniversary of Julie Su being installed as Acting Secretary of Labor.

Ms. Su was the Labor Secretary in California for Gavin Newsome. During her tenure, California had the worst unemployment in the country. Californians had the highest poverty rate and the lowest level of wage growth in the country. She was responsible for $31 billion in fraud of the State's unemployment department, and she was the architect of one of the worst laws in our State, or truly our country's history, known as AB5.

Unfortunately, President Biden thought that this was a good resume to be the new Secretary of Labor, so he nominated her last year.

The administration set up a war room inside of the White House to get her confirmed. It was a very, very aggressive campaign to convince Senators to confirm her. Yet, all of that, the Senate rejected her nomination. It was never brought to the floor for a vote. There was bipartisan opposition. At the end of the year, the Senate returned the nomination to President Biden, not having confirmed Ms. Su. Yet, she remains as Acting Secretary of Labor, and has just passed her 1-year anniversary.

This is truly a lawless situation, an end run around the advice and consent process in the United States Constitution. The fact that Ms. Su has been there for a year despite the Senate rejecting her nomination, despite the White House doing everything they possibly could to get her confirmed, and the Senate still refusing to confirm her, is an insult to our Constitution, to our workers, and to the American people.

But it just so happened that on the very day that Ms. Su marked her 1-year anniversary as the unconfirmed Acting Secretary of Labor, the new rule that her department has proposed, the independent contractor rule which is modeled on Gavin Newsome and Julie Su's AB5 law from California, went into effect.

Now, AB5 has been a complete and utter disaster for our State. It has caused folks in over 600 different professions to lose their livelihood, their ability to make a living. What the new rule does, like AB5, is significantly restrict one's ability to be an independent contractor, to work on your own terms, to be your own boss, or to be able to set your own schedule.

In many industries and for many people, if you don't have that ability, then your entire enterprise or business model becomes nonviable, which is exactly what happened in California.

Before AB5 went into effect, in late 2019, early 2020, you had all kinds of people that suddenly had lost their ability to earn a living.

Now a few years later, we recently got some empirical evidence for this as well out of George Mason University, which studied the employment effects in California, specifically of AB5. What the study found is that it decreased self-employment by 10 percent and decreased overall employment by 4 percent, which might be one reason why just today, with the new job numbers out, California's unemployment rate has ticked up again. It is 5.2 percent. It is the second highest unemployment rate in the entire country.

Now, Ms. Su's independent contractor rule is modeled on AB5 in California. President Biden cited AB5 as his model for labor relations nationwide. It is worth noting, by the way, that AB5 has become so toxic, so infamous, that when I asked Ms. Su about it in committee, she wouldn't even say or opine on whether it was a good law. She said she didn't know, had no opinion on the matter. She was the architect and lead enforcer of that very law.

But the new independent contractor rule that the administration is proposing is also creating an extraordinary amount of uncertainty. It has six different factors--in fact, more than that. It places an extraordinary amount of discretion in the enforcers; that is, in Ms. Su, the very architect of AB5.

By the way, AB5 was so bad in California that over 100 different professions were exempted and they are not exempted in this new independent contractor rule from the Department of Labor.

So when I asked the head of the Wage and Hour Division in a recent hearing: Does this apply to various different professions? She could not give an answer to any of them.

I asked her about realtors, a couple million realtors in this country: Can they be considered independent contractors? She couldn't say.

This new rule is about to throw our entire workforce into chaos. Fortunately, it has already invited four different lawsuits that are proceeding in different parts of the country.

On account of those legal challenges, I wrote a letter to Ms. Su yesterday saying, at the very least--obviously, she should withdraw the rule--but at the very least, given the pendency of this legislation, she ought to put the rule on hold until the matter is litigated--until these challenges, which are based on the process, which are based on statute, which are based on the Constitution and due process--until they can be heard, so that the affected individuals will not be in this whiplash, depending on what the courts do and what the Department decides to do from that moment forward.

I wrote that letter to Ms. Su yesterday with it being the effective date of the new rule.

But beyond that, I have also introduced legislation under the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act allows for a fast-tracked piece of legislation to nullify a rule or regulation that has been put out by a department or agency like this one.

So my Congressional Review Act resolution simply nullifies and stops this new rule propounded by the Department of Labor.

We already have 54 cosponsors for this legislation, and it will be marked up in committee very soon. I am strongly urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in passing this legislation to take back Congress' rightful authority over this area and to prevent our workforce from being thrown into chaos at a time when the American economy simply cannot afford it.

Amicus Brief Case of City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson

Madam Speaker, earlier this week I filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in the case of City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson. This is challenging a Ninth Circuit decision.

It has been agreed to be heard by the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, oral argument will be taking place next month, and we expect a decision later this year.

Several of my colleagues here in the House who serve and represent districts in California and on the West Coast have joined me and signed onto the amicus brief.

Madam Speaker, we are urging the Supreme Court to overturn a line of Ninth Circuit cases that started what is known as the Boise decision and that has contributed to the explosion of homelessness and crime in California.

California's homelessness situation has continued to get worst and worst, even as homelessness has gone down in many other parts of the country.

As a matter of fact, right now, about half of the unsheltered homeless in the United States, in the entire country, are in California. The Boise decision is one reason why.

What this decision and its progeny have done is handcuffed cities and counties and municipalities from being able to enforce camping bands or otherwise clear out homeless encampments in public spaces.

This has made it extremely difficult for cities that even want to take a smart and compassionate and pro-public safety approach from being able to do so for fear that they will immediately get sued.

So this is an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in in a way that will reverse a legal error that was made by the Ninth Circuit that has created many different social problems. I am very encouraged by this opportunity, because if we can re-empower local jurisdictions to take accountability and ownership of this issue and give them the tools that they need to stop this disorder from playing out in our public spaces, then that is going to go a long way toward fighting the crisis of homelessness, toward combating crime, toward getting help to folks who need it who are suffering or abusing drugs or who otherwise have issues related to mental illness, then we can get the homelessness problem in California under control.

It happens to be coming at the same time as the citizens of California are working to place an initiative on the ballot to substantially reverse what is known as Proposition 47.

Proposition 47 decriminalized huge swaths of behavior in California when it came to retail theft and open drug use. By taking tools away from law enforcement and releasing many people from our jails and prisons early, it has

also contributed to the crises of the growing problem of homelessness and crime in California.

For folks in our State who look at the growing problems that we face, the disorder in places especially like Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and far too many communities, there may be hope on the horizon. There may be a path to sanity.

If the United States Supreme Court follows our advice in this amicus brief and if the voters pass the initiative to reverse Proposition 47, then we can bring some sanity back to the way we deal with these issues in California and improve the quality of life for people in our State.

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 7 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 13, 2024, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Wage and Hour Division Administrator Jessica Looman testified before the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections and could not answer the most basic questions about how the administration's new independent contractor rule will apply to millions of Americans.

Will Realtors be considered employees or independent contractors? She could not say. Will truckers be considered employees or independent contractors? She could not say. Will writers be considered independent contractors or employees? She could not say.

She could not say who will be allowed to work and who will have their careers taken away from them. The reason for her evasiveness is that we already know the answer.

We have seen the devastating consequences of the law in California, AB5, that was the model for the Biden administration's rule.

Take the story of Barbara. Barbara says:

I am a proofreader. Nearly all proofreading is done online

on a freelance basis.

Competition is fierce, and it is hard to get clients, but I

did it. I was thrilled at being able to choose what editing

jobs I was best suited for and to work as much or as little

as I wanted.

Californians need not apply for any of these jobs, thanks

to AB5. Not only can I not work in my chosen career, but all

the time and money I spent is wasted.

In order to prevent millions of Americans from suffering Barbara's fate, I am encouraging this House to pass my resolution under the Congressional Review Act to reverse the Biden administration's new rule.

Madam Speaker, the Biden administration's Department of Labor has announced a new independent contractor rule that is a full- fledged assault on the right to earn a living in America.

It is estimated that this new rule will cost between 3.2 and 3.6 million American jobs, and this is not a matter of speculation. We have seen the devastating impact of the law that this rule was based upon, AB5 in California. A new study shows that this law in California led to a 10 percent decline in self-employment and a 4 percent decline in overall employment.

These are just numbers, though. What is really important to understand is the stories of folks who have lost everything because of AB5 in California.

This is from Daniel who said: I am a chiropractor in California. I was just terminated from my wonderful independent contract, 10-hour- per-week job. The company cited AB5. I have had this job for 10 years. The job allowed me flexibility to take care of my three special-needs kids. Now, it is gone.

To prevent millions of Americans from suffering the same fate as Daniel, I am sponsoring legislation under the Congressional Review Act to nullify this new rule from the Department of Labor, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reclaim the policymaking authority of Congress in this area.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labor has announced a new independent contractor rule, which, in fact, targets independent contractors across America.

It is based upon AB5, a truly destructive California law that has devastated independent professionals in over 600 professions.

In hopes of trying to get this House to act to stop this rule from taking effect next month, I am sharing the stories of California freelancers and independent contractors who have been harmed by AB5, which President Biden has called his model for national labor relations.

One story comes from Jodie. Jodie said: I worked years to gain my skills as an American Sign Language interpreter. It was my goal since I was 9 years old. After AB5, I lost all three of my agencies. The dream I worked for is lost. I can't provide for my family and thousands of California deaf won't be served.

In order to spare millions of Americans the same fate as Jodie, I am asking for bipartisan support for my legislation under the Congressional Review Act to nullify the Biden administration's new independent contractor rule.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labor has announced a new independent contractor rule, which will cost millions of American jobs and be absolutely devastating for our workforce and our economy. We know that, because we have seen the effects of the law it was modeled on, AB 5, in California.

As a warning against the Biden administration's new rule, I am sharing the stories of Californians who have suffered under that law.

For example, Esther said: I help people who don't speak English communicate with medical providers. I am a proud senior, independent and self-sufficient. AB 5 leaves me out of work, unprotected, and isolated. It takes away my pride. It was passed without taking people like me into account.

To spare millions of Americans the same fate as Esther, I am calling on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in Congressional Review Act legislation to nullify the Biden administration's new independent contractor rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend a new initiative by the business community and law enforcement in Placer County spearheaded by the district attorney's office called the Placer County Retail Theft Initiative.

You can see here a printout of window signs that businesses in Placer County can now display. It says: ``This business is protected by Placer County's Retail Theft Initiative. Warning, Placer County is invested in holding those who steal from our residents and businesses accountable to the greatest extent the State law allows.''

Now, the reason this is necessary is that there has been an epidemic of retail theft in California, owing to very misguided changes to the State's criminal laws, as well as very misguided choices by certain jurisdictions to defund police and to have prosecutors who refuse to enforce the law.

What Placer County, a county in my district, is doing is saying that we are not one of those jurisdictions. We are a pro-public safety county and, what's more, even though the State's criminal laws around retail theft are very weak, the county is using the full authority that exists in those laws, maximizing the accountability that can be brought to bear on those who choose to steal.

Therefore, these signs have been distributed. You can actually get them from the district attorney's office. My office has some, as well, if you are a business and would like to display one in your window. It serves as a real deterrent.

What is making this possible is: the Placer County Board of Supervisors has voted to accept a $2 million grant for the Placer County District Attorney's Office new retail theft vertical prosecution team. With these grant funds, the DA's office will add a full-time deputy district attorney, a district attorney investigator, and a crime analyst to work on the investigation and prosecution of retail theft crimes.

The vertical prosecution structure provided by the grant allows for cases to be handled by the same investigator and prosecutor from case filing through adjudication.

You can see here the broad coalition that is behind this initiative. It is not just the DA's office. It is the sheriff's office; it is the Roseville Police Department; it is the Rocklin Police Department; the Auburn Police Department; the Lincoln Police Department; Colfax, as well as the business community of the Roseville area chamber.

You have the Lincoln chamber, you have the Rocklin area chamber, you have the Auburn chamber, the Foresthill chamber, Colfax chamber, Loomis Basin chamber, an entire coalition that has come together in order to make this a very clear deterrent.

Again, this is an actual sign that businesses can have in their window so that thieves who are walking by will see that, if they choose to prey upon this business, if they choose to steal, then that crime is going to be reported, and they are going to be held accountable to the full extent that the law allows.

In this way, I believe Placer County is setting a model for jurisdictions across California. In fact, this isn't the first time that Placer has done this. Placer County was also the first county in the State of California to obtain a murder conviction for fentanyl.

Again, the State's laws, similar to retail theft, on fentanyl are not as strong as they should be. The legislature and Governor have refused to act to pass stronger laws, but the district attorney's office has managed to use the authority within existing law to bring the full measure of accountability on those who prey on the public.

As Placer County District Attorney Morgan Gire said: ``Placer County is known as a problem solver on key issues affecting our State. Our county's collaborative and innovative approach to statewide problems, coupled with our ability to address those problems proactively, makes Placer County a leader in addressing challenges affecting our quality of life. This retail theft initiative shows that we are united and dedicated to fighting retail theft in our region.''

It is one reason, by the way, why folks want to come to our county. While the population of California has been steadily declining, it has actually been increasing in our county, and a major reason is the dedication of those who are in public safety roles and support that exists in our community for supporting law enforcement as a key facet of maintaining our quality of life.

Now, of course, you can look at other parts of the State, like San Francisco, where you are seeing precisely the opposite, where there is this downward spiral of retailers continuing to close. It is like a new business every day seems to shut down. The city itself is losing population faster than any major city in U.S. history.

Ultimately, the State of California needs to reform its broken criminal justice system. Initiatives like Prop 47 have dramatically reduced the consequences that are available for retail theft, and for open drug use. Other policies like Prop 57, Realignment, and many more have weakened our ability to hold offenders accountable.

What Placer County has shown is that, even with being dealt a bad hand by the State, it is still possible for the community to come together to insist on accountability, and I think that what they are doing is a great model. I would certainly encourage any businesses within Placer who are seeing this to pick up one of these signs in order to protect your establishment.

Independent Contractor Rule

Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration's Department of Labor has announced a new independent contractor rule that amounts to one of the most potentially harmful economic policies that has come out of this administration or any administration in recent history. It is estimated that this new rule, which restricts significantly the ability to be an independent contractor, to work as a freelancer, to be your own boss, could cost upwards of 3.2 to 3.6 million full and part-time jobs.

Also, here is the thing. This is not a matter of speculation. Sometimes, when you have a proposed policy, you can do an economic analysis and try to forecast what the effects might be. However, in this case, we know exactly what the effects are going to be, because we have already seen them play out in California.

This new independent contractor rule is based upon California's infamous AB5 law, which was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2019.

The effects of that law have been absolutely devastating. In fact, a study out of George Mason University just a few weeks ago found that the law, in and of itself, has reduced self-employment in California by over 10 percent and has reduced overall employment by over 4 percent. That is potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been lost in California because of this one law. That is what really makes this law uniquely devastating.

California has a lot of very harmful labor and economic policies, and we are seeing a lot from this administration, as well. Oftentimes, as a worker, as an entrepreneur, as a small business owner, there is a death-by-a-million-cuts effect where the costs imposed on your enterprise just add up to the point that things don't pencil out and you have to close down shop, lay people off, or move out of the State.

Well, AB5 was different in that it was one particular law that, by itself, cost many, many people their livelihoods, completely upended their whole career with a stroke of a pen. We saw this effect immediately after AB5 passed in 2019.

Before it had even taken effect, we heard countless stories of people who all of a sudden had no ability to earn a living. The careers that they had built over years, over decades, were snatched from them, were taken away with the effect of this one single law.

Therefore, after the law went into effect, in a matter of weeks, we compiled a whole book full of stories, AB5 stories, and many, many more have been added since. As this new rule is about to take effect, I am planning to share some of those stories with the American public so that folks who are outside California know what is in store if and when this new Biden administration labor rule takes effect.

For today's story, this is from John, who is a guest orchestral conductor. Very shortly after AB5 took effect, he said: I depend on my contractor status to maintain sustainable fees while not fleecing orchestras. He says: Because of this bill, AB5, I just lost my first scheduled job with an orchestra. That is $9,000 that would have put a dent in my student loans or helped pay my insurance, or paid for food and shelter is now gone, all because of AB5.

There are countless other stories that I will be sharing from this floor.

If you are an independent contractor in California who lost your livelihood because of AB5, please feel free to reach out and share your story with my office so that I can share it with folks across the country and certainly folks here in this House of Representatives as a warning about what the effects of this legislation are going to be.

Now, we are fighting against this policy, this new independent contractor rule, which will destroy millions of livelihoods. We are fighting against it in every way that we can, using every tool available.

First, I am introducing legislation under the Congressional Review Act to nullify the new rule. This is a fast-track procedure where Congress can override an executive agency.

Second, I have secured language in the Labor Appropriations bill providing that no funds may be spent to enforce the rule. This would effectively render it a dead letter.

Third, I have joined with Representative Elise Stefanik to author the Modern Worker Empowerment Act, which creates a clear legal standard to protect independent workers.

Fourth, I have endorsed the Department of Labor Succession Act, which has already passed through committee, which is going to stop Acting Secretary Julie Su from remaining in that position indefinitely.

Julie Su is Biden's nominee to be Secretary of Labor. She was rejected by the Senate. Her nomination was returned after almost a year last year in the face of bipartisan opposition, yet President Biden has insisted on keeping her at the helm of the Labor Department as an unconfirmed Secretary.

Why is that? Because Julie Su was the architect of AB5 itself. She was Gavin Newsom's Secretary of Labor in California and was the chief enforcer of AB5. That is why, for anyone who questions that the new national policy is based on AB5, why in the world would they promote, of all people, the architect and lead enforcer of AB5 into this new role, if not to do the exact same thing for the whole country?

Fifth, as chair of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, I will continue to conduct rigorous oversight of the Department of Labor, and we will do everything possible to protect American workers against this independent contractor rule and other administration overreaching policies.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that there are now two different lawsuits, as we anticipated, challenging the independent contractor rule.

One is reviving a previous challenge to a previous version of this rule on procedural grounds.

The second, which was recently filed by a group called Fight for Freelancers that has partnered with Pacific Legal Foundation, is challenging the rule itself on a few grounds--on the ground that it doesn't comply with the statutory authority that has been granted to the agency, that it violates a statute that prohibits arbitrary rulemaking by an agency, and, finally, it is a constitutional challenge saying that the vagueness of the law essentially amounts to a violation of due process.

That is all to say that we have hope of stopping this destructive policy from

taking effect, and I will continue to share the stories of those who have already been affected in California in hopes that we can save millions of American workers the same fate.

Homelessness Crisis in California

Mr. Speaker, we recently received some good news, as the United States Supreme Court has decided to hear a case called City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, which could mark a turning point for the homelessness crisis in California.

Just to provide some context, let's consider the full breadth of that crisis.

It has been 20 years since Governor Newsom rolled out his plan--he was then the mayor of San Francisco at the time--to end homelessness in San Francisco within a decade. It has now been 20 years since he announced that, and this anniversary happened to coincide with the Department of Housing and Urban Development's annual homelessness report to Congress.

Among the findings of the HUD report are that California has the highest homelessness rate of any State. California has had a 30.5 percent increase in homelessness from 2007 to 2023. That is the highest increase of any State.

California accounts for 28 percent of America's homeless and about 50 percent--that is half--of the Nation's unsheltered homeless. San Francisco, for its part, has the second highest percent of unsheltered homeless youth and unsheltered veterans of any city in the country.

So there are a lot of reasons for these appalling statistics and the tragic realities that they represent. It is political failure where we have had policies dealing with crime, for example, that have released many people from prisons too early and don't have appropriate consequences for criminal activity. There is our State's soaring cost of living that is a result of many different political failures. There is the inadequacy of our State's approach to mental health and substance abuse. Then there is the complete wastefulness and lack of accountability when it comes to the billions and billions and billions of dollars that are being spent at the State and local level to address the homelessness crisis.

In fact, as the State has continued to spend more and more--many, many times more--than it has ever spent, the homelessness problem has only continued to get worse, and, there is, in fact, an audit coming in California that is finally going to look at homelessness spending.

Nonetheless, on top of all of these political and policy failures, there have been significant judicial impediments to dealing with the homelessness crisis; that is, a series of decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals beginning with the Boise case and its progeny that have made it difficult, if not impossible, to enforce anti-camping ordinances and to otherwise clear out homelessness encampments from public spaces.

Mr. Speaker, if you talk to city leaders, county leaders, and leaders of municipalities across California, they will tell you that this line of cases is the bane of their existence and that it is a significant obstacle in the way of commonsense policies for dealing with homelessness.

So the Supreme Court has now taken up this case, and I am very hopeful that the Court is going to do the right thing and that it is going to restore the proper authority to local officials to deal with homelessness in public spaces.

The initial line of cases that the Court will be examining is based on a very distorted view of the Eighth Amendment, and so I believe that the legal argument here is one that will coincide with what is best from a policy perspective. So I will be urging the Court to make the right decision here, but at the same time, if and when the Court does that, when it provides these new tools to folks at the local level, we will finally have the political accountability for our State leaders to address homelessness in the right way so that we don't another 20 years from now continue to set the standard for having the most homelessness of any State in the entire country.

Important Tax Relief

Mr. Speaker, we have some good news in the bill that has just been released that is a major tax bill here in the House of Representatives that will be moving through the House and likely coming up for a vote very soon. The good news is that several measures that I have cosponsored that provide important tax relief have made it into this tax bill.

I wanted to provide a few examples because these are significant ways in which we are now using the tax code in order to stimulate the right kinds of economic activity.

One of the measures that made it into the bill is H.R. 2673, the American Innovation and R&D Competitiveness Act. What this does is it eliminates the 5-year amortization requirement for research and experimental expenditures thereby allowing continued expensing of such expenditures in the taxable years in which they are incurred.

What this does is it enhances the competitiveness of U.S. companies particularly when it comes to competition with China and otherwise across the board.

Another provision that is very important that has found its way into this bill is H.R. 2406, the ALIGN Act. What it does is it makes permanent the expensing of certain new business equipment. This expensing allows the deduction of the full amount of an expensable item in the same taxable year instead of being depreciated under the current IRS rules. Once again, this is a very important provision for stimulating manufacturing and enhancing our competitiveness here in the United States.

A third measure which has made its way into this tax bill is H.R. 4970; that is the Protect Innocent Victims of Taxation After Fire Act. This measure which I have cosponsored excludes from gross income for income tax purposes any amount received after 2019 and before 2026 by an individual taxpayer as a qualified wildfire relief payment.

It defines such payment as compensation for expenses or losses incurred as a result of a federally declared forest or range fire disaster.

So this is just common sense and much-needed. It corrects an injustice for Californians who had suffered greatly because of our State's catastrophic wildfires and then found they were going to be taxed on the settlements and compensation that they received.

Finally, within this broader tax bill is another measure that I have cosponsored, H.R. 3238, the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act. Now, this does a number of things to stimulate housing production that we so direly need in the State of California.

It increases the per capita dollar amount of the affordable housing credit and its minimum ceiling amount beginning in 2023, and it extends the inflation adjustments for such amounts.

The low-income housing tax credit subsidizes the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing for low- and moderate-income tenants. That is what we are talking about here. This measure that has now been included in the broader tax bill extends and updates it to create new housing opportunities in California and across the country.

It also increases the number of credits allocated to each State; that is, the legislation would increase the number of credits available to States by 50 percent for the next 2 years and make the temporary 12.5 percent increase secured in 2018 permanent which has already helped build more than 59,000 affordable housing units nationwide.

It also increases the number of affordable housing projects that can be built using private activity bonds. This provision would stabilize financing for workforce housing projects built using private activity bonds by decreasing the amount of private activity bonds needed to secure housing credit funding. As a result, projects will have to carry less debt and more projects will be eligible to receive funding.

Finally, this improves the housing credit program to better serve at- risk and underserved communities. This legislation would also make improvements to the program to better serve veterans, victims of domestic violence, formerly homeless students, Native-American communities, and rural Americans.

I look forward to the opportunity to support this bill and enact these provisions into law that will stimulate our economy, will stimulate housing, and

will provide the full measure of compensation for wildfire victims in our State.

Tax Relief for Fire Hardening Homes

Mr. Speaker, last week I introduced the SAFE HOME Act which provides a tax credit for folks to harden their homes against wildfires.

Right now in California we have not only experienced devastating catastrophic wildfires in recent years, but, as a result, we are now in the thick of an insurance crisis where folks' rates for fire insurance have absolutely skyrocketed. People are losing their plans left and right, insurance companies are pulling out of California, and more and more people are being kicked on to what is called the FAIR Plan, which is not a good option for a lot of folks and imposes enormous costs.

This is having ramifications for homeowners, for businesses, for folks looking to buy a home, and for folks looking to sell a home. In one of my counties it has even impeded an affordable housing project from even getting off the ground, and the situation continues to get worse and worse and worse.

We have seen State Farm and Allstate say they are now no longer issuing plans in California. Other insurance companies such as Merastar, Unitirn, and Kemper Independence have said they are not going to renew policies in 2024 for homeowners.

Unfortunately, we have not seen much, if any, meaningful action from the Governor or from the legislature in California.

So folks really, really need relief. People are having to pay thousands more than they anticipated, and a lot of people simply cannot afford it.

So I have proposed a number of policies over the last few years to try to provide individuals with relief. What the SAFE HOME Act does is it at least provides folks with some relief based upon the work that they themselves have done to try to reduce the risk of wildfire.

What is so frustrating to a lot of people is they do everything they possibly can to mitigate the risk of fire in their home, to harden their home, and to create a firebreak. Nonetheless, they don't get rewarded for it. The insurance companies don't take that into account, and they still see their rates skyrocket just like anyone else.

So what we want to do with this bill is provide some relief to those people, and at the same time, to create an incentive for more people to harden their homes so as to reduce the risk of wildfires. So, specifically, the SAFE HOME Act which I have introduced creates a 25 percent refundable tax credit for wildfire mitigation.

It includes a phaseout starting at $200,000, and it drops by 25 percent every $25,000 in income above $200,000. At $300,000 in income the credit is phased out. There is also an inflation adjustment for any year after 2024 equal to the cost-of-living adjustment.

The credit is only made available for a primary home that a Federal natural disaster declaration has been made within the preceding 10-year period with respect to a wildfire or is adjacent to an area that has had a disaster declaration, and it would sunset on December 31, 2032.

So it is a modest measure. It is not going to impose enormous costs, but it will provide real relief to folks who really need it and who are doing the right thing by trying to reduce the risks to themselves and their neighbors.

So I am hoping that this is a measure that will receive broad bipartisan support, but I recognize that it is not a comprehensive solution to this very serious problem. So I call upon my colleagues especially in California but also other States who are seeing similar issues to come together to provide a backstop, the needed policies to do whatever we can at the Federal level to stop this crisis from continuing to spiral out of control. I also call upon the State leaders in California to do their part, as well.

Finally, we need to recognize ultimately that the way to truly get the insurance crisis under control is to stop having catastrophic wildfires in California on a regular basis which, of course, come with loss of life, loss of property, and destruction of communities, as well as not to mention a tremendous amount of environmental harm.

We have seen effective forest management practices work, and we have seen ineffective forest mismanagement practices lead to tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, I will give you just an example from one fire in California which leveled the town of Grizzly Flats in my district and spread far elsewhere and almost consumed the city of South Lake Tahoe. This is the Caldor fire in El Dorado County.

The Federal Government was supposed to have done a mitigation project that could well have stopped the Caldor fire from ever spreading, but years and years and years went by and the project never got done. The fire started. It leveled Grizzly Flats. It put many, many people out of their homes.

By the way, the Biden administration has still not delivered the individual assistance that was promised to the residents of Grizzly Flats. As the fire spread and it made its way toward Tahoe, Mr. Speaker, you might remember these surreal scenes of ski slopes that are just aflame. However, it didn't end up destroying or even making a dent in the city of South Tahoe because of the absolutely heroism of the firefighters there and the first responders, but also because there had been mitigation work done in the Christmas Valley thanks to a policy change that had fairly recently been made in this Congress which provided a categorical exclusion from environmental reviews for projects in the Tahoe area. If it were not for that policy, that work likely would not have been done, and the fire could have been that much more devastating.

So I am sponsoring legislation that would build on that success story, and it would have a policy change where you could have the same expedited process for doing fire mitigation work throughout the national forest system.

Mr. Speaker, when you go and talk to folks in the Forest Service and the other groups and stakeholders and folks in government who are working to mitigate the risk of wildfire, they will all tell you this would make an enormous difference.

In order to get the fire insurance crisis under control, it is above all necessary that we do everything we possibly can to stop these tragedies from continuing to occur in California.

I am sponsoring a number of measures to do that, but we have to act with urgency because the risks will continue until we do.

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 7 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January 31, 2024, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, the situation at the southern border is utterly untenable. It is an urgent national security and public safety crisis. Everyone knows it. The American people know it. Members on both sides of the aisle in this House know it, and the President sure ought to know it.

What we have seen is absolutely beyond anything we have ever seen before. In the 3 years of this administration, there have been 6.7 million illegal border crossings and 1.7 million got-aways, folks that just evaded detection by Border Patrol. In the last month, we had days where there were 10,000 illegal crossings in a single day.

These numbers are staggering, and they are unprecedented, but what is the meaning of those numbers? On the one hand, it has been an absolute bonanza for the cartels. On the other hand, it has been an absolute tragedy for the American people, as we have truly incredible amounts of fentanyl coming into the country, taking the lives of young people in every community in our country every day. We have more and more people suffering through the horror of human trafficking and being victimized. We have growing national security risks every day with the increasing likelihood of terrorists coming into this country, putting all Americans at risk.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't brain surgery. We know what a secure border looks like. The House has passed legislation, the Secure the Border Act, with commonsense reforms, beefing up our border security with physical barriers, with technology, with Border Patrol, with commonsense legal reforms to the parole and the asylum process, even reinstating remain in Mexico. That one simple step would solve a good portion of this problem.

This should not be a political issue. It is not a partisan issue. It is a basic matter of governance. It is the most basic thing that Americans ought to be able to expect from our government. It is the most basic responsibility of a civil society and of a nation-state.

That is why Americans--Democrat, Republican, Independent, it doesn't matter--are urgently calling for change. This resolution gives voice to that call for change, and I am proud to support it.