Kevin Kiley

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, we have some good news. Governor Gavin Newsom has lost in court again in an assault on the First Amendment designed to make parody and satire illegal in the State of California. Last year, the Governor saw a parody video of Kamala Harris that he didn't like, so he comes out in authoritarian style and announces this speech should be banned. Not only did he announce it, the legislature did his bidding, passed a bill, and he signed it into law to ban the sort of parody video that was seen by many people during the election. Now, of course, I made it very clear at the time that this was a violation, a blatant violation, of the First Amendment. It didn't stop Newsom from signing the bill. He has had many bills before that violated the First Amendment and they were thrown out by the courts. Just a couple weeks ago, that is what happened with this bill, as well. The court has thrown out Gavin Newsom's attempt to ban satire and parody in the State of California. Mr. Speaker, to make things even more absurd, this farcical account on X that the Governor's team is using, the Governor Newsom press office, has been putting out content designed to mock the President that would have actually violated the very terms of this bill that Newsom himself signed into law. Fortunately, the courts, in this case, protected the rights of the people in California. I am glad to announce that the First Amendment is still operative in our State, that parody and satire, which throughout history have been the way that we can humble those in power and can be powerful instruments of political expression, are still very much allowable in our State. End Insider Trading by Members of Congress

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, today, I am announcing that I will be coauthoring H.R. 5106, the Restore Trust in Congress Act, which is designed to end insider trading by Members of Congress. Specifically, this bill prohibits all Members of Congress, along with spouses, dependent children, and trustees from owning, buying, or selling individual stocks, securities, commodities, or futures. Upon enactment, covered individuals are prohibited from purchasing covered assets and must divest from all covered assets at fair market value within 180 days for current Members and 90 days for incoming Members. Individuals who acquire covered assets through inheritance during the course of their service will be required to divest those assets within 90 days of receipt. Violators of this statute--or bill if it becomes law--will have to pay an amount equal to 10 percent of the value of covered assets plus the sale of profits, and it must be paid with personal funds, not office or campaign funds. This is a commonsense measure that the overwhelming majority of Americans support. The notion that someone should be able to profit from their government service or even the appearance of that undermines trust in government, which is so essential to the representative form of democracy that we have here in the United States. I am hopeful that this legislation will be brought to the floor by House leaders expeditiously, and we can get it passed and signed into law in a bipartisan way in order to help restore trust in Congress, as the name suggests. Beautifying Federal Architecture

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very excited to announce that this coming week, I will be introducing the Beautifying Federal Civic Architecture Act, which will build on an executive order that has been signed and issued by the President to change the General Services Administration's policies to prefer classical and traditional architecture in Federal public buildings. I think every American can imagine what we are talking about here. When you look at the Capitol, our national monuments, the White House, many courthouses, the classical style very much evokes the values that we have in this country, the values of representative government, the values of citizen participation. However, in recent decades, there has been a move away from this architectural style, and it has produced some Federal buildings that don't evoke such feelings at all and that are, frankly, a bit of an eyesore as opposed to the beautiful buildings that mark many of our monuments and historic places here in Washington, D.C. I am very happy to be authoring this bill in the House to make it the policy of the United States that Federal buildings should uplift and beautify public spaces, inspire the human spirit, ennoble the United States, and command respect from the general public. It declares that these buildings should be visually identifiable as civic buildings and respect the regional architectural heritage. That is important, as well. While the policy gives preference toward traditional and classical architecture, other styles are permissible if they clearly convey the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of America's system of self-government. Of course, the bill also makes it the policy that Federal buildings should be selected with substantial input from local communities. I have long argued that we need, in many ways, to return to the classical understanding of representative government, of self- government that was the vision of our Founders, and define ways in order to revive that spirit. The look of a building is a small way, but I think that it is a reform that, going hand in hand with other ways to enable greater participation, such as restoring proper civics in our schools and many other related measures, can be an important part of restoring that spirit, that civic spirit that guided our Nation's founding. I look forward to introducing this bill. I look forward to it receiving, hopefully, bipartisan support in the House, and being signed into law in order to complement the President's executive order, and make this the policy of our country going forward. El Dorado County Title 25 Program Supports Community of Grizzly Flats

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a significant milestone in the community of Grizzly Flats: the groundbreaking of the first home under the new El Dorado County title 25 program created to support the victims of the Caldor fire. In August of 2021, the Caldor fire burned more than 220,000 acres and destroyed more than 1,000 structures, including hundreds of homes in Grizzly Flats. On May 23 of this year, U.S. Navy veteran ``Mac'' MacNeil and Cathie Adams were joined by their neighbors and community leaders as they broke ground on what will soon be their newly constructed home, the first home rebuilt by a nonprofit charitable organization in Grizzly Flats after the Caldor fire. This new home will provide Mac and Cathie with a safe, comfortable, and dignified living space after their home and many others were tragically destroyed 4 years ago. The construction of this new home is being supported by an organization called Non-profit Construction, which is leading the rebuild, and El Dorado County's title 25 program, which streamlines the rebuilding process for homes damaged or destroyed by the Caldor fire. This groundbreaking and upcoming construction of this new home represents not just shelter but also the community's unwavering strength, resilience, and its determined step forward on the path to recovery. I am confident that innovative housing solutions like this one will not only uplift the Grizzly Flats community but will also serve as a powerful blueprint for resilience and recovery across California and the Nation. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to join the people of El Dorado County and Grizzly Flats in congratulating Mr. ``Mac'' MacNeil and Ms. Cathie Adams on the groundbreaking of their new home. Congratulating ECO-CLEAN Solutions

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate JB Harris and JT Chevallier, and the entire team at ECO-CLEAN Solutions for reaching a record-breaking milestone, 1 million square feet of Lake Tahoe shoreline cleaned up by the team's beach-cleaning robot, BEBOT. Congratulations to JB Harris and JT Chevallier for this amazing accomplishment. JB and JT, two longtime friends from Las Vegas, were drawn to the Sierra Nevada by the beauty and lifestyle of the mountains. As their connection to the area and the great outdoors deepened, JB and JT witnessed the toll of increased tourism on their natural surroundings. With the motivation to give back to the home that had given them so much, ECO-CLEAN was created to respond to the need for environmental responsibility and sustainability. With the annual number of visitors to Lake Tahoe growing to 15 million people, Tahoe's beaches experienced a surge in waste, particularly during peak travel seasons. JB and JT recognized the problem and set out to find innovative and low-impact solutions to this growing concern. In their search, the team discovered BEBOT, the first battery- and solar-powered beach-cleaning robot on the West Coast. Through funding provided by the North Tahoe Community Alliance, the team was able to successfully deploy BEBOT to the shores of Lake Tahoe, maximizing beach cleanup efforts through advanced technology and in partnership with local volunteers. Through this innovative solution, ECO-CLEAN and their beach cleaning BEBOT have cleaned 1 million square miles of Lake Tahoe's shoreline, picking up more than 30,000 pieces of litter in 2024 alone. They also partner and collaborate with several local organizations, one of which includes the Desert Research Institute, which analyzes the litter taken from the lake to better understand pollutants and proactively address their source. It is an honor to represent exemplary organizations like ECO-CLEAN Solutions in the United States House of Representatives. This organization exemplifies how American innovation can serve as a solution to the issues that are facing our communities and the Nation at large. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize JB, JT, and ECO-CLEAN Solutions for reaching this significant milestone and for their ongoing dedication to protecting the beauty of Lake Tahoe's shorelines for generations to come. Bringing Attention to Alzheimer's Disease

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, with more than 7 million Americans living with Alzheimer's disease, including over 700,000 Californians age 65 and older, I rise today to bring continued attention to this growing public health challenge. Alzheimer's, the most common form of dementia, impairs memory, thinking, and behavior, with symptoms that eventually interfere with daily life. The effects of this disease are not limited to the individuals diagnosed but, of course, extend to their families, friends, caregivers, and communities. While there is no known cure, research and treatment are advancing in very promising ways. That is why I was proud to cosponsor H.R. 7218, the BOLD Act, last year, which supports programs advancing research and resources related to Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. I have seen the impact of this disease firsthand, through people I know personally and through my work with the Alzheimer's Association Northern California and Northern Nevada Chapter. I have met with dedicated volunteers, heard their moving stories, and supported community events to help raise awareness. Their advocacy and compassion make a profound difference, bringing hope to millions. Recently, the Alzheimer's Association visited Washington, D.C., and our U.S. Capitol. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the volunteers and constituents from my district in particular, who traveled here to share their stories and to fight for progress. On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I commend their tireless efforts to supporting those affected by Alzheimer's and other dementias and to fighting this devastating illness. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today because democracy is under assault in my home State. California politicians, led by the Governor, are throwing a grenade at our Constitution in order to strip power from voters and seize it for themselves. This fraud on our electorate compels action by Congress to protect the representative form of government that citizens of every State are due. That is why today I am calling for a prompt vote on H. Res. 4889. On three separate occasions, California voters have deliberately chosen to remove politicians from the process of drawing the lines for legislative districts. Voters have empowered an independent citizens redistricting commission to set the boundaries of representation so that free and fair elections, not political manipulation, are the motive force in our democracy. This principle is so important and so vital to safeguarding democracy that the citizens commission is enshrined in our State constitution along with a number of principles to guide redistricting: Redistricting occurs once per decade after the Census. The legislature is barred from participating. The members of the citizens commission may not run for public office. Districts are to be drawn in an open process based on extensive public input. Boundaries are to be set based on neutral criteria like keeping communities together. District lines cannot be influenced by partisan considerations or drawn to favor or disfavor any incumbent or candidate. In one fell swoop, Gavin Newsom is blowing up all of these constitutional principles. His unprecedented mid-decade gerrymander tears up the map created by our citizens commission, replacing it with one drawn behind closed doors and adopted by politicians. It is one designed with explicitly partisan goals and zero public input. It is one that tears communities apart while doing special favors to Sacramento insiders. Do the voters want this? Do Californians want to overturn everything they had previously voted for? Emphatically they do not. Polling shows that two-thirds of voters, an overwhelming majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, favor keeping the commission. This would seem to be a problem for Governor Newsom, as his plan to push the commission aside requires voter approval. To overcome this problem, to produce an artifact of voter approval for a proposition our voters strongly oppose, the Governor has resorted to two strategies: disenfranchising voters and defrauding them. First, the Governor has called a sudden, impromptu, off-year, low- turnout special election, asking a partial electorate to overturn the will of our full electorate. To further suppress voter participation, he has thrown election rules out the window in a hyper-accelerated timeline unlike anything our State has ever seen, meaning fewer polling places, fewer notifications to voters, and at least at first a digital- only voter guide. Second, the Governor is committing outright fraud on the ballot itself, describing the proposition in terms designed to fool voters into thinking ``yes'' is ``no'' and ``no'' is ``yes.'' To justify all of this, to clothe naked political self-interest in some kind of principle, the Governor and his enablers have treated us to one absurd paradox after another. We are told that another State is doing something so bad and so sinister that we should do it too. We are told that banishing an independent redistricting commission somehow supports independent redistricting. We are told that we should fight fire with fire, even if that means the whole world burns. This perversion of Federal elections simply cannot be tolerated by the United States Congress. We have a duty to protect the rights of voters in selecting their Representatives in this body, and we have the authority to do so under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Pursuant to that authority, I have introduced H. Res. 4889 to protect the congressional map drawn by California's citizens commission and to preserve the map of every State until the next Census. This measure has bipartisan support. It will prevent a chaotic redistricting war from breaking out across America. It will allow us to focus on the real issues facing our country. Today, I am calling on Speaker Mike Johnson to bring this measure to a vote on the House floor. Gerrymandering is a plague on our democracy wherever it occurs. That is why I have also called for a bipartisan commission to end the practice once and for all. While almost everyone agrees political division has become a serious problem in this country, it is especially harmful when we can't agree on the basic rules of the road. We need to find common ground when it comes to the basic parameters for our politics. We can then disagree vigorously within those parameters on matters of policy and our vision for the country. That is what democracy is about.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to open an investigation into the FireAid concert that took place in the aftermath of the devastating Los Angeles fires. What we have learned has happened is absolutely beyond belief. In the aftermath of these fires, which destroyed 18,000 homes and tragically killed 30 people, there was a FireAid concert in which a number of high-profile musicians generously agreed to perform and people responded in an amazing way. Tens of thousands of people donated, raising $100 million for what they were told was direct relief for the victims. Now we have learned that this money didn't go to the victims at all. Instead, it went to nonprofits, some of which have nothing to do with fire relief, where they promote things like voting and civic engagement and multigenerational power building. Some of them aren't even located in L.A. I have asked the Attorney General to open an investigation in order to restore the intent of the donors, make the victims whole, and to bring accountability.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in 2010, California voters overwhelmingly voted to establish the Citizens Redistricting Commission. The voters said that they wanted to take the process of drawing district lines out of the hands of politicians. They said that voters should choose their politicians, that politicians shouldn't choose their voters. That commission has drawn our district lines through the last two rounds of redistricting. Yet, the Governor of California has now announced a plan to abolish the Citizens Redistricting Commission and to seize its powers for himself. He initially proposed simply ignoring the commission, ignoring the constitution, and overriding his maps with those that he and the legislature drew. Yet, apparently, someone told him that that would get immediately struck down in court. What they are now plotting is a special election where they will use confusing ballot language and other means of deception to try to convince voters--to fool voters--into dismantling the very independent commission that they recently established. The point of this is that the Governor would like to reduce the representation of Republicans in Congress in our State to 3 Members out of 52, so that Republicans will hold 6 percent of the seats even though Republicans typically get over 40 percent of the vote in statewide elections. It could be the single most egregious act of corruption in the history of our State. Mr. Speaker, you don't need to take my word for that. You can take the word of Common Cause, which is a group that typically, almost always, aligns with Democrats on elections and voting issues. Its executive director said: ``Point blank, it is a dangerous move.'' Or take the word of Patricia Sinay, a Democrat sitting on the Citizens Redistricting Commission, who said: ``The very purpose of the State's independent redistricting commission is to protect voters from partisan power grabs like this. If this were to succeed, it would set a dangerous precedent for suppressing voters across the Nation.'' Mr. Speaker, this is a moment for every Californian and every American of decency, regardless of party affiliation, to speak out against the abject corruption that our Governor is attempting. Recognizing Tevis Cup Winners Heather and Jeremy Reynolds

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Heather and Jeremy Reynolds, the first- and second-place winners of the 69th Annual Tevis Cup, a grueling 100-mile endurance trail ride from Robie Park to Auburn, held on July 12 of this year. This year's competition proved even more challenging than usual, with the heat and rocky road providing unforgiving conditions for all competitors. Of the 105 entrants, only 43 were able to complete the ride to Auburn. However, the couple persevered through, crossing the finish line in 17 hours 45 minutes. Over the span of more than 20 years of competitive riding, the two have accumulated countless awards, including eight Tevis Cups and five Haggin Cups. Despite their many accolades, the one challenge they had never conquered was crossing the finish line together. In this year's competition, they did, crossing the finish line with their hands joined together, marking an astounding new achievement that has been a goal of theirs for over two decades. Together, Heather and Jeremy Reynolds embody perseverance, teamwork, and competitive excellence. Their achievement serves not just as personal fulfillment but also as an inspiration to their peers, fellow competitors, and our community at large. It is an honor to represent remarkable individuals such as Heather and Jeremy in Congress. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I proudly extend my heartfelt congratulations to Heather and Jeremy Reynolds for their exceptional athletic achievement at the 69th annual Tevis Cup and commend them for their unwavering dedication to the tradition and sport of equine endurance riding.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, this last week, we won a momentous victory in cutting off further Federal funding for the California high-speed rail disaster. Yet, no sooner had the announcement been made than the Governor of California ran to court to file his latest frivolous lawsuit. I say ``his latest'' because it was just a couple of weeks ago that Governor Newsom was unanimously defeated before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on his National Guard lawsuit. Yet, this frivolous lawsuit is particularly perverse because the Governor is now wasting taxpayer dollars suing so that he is able to continue wasting taxpayer dollars on an epic scale on a project that will go down as the single biggest waste of taxpayer dollars in U.S. history. The good news is that this lawsuit is going nowhere, and we now have a chance to finally wind this embarrassing project down so that the tax dollars of Californians can go where they are needed: toward fixing our crumbling roads.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration started us down the road of adopting a Central Bank Digital Currency issued by the Federal Reserve without the consent of the American people or their Representatives here in Congress. Today, we are saying no. We are not the Chinese Communist Party. We are not going to turn the central bank of the United States into a giant panopticon, capable of tracking and surveilling every American citizen, while keeping a watchful eye on each and every one of your financial transactions, crediting or discrediting, or punishing you based on your personal behavior, and restricting that behavior with the tap of a button. Nothing could be more inimical to the liberty and privacy on which American greatness depends. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a sponsor of this critical legislation and look forward to its passage on the House floor today.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 530, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 516) condemning the violent June 2025 riots in Los Angeles, California, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 516.

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a couple weeks ago, the entire world witnessed horrifying scenes out of Los Angeles: Molotov cocktails and bricks being thrown at officers, Waymo cars being lit on fire, American flags being burned, and roadways being blocked. Today, we will stand as a House to condemn these acts of violence and to condemn the irresponsible politicians who refused to adequately address them. I think it is important to understand from the beginning the events leading to these horrific scenes. We should first recognize that ICE was undertaking operations in Los Angeles that have been very standard across administrations, Democrat or Republican. President Obama, after all, carried out millions of deportations, and the priority has always been to focus on those who have a criminal record and who pose a risk to the public. That is precisely what ICE was doing in Los Angeles. Among those targeted were murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers. It should also be recognized that one of the reasons that some of these people had to be sought out in the community is that the city of Los Angeles and the State of California have chosen to enact sanctuary policies that explicitly forbid ICE from taking custody of these dangerous individuals in the safest and least disruptive setting, in a custodial setting, that is, in jails. That is the explicit purpose of our sanctuary laws. Despite these facts, as these operations were being carried out in a standard and targeted way in Los Angeles, you had certain politicians who engaged in inflammatory rhetoric, who then had individuals gather to disrupt the activities of ICE and our Federal officers, and then you saw these extreme and horrifying acts of violence. I will be very clear: I will defend in any way that I can the right to assemble and protest regardless of the content of what the protesters are advocating. This is foundational. It is fundamental to the American system of government, but violence is another matter entirely. This is not just a matter of protests crossing a line. Violence is the antithesis of protests. It seeks to shut down the process of deliberation, argument, and debate. It seeks to exalt force over reason. It is an abandonment of the American experiment of self- government. By the way, this is especially true when the very purpose of the violence is to impede the policies of a duly elected President from being carried out. It is to say that a violent agitator should be able to overthrow through force the will of a democratic majority that has been established through a democratic, free, and fair election. That is what we bore witness to in Los Angeles. Yet, instead of doing everything possible to restore order, to protect the citizens of Los Angeles, to protect our law enforcement officers, and our Federal officers, you saw certain irresponsible vainglorious politicians in California decide that this was their star-making moment, where they would egg on the violent agitators, where they would try to pick a fight in every way they could with the President, even going so far as to file a frivolous lawsuit that was thrown out unanimously by the Ninth Circuit. Worst of all, these politicians decided to place the blame for the violence on our incredible National Guard members, somehow saying it was their presence there that caused it. This is deeply offensive, and our National Guard members are owed an apology. Today, I hope we can stand together, Republicans and Democrats, in making it very clear that protests and assembly are fundamental rights in this country and that acts of violence are a grave threat to those rights. Specifically, this resolution recognizes the right to assemble and protest peacefully, condemns unequivocally the violence perpetrated against Federal, State, and local law enforcement, calls on local and State-elected leadership to work with the Federal Government to end the violent riots and restore peace, and expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers, including the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, California Highway Patrol, Orange County Sheriff's Department, and other local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies, including the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement for keeping our communities safe in the face of danger. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let's make sure that we are dealing with the facts as they actually occurred. The assertion the LAPD had the situation under control; we all saw otherwise on our television sets. The LAPD chief himself said that every person in Los Angeles should be disgusted by what occurred. The Governor has, himself, in the past, recognized the virtue of using the National Guard when you had situations that required reinforcement. This notion that somehow the President was taking over the State's law enforcement authority, the Ninth Circuit said otherwise unanimously. Even a Biden-appointed judge said: The President was exercising his authority to prevent the disruption of the enforcement of Federal law. As to this notion that the violence was largely confined to downtown L.A., I can't agree with the assertion that it is somehow less objectionable to have violence occur within a concentrated area than on a more diffused basis. Finally, this disparagement of our ICE officers for wearing masks. I think that this is outrageous. We have seen threats against our ICE officers absolutely skyrocket. It is very ironic for folks that had no problem forcing 2 year olds to wear masks all day, in defiance of even the World Health Organization's guidelines, that are now somehow objecting to Federal officers who feel the need to do this in order to protect themselves and their family. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As to the comments of my colleague from California, he set forth his view as to what the priority and the limitations ought to be when it comes to deportation policy. He is, of course, acting appropriately in doing so. That is his right, and that is his prerogative as a Member of Congress, as it is for any citizen. This resolution does not have anything to do with the merits of his view. This resolution simply states that one should not use violence in order to advance that view. I would hope that this should be a principle we should be able to agree on on a bipartisan basis. As to my colleague from Maryland's claim that this resolution is somehow set up in a partisan way, nothing could be further from the truth. The resolution simply condemns acts of violence. We are opposed to sanctuary policies. We are opposed to putting a target on the back of our Federal officers, and, frankly, to defunding the police. It is not our fault that those who have allowed this violence, who have promoted sanctuary policies, who have put a target on the back of our officers, and who have called for defunding the police all happen to belong to one party. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this notion that the President manufactured a crisis is simply asking us not to believe our eyes. You actually had Members of Congress from California who said that there was no violence, even though we all saw on television cars being lit on fire, Molotov cocktails, and bricks being thrown at officers. Among many other acts of violence, we had several officers who were injured during the process. What did the President do? He asked our dedicated National Guard members to come in to protect Federal property and Federal officers. To say that this somehow was what caused the crisis is not only completely at odds with the facts as we all witnessed them but is incredibly offensive to our dedicated National Guard members who went there and have successfully managed to keep the peace. As to my colleague from Maryland who has now accused us of defamation with this cause, whereas California's leadership has prioritized protecting illegal immigrants and violent individuals over United States citizens, that is simply the very purpose of a sanctuary law, be it California's sanctuary State law or Los Angeles' sanctuary city law. The entire purpose of these laws, their explicit effect, is to provide special protection for those who have not only come into the country illegally but have committed crimes. I will give you an example of how sanctuary policies work in practice. We had a case not far from Sacramento where there was an individual who was in police custody for assaulting a peace officer. He had been arrested and was in custody. This is during the Biden administration, by the way. ICE saw that he was in custody and asked to take custody of him from the sheriff's office so that he could be deported. The sheriff's office had to say, no, sorry, we are not allowed to do that under the sanctuary State law. The next week, that man murdered his own three daughters as well as their chaperone, a horrific crime that never would have happened if not for California's sanctuary policies. In a similar vein, many of the operations which ICE conducted in a targeted and standard way in L.A. would have been unnecessary if it were not for a sanctuary policy that forbade them from taking custody of these individuals within a custodial setting. I would simply ask my colleague from Maryland: Are we to take it from his remarks that he would support reversing the sanctuary policies that have caused so much harm in California and Los Angeles? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is an odd notion that we have heard repeatedly, that the violence was only concentrated in part of L.A. and that we need to zoom out and look at the city as a whole. For the folks who had to deal with this chaos in downtown L.A., it is little comfort to them that things might have been more serene in Beverly Hills. My colleague from California uses the term ``hellscape'' for L.A. I am not sure I would use that term. I can say that L.A. has had a lot of problems, so much so that the sheriff's department even had to come out and tell folks not to wear their jewelry when they go outside, to just put it on after they get to their destination. As to the assertion that somehow this is a made-for-TV spectacle created by the President, I ask what made for more sensational TV images, the Waymos being set on fire and the Molotov cocktails being thrown at officers, which is to say that the things that happened before the National Guard got there, or our dedicated National Guard members standing outside Federal buildings, making sure that no further damage to property and life occurred? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the assertion has been made repeatedly that the President's deployment of the Guard escalated tensions. We have seen zero evidence for that. We all saw the images of the horrifying violence that occurred before the Guard came in. For my colleagues who continue to assert that there was something untoward about the President deploying the Guard, I would also remind them that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled otherwise. In a unanimous decision, the court analyzed the relevant statute which provides that the President has the authority to make use of the Guard in order to stop the execution of Federal law from being disrupted. The judges looked at the facts on the ground and said when Molotov cocktails are thrown at officers, when a commercial dumpster is used as a battering ram in order to break into a Federal office building's parking lot, when roadways are shut down, this looks a lot like there is a disruption of the ability to carry out Federal law. Again, it is not me saying this. This is a unanimous panel of Trump- appointed and Biden-appointed judges who came to that determination. I will happily answer the question of my friend from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) about what is the question when it comes to agriculture. Here is what the law says. The law says that coming into this country without authorization is categorically illegal. Then it is within the discretion of the executive branch how to prioritize deportations. Across party lines, there has always been a strong focus on prioritizing those with criminal records. Beyond that, different Presidents have chosen to exercise that discretion in different ways. For example, President Obama chose to deport millions of people during his time in office. It is ultimately a matter of how the President chooses to carry out that policy. Here is the important point for purposes of today's debate. Whatever a person's views are on that matter, whether they favor deporting everyone in the country illegally or whether they favor deporting no one in the country illegally, we should not, cannot, and absolutely must not use violence in order to advance that point of view. That is the principle at stake in today's debate. To vote against this resolution is to countenance what happened with the horrifying events we saw in my State. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, if it is true that law enforcement is somehow never allowed to be in something other than their uniform, I think there are a lot of people who have gotten tickets for running a stop sign, when there was an unmarked car there, who would be happy to hear that. They now have a new basis to challenge that. I think we are all aware that there are circumstances, like when someone is undercover or when they are doing a stakeout, in which it doesn't make sense for the official to identify himself as an officer. Of course, that is neither here nor there because in these very targeted operations, we have seen that these folks are very clearly identified. To the extent that some have chosen to not have their faces revealed, it is because we have seen the threats against ICE absolutely skyrocket over the last several months. It is, again, quite ironic when there were folks on that side of the aisle who were all about masks in the most absurd of settings during the COVID years. We had people playing singles tennis or out on the ocean paddleboarding required to wear a mask. There were 2-year-olds wearing a mask all day when no other country did this. Yet when Federal officers, undertaking dangerous activity, trying to do their jobs, yet facing threats, being doxed and feeling like they and their family are at risk, choose to take this protective measure, now my colleague has a problem with it? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, what happened in L.A. put on stark display years of reckless and failed policies, starting with the millions of people who came across the border illegally during the Biden years and then the sanctuary policies that California has enacted, not to mention the countless people who have been released from prison early thanks to reckless crime policies. Today's resolution is not about any of that. Today's resolution is about something much simpler, a notion that I would hope would be unobjectionable: that in this country we settle our differences through reasoned arguments and debate and not through force and violence, that we make political decisions through elections and not through riots. I hope that this resolution will receive strong bipartisan support on the floor today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, this week I am introducing the No Tax Dollars for Riots Act, a bill that will assure that public funding is not used to create the sort of horrifying scenes that we just witnessed in Los Angeles. In the wake of the L.A. riots, we have learned that a group claiming nonprofit status known as CHIRLA received $34 million in State funding and some Federal funding, as well. This group played a central role in organizing the riots, providing real-time locations to the rioters of where Federal officers could be found. Several of these Federal officers were subsequently assaulted with bricks and Molotov cocktails. My bill will assure that an organization like this, whose officers are convicted of assaulting, resisting, or impeding Federal officers, or of organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in, or carrying on a riot under sections 111 or 2101 of title 18 of the U.S. Code loses their nonprofit status and is ineligible for Federal funding going forward. This is a commonsense step that will prevent the sort of lawlessness that we saw in Los Angeles from reappearing in our State or elsewhere in the country.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, for months, I have been warning California's political leadership that our State is in violation of Federal civil rights laws, with a policy that even Governor Newsom has admitted is fundamentally unfair. That policy is one that allows for biological males to compete in women's sports. Today, that warning proved well-founded as the Department of Education concluded its investigation, finding that California is in blatant violation of Title IX. As a result, our State could lose its Federal education funding. The good news is that we don't have to. The State can prevent any loss of funding simply by complying with the Department's very reasonable conditions: reverse this unfair policy; provide titles, honors, and awards to female athletes who are unjustly deprived; and issue those athletes an apology. This will simply restore fairness, common sense, and sanity in California. I am calling on California's political leaders to comply with these conditions immediately.

Mr. KILEY of California

Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, today, I have a simple message for my colleagues in the U.S. Senate: Do not mess with our public lands. I helped to defeat a provision originally included in the House reconciliation bill that would have provided for public land sales. We got it removed, but now a similar provision has somehow reemerged in the Senate. I will be very clear: The inclusion of any such provision in the final version of the bill will imperil the entire reconciliation package. Our beautiful public lands are not just national treasures. They are deeply interwoven with our communities. They are essential to the character of our region. They provide jobs and economic activity. They provide recreation and joy, and they are open to all. Mr. Speaker, I will fight in every way I can to assure that they remain open to all and that the will of our local communities is not subordinated to decisions made in Washington, D.C.