Kevin Kiley

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that affordability and the cost of living are increasingly salient issues for many people in this country. It is becoming harder for many people to get by, and there are many reasons for that. I have proposed, and in fact passed, legislation in a number of areas related to the cost of energy and the cost of healthcare to start to address those problems. I was caught somewhat by surprise to hear the Governor of my own State of California commenting on this issue and even saying that no State matches California's success, that ``the numbers speak for themselves.'' I thought I would go through what some of those numbers are when it comes to the lack of affordability in the State of California. I think it offers insight into the steps that we could take nationally to make life more affordable for folks not only in California, but across the country. The basic gist of it is to do exactly the opposite of what California has done. Newsom says the numbers speak for themselves. Here are the numbers: California has the highest gas prices in the entire country, number one out of all 50 States. It is not even close. You can drive a few miles from here in Maryland, which is another blue State, by the way, and you will get gas for $1.50, $2 cheaper at least. You can go to Hawaii, which is an island State after all, and you will get gas for 20 cents cheaper than you do in California. The cost of electricity: California is number one in the country. The New York Times recently published a map showing how much electricity rates have increased over the last several years, which tracks the time that Gavin Newsom became Governor. California saw by far the biggest increase in electricity costs of any State in the country. Water bills: California ranks first, or close to it, of any State in the country for how much we pay for water. The cost of housing: California is number one in the country for the median cost of a home--actually, number one in the continental United States. Hawaii is a little more expensive there. Taxes: California is number one, has the highest income tax rate of any State in the country, as well as the highest gas tax rate of any State in the country. Government spending and debt are so much higher in California, and that relates to affordability as well because, of course, it means that we have to get more money in taxes and fees. It also means that the infrastructure that supports businesses is inadequate, which raises their cost of living, which results in higher costs to consumers, not to mention California being the worst business environment of any State in the country. It has repeatedly been rated as having the worst litigation environment as well, which means that those costs are passed onto consumers, too. Insurance: When it comes to fire insurance in many parts of our State, you pay more than you pay just about anywhere in the country because of the catastrophic fires that have done so much damage and because of the way the insurance issue itself has been mismanaged. What is the lesson here? Well, number one: The lesson is, California needs to change its own policies. Number two: We can learn from California's failures as we enact reforms at the Federal level to improve the quality of life and affordability for folks throughout the country. Gas: When it comes to gas prices, it is no mystery what has happened. California's taxes and regulations and insistence on special fuel blends have caused costs to go up inordinately. This, by the way, doesn't even factor in that we have two refineries that are about to close. Fortunately, we just passed legislation here in Congress to partially address this issue of the refineries. There is one study from USC that says that by the end of next year, Californians could pay $8 for gas. Electricity: California has passed all kinds of regulations that no other State has, at least not to the extent that restrict the supply of energy in our State. By the way, it is done ostensibly in the name of the environment, but California's policies have been incredibly damaging to the environment, as well. In just 1 year, for example, the catastrophic wildfires that our State had erased all of the emissions reductions from the prior 16 years. In fact, it erased them two times over because of our State's very poor policies when it comes to forest management, which goes to the insurance issue, as well. That is why I am very proud to sponsor the Fix Our Forests Act, which allows for more effective forest management which will stop catastrophic wildfires and will make it so we don't have to keep raising the price of insurance. That has passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support, and it is time for the Senate to pass it, as well. Housing: When it comes to the cost of housing, we have seen how California has piled on fee after fee after fee so that a project costs tens of thousands of dollars before you even break ground. Even worse, we have seen how California has allowed frivolous lawsuits to delay projects for years and for decades. That all gets baked into the price of the home, and that is why I am sponsoring a number of measures here to try to make housing more affordable. Of course, the tax issues speak for themselves. We have a lot we need to do to continue to make life more affordable for Americans. We have seen some progress in certain areas when it comes to the price of gas across the country, when it comes to the supply of energy, and some other issues. Unfortunately, people in my State are bearing the brunt of it. I would, again, encourage the leaders of our legislature and the Governor to chart a different course, to start actually working for the people of California. This is why, by the way, we have the highest real poverty rate in the entire country. It is because the cost of living is so high and the economic opportunity is so low. We actually have the highest unemployment rate in California, as well. As the Governor would say, the numbers speak for themselves. I encourage us here not only for those of us in California to encourage a change in action on the part of our State's own leadership but for Congress itself to follow the anti-Newsom playbook in making sure that we don't see costs across the entire country rise to the level they have in California. Safety of Autonomous Vehicles

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I will share some data that has recently been published on the safety of autonomous vehicles and self- driving cars, which have been widely deployed in a number of cities across the country. In California, Waymo has been operating for years now in San Francisco and in Los Angeles, and now their footprint is actually about to expand to the wine country and even into the Sacramento area. They may even be coming to Washington, D.C., soon. Tesla has a self-driving feature available on its cars as well and they have been publishing some very encouraging data. What the data shows, very clearly, is that even at the current state of the art that is going to continue to improve, autonomous vehicles are overwhelmingly safer than human-operated vehicles by a factor of about 10 when it comes to the risk of injury or death. When you think about that, that means that being in an autonomous vehicle, in a self-driving car, is a much more effective safety intervention than wearing a seat belt, which, of course, you should continue to wear a seat belt as well. There was an article in The New York Times a couple of days ago from a doctor who actually likened this to a clinical trial, where you actually have to stop the trial because the drug performed so well and it becomes unethical to continue to give people the placebo and not give them access to the drug. We have 40,000 people who die in this country every year on our roads. Many, many others suffer serious life-changing injuries. Every American pretty much has been affected in some way, knows someone who has been involved in an accident, and we now have the technology within our reach to drastically reduce that number, to save tens of thousands of lives every year just in this country and to spare tens of thousands of people devastating injuries. I do believe it is a political policy and a moral imperative to use whatever levers we have here to remove barriers to expanding access to this technology. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the administration as well as folks on both sides of the aisle to do that because we really do have an opportunity here to do an immense amount of good. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, this last month, Nevada County, indeed the entire State of California, lost one of its finest, its truly great citizens. Eduardo Agullo Garcia was born in Barcelona, Spain, during the Spanish Civil War. He was the second child and only son of Jose and Esperanza. His favorite memory as a child was playing marbles in the streets, although he frequently returned home with an empty bag. His life was forever changed when he applied and was accepted into the American Field Service program and became an exchange student in 1955. He sailed across the Atlantic with fellow students. They spent the time discussing American customs and culture. It was on this ship that he was advised to avoid asking out girls who wore a pin because the pin indicated that they had been pinned by a boy and were not available to date. He traveled across the United States on his way to Millbrae, California, where he was hosted for the school year by the mayor of Millbrae, Webb Witmer. When he arrived at the San Francisco airport, he was greeted by American AFS students including Nancy Campbell. While he was intrigued by Nancy, he would not ask her out because he saw a pin. He didn't realize until the end of the school year at Capuchino High School in San Bruno that she wore a pin because she was a member of Job's Daughters, an international organization. It was not the type of pin that he thought. When he discovered that she was not actually seeing someone, he immediately asked her out. After Eddie graduated from Capuchino High School, he returned to Spain to complete his compulsory military service. After the military, he went to work for a chemical company in Spain. He and Nancy continued their relationship via letters and visits. As Nancy neared completion of her degree at University of California, Berkeley, he asked her to marry him. They were married in California in 1961 and moved to Barcelona for several years. Their daughter was born in 1963, and 8 months later they moved back to northern California. Eddie was importing and selling sporting rifles and ammunition but turned to wholesale decorative accessories. He started his company, Garcia Imports, out of the garage of their house in Millbrae. It soon grew to a small warehouse in San Bruno and then a bigger warehouse in San Mateo and then in Redwood City and finally in Hayward. He traveled extensively for business, both overseas and the United States. He achieved one of his greatest goals by becoming a citizen of the United States in 1973. After over 40 years in the home furnishings industry, working side by side with both his wife, Nancy, and his daughter, Barbara, he and Nancy retired in 2008. In 2009, they moved to Grass Valley. They were not entirely sure what they wanted to do in retirement, but they met some wonderful friends and soon became very involved with the Tea Party, the State of Jefferson, and the Nevada County Republican Party. It was a full-time passion for both Nancy and Eddie. Eddie joined the Nevada County Fairgrounds Foundation in 2011 as a director. In 2015, Eddie and Nancy, as well as their daughter, Barbara, and son-in-law, Larry McDonald, were named the Family of the Year by the Nevada County Fair's board of directors. The board chose the Garcia-McDonald family for their volunteer efforts, their vision for the foundation's station, and their ongoing support of the Nevada County Fairgrounds. After nearly 60 years of marriage, Nancy passed in 2020, which was, of course, such a great loss for Eddie. However, he stayed busy in the last several years supporting political campaigns, keeping an eye on local politics, and working to improve his adopted country. He was very passionate about the candidates he supported and has traveled with friends to support those candidates wherever he could. He continued to pursue his passions right up until he passed peacefully and quickly on October 9, 2025. Eddie, we miss you, my friend, but your legacy will be felt by our community forever. End the Redistricting War

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to, again, call for an end to the terrible redistricting war that is cascading across the country with the domino effect going from one State to the next. States are throwing out their entire congressional map and upending representation in their State. It is something that is deeply unpopular with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and it is deeply unpopular with the American people. Gerrymandering is bad enough, but throwing out the maps specifically to gerrymander in the middle of the decade is even worse. At this point in time, we have seen Texas and California both adopt gerrymandered maps, although both States now find their new maps being challenged in Federal Court, which adds yet another element of uncertainty for Representatives and constituents alike. However, it has gone far beyond California and Texas. We are now seeing States either already or in the process of starting to adopt new maps in States like Missouri and potentially Indiana, Kansas, and Florida, perhaps, as well as Virginia, Illinois, or Maryland, and several others. It seems that hardly any State will be spared. Many have said they wanted to but simply don't have time this year, so they are waiting to do it until the next cycle. It has gotten completely out of hand. It has gotten to the point where we could get into this world of rolling redistricting where district lines are never settled for more than a couple of years and where the connection between voters and Representatives is continually being severed. I have called time and again for an end to this redistricting war or an armistice. The fact of the matter is that there is still an opportunity to do that, but it is a very narrow window of opportunity that exists. My bill, H.R. 4889, would bar mid-decade redistricting in every State in the country. This makes sense as an act of Congress under our Article I Elections Clause authority. But it makes sense, in particular, because redistricting itself is a creature, it is a creation of the Constitution, of the Federal Government, which says that it has to be done every 10 years. It is only a new phenomenon, a fairly recent phenomenon, where States are deciding to do it more frequently than that. So we can, as a House, pass this measure. I believe if it were brought to the floor it would pass overwhelmingly to stop this madness in every State in the country. The reason I say it is a narrow window is because the filing deadline in Texas is coming up on December 8, and, realistically, nothing that we do here would affect the map in that State after that point in time. So that is really, effectively, a deadline for a national solution to this problem. Even if, by the way, that deadline were to pass and Texas or California would not be affected, I still think we should move forward to spare these other States from having to deal with the adverse consequences. I begin today calling on the Speaker of the House to bring this bill to the floor for a vote so we could end this madness. We could stop mid-decade gerrymandering, we could go back to the way it is supposed to be where we redraw our district lines once every 10 years, and we could focus all of the time, energy, and resources being put into this fight--which, by the way, it seems is not going to help one party or the other to any significant degree, it is probably going to be more or less a wash, but we can get back to focusing on the issues that actually matter to the American people. California's Culture of Corruption

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, last week, Governor Gavin Newsom's chief of staff was indicted for 23 felony counts in a Federal corruption investigation. This is his former chief of staff. She left the office at the end of last year. The charges include conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct justice, subscribing to false tax returns, and making false statements to the FBI. The main conduct being alleged involves theft of campaign funds totaling $225,000, tax fraud, as well as fraud surrounding a PPE loan. The indictment lists a number of co-conspirators, including the former chief of staff for California's attorney general, including a high-powered lobbyist, including another well-known consultant, as well as a number of other un-named co-conspirators. In other words, these are the people running our State government in California. These are the people who control our politics in California. Now, I have spoken about a culture of corruption that exists in Sacramento, and this latest series of events has cast that culture of corruption in stark relief. Indeed, the former chief of staff or communications director for both Jerry Brown and, I think, Dianne Feinstein used those very words in the aftermath of this indictment to describe the area that he had worked for many, many years, a culture of corruption. He referred to Governor Newsom's chief of staff who has now been indicted as a ``Mafia boss.'' So I think it is important for people to take note of what has transpired because it does cast a light on the corruption that is endemic to politics in Sacramento. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is really the core issue when you look at why California has declined as a State, why our quality of life has declined as a State, why we pay the highest gas taxes yet drive over the deepest potholes, why we spend tens of billions of dollars on a high-speed train and yet absolutely nothing gets built, and why we spend more and more and more money on education every year yet we have the highest illiteracy rate in the State. The fundamental issue is not Democrat versus Republican even. It is the people of our State versus this entrenched and corrupt political class. So I do believe that in order to get our State back on track, we need to reform the way politics and government are done in California. I believe we are actually on our way to starting to do that, not only with examples of people being held accountable as of this indictment, but also with The Coalition for Common Sense that you see forming across California, Mr. Speaker. This is the same coalition, for example, that came together last year to defeat our political establishment and pass Proposition 36 to make crime illegal again in California by an overwhelming margin, 68 percent of the vote, in that election. So I do believe that there is a coalition of people who care about California, who want to reform our State, and who want to restore sanity and good government and common sense. Hopefully, this latest truly troubling and horrifying example will help to speed that process along in a very healthy way. Expanding Refineries in California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, today, I voted for and the House passed the REFINER Act. This is an important piece of legislation that is designed to identify obstacles to expanding refining capacity in the United States, and it is designed to promote energy independence. Before we go through exactly what the bill does, I wanted to make clear why this is so important for those of us in California. California is seeing the closure of two of its refineries, Phillips 66 and Valero, which represent a significant chunk of our State's overall refining capacity. Now, we already pay the highest gas prices of any State in the country. We also have electricity prices that have gone up by 34 percent over the last several years, The New York Times just reported, far more than any other State. We pay the highest gas prices out of all 50 States, substantially more than the national average, higher even than Hawaii, which is an island State. The causes of that are well understood, and it is those very causes that are now causing these refineries to close in a way that is going to make the problem even worse by further constraining supply. The reason, of course, the cause, is the taxes, the regulations, the particular fuel blend that is required, and the continually changing environmental mandates that cause the cost of doing business to continually grow and that require these refineries to continually update their equipment in a way that makes doing business just no longer viable. All of these things together led researchers at USC to determine that, by the end of next year, Californians could be paying an average of $8 a gallon for gasoline. The bill we passed today here in Congress, in the House of Representatives, will help with this because, in addition to the data collection that it requires and the aspects of it that seek to support an agenda designed to promote energy independence through getting rid of needless regulations, it also is looking at State actions that are contributing to our decline in refining capacity. California, I am sure, will be the State where the most such actions are identified. I am looking forward to the results of this and then being able to act to use whatever leverage we have here at the Federal level to try to spare Californians from the continually rising cost of gasoline and to restore a little dose of common sense to our State's energy policy. State of California's Economy

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office revealed that the State has an $18 billion deficit--an $18 billion deficit. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office noted that this is the fourth straight year that the State has had budget problems, even though revenue has been increasing. The LAO, the Legislative Analyst's Office, also noted in their report on the State budget that the State's economy is not in good shape. Indeed, job growth this year has amounted to zero, nothing. There has literally been no job growth in the State of California. In addition, consumers in California are increasingly pessimistic about our State's economy, so these problems have all been building and building and have, in particular, accelerated during the governorship of Gavin Newsom. In his first year as Governor, our State budget was $208 billion. Now, the budget is $322 billion. It has increased by more than 50 percent. Can Californians say they are getting 50 percent more for their tax dollars? Of course not. The problems in our State have continued to grow. We continue to lead the Nation in homelessness, unemployment, taxes, regulations, and poverty. I would hope that this latest report from the Legislative Analyst's Office will be a wake-up call for the politicians in Sacramento that we need to start doing things differently. We need to have less of a tax and regulatory burden. We need to support small businesses and workers. We need to get the budget under control, so we don't continue to spend more and more as we get less and less. Proposition 50

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to address the House since the passage of Prop 50 in California to re-gerrymander our State and to return us to the era of political gerrymandering. Of course, I was against the proposition because I am against gerrymandering everywhere. I am against it in California. I am against it in Texas. I am against it in every State, Republican or Democrat. My district, the currently drawn Third Congressional District, did indeed vote against Prop 50, and if it had its way, it would remain one contiguous district. Unfortunately, this was not decided on a district-by-district basis, so it must be acknowledged that the people of California have spoken. Even though there is an ongoing Federal challenge to the new map, I am proceeding under the assumption that the new map will govern the elections in 2026. I did want to point to one particular provision in Prop 50 that I actually support. Indeed, I think a good part of the reason why it passed is because they actually put this provision, this sentence, right there in the description that people saw on the ballot when they voted, which is the proposition that established a State policy of supporting independent redistricting nationwide. While it, on the one hand, brings back gerrymandering in California, on the other hand, it calls upon Congress to establish independent redistricting commissions in every State in the country. I am going to answer that call to action from the voters of our State. I am currently working on legislation to do precisely what the initiative calls for, to establish independent redistricting in every State in the country. It will be modeled on the independent redistricting commission that Prop 50 just pushed aside in California. If we can get this passed here in Congress and signed into law, then by the time of the next Census in 2030, when States are actually supposed to be redrawing district lines, the horrible scourge of gerrymandering, this scourge on our democracy, will finally be put to an end in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, this who-wants-to-be-a- millionaire provision created by U.S. Senators for themselves, and themselves alone, is outrageous. I will, of course, be voting to repeal it today. We also need to ask how this was allowed to happen, and I have to tell you, it doesn't help that the House wasn't even here. For 6 straight weeks, House leadership decided to cancel our sessions, every oversight hearing, every markup of legislation, everything. Why? To this day, there has been no coherent rationale offered. Throughout this time, I warned that this was not only holding back our own legislative priorities but was also making the House irrelevant in any deal to reopen the government. Of course, that is what ended up happening. The Senate never passed our CR. They negotiated their own deal. After 50 days away, the House was brought back for one fly-by vote to ratify what the Senate had come up with as our only opportunity to reopen the government. The Senate was so thoroughly convinced of the House's irrelevance that they thought that they could literally insert a self-enrichment scheme into the legislation and get away with it. By the way, they still might get away with it because while we are passing a bill to repeal it today, that still has to pass the Senate. We need to pass this in the House today. We need to insist that this provision be included in a must-pass bill going forward so that it cannot actually be utilized. More than that, we need to start reasserting ourselves as a House, reclaiming our authority under Article I and giving the American people the representation they deserve.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I have consistently called for the maximum possible level of transparency when it comes to the heinous crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. That is why I have consistently said that I am inclined to vote for this bill, and it is why I will be doing so today. The victims deserve the truth. They deserve justice. They deserve closure. For months, they have had to wake up every day to see the name of their tormentor on the front page of every newspaper, on every TV channel, as has the broader American public. This issue has been so politicized by so many people in so many ways, which is deeply unfortunate when we are talking about matters of the highest sensitivity and untold suffering. It is my hope that the passage of this resolution today, together with the work of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, will lead to the expeditious release of all pertinent material so that we can move on. Let's get accountability. Let's get answers. Let's get this over with.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the moment to bring the senseless redistricting war to an end. Today, a Federal District Court tossed out the gerrymandered map in Texas with an appeal headed straight to the Supreme Court. California's gerrymandered map is facing a similar legal challenge. We don't know how these cases will turn out, so there is uncertainty at this moment whether the whole redistricting war is going to end as a wash or with a modest advantage for one party or the other. Now, it really shouldn't matter. I am against gerrymandering wherever it occurs no matter which party stands to benefit, but this present uncertainty has created a window of opportunity for a bipartisan agreement to bring this madness to an end. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced H.R. 4889 to ban mid-decade redistricting in every State in the country. I am calling on House leadership to do the right thing and bring this bill to the floor for a vote. Not only is it supported widely by Members in this body but a poll showed that the American people support this proposal by a 3 to 1 margin. Let's pass this legislation and restore a dose of sanity to politics in this country.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and recognize the Rotary Club of Lincoln on their centennial anniversary. The Rotary Club of Lincoln began meeting one hundred years ago in 1925 and, since then, have become a pillar of the Lincoln community and a symbol of our region's character. Weekly, the organization comes together to provide aid and comfort to the less fortunate, to honor community leaders, to promote integrity, and to work towards performing meaningful service with the purpose of building a better world. The Rotary Club of Lincoln is an award-winning service club that has obtained a wide diversity of accomplishments over the years. Some of the programs they have sponsored include blood drives, food distribution, supporting Downtown Lincoln and our local agricultural industry, advancing education initiatives and extracurricular activities for students, organizing tree-planting events, and awarding scholarships, among many other efforts. I am grateful for their significant contributions in our community and am confident that the legacy of service they have built over these past 100 years will only continue to grow in the years to come. Their efforts have made a lasting and meaningful impact in the city of Lincoln and the surrounding region, contributing towards the quality of life and well-being in our community. It is my distinct honor to represent exemplary organizations, such as the Rotary Club of Lincoln, in Congress. Therefore, on behalf of California's 3rd Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I extend my most sincere congratulations to them on this remarkable milestone.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, the House has just voted to pass a continuing resolution that is now going over to the Senate with the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, pledging that his caucus will be united against it, barrelling us toward a potential government shutdown that would very much not be in the interests of anyone and would be terrible for the country as a whole. The minority leader in the Senate has not been abundantly clear as to what exactly he is looking for in order to avoid this outcome. After all, we are dealing with a so-called clean CR, which simply extends funding levels as they have been for quite some time now. This is really not the way things should be done, by the way, but that is where we are, and it is the only proposal on the table for avoiding such a shutdown. I have a thought on how this whole terrible outcome can potentially be avoided in a way that would satisfy Members on both sides of the aisle and keep the government open, which is to include in the continuing resolution language that will preserve the congressional maps in every State in the country as they existed at the time of the 2024 election. I have proposed legislation myself along those lines to stop this horrible redistricting war that we see playing out across the country that is bad for representative government and is widely opposed by Members of the Democratic Caucus and Republican Conference in the House. That is my proposal to avoid a shutdown, to give the minority leader, Chuck Schumer, in the Senate, something that he can claim he delivered that would help members of at least the Democratic Caucus here in the House. We simply reach a deal where we are going to say we are going to stop this redistricting war; we are not going to be upending maps in the middle of a decade. This could be done easily. It could be put into the continuing resolution that the House just sent over to the Senate. Here are the two main virtues of this proposal. Number one, the proposal is widely supported by the American people, 66 percent to 23 percent. The American people say that we should not be engaging in redistricting mid-decade. That is according to a recent Noble Insights poll. Mr. Speaker, by a 3-to-1 margin, Americans support the legislation that I have proposed and support the idea that we should not be throwing out congressional maps, upending districts, and dissevering the connection between voters and their Representatives in the middle of the decade. Not only do the American people support this proposal, but Members of the House on both sides of the aisle do. How do we know that? On the Democratic side, you just had a number of Members of the House who announced their own bill to get rid of mid-decade redistricting. On the Republican side, I have had Members come up to me every day saying that what I am proposing is the right thing for them, the right thing for their districts, the right thing for their States, and the right thing for the country. The only thing that is stopping us from moving forward on this commonsense proposal is the refusal on the part of the Speaker of the House to put on the floor a piece of legislation that is widely supported by Members of the House and by the American people. The ball is now in the Senate's court when it comes to government funding, and I am absolutely opposed to a government shutdown. That is why I supported the stopgap funding measure today, even though I don't think it should have come to this. Now, the Senate has an opportunity to negotiate a compromise that will keep the House open. That has to, by its very nature, be bipartisan, given the rules of the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that a way to do that that would be in the interests of everyone here in this institution would be to reach an agreement that keeps the government open; that provides us some runway to actually pass a budget, which we should have done a long time ago; and that will stop this chaos of upending one district after another in State after State from cascading across the country. Update on Proposition 50

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an update on Proposition 50 that is set for a vote in California, otherwise known as Gavin Newsom's redistricting sham. This is a proposal by the Governor to tear up the map drawn by California's independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, to abolish the redistricting commission that was put in place by the voters, and to impose a hyperpartisan map drawn by politicians without any input from the public in setting the new boundaries for congressional representation in California. It is an attempt to override what the voters have said three separate times in California, that redistricting should be done by an independent commission and not to move us back to the era of partisan gerrymandering. As bad as this proposal is on its face, what is even worse is the cost of simply administering this special election because we are not supposed to be having an election right now. This is 2025, a nonelection year. In order to get this sham through and in order to reverse the will of the voters, the Governor needs to produce an artifact of voter approval. They have come up with this fraudulent ballot measure that is designed to mislead voters and to confuse them into overturning what they had done before. What is more is that it is doing so in a way that relies upon not only voter fraud by confusing people but also voter suppression by limiting voter opportunities. I have heard directly from the registrars of voters in my district, saying that because they have thrown out all the rules for elections in California and because they have condensed the timeline beyond anything we have ever seen, they are not able to have the polling places opened that they would like, and they are having fewer voting centers. The typical places that they use for voting are not able to be used because those places have already been booked. They are not able to get out the sort of notifications to voters that they usually do. The voter guide is not being mailed to voters when it should, and it is going to be a digital-only voter guide. Think about how perverse that is. They lie to voters on the description on the ballot as to what the initiative actually does, and then they withhold from them the voter guide that would actually give voters the actual text of the initiative and arguments from folks on both sides. In order to conduct this impromptu, unscheduled, hyper-rushed special election, when we are not supposed to be having an election at all, in a way that suppresses the will of voters and suppresses voter participation, it is going to cost California voters nearly $300 million. That is right, $282 million, to be exact. That is the cost of administering this election, the only purpose of which is to return California to the era of political gerrymandering. That is the only thing on the ballot. It is $282 million in taxpayer funding at a time when California has a massive budget deficit and when the Governor has cut funding for foster kids in our State while saying that we don't have enough money. Yet, he has $282 million to return us to the era of political gerrymandering. This comes at a time when the Governor is refusing to fund Proposition 36, the initiative to restore appropriate consequences for retail theft and to get drug offenders access to treatment. It was passed by California voters overwhelmingly last year, with nearly 70 percent of the vote, over Governor Newsom's opposition. Yet, he is not funding it. He is, again, trying to ignore and overturn the will of voters, so much so that the Democratic mayor of San Jose called what Newsom is doing ``a joke.'' Mr. Speaker, he doesn't have the funds to keep California safe. He doesn't have the funds for foster kids. He is running a massive budget deficit. He has defaulted on a $20 billion loan that he took out from the Federal Government, forcing small businesses to pay it back themselves through a tax increase. Yet, he has somehow found $282 million in taxpayer funds to conduct a snap special election to hypergerrymander our State. It is one of the most disgraceful acts, if not the most disgraceful act, of any elected official in modern California history. You don't have to take my word for that. This scheme has provoked widespread bipartisan opposition. Just today, the first chair of the California independent redistricting commission, who is a registered Democrat, has an op-ed in CalMatters, saying that this is exactly the wrong thing to do. Former Governor Schwarzenegger came out a few days ago in strong opposition to Prop 50, calling it insane. Former Governor Schwarzenegger called Governor Newsom's scheme insane. Former Governor Schwarzenegger said that this is ``getting rid of the democratic principles of California.'' Mr. Schwarzenegger derided the fact that this was a map drawn by the politicians without any input from the people. Mr. Speaker, Governor Newsom is in the process of trying to mislead voters not only through his ballot description but also through all kinds of campaign ads, using $10 million of funding that just came in from George Soros, with all of his favorite special interests in Sacramento getting behind it, with commercials saying that this is actually preserving independent redistricting when, literally, the entire point of the initiative is to throw out the map created by our independent redistricting and return power to the hands of partisan politicians. Mr. Speaker, it has also come out that this map has been drawn in such a way as to provide new districts for the very politicians who drew the map to run in. The speaker of the California State Assembly and the president of the California Senate have been given their own special districts to run in for Congress if this map gets adopted, which is all the more reason why California voters have said on multiple occasions that they don't want politicians drawing maps. Indeed, the California Constitution, in addition to saying that an independent commission draws the lines, specifically says that these sorts of considerations favoring a powerful politician, favoring an incumbent, drawing them in such a way as to give one person an edge or to have someone's home be in this district versus that one, that none of that is allowed under the current California Constitution. The way that this Governor's redistricting sham has been drawn, it says that, literally, everything else in the constitution is to be ignored. Every provision that provides for the protection for voters, that provides for fair districts, that keeps communities together in the process of drawing district lines that says you cannot favor politicians or candidates in any way, that says you cannot consider partisan outcomes, all of that is completely blown up by this initiative. It says partisan gerrymandering is the new law of the land in California, the highest law of the land, notwithstanding it says anything else that exists in our State's constitution. Mr. Speaker, the Governor is trying to stack the deck in every way he can against the people of California, to try to overturn their will, to try to confuse them, to fool them, to mislead them, to suppress their opportunity to participate so that he gets more power and they lose power. The task for those who care about good government, for those who care about our democracy in California, for people of decency on all sides of the aisle, is simply to make sure that folks understand the truth over these next few weeks as this election is conducted. California has the Highest Poverty Rate in the Nation

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, we have just got some alarming news, which, unfortunately, is unsurprising, and that is that California, once again, has the highest poverty rate of any State in the country. Despite the fact that we have some of the world's leading companies and all of the inherited advantages that we have as a State, we continue to lead the Nation in poverty with 7 million people, 17.7 percent of our residents, not able to cover their basic needs. What is perhaps even more alarming is that just since 2021, child poverty in California has doubled. Child poverty in California, the number of kids living below the poverty line, has doubled in California just in the last 4 years. That, sadly, is the price of failed leadership as our State's supermajority and Governor continue to impose policies that raise the cost of living while lowering economic opportunity. Those two factors combine to produce poverty in California unlike exists anywhere else in the United States. In addition to ranking number one in poverty, California also ranks number one in homelessness, number one in unemployment, and number one in wage stagnation. It is no secret why. The State continues to impose regulations that raise the cost of doing business in the State, that raise the cost of housing, that raise the cost of water, that raise the cost of electricity, that raise the cost of just about every other good that a person needs. The State continues to impose the highest taxes in the country, including the highest taxes on gas with new regulations now coming into place that one study estimated is going to raise the price of gasoline in California to $8 a gallon by the end of next year. Mr. Speaker, I am doing everything that I can here to counteract the failed corrupt policies that we see coming out of Sacramento. We have had some successes. For example, I recently introduced, and we passed, a resolution to overturn California's ban on gas-powered cars, which means that Californians will continue to be able to drive the car of their choice, not one chosen for them by the government. It will save Californians significant amounts when it comes to the cost of their vehicle. We are also working on legislation, and have, indeed, secured funding to increase our State's water supply and to expand our domestic energy production in order to lower the price of gas and electricity in our State. There is only so much we can do at the Federal level when our State's politicians continue to fail the people of California. I am continuing to urge leaders in Sacramento to work on commonsense legislation, to lower the cost of living in our State, and to end the attacks on workers that have given us the Nation's highest unemployment. We have so much potential in California. We are the greatest State in the country in so many ways, and if we simply had halfway decent policies in Sacramento, we would not have these outrageously tragic outcomes of having the highest poverty of any State in the country. Cutting Off Funding for the California High-Speed Rail Disaster

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, we have recently succeeded here in cutting off funding for the California High-Speed Rail disaster, which is, in my view, the worst public infrastructure failure in U.S. history. I introduced a bill at the beginning of this Congress saying that we should cut off all funding for the high-speed rail and following an investigation with Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy, we have succeeded in doing just that. Yet, the Governor of California has, rather than seeing the writing on the wall and winding this failed project down, has now said he is going to spend $20 billion more to keep it on life support and has even accused me of lying, saying: ``Representative Kiley continues to lie about California High-Speed Rail.'' Mr. Speaker, I am more than willing to be proven wrong. I am happy to be proven wrong. If the Governor and his team would like to take me for a trip on the high-speed train from San Francisco to Los Angeles that was supposed to be built 5 years ago, I will happily retract my criticism. I am ready to hop onboard when I fly home to California today. If the train is there, I will acknowledge my mistake and admit the accusation that has been leveled against me, but I don't think that is going to happen because no such train exists. In fact, not only do we not have a train from San Francisco to L.A. that was supposed to be finished 5 years ago, we don't have any stations. We do not have any track at all that has been laid, not a single passenger has ridden anything, and now the latest word is that even the initial segment from Bakersfield to Merced--that is not L.A. to San Francisco for those who are less familiar with California geography. It is not a particularly populated area--that is even going to miss its 2033 deadline. The latest ambitious plan that is put forward is that maybe by 2045, we will have a line from Palmdale to Gilroy, which would require taking three separate transit lines, a total of 6 hours, to get from L.A. to San Francisco, which you could do today on any airline in about an hour. Mr. Speaker, if I am lying, apparently a lot of other people are lying, too. The New York Times, I suppose, is lying when it reported in an expose x this project is not on track to be completed even this century. Where do we go from here? In my view, in cutting off Federal funding, we have limited what opportunities the Governor has to cause further damage to our State. He has come out and said that we are going to spend another $20 billion, but that is over the next 20 years. This is nothing more than an attempt to save face because the Governor knows that I am not lying. The Governor knows this project is an embarrassing disaster, and he also knows that he is out of office in about a year. Once we have a new Governor and we have, in statute, the commitment to not provide any more Federal funding, which has kept the project on life support, it is my prediction that this disaster will be wound down and that our transportation dollars can go where they are actually needed to fixing our failing roads and providing for California's real transportation needs. Success Academy's Top Scores

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, we have just received the latest report on the performance of students across this country when it comes to math and reading and civics, and the results are absolutely alarming. We have seen now 12th grade math scores reach the lowest score ever reported, with 45 percent of students not even showing basic skills, the highest portion of students ever to fall below basic proficiency. Nearly half of the Nation's students can't even apply single-step percentages to solve real-world problems. Less than a quarter, only 22 percent, of 12th graders scored at or above proficient in math, down 2 points from 2019. The low scores are seen in these core subjects, and they are even below scores almost two decades earlier. The data shows that this trend has continued and was started even before COVID-19. In 2024, only a third of 12th graders were considered academically ready for entry-level college math work, down 4 percent since 2019. We see similar results in reading. Over 32 percent, the largest percentage ever, scored below proficient in reading. When we look at both math and reading, we are seeing the worst performance ever for students across this country. I have been raising alarms about this trend for some time now. As the chair of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, we have been looking at how we can reverse this trajectory, which has been continuing for far too long in this country. The truth is, we don't have to look far because there are some places in America that are defying this alarming trend, that are applying basic principles of propelling student achievement in order to perform in a diametrically different way than schools elsewhere in the country. To take one example, which we highlighted in a hearing earlier this year, you can look at Success Academy, which is a network of nearly 60 charter schools in New York. I have here just one measure of their extraordinary success. As background, it should be understood that the demographics of Success Academy are largely students from underserved communities with, in fact, 76 percent coming from economically disadvantaged homes. When you look at this chart, you can see the number of students who passed one or more AP exam of the roughly 1,500 high school students that Success Academy has. This is their network of schools, nearly 60 charter schools, but 1,500 high school students. Mr. Speaker, 100 percent of their students passed at least one AP exam. These other bars are different States. You see 24 percent for Rhode Island, 24 percent for Vermont, 27 percent for Virginia, and 26 percent in Colorado. Even of the States that do pretty well, in the high 20s, California, which does not do so well, scored 28 percent, and Massachusetts, the State with the highest score, scored 33 percent. Success Academy had 100 percent. In fact, every Success Academy high school graduate has been accepted to a 4-year college, with many admitted to highly selective institutions. Overall, we have seen students at Success Academy last year led the entire State in math scores, with 49 percent of Black and 55 percent of Hispanic students earning 4s, which is the highest level on the State exam. By contrast, New York City's district schools, compared to that, 8 percent of Black and Hispanic students earned 4s. Mr. Speaker, 49 percent and 55 percent versus 8 percent is an astounding difference at a network of schools where the vast majority of students are below the poverty line. As a matter of fact, if Success Academy were its own district, it would be the single highest ranking school district in the State of New York. I had the opportunity to visit one of their schools just last week, and I was truly inspired by what I saw. The students were engaged in every classroom I visited. They were enthusiastic about learning, eager to participate, and attentive. I didn't see one student's eyes wander or one disruption. The teachers were, likewise, truly passionate about the work that they were doing. The students are held to very high expectations and taught math and reading in a rigorous way, in an evidence-based way. They are taught things like focus, by learning chess starting in kindergarten, and they have created a culture within each of their schools of high expectations that is felt in every classroom and by every student. It is no wonder that parents in New York are clamoring to get their kids into these schools. I had the chance to meet a number of these parents as well while I was there. The last time, for the last year, for the 3,200 spots that were available, there were 16,000 families that applied. The law for charter schools is that you do a lottery, so 16,000 families applied for 3,200 lottery spots. If you won the lottery, then your child gets the chance to go to the highest performing network of schools in the State of New York, a network where 100 percent of students are accepted to 4-year universities, where 100 percent of high school students pass at least one AP exam, and where over six times more students achieve the highest level of proficiency as similarly situated students in district schools in New York City. You would think that politicians in Albany or, for that matter, in Sacramento--because our State has similar success stories when it comes to high-performing charter school networks--would be doing everything possible to expand these opportunities, but it is just the contrary. In New York, they have actually capped the number of charter schools that can be started, and in California, Governor Newsom and the supermajority have conducted a years-long war against charter schools, making it harder for them to start up and easier for them to be shut down. I think it is important for us to reflect on these two sets of data. On the one hand, the Nation's report card shows that our Nation is in big trouble because of the continuing decline and failure of our public education system, but on the other hand we have inspiring stories like that of Success Academy where you have nearly 60 schools that are achieving extraordinary things for kids coming largely from underprivileged backgrounds. The urgent question that we need to ask is how do we make every school in America look more like Success Academy or more like the KIPP network of schools or more like any number of successful charter networks, and, for that matter, those traditional public schools that are doing a good job, as well. We have been highlighting in our subcommittee why it is that we have this vast divergence in outcomes. While education is largely the domain of State and local jurisdictions, we will continue to use whatever tools we have to encourage the adoption of best practices and to work toward accountability for those who are failing our students year after year. Dog Successfully Votes in California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight some curious news out of my State in California. It has just been revealed that a dog successfully voted in a recent election in California. The dog received a ballot in the mail and successfully cast that ballot and, indeed, even after the dog died, continued to receive a ballot in the mail. The owner has now been charged by the Orange County District Attorney's Office for illegally registering her dog to vote, but she probably would have gotten away with it if she hadn't posted a photo of her dog on social media wearing an ``I voted'' sticker. The individual here has been charged with a number of felonies: for perjury, for procuring or offering a false or forged document, two felony counts of casting a ballot while not entitled to vote, one felony count of registering a nonexistent person to vote. Just to be clear, dogs are not actually allowed to vote in California, and yet in this case, the animal did. The question we have to ask, Mr. Speaker, is how in the world do we have so few safeguards on our electoral process in California that such a thing could ever happen. I have proposed commonsense solutions to this problem, requiring voter ID and passing the SAVE Act here in Congress to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. While this is, obviously, a crazy example, a lot of people in our State lack trust in the integrity of our electoral process, especially when laws are passed year after year in the legislature, where now ballots are automatically sent to every registered voter. Those ballots continue to go out, often when the voter has left the State or when the voter is no longer with us; where there is no proof of ID in order to register to vote, or actually to vote; when registration is done automatically when one gets their driver's license; and where, in recent years, ballot harvesting laws have been passed where you don't even have to submit your ballot yourself, but someone can come to your door and grab it for you. I think it is past time that we have reforms to our electoral process in California and, frankly, nationwide, as well. I have discussed my opposition to partisan gerrymandering. In addition to stopping this redistricting war going on right now, I believe that by the time we have the next round of scheduled redistricting, we need to end gerrymandering once and for all in this country. I think perhaps there is a bargain that can be struck to have legislation that will protect the fairness of elections across America by instituting universal voter ID while ending gerrymandering once and for all. I believe that will restore fairness in American elections, and our democracy will be much better off for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore). Honoring the life of Officer Gabriel Stainback

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

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise at a moment when the Nation is still in shock over the sudden and senseless death, the brutal, barbaric murder, and the cold-blooded assassination of a man beloved by millions. The depth of this tragedy is hard to process: a life cut short at age 31, a wife left without a husband and two young children without a father. The tributes that have poured in these last 24 hours from people from all walks of life and all corners of the political universe, the raw grief, and the remarkable eulogies bear testament to a life of generational importance, a life cruelly limited in years but immeasurable in impact. I offer my own heartfelt prayers along with hundreds of millions of others in this country and around the world. As we pray for Charlie and his loved ones, so too do I pray for our country. We are in a perilous moment. We don't yet have all the facts about yesterday's horrifying events, and the killer remains at large. What we do know is that political division has continued to deepen in this country and that political violence is on the rise. With a loss this profound, with evil this glaring, and with so much pain, suffering, anger, and fear, this cycle could escalate. A new, more severe round of accusations and recriminations, of demonization and dehumanization, could bring our politics and society to a darker place. That isn't where things have to go. This can also be an occasion for soul-searching as a country. As all decent people condemn this horrifying act of political violence, we can be reminded of the broader swath of common ground that we share. It is a belief that political differences should be resolved through dialogue, debate, and elections, not force. It is a commitment to the founding ideals of our country, however differently we might conceive of them at any given moment, that all men and women are created equal and are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. More basically, we all want to see our economy thrive, our communities safe, and our families happy and healthy. The last time we truly came together around our shared ideals and aspirations in a sustained way and stood solidly together on the common ground of our body politic was 24 years ago today. The tragedy of September 11 crystallized America's transcendent values in a way that made every degree of difference seem trifling. We were all Americans then, and still today, we are all Americans. I don't believe that the generation that has passed since 9/11 has depleted our ability to come together as a country, and I don't believe that an attack on the homeland is the only thing that can rekindle it. At this moment, working to rediscover that capacity for unity is a matter of the highest urgency to our Nation's future. A simple thing we can all do: If you have a friend or family member whom you have stopped talking to because of political differences, this might be a good time to reach out and to say that we are still friends and still family. Politics isn't everything, and politics itself, when properly conducted, can foster friendship and build community even among ideological opponents. That is what Charlie Kirk devoted his life to. He brought people of all perspectives together to talk to one another, to have a vigorous exchange of ideas, to discuss how best we can fulfill America's promise, and to participate in democracy. Charlie Kirk's example shows that when you are willing to have conversations, Mr. Speaker, you often learn things. You may not be persuaded by your opponents, but you can appreciate their perspective, see where they are coming from, see them as people, discover surprising points of agreement, and gain a more nuanced understanding of your own position by understanding theirs. That is something we can all try to do better, especially those of us in elected office. I ask every Member of this House, myself included, to think hard about how we can approach our work here with a greater spirit of collegiality and conciliation. In this terrible moment, that has to be the path forward for our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY of California

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

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, the redistricting war in this country is starting to escalate to an absurd degree. Among the States now looking at redistricting, or are currently in the process of it, we have Texas, California, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Utah, Florida, Maryland, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas, Virginia, and New York. This is insanity. Where does it end? It certainly won't end this election cycle. There is no reason that in every election cycle now, Mr. Speaker, you won't have States redrawing district lines if they sense any sort of advantage can be gained in the process. However, just in this round of what will apparently be a new precedent of ongoing, rolling redistricting, you are going to see millions of Americans across all of these States, Mr. Speaker, lose the right to vote for their current Representative. My own district, for example, under a newly proposed map, would be cut into six different pieces. Hence, at least five-sixths of the current constituents whom I have would lose the right to be able to choose me as their Representative. What is more, this is going to consume an inordinate amount of time of State legislatures across the country, not to mention resources. It is going to consume an inordinate amount of time for Representatives of this body who are going to have to learn and get to know new communities that they are going to be representing that they have never represented before. They are going to lose communities that they may have represented for some time. No one wants this, not Democrats in the House and not Republicans in the House. I have people coming up to me constantly agreeing that what is going on is a terrible thing for the country. It is going to stratify and polarize representation like never before. You are going to have more and more State delegations, Mr. Speaker, that are extremely asymmetrical. Some will have no Representatives of one party or the other. That can only mean fewer perspectives in this body and fewer Americans feeling like they are represented in our representative government. It can only mean more of the gridlock and division that Americans are so frustrated with. This all raises the question: Where is the Speaker of the House in all of this? Why is he, at the very least, going along with a redistricting war that the Members who elected him overwhelmingly oppose? Why is the leader of this institution simply watching as the institution crumbles? By the way, where is the minority leader, as well, want-to-be Speaker, would-be Speaker, Minority Leader Jeffries? He is all too happy to just treat this as another form of partisan warfare and has adopted this horrible fight-fire-with-fire slogan. He is apparently willing to burn everything down if it means he can be the next Speaker of the House. What our leadership seems to have forgotten is that the House is a coequal, independent branch of our government. There are supposed to be tensions between the branches. That is the design of our system. Even if the leaders of the other branches are carbon copies of yourself, Mr. Speaker, there should, from time to time, be some tension because of the difference in perspectives and institutional roles and responsibilities. When the system works well, that can be a constructive tension that is resolved in a way that carries out our shared vision for the country and is in everyone's interest. However, that requires real leadership, and right now that leadership is sorely lacking. I believe that gerrymandering wherever it occurs is a plague on our democracy whichever party does it. Both parties have been amply guilty. That is why I proposed H. Res. 4889. H. Res. 4889 will bring this redistricting war to an end by preserving the district maps that were used in our last election until the next Census when redistricting is supposed to be done. Ultimately, by the time of the next Census, we need to come up with a solution to eradicate this plague of gerrymandering from our democracy. That is why I have called on the Speaker to set up a bipartisan commission to end gerrymandering in this country once and for all. By the way, I think that should go hand in hand with a requirement for voter ID in elections across the country so that we can finally have fair elections in the United States. The reality is that Americans of all party affiliations are tired of the political division that only seems to get worse and worse every single year. Mr. Speaker, you can ask the folks I represent in California. I will fight harder than anyone for the policies that I think are best for my district and State and for the country. I have fought harder than anyone against the corruption of the ruling class in Sacramento. Often my critique is that that corruption undermines the foundations that we ought to share when it comes to politics in this country. We truly need to find common ground, at the very least, when it comes to the basic parameters of our politics. That is what is so pernicious about this redistricting war. We are supposed to disagree about policies and about our visions for the country vigorously. That is what the political process is about. That is what democracy is about. However, we need to have some shared foundation upon which those differences can be debated. When you have this rolling redistricting, Mr. Speaker, this redistricting war that we are seeing right now, it erodes that foundation, and it makes it much more difficult for us to actually govern in the interests of the country and to fulfill the promise of representative government. I am hopeful that the legislation I have offered can be a first step in saying we need to find more common ground. We need to get back to the issues that actually matter to the American people. Mr. Speaker, one of the worst consequences of this redistricting war we see breaking out across the country is that it has provided a pretext for the Governor of California to do what he has always wanted to do, which is to undermine the fairness of our elections in California by abolishing the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. The Governor and his enablers insist they are only doing this because of what is happening in other States. However, the redistricting commission itself was opposed by Nancy Pelosi, for example, who led the opposition to its creation and was opposed by the California Democratic Party. Nothing could justify what is happening in California right now. However, they have grabbed on to whatever pretext they can in order to move forward with returning us and moving us backwards as a State to the era of partisan gerrymandering. The problem for Newsom is that the voters of California are overwhelmingly opposed to this plan. How do we know that? California voters have voted three times to support the independent redistricting commission. A poll just recently came out from Politico asking voters: Do you want the commission to draw district lines, or do you want the politicians to get that power back? By a 2-1 margin, over 60 percent of Democrats, over 60 percent of Republicans, and over 70 percent of Independents said: We want the commission drawing district lines. We don't think politicians should draw their own district lines. To solve this problem, that is to say, the public overwhelmingly opposing his plan which does require voter approval, the Governor has come up with a two-pronged strategy which is to disenfranchise voters and to defraud them. First, while the previous votes to establish the independent commission and to affirm it were done by our full electorate, he is now just summoning a partial electorate in a low-turnout, off-year special election to try to overturn that decision. What is more, he has thrown out all of our election rules in order to accelerate and condense the election timeline unlike anything we have ever seen so that the county registrars are unable to notify voters, as they usually would that there is an election going on, so that the voter guide, at least at first, is only going to be available online and such that there will be fewer polling places and vote centers for people to actually vote in. It is voter suppression through and through in an attempt to reverse the clearly articulated and repeatedly expressed view of the California electorate. That is not all. For those voters who do turn out, the Governor needs to make sure that they are unable to express their true will or at least have difficulty doing so. That is where he has made use of yet another tool that is available to the one-party rule that we have in California, which is to commit fraud on the ballot itself. Now, that might sound like strong language. ``Fraud'' might seem a little strong, but it is not an exaggeration. The definition of ``fraud'' is lying to people in order to get them to act in a way that they don't want to act and that goes against their own interests. That is precisely what has happened here. We now have the actual language that will appear on the ballot for California voters. If this were an honest description, it would simply say that we are tearing up the map drawn by California's independent redistricting commission and replacing it with a map drawn by politicians in order to maximize partisan advantage. That is literally what is happening, no more, no less. Instead, we get this. Let's just walk through some of the language: ``Authorizes Temporary Changes to Congressional District Maps.'' First of all, the changes are not temporary. They will last through the rest of this decade, when the existing map would have expired anyway. They are permanent changes, and they are not changes. ``Changes'' implies you are making a little tweak here, a little tweak there. No, they have drawn a completely new map that is going to affect districts all across California and cause voters all across California to lose their representation. This is where it gets really good: ``Authorizes Temporary Changes to Congressional District Maps in Response to Texas' Partisan Redistricting.'' First, it is blatantly untrue. The initial version of this said that it would only take effect if Texas moved forward. That language was deleted. This is taking effect, if it is passed, regardless of anything that has happened in Texas or any other State. At this point, it is completely inaccurate and is an attempt to simply smuggle some sort of argument or justification into a summary of the actual language. What is more, there is no mention anywhere of the fact that this is overriding the map created by California's independent commission. If you just read it, at first glance, it is almost designed to read as if Texas has somehow come in and messed with California's maps, so we need to restore them to proper order. That is the impression that this is designed to give. In fact, the independent commission is only mentioned in the next sentence, where it says that it directs the independent citizens commission to start drawing maps after 2030. If you are reading this casually, you might say that this is the side that supports independent redistricting. After all, they are telling the independent commission to draw maps. The independent commission does not need to be directed to draw maps after the next Census. That is what they are already required to do. The only effect of this initiative is to throw out the map that the independent commission has drawn for this decade. Then, to make things even more farcical, it goes on to say that it is establishing a policy of the State to support independent redistricting. No, this doesn't. It doesn't establish any policy supporting independent redistricting. The only thing that this initiative does, as it pertains to independent redistricting, is to shove aside California's independent redistricting commission. A few other little inaccuracies: It says that this only lasts through 2030. In fact, the partisan map that was drawn behind closed doors by the California legislature and the DCCC will last through 2033. It says it will only cost a few million dollars. That is outrageous. The special election itself is going to cost between $200 million and $250 million. Finally, what it doesn't mention at all is that this is overriding, literally, the entire rest of California's State Constitution. That is the language that is actually in this constitutional amendment. It says that everything else in our Constitution does not apply. Partisan gerrymandering will be the supreme law of the land. All the protections in our Constitution right now that are manifested in the existing congressional map will be thrown out, which means the protections where we had extensive public input in drawing the maps. Instead, this map was drawn behind closed doors in a matter of days. It throws out the protections that say those who draw the maps are not allowed to run for public office. This map was drawn by people who are in public office and hope to run in the very districts that they are drawing. The protections that say that the district lines need to follow neutral criteria, like keeping communities together, and cannot be drawn in the interest of partisanship or to favor or disfavor any politician, are all thrown out. This map tears communities apart. My district is torn into six different pieces. The county where I live is torn into three or four different pieces. It is being designed for the explicit purpose of partisanship. Gavin Newsom has said the entire point of this map is to make California a whole lot bluer and to pick up five seats. By the way, it says Texas' redistricting is partisan redistricting, but says nothing about that in California, when the very people who drew the maps have said that is literally the entire point of the exercise. That is what is happening in California. There is this farce of democracy, this fraud that the Governor is perpetrating on the electorate. There is a systematic attempt to suppress voters in order to return our State to the era of partisan gerrymandering. Indeed, we even now have reports that the leaders of the legislature itself who pushed this measure through at Newsom's behest have specifically gotten special districts drawn for themselves in order to run for Congress. This is precisely why voters have said we do not want politicians drawing district lines, because they do so in the interests of themselves rather than the interests of the people that they are supposed to serve. That is the ultimate evil of gerrymandering. It shifts power from the people to the politicians. That is why it undermines democracy and proper representation. Why is this happening, by the way? It is really about one thing. The Governor of California is desperate for some issue to run for President on. He has been trying throughout his tenure as our Governor to find something, anything, to get himself national attention. I have watched as he has failed time and time again. I remember in his first term, at the beginning, he decided to create an animated Mario Kart-style video of himself racing Donald Trump, thinking this was going to get him a lot of attention. I saw during the COVID shutdowns how he would come up with one crazy scheme after another because he was jealous that Andrew Cuomo was getting all the attention. That didn't really work for him either. This is literally the first time anything he has ever done has gotten him the attention that he so craves. Indeed, while his poll numbers are still abysmal in California, it actually seems to be working when it comes to the far left that tends to participate in primaries, which is another testament to just how badly our leadership here has failed, that they have managed to play into the hands of Gavin Newsom, who is not a very smart person and who is not a very crafty politician. Yet, this redistricting war has played right into his hands. Despite all of this, I do believe that we can defeat Newsom's effort to defraud and disenfranchise California voters. The reason I believe that is because we just did so last year. What happened with Prop 36, which is the initiative to make crime illegal again in California, is a perfect case study into how the Governor of California has tried to undermine democracy in order to get his way. Yet, with respect to Prop 36, he failed miserably. Indeed, in an attempt to stop this initiative, which he led the opposition to, he came up with three different schemes to undermine the will of California voters. The initiative, Prop 36, gathered something like a million signatures, and so qualified for the ballot. It was an initiative to restore basic consequences for criminal activity, like retail theft, and to get treatment for folks who have repeated drug offenses. The Governor opposed this effort to make crime illegal again in California. The Governor's first attempt to undermine this voter-qualified citizen initiative was what was called a poison pill. The scheme went like this: Newsom had the legislature pass a number of supposedly pro- public safety bills. They didn't really do much, but they were supposedly part of a public safety package. Then, he inserted into those bills a poison pill. This is completely novel, from what I understand, in the history of legislative government in this country. He inserted a poison pill saying that, if California voters were so bold as to go out and vote for Prop 36, our initiative, then all of these other bills would automatically be reversed as a punishment, if you will. I will say that again. The bills themselves said that, if voters go out and approve this initiative to make crime illegal again in California, then all of these other supposedly pro-public safety bills will automatically be repealed as a consequence. What was the point of this? Mr. Speaker, you might say that it was to punish the voters, maybe, but the real point was fraud. What the Governor hoped to do was to get these measures passed. Remember how he was committing fraud on the ballot for the redistricting sham? What he wanted to do for the ballot on Prop 36 was to say that this is a measure that will repeal all of these other pro- public safety bills so that he could trick people into thinking that it was actually an anti-public safety measure when the whole point was to promote public safety. Mr. Speaker, that didn't work. For various reasons, even this proved too corrupt for the California Legislature. Newsom moved on to his next plan, which was known as ``the imposter initiative.'' He came up at the last second with his own very much weaker, supposedly pro-public safety initiative to put on the ballot alongside Prop 36. The goal was to confuse voters and to get them to prefer his initiative. Indeed, he even changed the rules for how propositions are numbered in order to put his first. Mr. Speaker, you might say that that is not too much of a problem and that voters will just pass both, but he thought of that. He actually wrote language into his initiative saying that, if it got more votes than our initiative, Prop 36, then Prop 36 would not take effect, even if it got more than 50 percent of the vote. The literal effect of his initiative would have been to overturn the results of a democratic election. Fortunately, this plan failed, too, because the Governor, in his absolute disregard for any decency whatsoever, had used the name ``Alexandra's Law'' for a part of the initiative dealing with fentanyl. This was genuinely part of our own initiative. It was a way to hold fentanyl dealers accountable. It was named after a young lady who, tragically, lost her life to fentanyl poisoning. The Governor went ahead and misappropriated that name and used it for his much weaker version of this provision. The family of this young woman spoke out against it, and it was only then that he was forced to remove this imposter initiative from the ballot. The third scheme that the Governor came up with targeted me specifically. One of his cronies, a woman named Ann Ravel, filed a completely made-up, frivolous complaint against me with the FEC. It alleged that I had transferred $50,000 to the campaign account supporting this initiative. It was completely untrue. I never did anything of the sort. I didn't transfer any money to it. Even if I had, it wouldn't have been a violation of the law. Yet, Ms. Ravel had a brief stint as chair of the FEC herself, and she has since turned this into sort of a gig where she can make partisan claims and give them a sort of aura of legitimacy, as coming from the former FEC chair. Fellow Democrats have called her out on this time and time again that this is what she is doing. Even in her own failed campaign for State senate, this is what she did. She files this complaint. Before I even see it, she hands it off to the L.A. Times. The L.A. Times dutifully publishes a headline referring to the complaint by the former FEC chair related to Prop 36. Then, they went and showed that article to anyone who was considering supporting the initiative in order to try to deter them from doing it. Mr. Speaker, the FEC rejected Ms. Ravel's complaints since it was completely made up. This was the very body that she was once the supposed chair of. It was a completely disgraceful thing that she did. Yet, that attempt also, of course, failed. All three of these attempts to undermine the opportunity for voters to even vote on this fairly failed. It went to the ballot box. Newsom led the campaign against it at the ballot box. At the end of the day, Prop 36 passed overwhelmingly with nearly 70 percent of the vote in the State of California. It passed in each and every one of California's 58 counties, even Gavin Newsom's San Francisco. It received more votes than any other measure on the ballot last year. Mr. Speaker, the Governor is using every corrupt means at his disposal in order to undermine our democracy, to overturn the will of our voters, and to deprive our people of fair representation. Yet, this example shows that we still have the power to fight back and to win. California Governor Opposes Use of National Guard Against Crime

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, the Governor of California is outraged at the prospect that National Guard troops might be used in cities like San Francisco in order to protect public safety. There is one problem with this outrage, and that is that Newsom himself sent the National Guard to San Francisco just 2 years ago saying: ``. . . we cannot let rampant crime continue.'' Of course, he did let rampant crime continue, and it was really just a token measure. Yet, even now, just a few days ago, while saying that there is no problem with crime in California, the Governor has announced that crime suppression teams will be sent into our major cities. Which is it? Mr. Speaker, the Governor has also claimed that there has been a modest reduction in crime across California this year. To the extent that that is true, it is because of successes that we have had in stopping some of Newsom's worst policies. Namely, we passed Prop 36 to make crime illegal again. We won a victory at the Supreme Court, over what Newsom wanted, to allow homeless encampments to be removed from our streets. By the way, we no longer have a completely open border. To the extent that there has been improvement, it is because Newsom's own policies have been reversed. This includes in L.A., as well, where the rogue district attorney, George Gascon, who Newsom himself initially appointed, was overwhelmingly voted out by voters last year. There has been a modest improvement in public safety in California, thanks to the fact that Newsom's policies are being overturned by the people of California. Yet, there still remains significant problems in our cities. Even in Los Angeles, the police chief there says that you shouldn't go outside while wearing jewelry. Mr. Speaker, what is even more outrageous is that Newsom, after opposing Prop 36 to make crime illegal again in every way that he can, is refusing now to properly fund the initiative. It needs funding for various reasons, one of the most important of which is to get help to people who have drug issues and need treatment. That was a big part of the initiative, is that people who have repeat arrests for abusing drugs can be offered treatment as an alternative to incarceration. The Governor is refusing to fund the treatment programs that are needed. He is all too willing to continue to let people wither away on our streets and die from overdoses because he is not properly funding this. The mayor of San Jose, who is a Democrat, has said that the Governor's refusal to fund Prop 36 is ``a joke.'' This is coming from a fellow Democrat mayor in California. Newsom's refusal to fund the initiative that Californians passed is a joke. He doesn't have the money for it, I guess, even though he does have $200 to $250 million to call an off-year special election in order to return us to the era of partisan gerrymandering. I am calling on the Governor and the leaders of the California legislature to properly fund Prop 36. If we do that, then we will continue to see not just modest but significant improvements in public safety and the quality of life throughout California. Recent Unemployment Numbers for the Country

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, we recently received the latest unemployment numbers for the month of July for States across the country and there was only one State, one State alone, that saw an increase in unemployment: California. Even before this, California already had the highest unemployment rate in the country, number one out of 50 States. This is not what you want to be leading the Nation in, which is why it was particularly farcical when the Governor this Labor Day claimed that California is the number one State in the country for workers. It is absolutely false. California has the number one unemployment and the number one poverty. We have been among the worst States in the country when it comes to increase in the wages of workers. We are, of course, by far the worst when it comes to restricting job opportunities for workers through AB5, a law so bad that no other State has adopted anything like it. Unfortunately, Californians continue to pay the price for the failed corrupt policies that have led to these outcomes, for the policies that restrict opportunity while raising the cost of living in California. If we really wanted to solve the problems in our State in a way that would benefit the people of California, then the Governor wouldn't be calling a sham special election. He wouldn't be focusing all of his time on appearing on podcasts and writing all caps tweets designed to mimic the President. He would instead be focusing on the quality of life challenges faced by the people of California that, unfortunately, are causing more and more people to leave our State. Not only are we number one in unemployment and homelessness and wage stagnation, but we are also number one in poverty and in illiteracy. In the achievement gaps at our schools, we are among the very worse. We are number one in gas prices. We are number one, or near it, in the cost of electricity and the cost of water. These things don't happen just randomly or by accident. They are the result of failed policy choices. If this redistricting sham moves forward, then the eyes of the Nation will be on California. I think it will be important to make the point, as well, that while our politicians are playing political games, our citizens continue to pay the price for their failed policies. No Tax Dollars for Riots

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I introduced the No Tax Dollars for Riots Act in response to the horrifying events in Los Angeles in recent months, where you had rioters attacking officers, using commercial dumpsters as battering rams, and threatening public safety in a variety of ways. What we learned is that this violence was fueled and organized by a so-called nonprofit called CHIRLA that actually was blasting out on a Signal chat the real-time locations of ICE officers so that the rioters could then go find them and obstruct their activities and, in some cases, attack them with rocks and Molotov cocktails and other weapons. What makes this all the worse is that this group, CHIRLA, is essentially a subsidiary of the State of California and received some $32 million in funding from the State of California just in 1 year, as well as receiving Federal funding and receiving generous subsidies from the city of Los Angeles. I introduced the No Tax Dollars for Riots Act to assure that this does not happen again. As if to underscore the need for this legislation, this same group, CHIRLA, that helped organize the L.A. riots, has now announced that they will be leading the grassroots organizing for Gavin Newsom's redistricting sham. The same group that has benefited so generously from his largesse that has received funding from California taxpayers in order to help organize and instigate the actions of rioters is now leading the grassroots organizing for this attempt to overturn the will of California voters. It is all the more reason why this type of funding should not be allowed, so I am calling for the prompt passage of my bill, the No Tax Dollars for Riots Act. Good News on the Assault on the First Amendment