Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I recently changed my voter registration to Independent. Accordingly, I asked the Clerk of the House to update my party designation to Independent in all official publications and databases of the U.S. House of Representatives.

This reflects the way I have always approached my role as an elected Representative: to be an independent voice for the communities that I represent, to hold politicians in both Sacramento and Washington accountable, to work with both sides to find common ground, and to answer directly to my constituents and always put our district first.

While it is unusual for a Member of Congress to have no party affiliation--in fact, I am now the only such Member in the House--this is the norm for most elected positions throughout the country. In California, for example, almost all offices are nonpartisan: your mayor, city councilors, school board members, county supervisors, sheriff, and district attorney. Every day, these officials work toward practical solutions to the problems affecting their communities, unencumbered by partisanship. I think we could use more of that in Congress.

It is no secret that I have been critical of partisanship in Congress, from the longest government shutdown in U.S. history to an epidemic of gerrymandering that has spread from State to State.

If there is one thing that Americans agree on, it is that political division has become a serious problem for our country. We need to reorient our politics toward bringing us together as Americans rather than tearing us apart as partisans. That means, for example, finding concrete ways to make life more affordable rather than each side blaming the other for why it isn't.

We are also living in a moment of great uncertainty and perhaps dramatic transformation, where technological change could bring incredible opportunities along with unfamiliar risks and dislocations. The ordinary rituals of partisan politics are simply inadequate in these extraordinary times and are simply incapable of meeting this generational challenge. Our ability to work as one team serving all Americans is now more important than ever.

Sequoias Provide Living Link to Past

Mr. Speaker, this week, I was delighted to see that a bill that I am sponsoring, the Save Our Sequoias Act, passed the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support.

This act, as the name suggests, is designed to save, preserve, and protect one of the truly great marvels that we have here on Earth. The sequoia is the largest organism on the planet, and it actually continues to grow throughout its lifetime. They can live for millennia, so these trees serve as a living link to our past, a link to antiquity itself.

When you see these marvels, which we have so many of in California, it truly inspires a sense of awe and humility as you contemplate both their scale here in the present and their link to our past.

The bad news is that these incredible marvels are under threat. Over the last decade, we have seen 20 percent of them destroyed, largely because of the growing intensity of wildfires. The time has come for us to take urgent action to ensure that they can continue to inspire awe and serve their important ecological purpose as well for generations and millennia to come.

Specifically, the Save Our Sequoias Act enhances coordination between Federal, State, Tribal, and local land managers. It creates a giant sequoia health and resiliency assessment to prioritize and inform forest management practices. It declares an emergency to expedite environmental reviews and consultations while maintaining robust scientific analysis. It establishes a comprehensive reforestation strategy to generate giant sequoias in groves destroyed by catastrophic wildfires. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and implement an insect-monitoring strategy to limit potentially fatal infestations. All of this is designed to expedite forest management and wildfire prevention for the remaining giant sequoia groves.

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking a moment ago about the need to find common ground and things that can bring us together, and this is a small--well, actually quite large, but in the grand scheme of things small--example, but I think it is an encouraging one.

This is an example where we have been able to come together and say that this is something that is larger than any of us; this is something that transcends partisanship; and this is a way that we can be stewards of our heritage and protect a true treasure for those who will inherit it from us for generations to come.

Science-Based Approach to Literacy

Mr. Speaker, I rise to convey the good news that a bill that I am an original cosponsor of, the Science of Reading Act of 2026, has passed the Education and Workforce Committee with unanimous bipartisan support.

This bill says something very simple, which is that funding for literacy should not be used for discredited approaches to teaching literacy. This is particularly urgent in my State. Sadly, California has the highest illiteracy rate in the entire country.

A lot of that stems from the fact that we have a lot of challenges when it comes to education in California, and we have not, for a long time, in many schools, taught literacy in the right way.

In fact, this has been a nationwide phenomenon where, starting in the 1970s, there was a departure from the traditional approach where students were taught to read by identifying letters and the sounds they represent. Instead, a new idea took hold called whole language, leaving behind the explicit instruction of phonics as old-fashioned.

This new method, which came to be known as three-cueing or balanced literacy, encourages students to read by guessing an unknown word based on its context and structure within a sentence or even adjacent pictures in the book. This approach was at odds with the science of reading, which aims to ensure students develop strong foundational skills.

In fact, it is a misapprehension of a false equivalence between spoken and written language, where the human brain is wired to learn spoken language sort of by osmosis, whereas there is this language instinct but no reading instinct. Reading has to be taught in a very explicit way.

That is what the science of reading is all about. It emphasizes five core skills that every child must master: phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

Almost every State has corrected course and is returning to the science of reading, some more than others. California has been late but is now finally getting there itself. We have seen that States that embrace the science of reading, returning to the basics and a science- based approach to literacy, have seen incredible results. We saw Mississippi, for example, go from being one of the worst States in the country in literacy to one of the very best, simply by returning to the science of reading.

Now that we have passed this bill through the Education Committee, I look forward to it passing the House of Representatives and the Senate and getting signed into law so that we can declare once and for all here that the reading wars are over.

We can return to science-based literacy instruction throughout the country, and this will be of great benefit in my State. We can overcome having the highest illiteracy in the country, as well as the Nation as a whole, where we continue to fall behind our peer nations when it comes to academic achievement. A big, big part of that is our failure to teach reading in the right way.

This is a very encouraging sign. I am glad this bill has bipartisan support. I hope that it will quickly move its way through the rest of the process and be signed into law.

Raising Alarm on Escalating Gas Prices in California

Mr. Speaker, I rise to, again, raise alarm as to the escalating gas prices that Californians are continuing to face, which at this moment is $5.56 per gallon, on average, throughout the State. Of course, some places are much higher.

This is about 50 cents higher than the second place State. Even the State with the second highest gas prices in the country is paying 50 cents less than in California. It is over 50 cents higher than Hawaii, which is an island State.

Mr. Speaker, while we have seen some volatility throughout the country over the course of the last month, in California, the main problem and the main source of high prices is the policies that we have at the State level.

I have introduced a bill here in the House to address part of that, to put a cap on how high a State can raise its gas taxes. That will provide some relief to folks in our State, but we need to see more aggressive action from policymakers in Sacramento.

Unfortunately, they have been going in the opposite direction, where, by some estimates, we could soon have $8 per gallon in California or even higher, which is something that our residents simply cannot afford when we already have the highest cost of living and the highest poverty rate in the entire country.

There are a few things that we can do right now, and that our State lawmakers, the Governor and the legislature, can do right now, to spare Californians from having to pay so much more than anyone else in the country.

Number one, they can suspend the gas tax in its entirety. That right there would save folks quite a bit right off the bat.

Number two, they can reverse, rollback, or at least mitigate the regulations associated with the cap-and-trade program. In particular, they can make sure that the California Air Resources Board doesn't adopt a new set that has, by many estimates, the potential to raise gas prices by a dollar more or even more than that. That action is expected to happen very soon. The legislature and the Governor have the ability to stop that from happening.

Finally, California could relax its restrictions on its specialized fuel blend, which has made it so that we are now having to source our gasoline from places all around the world, in addition to the fact that California simply is not pursuing energy domestically.

That is a fourth thing we can do: relax restrictions on being able to develop our own energy and allow for us to accept our own sources of gasoline, as well as relaxing the fuel blend, so it is not so restrictive, and we are not having to go to the Bahamas in order to bring gas into California.

By the way, when you have these tankers that are coming into the State from the Bahamas and other places, those aren't particularly good for the environment. The backward policies we have in Sacramento have given us both the Nation's most expensive gasoline and its most environmentally unfriendly gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing what we can. I am doing what I can here in the House of Representatives. I am glad that I have seen some bipartisan support for the idea from Sacramento that we need to take some bipartisan steps to give Californians the relief that they truly, truly need.

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

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, the Defense Production Act was invoked to restart production along the Sable pipeline off the California coast.

While I am absolutely understanding of the dire need for more supply and production for California's citizens, I do share some of the concerns that have been raised by California officials about the impact that this could have on our coast, on tourism, and the risks that it can impose from an environmental perspective.

I would, however, urge our State lawmakers and Governor not merely to complain about this action but to take concrete steps that can be taken right now to increase production and lower prices in California by easing regulations and by relaxing restrictions on our fuel mix.

Right now Californians are paying over 50 cents more per gallon than people are in Hawaii, which is an island State. We can lower the price of gas, and we can protect our coast at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow; that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Monday, March 2, 2026; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday, March 3, 2026, for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, over the last month, gas prices in California have risen by about 40 cents. This is very different from what is going on elsewhere in the country.

In fact, right now, gas prices in California average $4.63 where the national average is $2.97. California's gas prices are by far the highest in the country.

They are 23 cents higher than the next highest State, Hawaii, which, of course, is an island State.

Lest you think this is strictly a matter of red States versus blue States or Democrat versus Republican policies, take a look at what folks not far from here in Maryland are paying for gas.

In Maryland, the State average is actually $2.98, $1.65 cents cheaper than in California. Here are examples of a gas station in California and a gas station in Maryland.

Now, Maryland is actually a bluer State than California is, and so the reason our citizens in California have to pay so much is because of the uniquely bad policies that we have in California, such as the highest in the Nation gas tax, the so-called cap-and-trade program, and regulations around the fuel mix that make it incredibly difficult to source.

All of this has caused two refineries to now leave our State, which is going to spike gas prices even more. Indeed, it has recently been reported that California is now importing gasoline from The Bahamas, in addition to many other places overseas. By the way, this gasoline comes in on tankers that run on petroleum. The policies of California's politicians have somehow given us the Nation's most expensive gas and its most environmentally unfriendly gas.

Mr. Speaker, on top of all of that, while all of these taxes are supposed to be going toward our roads, we are routinely rated as having among the very worst roads in the entire country. This is the extraordinary price that Californians pay for political failure.

Mr. Speaker, to try to provide at least some relief, I have introduced the Gas Tax Reduction Act here in the House, which would place a national cap on how much a State can tax its own citizens for gasoline. This would save Californians at least 21 cents a gallon right off the bat.

Unsurprisingly, the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, has come out against it. I am hopeful that we can get bipartisan support for this commonsense, much-needed proposition in this House, get Californians a modicum of relief, and ultimately change the disastrous policies that have produced this reality for our citizens.

Serial Child Molester Released Early in California

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the alarming news that in California a serial child molester by the name of David Funston has been granted early release.

The parole board has granted parole to Mr. Funston, a serial child molester, who, according to the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, used candy and toys to lure children 7 years old and younger. He was convicted of 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation. According to the sheriff, multiple young children were victimized, some as young as 4 years old.

He was sentenced to more than 20 years in prison, along with three additional consecutive sentences of 25 years to life, with the judge describing him as ``the monster parents fear the most.'' Yet the parole board has now released him or has recommended his release pursuant to a program known as the Elderly Parole Program that grants eligibility of parole to individuals over the age of 50.

Now, when this program was expanded to include anyone over 50, even for these most heinous and vile of crimes, I was a member of the legislature and voted against it. It, in fact, received broad bipartisan opposition, yet Governor Gavin Newsom nevertheless signed that bill into law, putting many Californians and many young Californians at risk.

Mr. Speaker, this is the outrageous consequence of reckless criminal laws in California that have removed consequences for criminal activity and provided for the early release of tens of thousands of serious, hardened criminals.

We have made some progress in California through a voter initiative to make crime illegal again, passed overwhelmingly by California voters in 2024, but we have a long way to go to reverse the reckless laws that remain on the books and protect Californians from the most heinous of offenders.

Cost of Living

Mr. Speaker, it is undeniably true that many Americans continue to struggle with the cost of living in this country, but what is also true is that those struggles are not felt uniformly throughout the country, that prices are much higher in certain places than others.

In my own State of California, we have the highest cost of living in the country and our Governor, Gavin Newsom, was asked about this recently on CNN. Why does California have the highest cost of living in the country?

The Governor had no answer, but the answer is obvious. It is the State's failed policies that have--through this laboratory of democracy experiment we have in this country where you can compare the results of different policies side by side, State by State--driven up the price of just about everything in California.

We have the highest gas prices in the country, the highest electricity prices in the country, the second or third highest water bills in the country, the second or third highest grocery prices in the country, the highest taxes in the country, and the highest housing costs in all of the continental United States.

The list goes on, which is why when you look at the Census Bureau's measure of the real poverty rate, which accounts for the cost of living, California has the highest poverty rate in the entire country. By the way, we also have the highest unemployment rate and among the lowest rates of wage growth, so not only are our residents forced to pay the highest prices but they are experiencing the smallest boost in their earning capacity and paychecks.

Now, the policies that have created this unfortunate reality are not difficult to identify. California taxes its citizens more than any State. It regulates its businesses more than any State. It has the worst litigation environment of any State. It has the most onerous regulations on gas, electricity and energy. It has failed to build adequate water storage in many decades, although we are, thankfully, changing that. It places tremendous restrictions and frivolous litigation on building housing and imposes fees that make it cost tens of thousands of dollars before you even break ground, which is why Gavin Newsom claimed he was going to build 3.5 million new homes when he came into office and has produced less than 20 percent of that number.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lesson to be learned here. When we talk about an affordability agenda that we can pursue here in the House to lower costs and improve the quality of life for folks all across the country, it is to do the opposite of what States like California have done. It is to do the opposite of overregulating each and every sector.

Instead, we should look to unleash the extraordinary capacity of the people of this country to build, to start businesses, to build housing, to remove the barriers, to be on the side of those who are creating and making life and providing more opportunities to folks all across this country.

We passed some measures that are important steps in that direction, but we certainly have more to do. We should bear in mind the example of California as we move forward with that agenda and seek to raise the quality of life for folks across the country.

No Path Forward for California High-Speed Rail

Mr. Speaker, the CEO of the California High- Speed Rail Authority was recently arrested and placed on leave, so the Rail Authority is now on its sixth CEO. That means there have been six more CEOs than there have been passengers because, of course, there haven't been any passengers, despite spending $17 million over 17 years. There has been no track laid.

Nevertheless, the Governor recently, with quite a bit of hoopla, held an event in Kern County to celebrate the fact that a single railhead has now been completed. The Governor that crowed they are now entering the track-laying phase, whatever that might mean.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Governor to acknowledge what the U.S. Department of Transportation did in a recent compliance review. This project has no viable path forward.

Thankfully, in the House of Representatives, following a bill I introduced to this effect, there was a bipartisan vote to cut off all further Federal funding for high-speed rail. There is no

viable path forward for the project. I do believe when we have a new Governor in the State, the project will finally be wound down.

Taxpayers also deserve answers on where all of this money has gone. Curiously, as we are seeing new scrutiny to answer that question as to where the money is going, the Governor is pushing a bill in the legislature to keep records of the project secret and to create new exceptions to our public records laws that specifically apply to high- speed rail. That raises the question: I wonder what he doesn't want the public to see.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to fight to assure that our share of Federal tax dollars goes toward projects like our roads that will actually benefit Californians, now that we have cut off funding for high-speed rail, and in encouraging leadership at the State level to wind this project down immediately so we don't continue to throw good money after bad.

Audit of Next Generation 911 System

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to hear that there is going to be an investigation, an audit, of the so-called Next Generation 911 system in California by the nonpartisan State auditor. At least this is being requested.

For several years, since 2019, Californians were charged extra fees on their phone bills. This was to build a Next Generation 911 system. The fees were paid by the taxpayers, and they went into a pot of money to build out this system. The Newsom administration ultimately spent $450 million building this new 911 system, which is needed. Our system is outdated in California.

Yet the Newsom administration has just announced it is scrapping the entire project because the technology doesn't work. How does that happen, Mr. Speaker? This is California, by the way. Silicon Valley is a stone's throw away from the Governor's office. How do we charge Californians fees for years on their phone bills, spend $450 million, and get absolutely nothing for it because the technology doesn't work?

Now our taxpayers have lost that money, and we still don't have an upgraded 911 system. We are looking at ways we can bring some scrutiny at the Federal level, as well; but we need to get answers why, once again, Californians have been forced to sacrifice and gotten absolutely nothing in return.

Wealth Tax Causing California's Mass Exodus

Mr. Speaker, the so-called wealth tax being proposed in California has now caused individuals worth a combined $1 trillion, by some estimates, to leave the State. The latest are Mark Zuckerberg and Steven Spielberg. Others include Larry Ellison and the founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, among many others.

The wealth tax would confiscate 5 percent of an individual's net worth if they are worth more than $1 billion. What is worse is it would actually go after people who have already left the State if they had been in California within a year of the measure's enactment.

That is why you are seeing this exodus simply based on the wealth tax being proposed. If you stick around too long before it goes into effect, if you miss the deadline, then they will come after you and seize your assets wherever you might be. I could not think of a more self-defeating proposition.

Let's start with the fact that a lot of individuals with a high net worth don't necessarily have 5 percent of their assets that are liquid. They will be forced to unwind their companies. When they are leaving the State, they are taking their businesses and investments with them. They are taking their income taxes with them.

That is why any country that has tried any such wealth tax has actually repealed it because it has had the opposite of the intended effect.

I have introduced the Keep Jobs in California Act to preempt the most blatantly unconstitutional provision of this measure, the one that would tax former residents. My measure simply says that a State cannot seize the assets of former residents.

Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward proposition. If this goes into effect, then it will stop this mass exodus because people will not need to leave California simply based on the threat that this could eventually go into effect.

Shutting Down Illegal Biolabs

Mr. Speaker, I have joined with several of my colleagues, including the cosponsor of legislation I have introduced, Representative Costa, in calling for immediate consideration of our bill to find, detect, and shut down illegal biolabs operating throughout the United States.

A couple of weeks ago, a second illegal biolab run by Chinese nationals was discovered in Las Vegas. This follows the lab that was found in Reedley, California, a couple of years ago. It was run by the same international fugitive with ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

While the samples are being tested now, it looks very similar to what was found in Reedley, where some of the world's most dangerous pathogens were being held, pathogens like E. coli, like malaria, like HIV, like COVID, like AIDS in this facility that no one knew was even there. They also had genetically modified transgenic mice in this facility in Reedley.

By the way, they had a freezer that was labeled ``Ebola'' at that Reedley facility. It should be noted that Ebola has a 50 percent fatality rate--a 50 percent fatality rate. While it is not especially transmissible, we know based upon our experience with COVID that in the Wuhan lab, they conduct gain-of-function research.

Imagine if they produced a strain of Ebola with its 50 percent fatality rate but at a higher level of transmissibility. I could not think of a more jarring threat to public health in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Congress needs to act with urgency in considering and passing this legislation that we have introduced. After the first lab was discovered, I said that we don't know how many others are out there. That concern was echoed by a report by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

We now know that at least one other lab was out there. The question still remains: How many others are there? We need to get answers to that very quickly, and we need to make sure we are doing everything we possibly can to find and shut down any other labs that are indeed out there.

Congratulating PRIDE Industries' 60 Years of Service

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize PRIDE Industries on reaching their 60-year anniversary milestone.

In 1966, PRIDE Industries was founded in the basement of a church in Auburn, California, by a group of parents of young adults with developmental disabilities. These parents shared a simple, yet powerful, goal: To ensure their grown children had purpose and the opportunity to participate in the workforce.

Now, 60 years later, still based in Placer County, they are the leading employer in the Nation of people with disabilities. PRIDE has operations that span across 15 different States, as well as here in Washington, D.C.

Throughout the past six decades, PRIDE Industries has remained committed to making direct investments in breaking down barriers to employment, strengthening our local workforce, driving economic growth, and delivering a lasting and meaningful social impact.

It is an honor to represent exemplary organizations like Pride Industries in Congress. As such, I commend Pride Industries for their ongoing dedication to helping people with disabilities to realize their full potential and maximize their participation in the workforce.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I join Pride Industries in celebrating 60 years of service, and I look forward to seeing all that they will continue to accomplish in the years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to discuss two votes that occurred this week that have been broadly characterized as relating to tariffs. However, the issues are a little more nuanced than they have generally been portrayed.

Let's start with the vote that occurred on Wednesday. It is always good to look at the actual text because that, at the end of the day, is the only thing that matters. This was a vote on a rule which is a kind of arcane procedural mechanism that we have here in the House for bringing bills to the floor for consideration and setting the terms of debate.

When you vote on the rule, Mr. Speaker, you are not voting on the bills themselves, you are just bringing them to the floor where they will eventually be voted on.

There is this norm of voting in favor of rules, which I have always done, because if you don't do that, Mr. Speaker, then the business of the House grinds to a halt.

The only times in which I haven't done that are when the form of a rule, the mechanism of a rule, is abused for some purpose that actually impacts policy.

That is what we had in this particular rule. At the end of it, which was a normal rule for most purposes, but at the very end, Mr. Speaker, you had tacked on this peculiar provision which starts by saying that each day during the period from February 10, 2026, through July 31, 2026, shall not constitute a calendar day.

So that is a little odd on the face of it, simply fiating that somehow these days of the months in the calendar year, February 11, February 12, February 13, and so on all the way to July 31 are somehow now by legislative decree not days.

Now, I had actually voted against this very same provision in November when the only thing that was different were the dates. As a matter of fact, there were enough votes to stop that rule from taking effect when we originally voted on it in November, but then there was a huddle among House leadership and some of those who were opposed to it. I won't get into the nature of what was discussed, but you can sort of connect the dots because after this rule passed, there was then another one that changed the end date, in that case, from March 31 to January 30.

January 30 was set to be the agreed upon end day for this accounting trick. So I was pretty surprised when January 30 comes and goes, and then we get this new provision saying: No we are actually now going to extend this all the way out to July 31.

Let's go out further in the text here. It says that these months shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to various resolutions declaring a national emergency. The National Emergencies Act is a statute that gives the President the power to declare a state of emergency. It also gives Congress not just the power but the obligation to evaluate every 6 months whether we are still in a state of emergency. Congress shall consider it, is what it says.

For example, a few years ago this is how we terminated the COVID state of emergency. I was the cosponsor of that resolution actually, and it got so much bipartisan support in the House that President Biden, even though he was initially opposed, signed it into law. That is how the COVID emergency was brought to an end.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, we were being asked with this language here to say that you are not allowed to do that, Congress will be cut out of its statutory role in evaluating whether we still have an emergency for these designated emergencies and for this designated period of time.

As such, it was limiting the power of our Members to weigh in on these very important questions. This runs contrary to everything I have ever believed when it comes to states of emergency.

When I was in the legislature in California, and even in the early days of COVID, I was very much opposed to the legislature having no role in determining whether we were in a state of emergency. I introduced a resolution many times on whether or not the state of emergency should continue. Therefore, of course, I would not support cutting Congress out of that process entirely here.

In effect, what we were being asked to do with this very peculiar provision was to abuse the procedural vehicle known as a rule to legislate a fiction that a day is not a day, to countenance endless emergencies, endless states of emergency without congressional oversight in defiance of every principle I have ever fought for and to surrender our own power as Members of the House in relation both to our own leadership and the executive branch. That is something I was not going to do. There was bipartisan support that this was not a good idea.

The rule did not pass, meaning that this accounting trick of a day is not a day is no longer in effect. As such, a resolution has now ripened regarding one particular state of emergency. This is to say, Congress playing the role that is in law that every 6 months it should evaluate whether an emergency still exists. This is what we voted on yesterday. This was Congress exercising its statutory responsibility to determine whether an emergency declared by the President is still in effect.

Now, because we have had these delays in terms of Congress doing this, it has actually been a year since this particular emergency was declared by the President, on February 1, 2025.

If you look at the language of this--this is the entire resolution-- it simply says that the national emergency declared by finding of the President is hereby terminated.

The question on its face is not about whether tariffs are good or bad. It is not even about whether tariffs are a valid emergency power. That is the question that the Supreme Court is considering. Rather, it was about this particular executive order a year ago, which was titled as follows: ``Imposing Duties to Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border.''

The national emergency declared by the President was about fentanyl coming into the United States from Canada. We can debate whether or not that was truly an emergency at the time that it was declared, given that a tiny fraction of the fentanyl that comes into our country--maybe 1 percent or so--does come from Canada. Fentanyl itself, of course, is the most severe of emergencies for our country, but the specific question is whether the fentanyl coming from Canada is.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that it was an emergency at that time. After all, the President does have broad discretion in terms of declaring an emergency. The question for us in Congress 1 year later in exercising our statutory responsibility to evaluate this question is whether there is still an emergency.

I listened to the debate on this issue with an open mind. I listened to the comments of our very capable chair of the Homeland Security Committee here in the House saying that actually Canada has taken significant efforts to crack down on fentanyl ever since this executive order was issued. They have devoted $1.2 billion to it. They have stepped up internal enforcement. They have appointed a fentanyl czar. They have cracked down on precursor chemicals coming in.

There is way more fentanyl being seized at their border now. By some estimates, there has been a 97 percent reduction in fentanyl going over the border. It would appear that if the tariffs were designed to encourage Canada to take this issue of fentanyl crossing the border more seriously, they have been very effective in that respect. As such, the basis for the emergency that was declared does not appear to me to exist at this time.

Of course, it is also appropriate to consider the actual effect of the emergency power being asserted, which in

this case is, of course, the tariffs. I would argue that with respect to Canada, there are unique considerations at play: for example, the fact that we have a pretty recently signed free trade agreement, the fact that this is our neighbor, and the fact that there are unique impacts both in terms of tariffs and the retaliatory tariffs when it comes to cars, construction, and energy.

That is to say, if there are any other such votes on other declared emergencies that have been used to impose tariffs, I will evaluate the facts of each case individually in deciding how to vote.

Of course, the Supreme Court will be weighing in on a related issue very shortly, which is whether tariffs are a valid emergency power that Congress has legitimately delegated to the executive branch when a national emergency has been declared.

However that case might turn out, I do believe that it is in the national interest for important matters of economic and national security policy to be considered and debated by the House of Representatives. That is what we are here for. The view of our leadership that such matters should not even be allowed to be debated on this floor was, I believe, the wrong thing for our institution.

National Cap on Gas Taxes

Mr. Speaker, I want to address one more topic today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce I am introducing the gas price reduction act or the gas tax reduction act, I should say, which will lower the price of gas for California residents.

The reality of life in California is this: We have the highest cost of living of any State in the country. We are the most unaffordable State. A big reason for that is because our gas prices are so much higher than anywhere else in the country.

There are various reasons why they are so much higher. In fact, they are going to get even higher with refinery closures that are happening, but a big part of the equation is that we have a much higher gas tax than anywhere else in the United States--71 cents per gallon.

All of this money, by the way, is supposed to be going toward transportation, so you would think we would have these beautiful roads throughout California, but quite the contrary, our roads are routinely rated as among the very worst in the country. When you pay the highest gas tax while driving over the deepest potholes, something is very wrong.

I have introduced a simple bill that puts a national cap on State gas taxes. There are only a few States right now that have over 50 cent gas taxes, so I figured that that is a good maximum, that no State should be able to force its citizens to pay taxes of more than 50 cents a gallon for gasoline. This will immediately save California drivers 21 cents a gallon and will prevent the tax from continuing to be raised by State politicians.

The way we are doing this has several precedents and is actually fairly routine, where we have Federal highway funds that come with a number of strings attached, a number of conditions. For example, States have to abide by the 21-year-old minimum age for alcohol, various drunk driving laws, and various vehicle weight laws, all of which are a condition of receiving Federal highway funds.

The mechanism here is exactly the same, that States, as a condition of receiving their Federal highway funds, shall not impose a gas tax higher than 50 cents on their residents. I think this will give our drivers, especially those who have to commute a long way to work, who live in rural areas some much-needed relief and be a much-needed check- and-balance against the politicians in Sacramento who continue to demand of citizens more and more of their tax dollars while delivering less and less in return.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for Congress to act with urgency to address the alarming news that we have just heard from Las Vegas of the discovery of yet another illegal, dangerous biolab run by Chinese nationals.

In 2023, when the secret lab in Reedley, California, came to light, thanks to the tremendous efforts of local officials there, I gave several speeches on this floor calling attention to the danger that this posed to all Americans. I noted that we don't know how many similar such labs might be out there.

After I requested an investigation, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party reached a similar conclusion that we don't know what other such labs might be out there.

Unfortunately, it turned out to be true that we had reason for concern because the lab that was just discovered in Las Vegas is run by the same individuals under the same sham LLC as the one that was uncovered in Reedley.

What is more, officials there described materials and equipment that are consistent with the operation that was going on in Reedley: commercial-grade freezers and refrigerators, equipment for processing biological materials, and thousands of vials which are now under examination by the FBI.

In Reedley, the pathogens that were discovered included E. coli, Ebola, malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis. We have every reason to believe that these same dangerous pathogens have been found in this latest Las Vegas lab.

Mr. Speaker, the question still remains: How many other such labs are out there?

As my colleague from Fresno, Mr. Costa, just said on this floor, many local communities simply don't have the ability to uncover these things on their own. That is why we need a national framework. We need national resources. We need more national oversight, and that is precisely what my bipartisan bill, authored together with Mr. Costa, will do.

Mr. Speaker, I am calling today for an immediate markup of this legislation so that we can get it passed through the House and signed into law in order to protect our communities.

California High-Speed Rail Update

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide a brief update on the California high-speed rail,

which, thankfully, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, this House just voted to cut funding off for. The President just signed that legislation into law.

We are also now raising questions about what has happened to the $17 billion that has already been spent and whether, perhaps, there might be fraud at issue, or at least waste or a lack of diligence in the use of taxpayer funds.

I don't think it is any coincidence that, as these efforts ramp up, the legislature is now considering a bill, which the Governor himself provided language for in a budget trailer bill, seeking to keep records related to the high-speed rail secret and seeking to make it so that this particular project has a greater ability to keep information secret than anything else in the public domain in California.

It just goes to show how desperate the political leaders in California are, starting with the Governor, to avoid any accountability here.

Mr. Speaker, the Governor, for his part, held a big ceremony yesterday with much hoopla about a supposed milestone for high-speed rail, which is to say the completion of a single railhead in Kern County.

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the Governor that this is the year 2026. The high-speed rail project was supposed to be completed, having a full-fledged, high-speed rail system from Los Angeles to San Francisco, 6 years ago, in 2020. Yet, we are supposed to get excited about the completion of a single railhead in 2026.

Mr. Speaker, after 17 years and $17 billion, there still has not been any track laid for this project. The New York Times estimated that it won't be finished this century at the current pace. Even the rosiest, most optimistic projections of the authorities are that by 2045, almost 20 years from now, we might have a line that goes from Gilroy to Palmdale.

That would mean that if you wanted to go from L.A. to San Francisco, you would have to take one transit system for 2 hours, get off of that, get on the high-speed rail, then get off of that in Gilroy and take another transit system for 2 hours to get into San Francisco. That would be a 6-hour trip with three transit systems in 2045 that you could do today in 1 hour on Southwest Airlines.

Mr. Speaker, we have cut off Federal funding for this boondoggle. It is time for the State to do the same and stop wasting the precious dollars of our hardworking taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, the passage of this legislation will kick off a 10-day negotiation around an issue that is causing deep divisions throughout the country. I do believe we can come together around a set of reforms that will advance and focus the mission of Immigration and Customs Enforcement while protecting our officers and protecting the public.

However, such reforms must go hand in hand with a commitment to stop jurisdictions like Minnesota and California from releasing dangerous, wanted individuals as some sort of act of defiance, thereby forcing immigration authorities to go into communities rather than have an orderly transfer in a custodial setting.

I want to read a quote on this topic. It reads as follows: ``I do not consider it in the service of public safety to release an individual into the community when that individual can be released to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for prompt removal.''

That statement comes not from President Trump, not from Secretary Noem, but from Alejandro Mayorkas, President Biden's Secretary of Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, if even Secretary Mayorkas can recognize the folly of these so-called sanctuary policies, then all of us on both sides of the aisle should be able to as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a serious national security issue that requires the immediate attention and immediate action from the United States Congress.

An illegal bio lab was just raided in Las Vegas, and it is directly linked to the secret Chinese bio lab found in Reedley, California, in late 2022. That lab was oozing with E. coli, HIV, malaria, and other dangerous pathogens.

The lab just raided in Vegas was operated by the same LLC and same Chinese nationals as the one discovered in Reedley. We know a lot about the one discovered in Reedley because I requested a report from the House of Representatives, an investigation which resulted in a report by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

I want to share some of the details of that report, but I will start with its conclusion: That no one knows whether there are other unknown bio labs because there is no monitoring system in place.

Those were the words of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party in 2023. We know there was at least one other such lab, but we still don't know how many others because the legislation, the bipartisan legislation, that I have proposed with Representatives Costa and Valadao has not yet been passed.

Here is what we learned about this lab that was discovered in Reedley and that has now had a counterpart discovered in Las Vegas.

It was run by an international fugitive from China named Jesse Zhu. After running various state-connected companies in China, Zhu moved to Canada where he set up dozens of corporations to steal valuable American intellectual property and unlawfully transfer it to China. The Supreme Court of British Columbia found that he committed fraud on an epic scale, resulting in a $330 million judgment.

He then fled to America, assumed an alias, David He, and set up several more companies, including the one behind the Reedley biolab and now the Vegas biolab.

He was indicted in 2023 and has been in Federal custody ever since, but his partner and other associates have not been.

The Reedley lab was discovered in December of 2022 when a code inspector came upon a suspicious warehouse. Inside, she found many Chinese nationals wearing white lab coats, glasses, masks, and latex gloves, along with thousands of vials of biological substances and a thousand mice. It was later learned that these were transgenic mice genetically engineered to catch and carry the COVID-19 virus. A further inspection found blood, tissue, and other bodily fluid samples and serums, along with thousands of vials of suspected biological material.

Some of the vials were labeled in the names of infectious agents while others were labeled in a code that was never deciphered.

At first the CDC--this was during the Biden administration--refused to investigate and even hung up on local officials who asked for help. After Representative Costa got involved, the CDC did an inspection and found at least 20 potentially infectious agents, including HIV, tuberculosis, and the deadliest known form of malaria. Yet, the CDC did not bother to test any samples, even those with unknown contents, making it impossible for the select committee to fully assess the potential risks that this specific facility posed to the community. The select committee report calls this baffling.

Later, local officials discovered a refrigerator in the lab labeled ``Ebola.''

While the supposed purpose of the lab was to sell test kits, in fact, all the company did was buy counterfeit kits from China and resell them in the United States. Thus, the committee found there was a lack of apparent legitimate or even profit-motivated criminal motive in the operation of the facility.

Meanwhile, Jesse Zhu, its operator, was receiving unexplained payments via wire transfer from Chinese banks.

As I mentioned, the report concluded that we don't know if there are any other unknown biolabs because there is no such monitoring system. That is why I am calling upon the House to act quickly to pass the bill that I have introduced, along with Representatives Costa and Valadao, to find any other such labs that exist across the country and assure that they are shut down.

The Preventing Illegal Laboratories and Protecting Public Health Act would address gaps in Federal law outlined in this Congressional report.

Specifically, it would require distributors of highly pathogenic agents to maintain federally reviewable logbooks of all transfers, including purchaser identity and intended use for at least 3 years. It would strengthen oversight by mandating Federal review of the number, location, and risks of high-containment labs with updated national standards for design, construction, and operation.

It would protect against foreign threats by ensuring adversaries cannot exploit weak U.S. oversight to establish these secret labs. It would create a public health biosafety and biosecurity team as a single point of contact for State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments when suspicious labs are identified. It would require a feasibility study on creating a centralized national database of high-containment labs accessible to State and local officials for biosecurity purposes.

As the city manager of Reedley, Nicole Zieba, said--who was centrally involved in trying to get the Federal and State authorities to take action here--she said: The Reedley incident highlighted a gap in the Nation's biosecurity. Any city around this country could have dozens of deadly pathogens stored next to sensitive locations and be completely unaware of it. She said that this proposed legislation puts us on a path to closing that critical gap that will help keep every American safe from the hazards like those that were discovered in the Reedley lab. Now, of course, we have seen alarmingly similar hazards discovered in the Vegas lab.

I will be calling for a thorough investigation of what was discovered in Las Vegas, and I am calling upon the House of Representatives to move quickly to get this bipartisan bill passed so that it can then pass the Senate and be signed into law.

Extent of Fraud in California

Mr. Speaker, people across the country are rightly outraged by the fraud that has been discovered in the State of Minnesota. However, for those of us in California, we have almost become desensitized to it. Every time there has been an independent audit, it seems, of any program in California, what is discovered is fraud on a scale that dwarfs anything that was discovered in Minnesota.

We have already taken some action here in Congress to rein in the fraud that exists in California and to provide oversight and accountability that has

been sorely lacking. But what is needed is a comprehensive picture of just how large the scale of this fraud might be.

That is why I am requesting that the Government Accountability Office conduct a study on the scale of fraud in California. I will read, for the record, my letter to Comptroller General Brown, Acting Comptroller General of the GAO, requesting this study.

It says:

One of Congress' most crucial duties is to steward public

funds by assuring they are spent in accordance with the law

and not siphoned off by criminals. Unfortunately, several

high-profile incidents of fraud in recent years have shown

the inability of some States to adequately protect public

money. In particular, California has had difficulty stopping

fraudsters who steal benefits destined for the most

vulnerable among us. To gain a greater understanding of the

impact this theft has on Californians and the Nation, I am

asking that the GAO conduct a study on the amount of waste,

fraud, and abuse California has fallen victim to.

While fraud amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars in

Minneapolis has recently garnered public attention, it still

pales in comparison to the fraud perpetrated in California.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, LexisNexis estimated State

unemployment fraud reached $32.6 billion. Unemployed

Californians had their benefits stolen, and taxpayers were

taxed to fund criminals. The State's effort to aid the

homeless is also riddled with waste and fraud. The State

auditor examined spending on programs to reduce homelessness

between 2019 and 2024. Despite $24 billion in spending,

homelessness increased by 30,000 during that period, and no

grant recipients provided metrics that demonstrated any sort

of progress. This prevents the State government and the

public from knowing how money is being spent and if specific

programs are effective and worthy of continued funding.

San Francisco nonprofit workers have been charged with

theft of public funds intended for homeless seniors, and real

estate executives in Los Angeles have been charged with

stealing $50 million from a variety of homeless programs.

Theft of public money is not just confined to nonprofits in

California. Even an Orange County judge was convicted of mail

fraud for stealing from a workers' compensation program.

The letter concludes:

Due to the widespread nature of theft involving public

money in California, we urgently need more information to

develop an effective antifraud strategy.

To accomplish this, I ask the GAO to provide:

1, how much money in total was publicly reported as lost to

waste, fraud, and abuse in California since 2016;

2, a breakdown of fraud by economic sector such as

transportation, healthcare, housing, law enforcement;

3, who the perpetrators of fraud are;

4, what stolen funds are spent on; and,

5, using California as a case study, what steps can the

Federal Government take to reduce the most common frauds

perpetrated against taxpayers?

This study, Mr. Speaker, will provide information that we very much need in order to exercise the full range of oversight and accountability tools we have here in Congress to protect the tax dollars of hardworking California residents.

Recognizing Robin Trimble on Her Retirement

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Robin Trimble, who is retiring as the chief executive officer of the Rocklin Area Chamber of Commerce, for her 20 years of dedicated service to the Rocklin community.

For two decades, Robin has led the chamber with enthusiasm, strength, and resilience. Through Robin's expertise, the Rocklin chamber was guided through a period of growth and prosperity. She helped the chamber expand its membership, started important community programs, forged strong partnerships that support Rocklin's local businesses and economy, and built a legacy that will continue to shape the Rocklin community for many years to come.

Like any 20-year period, her tenure as CEO came with its fair share of unique challenges. One example is the important role that she played in minimizing the impact of the extraordinary challenges that arose as a result of the restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 era.

Throughout her tenure, Robin has worked tirelessly to make the dream of business ownership a reality and a successful path for many in the Rocklin area. Her ongoing advocacy for Rocklin businesses has left a meaningful mark on our local economy.

I have had the privilege of knowing and working with Robin since my time in the State legislature. I have always appreciated her professionalism, wisdom, kindness, and generosity that she brought to her role as the chamber's chief executive officer. Robin's visionary leadership has made a lasting impact on the Rocklin Area Chamber of Commerce and the Rocklin community at large.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I join the Rocklin community in wishing Robin Trimble a very happy retirement and thanking her for her 20 years of contributions to the Rocklin business community.

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 8 o'clock and 51 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, February 3, 2026, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, a year ago, I introduced legislation to cut off all funding for California's high-speed rail project and today, in an overwhelming, bipartisan vote, the House passed this measure as part of an appropriations bill that will soon be signed into law.

This is fantastic news for American taxpayers and for California taxpayers as the high-speed rail project is the biggest public infrastructure failure in United States history. It was supposed to be done in 2020 and yet now in 2026, no track has been laid despite spending $18 billion.

The estimated total cost has ballooned from $33 billion to $128 billion, and even The New York Times found that it is not on pace to be finished this century.

With the success of this legislation, our Federal tax dollars in California can go where they are needed when it comes to transportation and that is to improve our failing roads, to alleviate traffic, and to actually improve the quality of life for Californians.

Mr. Speaker, every so often there comes along a policy so misguided, so self-destructive, so just utterly stupid that it has catastrophic consequences before it is even adopted.

Such is the case with the newly proposed wealth tax in the State of California, a proposal that is the height of folly, the height of insanity. The proposal would seize the assets, 5 percent of the net worth of citizens of our State who are purported to have a net worth over a billion dollars. Of course, that will simply be the first line that is drawn, with inevitably lower net worth levels ensnared in the future.

This measure, which would be adopted this November and put into effect next year, has a peculiar provision in it stating that it would apply even to people who are no longer residents of the State at the time of its enactment. It would apply to anyone who was a resident of California up until January 1 of this year, even though it doesn't take effect until January 1 of next year.

Those who would be affected by it got word that this is coming. Guess what they did? They made sure that they were not here as of January 1 of this year. For example, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google, have relocated from California because one analysis suggests that under this proposal the government could seize $60 billion from each of them.

There are reports now that already $1 trillion in net worth has exited California simply in anticipation of this policy being adopted. They simply can't take the risk. One person with knowledge of the affected individuals said that 80 to 90 percent of them either will leave the State or have left already, not to mention those who don't quite meet that threshold but know that they will be next, who have already left or are looking at an exit strategy.

The consequences of this growing exodus cannot be overstated when it comes to the future of our State. Number one, with all of these high- net-worth individuals leaving, they are, of course, taking all of the taxes that they pay with them, so the State Treasury no longer receives anything.

Now, obviously, this is a drain on the Treasury. It would be in any State, but in particular in California because of the unusual extent to which our State relies on the highest earners.

In some years, our State budget, our State income tax revenue gets 50 percent of its total revenues from the top 1 percent of earners. When you see those people leaving the State, it means that the house of cards that is our State's finances will come tumbling down.

We also should note the impact this is going to have on the startup community in California, which is so central to our State's identity, vitality, and economic prosperity and so central to what has made California such a vital part of the American economy and such a driving force in progress all around the world.

However, because this proposal would seize liquid assets, would demand 5 percent of an individual's net worth even though they are assessing assets of all kinds, what that would mean for a startup that has a very high paper value--based simply upon the way that startups receive their valuation, for example, based upon a multiple of an initial seed investment--then essentially you would have startups that would be forced to liquefy their assets or would simply not be able to pay this bill. Therefore, it would no longer be viable to be a startup in California. The entire ecosystem would cease to function as it does now.

It is worth mentioning, by the way, that this exodus has been an ongoing phenomenon in California. It is not just limited to those who are of a high net worth. For the sixth straight year, U-Haul has just ranked California as number one in the country in outbound U-Haul rentals, in people leaving the State. It is usually not the wealthiest people. It is people who simply can't afford to get by in California because of the inordinately high cost of living.

This proposed wealth tax would take this trend to an entirely new level in a way that would make it so California is a failed State, is no longer viable as a political entity. That is why we need to make sure that this provision does not pass. In addition, importantly, we need to make sure that the unconstitutional scheme whereby former residents would be ensnared is not allowed to even begin to be executed.

That is why I am working on legislation here in the House of Representatives, Federal legislation to preempt that provision, which I believe is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, but we need to have express preemption in law to make sure that at the very least people do not feel the need to leave in anticipation of this measure or a future such measure passing.

Now that we have discussed this absolutely insane proposal, I want to take a closer look at the California State budget as it now stands because this last week we got an announcement from the Governor that the State will be spending $348.9 billion in the coming fiscal year.

Now, notably, that is a massive increase over what the State spent just last year, and it is nearly double what the budget was when Gavin Newsom became Governor in 2019. At the time Newsom was sworn in, our State budget was $197.5 billion, already quite high. During his tenure, he has increased the budget to $348.9 billion, in the process putting the State's finances in dire straits.

A columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle noted that Newsom's gift to his successor is a $22 billion deficit. The State's nonpartisan legislative analyst came out with an absolutely scathing report, calling the State's financial situation and the Governor's budget ``alarming.'' The report raised ``serious concerns about the State's fiscal sustainability'' and noted that the Governor's budget does not materially address those concerns.

This, by the way, isn't even to mention the massive around $1 trillion--shortfall when it comes to funding the State's long-term liabilities, the unfunded liabilities that we have in the State.

Let's just look at this increase in the size of the budget. Remember, this wealth tax is being offered on the premise that we need even more revenue. Over the course of this Governor's tenure, California's budget has grown by 75.7 percent.

Now, you might say, well, maybe that is what other States are doing, too. Surely, other States have increased their budget. However, they have not increased their budget nearly as much as California has.

Florida, for example, has a $78.6 billion budget. That is compared to $349 billion in California. Over that same period, Florida's budget grew by 56 percent, Ohio's budget grew by 36 percent.

You might say, well, those are red States, what about comparing California to other blue States? Well, Massachusetts' budget grew by 44 percent, New York's budget grew by 37 percent, while California's budget grew by 75.7 percent during that time period.

Now, you might say, okay, we are spending more, but surely the people of California are getting something worthwhile in return for this massive increase in tax revenue, this massive

increase in public expenditures. Surely, we are seeing major gains in the achievement of our students in schools. Surely, we have gotten beautiful new roads and transit systems. Surely, we are seeing the cost of living go down and the quality of life go up.

However, no, quite the opposite has happened. Infrastructure in California remains among the worst in the country. Our roads are routinely rated among the three worst roads in terms of their condition anywhere in the country. We pay the highest gas taxes, yet drive over the deepest potholes.

Despite tens of billions of dollars more being spent every year on education, educational achievement in California has flatlined, and we continue to have some of the most glaring achievement gaps of any State in the country.

Meanwhile, the cost of living in California is the highest anywhere in the United States. We have the highest taxes. We have the highest cost of housing of any State other than Hawaii. We have the highest gas prices. We have the highest electricity prices, including the highest increase in electricity prices during Newsom's tenure as Governor compared to any other State. We are among the top two or three in the country when it comes to water bills. In every single dimension of affordability, California is the Nation's least affordable State.

Mr. Speaker, the Governor has utterly failed to justify asking our citizens to pay even more when they receive a historically, unfathomably low return on that investment. The fact is, the people of California continue to sacrifice more and more and get less and less in return.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will examine one of the reasons why that is the case. I will take a moment today to look at the vast waste, fraud, and abuse that exists in the State of California and the proposal that I am working on to bring the full scale, extent, and breadth of it to light so that we can work to address it using every tool that we have here at the Federal level and to compel changes at the State level.

This is the simple reality: Every single time there has been any sort of independent audit of a program in California, the results have been the same. There has been mind-boggling waste and fraud identified, and the causality has been identified as unbelievable negligence and neglect on the part of the State, its agencies, and its government.

I will list just a few examples. During the COVID years, California had, at a bare minimum, $32.6 billion in unemployment fraud through our EDD agency. A State audit that I initially requested, as a member of the legislature, and that Governor Newsom initially killed, found that the State spent $24 billion on homelessness over a 5-year span and failed to track the actual uses of those funds or whether they made any measurable improvement on the homelessness problem in our State. By the way, they didn't. The homeless population increased by some 50,000 individuals.

We have already seen charges brought in both San Francisco and Florida when it comes to fraud in relation to the expenditure of funds that were earmarked for homelessness. We have also seen convictions in Orange County in connection, for example, with workers' compensation fraud.

The State auditor also just came out with a scathing high-risk audit identifying the agencies in California that qualify as high risk, meaning they exhibit a serious risk of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement, and have failed to take corrective steps.

The number of these high-risk agencies is now at an all-time high. It has doubled during the course of Governor Newsom's tenure. Among the findings were error rates when it comes to food assistance benefits that could cost a loss of $2.5 billion in Federal funds.

Billions more are at risk of being lost or are being lost through improper Medi-Cal determinations and through ongoing EDD fraud, which continues at staggering levels even after the $32.6 billion lost during the COVID years.

The audit also found that California has missed six straight financial reporting deadlines, putting the State's very credit rating at risk. Then, of course, there is the matter of the high-speed rail, which was supposed to be completed, a full, functioning, high-speed rail line from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2020, 6 years ago. Yet, here we are in 2026, $18 billion spent. The overall cost is now projected to be $128 billion, and literally nothing has been built. No track has been laid, and not a single passenger has ridden this nonexistent train, which raises the question: Where has all of this money gone?

Even an audit during the Biden administration from President Biden's Health and Human Services agency found that California improperly claimed $52.7 million in Medicaid reimbursement for noncitizens, which, of course, raises many questions about how pervasive these improper payments might be in our Medi-Cal system more broadly.

Mr. Speaker, this is just a snapshot into certain programs in the State of California. What we need is a comprehensive review to see just how staggering the problem is, just how many tens of billions of dollars our citizens are losing. Maybe that would be a better way to give Californians a higher return on their investments.

Rather than increasing the budget to $349 billion, rather than imposing an absolutely ruinous wealth tax that will give our State government the unprecedented authority to simply confiscate the assets of anyone they choose, maybe it would be better to make it so California is no longer the fraud capital of the United States.

Honoring an extraordinary American, Richard ``Dick'' Burbine

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary American, a man whose life story reflects the very best of our Nation's character, courage, and commitment to service. Richard ``Dick'' Burbine represents a generation that answered history's call with quiet resolve and uncommon bravery.

Dick Burbine was born on January 9, 1926, in Melrose, Massachusetts. Like so many young Americans of his time, his life was forever changed by the events of World War II.

In the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor, while most teenagers were still in high school, Dick Burbine chose service. At just 16 years old, he enlisted in the United States Merchant Marine, trained at Gallops Island in Boston Harbor, and soon found himself at sea, supporting Allied operations in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters.

One of the most defining chapters of his service came aboard the Liberty ship SS Henry Bacon. Dick served during the infamous Murmansk Run, an Arctic supply route widely regarded as one of the most dangerous missions of the war. Sailors faced brutal weather, freezing seas, and constant enemy attack, all to ensure vital supplies reached those fighting tyranny.

On February 23, 1945, tragedy struck when the Henry Bacon was attacked by enemy aircraft in the Barents Sea and ultimately sank. Dick Burbine was only 18 years old when he was thrown into icy, subzero waters. What he did next defines heroism.

At great personal risk, he righted a capsized lifeboat, pulled fellow sailors to safety, and helped rescue Norwegian women and children who were fleeing the war. Despite the loss of 28 crewmembers, every one of the 19 Norwegian refugees survived, making this a powerful testament to the courage and selflessness of Dick Burbine and his shipmates.

His service did not end with World War II. Dick continued to serve during the early Cold War and later enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. During the Korean war, he served with distinction as a helicopter mechanic and crew chief, eventually earning the rank of staff sergeant.

After leaving the military, Dick Burbine remained dedicated to protecting others. He served in law enforcement with the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department, the Danville Constable's Office, and the University of California Police Department at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. In 1987, he retired as a sergeant and watch commander, concluding yet another chapter of public service.

Even in retirement, Dick did not step away from giving back. He volunteered with the U.S. Forest Service in the Bridgeport Ranger District, helping maintain campgrounds for the benefit of residents and visitors alike.

Remarkably, even as he approaches his 100th birthday, he continues to harvest and donate firewood each winter to neighbors in need, quiet acts of kindness that say as much about his character as any medal ever could.

His legacy of service lives on through his family, including his son, Joseph, who also served in the United States Marine Corps and in law enforcement.

On January 9, 2026, just a few days ago, Richard ``Dick'' Burbine celebrated his centennial birthday, 100 years defined by courage under fire, unwavering devotion to country, and a lifelong commitment to community.

On behalf of a grateful nation and with deep respect and admiration, we thank Dick Burbine for his heroic military service, his distinguished public safety career, and his enduring example of what it means to serve others. It is an honor to represent exemplary individuals like Dick Burbine in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I offer our heartfelt congratulations and best wishes as he reaches this remarkable milestone. We say, simply and sincerely, thank you.

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 12 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, January 16, 2026, at 3 p.m.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to stand with the brave Iranians who are protesting a repressive regime that has wrecked havoc on its own people, the region, and the world at large. The United States must stand with the Iranian people in this critical moment.

For decades, the Iranian dictatorship has exported terrorism throughout the Middle East and beyond, while tormenting its own people. At this moment, it has shut down communications nationwide and is inflicting violence and death on the courageous people taking to the streets.

This latest wave of repression is a symptom of weakness. Indeed, the regime has never been weaker. It is vainly trying to rebuild a nuclear capacity that the United States can undoubtedly neutralize again. Its economy has been ruined by the regime's self-sabotage.

It is my hope that the people of Iran do not have to bear the cost of this malevolence for much longer. It is my ardent hope that a better future, one of

peace, freedom, and democracy, is not far away for the people of Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment this morning to examine the biggest fraud scandal in the history of California and probably in the history of the United States, and that was the fraud in unemployment benefits that occurred in California during the COVID years, amounting to a minimum of $32 billion--$32 billion.

It is easy to kind of throw these numbers around and lose sight of what they really mean, so just to put that in perspective, that was one-half of the education budget in California at the time, and it is more than the entire State budget of the vast majority of States in the country.

Now, the reason that this scandal bears scrutiny right now is threefold. First, a State audit just found 2 weeks ago that this unemployment fraud in California is ongoing to this day continuing to cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

Second, the Senate still has not passed a bill that we passed in the House to hold some of these fraudsters accountable by extending the statute of limitations.

Third, the Newsom administration, perhaps sensing the political peril following the events in Minnesota, has come out and absurdly tried to deny responsibility for this scheme, for this scandal, and even more absurdly tried to blame the Federal Government for it.

I want to go through exactly what happened because I believe it is important to show why taxpayers were so thoroughly defrauded and to assure that this does not continue to happen going forward.

The reality is that the fraud that occurred in California took place despite the repeated warnings of the Federal Government, and it was uncovered not by State officials but, rather, by local prosecutors.

On November 23, 2020, a group of nine county prosecutors disclosed what they called the most serious significant fraud of taxpayer funds in California history. Now, at the time, they said they could only prove $1 billion. So $1 billion was already the biggest fraud of taxpayer dollars in California history. Now we know that it was at the very least $32 billion.

Contrary to what the Newsom administration is trying to say now, at the time, the district attorney of Sacramento County, Anne Marie Schubert, said: ``We have asked and implored the Governor to turn the spigot off.'' She said the Governor's Employment Development Department was not doing commonsense things, like cross-checking claims with prison rolls, something that the vast majority of other States were doing and that the Federal Government had advised.

She said this made the scheme ``relatively easy.'' She called the Governor's response slow and nonexistent. She advised Governor Newsom to ``look to other States for solutions.''

The district attorney of Fresno County, Lisa Smittcamp, said: ``(Newsom) did nothing until the elected district attorneys brought it to the media.'' She added that she did not think the State has a handle on it. Those were comments made back in November of 2020.

The following January, the State auditor came out with a report that laid forward in very precise detail exactly how significant the failures of the Newsom administration were, specifically with their unemployment office, known as the EDD.

A heading in that audit said: ``Significant Weaknesses in EDD's Approach to Fraud Prevention Have Led

to Billions of Dollars in Improper Benefit Payments.'' Among the key findings: Despite repeated warnings, despite repeated warnings, EDD did not bolster its fraud detection efforts until months into the pandemic, and it suspended a critical safeguard.

The audit goes on to list examples of where suspicious addresses were simply ignored in the claims process. In one case, more than 1,700 claims came from a single address. From one address 1,700 claims, and yet the checks were issued.

One of the problems, as mentioned, is there was no crossmatch system to crossmatch the claims against the prison rolls, so you actually had checks that were being sent to State penitentiaries, the State prisons.

Here is a timeline of the aforementioned warnings that actually came from the Federal Government. Now, this is significant, again, because the Newsom administration is now claiming somehow that it was California that warned the Federal Government when, in fact, it was exactly the opposite. Other States followed these warnings, but California didn't.

In April of 2020, the United States Department of Labor sent instructions for implementing the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program and told States to take reasonable steps to deter and detect fraud, including audits.

The following month, in May of 2020, there was a second notice from the U.S. Department of Labor, warning the States to maintain the integrity of the unemployment program.

Later that month, in May, the U.S. Department of Labor requested data from California, and the Office of the Inspector General warned California that the State was likely to see at least a billion dollars in fraud based on new claims for March and April.

During this time, the Newsom administration's EDD office had exactly two staff members who were responsible for reviewing suspicious claims.

Newsom's EDD also allowed the backdating of claims until September of that year, so if you were a fraudster, you could simply claim that you had worked a certain number of weeks, previous weeks that had already passed, and there was no verification needed at all.

The problem of suspicious addresses got even worse. The audit reports there were 26,000 addresses listed as suspicious, with more than 500,000 associated claims.

The audit concludes: Our review illustrates that EDD continues to pay claims despite having evidence that they are very likely fraudulent. Again, this is a finding. This is a talking point. This is not from the Governor's political adversaries or from people on social media, this is a report from the nonpartisan California State auditor in January of 2021 saying: ``Our review illustrates that EDD continues to pay claims despite having evidence that they are very likely fraudulent.''

The audit continues: Between March of 2020 and early January of 2021, more than 2.2 million claimants did not satisfactorily answer requests that they provide identity verification. In fact, there was another problem that then emerged from this that people became victims of identity theft, and then they ran into issues like they had to pay taxes on wages they hadn't actually received.

As mentioned, the audit also notes that ``EDD was unprepared to detect and handle the hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent claims associated with incarcerated individuals.'' I mean, how crazy is that? That you had claims coming in from State prisons, and those claims let out hundreds of millions of dollars.

As the auditor says: ``As we describe throughout this report, EDD's approach to fraud prevention and detection demonstrates the weaknesses caused by its poor planning and program management.''

Local media reports at the time substantiated all of these claims, including in publications like The Sacramento Bee and the Los Angeles Times.

What is even worse is that the criminals who are purloining our State Treasury of these taxpayer funds in many cases were using those dollars--I mean, what do you think they are using them for? We talk about waste, as in this money is just squandered, but it is actually much worse than that because the criminals who get these funds, they are not then giving them to charity. They are using them for further criminal activities.

One example from The Sacramento Bee is about how these funds were used to buy guns illegally. For example, a report from The Bee reported that multiple fraudulent EDD cards were discovered along with firearms in the hands of convicted felons, results that law enforcement officials say leads them to one conclusion: Criminals are using funds from the growing EDD fraud scandal to buy weapons. Mind you, this was at a time when violent crime rates were soaring in California and far outpaced the rest of the country.

Just to give you a couple examples, the Torrance police found that more than two dozen people had been arrested in the fall of 2020 for alleged unemployment benefits fraud and identity theft. The 27 suspects used stolen identities to obtain over 130 EDD cards. When they recovered these, the authorities also found $150,000 and four handguns, including two without serial numbers.

The Glendale police, in early 2021, arrested a man who was in possession of a so-called ghost gun, along with ammunition, drugs, several fraudulent EDD cards, and other illicit items.

To summarize, you had the largest fraud of taxpayer dollars, likely in the history of the United States. The nonpartisan State auditor in California, along with nonpartisan prosecutors from throughout California, clearly identified the negligence of the Newsom administration as enabling this fraud to occur which far outpaced anything that occurred anywhere else in the country.

You then had the criminal syndicates and other criminals, more run- of-the-mill criminals, who obtained these funds and used them to spawn further criminal activity that victimized even more Californians.

Now, 5 years later, the fraud continues. The administration still hasn't learned its lesson. The same State auditor just found that EDD remains one of eight high-risk agencies in California, a number that has doubled during the Newsom administration, finding that the EDD continues to allow millions in fraud, alongside millions that are being lost in fraud in connection with SNAP benefits, with improper Medi-Cal determinations, not to mention community college fraud and fraud basically everywhere you look throughout the California government.

Now you have the Governor insisting that no, none of this was his fault. California did nothing wrong. He has even made up bogus numbers like he somehow prevented $125 million in fraud.

The concern is this: If the Governor and his administration are unwilling to admit any responsibility whatsoever despite the clearly established evidence of their responsibility, how can we expect this problem to ever be fixed?

I will tell you. I am working in a bipartisan way here in Congress to bring accountability for the vast fraud that continues to take place in California so that our taxpayers do not have to see their hard-earned money going to criminals and can finally start getting a reasonable return on their investment in our State government.

California Leads Nation in Outbound U-Haul Rentals

Mr. Speaker, U-Haul has just released its annual growth index for all 50 States, which is a measure of U-Hauls coming in versus going out. In other words, which States are people moving out of and which States are people moving into.

For the sixth straight year, 6 years running, California is ranked 50th. In other words, we rank first when it comes to people leaving the State. This is truly an astonishing fact. The greatest State in the country, the most beautiful State in the country, has become the most popular State to leave.

This is reflected in the fact that California lost a Member of Congress in the 2020 reapportionment and we are projected to lose four or five in the 2030 reapportionment.

Indeed, for 170 years of California history, our State's population grew each and every year. It was only during the administration of the current Governor that that trend reversed itself and the State continues to lose people.

It is a very sad thing when you look at the boundless potential of our State, the unmatched beauty, the incredible people and companies and culture. We have everything. Yet for too many Californians, it has become too difficult to get by in California or it is the crime or it is the homelessness. It is the inability to buy a house. It is the price of gas or electricity or water. It is the fact that our State leads the Nation in unemployment, in homelessness, in poverty, in illiteracy. These are all politically created problems.

The good news is there is a coalition for common sense emerging in California, and we have started to see progress in circumventing our State's political class and bringing real change. For example, we passed a measure in 2024, the voters did, to restore some consequences for criminal activity. It passed with almost 70 percent of the vote, despite the Governor and the State legislature's leaders opposing the measure every step of the way.

We won a decision at the Supreme Court that has restored the ability of our communities to clear homeless encampments and ensure people get into shelters and don't wither on our streets. As a result, we are starting to see some modest improvements in crime and homelessness in California, but unfortunately, we still have a long way to go in order to make sure that next year California does not, once again, for a seventh straight year lead the Nation in outbound U-Haul rentals.

Wealth Tax in California

Mr. Speaker, there is currently a proposed ballot measure in my State of California to impose the Nation's first- ever wealth tax. In response to this proposal, you are already seeing an exodus from California because, while the measure won't be presented until November and won't take effect until next year, the language of it ensnares anyone who was a resident of California until January 1 of this year. It would actually try to apply itself to former residents.

Now, California already has the highest income tax of any State in the country, the highest gas tax, the highest overall tax burden. However, a wealth tax is something unique because a wealth tax is not merely the taxation of earned income, it is the confiscation of assets.

They are saying it is just for billionaires. Of course, it starts with billionaires and then they continue to lower the threshold, ensnaring more and more people. Even for billionaires, presenting a 5 percent tax on all of your assets is problematic because, number one, it requires actually having liquid assets amounting to 5 percent of one's net worth, but number two, what you are already seeing happen is entrepreneurs and job creators are simply leaving the State to avoid this unique penalty.

Now, we already have the highest unemployment rate of any State in the country in California, so it really doesn't help that now the State is causing even more job creators to leave the State. But what is especially threatening about this is that our State's tax structure is essentially a house of cards. Even the Governor acknowledged in his state of the State yesterday that we have a system that is incredibly volatile, where the top 1 percent of earners account for 50 percent of the tax revenue.

If you have this wealth tax that is suddenly going to cause the highest earners not to want to have anything to do with California, the State's finances will collapse. The entire house of cards will come tumbling down.

This is not to mention the myriad constitutional problems with this proposal, not the least of which is the idea that they are going to try to apply it to former residents.

It also isn't to mention the problems of administrability, which is why if you look to other countries that have tried to impose some form of a wealth tax, they have quickly rescinded the policy because it turned out to be a disaster.

I will be fighting against this latest, misguided, insane proposal in every way that I can and that includes using the legislative authority that we have here in Congress under clauses such as the Commerce Clause to prevent a renegade proposal like this from, at the very least, ensnaring taxpayers who have already gone to other States.

Mr. Speaker, California has for too long gone down the road of overtaxing its citizens, overregulating its businesses, and overburdening its citizens. This would simply be a bridge too far.

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 12 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, January 12, 2026, at noon for morning-hour debate.