Kevin Kiley

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I wish to mark and celebrate the 75-year anniversary of the Death Valley '49ers. For more than seven decades, this volunteer, nonprofit organization has been dedicated to raising public awareness and preserving the history and natural beauty of Death Valley National Park, the Nation's largest conserved desert landscape. The Death Valley '49ers had its beginning in 1949, when it produced a historical pageant in Death Valley to highlight the spirit of the California pioneers. Since then, the Death Valley '49ers have sponsored an annual encampment each November to celebrate this pioneer spirit and the highly valued national resource of Death Valley. Through their efforts to both protect the rare desert environment and famed recreational space, this organization has played a pivotal role in educating the public on the history of Death Valley in the settlement of the west. In addition to sponsoring the annual encampment, they are also involved with a variety of projects that support Death Valley and the surrounding community, including hosting art shows and musical events, providing scholarships and educational opportunities for local students, publishing books and other communications about the park, assisting in renovation projects, spearheading monument and State landmark efforts, and maintaining contact with the Timbisha-Shoshone Tribe. Their devoted efforts have made a lasting impact in the region, and I am confident that their ongoing contributions will continue to serve the park, visitors, and residents for many generations to come. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize the Death Valley '49ers for their 75 years of commitment to the Death Valley National Park and the history within. Roseville Housing Authority

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I wish to mark and celebrate the 50-year anniversary of the Roseville Housing Authority. The Roseville Housing Authority started providing rental assistance in 1980 and has since directed more than $132 million in Federal funds to those in need who qualify as low-income households for rental assistance. Acting in conjunction with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Roseville Housing Authority works as the hands that reach out to the local community to make housing assistance both affordable and accountable. This outreach has expanded as they administer for the city of Rocklin in providing both project-based vouchers and housing choice vouchers. Moreover, in the last decade alone, the Roseville Housing Authority ran the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, which collaborates with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. I am proud to say that their work of housing veterans is progressing. In 2021, the Roseville Housing Authority leased the first project-based vouchers in Roseville, which provided lease assistance for households directly from homelessness, and nearly two-thirds were issued to veterans. The enduring strength and innovation of the Roseville Housing Authority in creating and implementing new housing opportunities was on full display last year when their new landlord incentive program served 140 households and achieved a near-perfect 97 percent lease success rate. These recent successes provide a short glimpse into the Roseville Housing Authority's dedication to assisting with and initiating housing opportunities in the community. Their success is consistent and historic, as they have earned the designation of ``High Performer'' by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for decades. This distinguished and meritorious status is the highest rating the Department can bestow on a public housing agency. The Roseville Housing Authority is and has been among the top public housing authorities in the country. It is a great honor and privilege to represent pioneering and exceptional organizations such as the Roseville Housing Authority in Congress. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize the Roseville Housing Authority for 50 years of providing outstanding contributions to our community. In Recognition of the Retirement of Placer County Board Supervisor Jim Holmes

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize retiring Placer County Board Supervisor Jim Holmes, who has served the foothill communities of Placer County, California, for nearly 20 years. A native to the city of Auburn with long family roots that extend back five generations, Supervisor Holmes attended Placer High School and Sierra College and completed his undergraduate education at Humboldt State University with a bachelor of arts degree. He worked for nearly 30 years as a manager and owner of a gas station and repair shop, thus setting the stage for his public service based on lessons learned as a small businessman. Supervisor Holmes is known for being accessible to his constituents, active in the community, and attentive to varying sides of an issue before making a decision he believed to be in the best interests of Placer County citizens. By any measure, Supervisor Jim Holmes has established a tradition of public service in Placer County that sets a marker and an expectation. He has served faithfully on a wide variety of community boards, commissions, and committees, including: the First Children and Families Commission; Auburn Area Salvation Army Advisory Board; Placer County Consolidated Fire Protection District Board; and, the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, among others. He was also a founding member of the North Auburn Municipal Advisory Council, as well as the Highway 49 Business Association Board. During Supervisor Holmes' tenure, he promoted affordable housing projects and programs, improved traffic and highway safety concerns, invested in fire protection and prevention efforts, supported our local public libraries, preserved the agricultural heritage of the area, and enhanced overall services throughout the county. Supervisor Jim Holmes achieved a wide diversity of accomplishments to improve the quality of life and experiences for residents, businesses, and visitors of Placer County. Some of his particularly noteworthy accomplishments include his contributions toward fully funding the Placer County retirement obligation, bringing Mercy Housing to North Auburn, building the Rocklin Public Library, and leading improvements to Highway 49, just to name a few. It is because of the leadership and commitment of people like Supervisor Jim Holmes that Placer County is such a great place to live, work, and recreate. I am confident that the legacy he built and the public service he provided will continue to benefit the county for many years to come. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize Supervisor Jim Holmes for the years of dedicated leadership he provided to the people of Placer County, and I wish him all the best in his retirement. In Recognition of the Retirement of Sacramento County Supervisor Sue Frost

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I wish to recognize the retiring Sacramento County supervisor for district 4, Sue Frost, for her years of service to the Sacramento area community. Supervisor Frost has served the people of the Sacramento area for more than three decades with a career in elected office that spanned 12 years. Before pursuing her interests in the public sphere, Supervisor Frost held a distinguished career and made exceptional contributions in both healthcare and business. With a strong foundation in nursing and physical education from Pacific Union College, she became a California certified emergency nurse, showcasing her dedication to community health. In the business world, she has excelled as a businessowner for 34 years in mortgage lending, consulting, and real estate investments until her retirement in 2014. Her involvement with the Sacramento Association of Realtors has allowed Supervisor Frost to have an impact on the industry with her vast knowledge and unwavering commitment to the community. Transitioning to public service, Supervisor Frost impacted our region through extensive service on various boards and associations, including serving as a vice president of the Birdcage Heights Neighborhood Association, vice president of Roseville Parkinson's Support Group, and former president of the Citrus Heights Green Team. Elected to the Citrus Heights City Council in 2012, she served as vice mayor in 2014 and mayor in 2015. During this period, she championed fiscal discipline, economic growth, and public safety. As mayor, Supervisor Frost sought regional and economic cooperation and supported nonprofit organizations through key initiatives, such as the Regional Leadership Council, the Community Leadership Conference, and the We Support Veterans celebration, which raised over $10,000 for the Vets Helping Vets Fund. In January 2017, Supervisor Frost was sworn in to represent district 4 on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. Dedicated to engaging with residents across her district, including Orangevale, Folsom, and surrounding communities, Supervisor Frost prioritized engagement with her constituents with continuing community meetings, which allowed residents to interact directly with her and her office. Furthermore, she showed commitment to supporting county services by working with over 30 departments to foster safe neighborhoods, ensure economic development, advocate for veterans' resources, and protect our quality of life. It is because of the leadership and commitment of people like Supervisor Sue Frost that our communities are such a great place to live, work, and recreate. I am confident that the legacy she built and the public service that she provided in so many ways will continue to benefit the county for many, many years to come. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize Supervisor Sue Frost for the dedicated leadership and years of service that she provided to the people of Sacramento County, and I join the Sacramento area and all of her constituents in wishing her the very best in her retirement. In Memory of Robert Hugh ``Bobby'' Tanner

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I wish to take a moment to honor the memory of Robert Hugh Tanner, known as Bobby, an Inyo County resident and community leader who passed away earlier this year in June. Bobby Tanner was known by others as an inspiration, a role model, a local legend, a man of integrity, a great ``mule man,'' and a friend to the Eastern Sierra who contributed greatly to his community. He was born in Inyo County in the city of Bishop in 1959. Bobby was raised working in his family business, the Red's Meadow Resort and Pack Station, where he would lead pack strings into the Sierra Nevada mountains, a way of life that became one of his dearest passions. He graduated from Bishop Union High School in 1978 and went on to earn his degree from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Bobby owned and operated his own businesses, Tanner Hay Company and Rock Creek Lodge, and eventually became the owner of his family business, Red's Meadow Resort and Pack Station. As a businessman and entrepreneur himself, he maintained a strong commitment to supporting other local small businesses and organizations, contributing to the strength and economic vitality of the region. He loved the outdoors, which was reflected in his enthusiasm for sports; namely, skiing and football, skills of which led him to mentoring and coaching youth in the local ski and high school football teams. Bobby placed his heart in the center of the Eastern Sierras and served the community in several capacities. Of particular note were the monumental contributions he and his family made to the famous Bishop Mule Days Celebration, a first-rate mule show and classic Eastern Sierra tradition. As a son to one of the founders of Mule Days, Bobby participated in this event since its inception in 1970, when he was just 10 years old, and served for many years as a member and president of the board later in life. He also played a vital role in recreating and operating the famed Twenty Mule Team, a special historical attraction iconic to Death Valley. Undoubtedly, Bobby Tanner's many contributions are part of the fabric and fiber of the city of Bishop and surrounding communities, and I am confident that the impact of the remarkable legacy he left will be felt for many generations to come. Therefore, on behalf of California's Third Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I offer my heartfelt condolences to Bobby's mother, Jean; wife, Claudia; son, Bo; sister and brother-in-law Suzanne and Harvey Bertrand; and the countless others whose lives he touched throughout Inyo County and the Eastern Sierra region. Bobby Tanner will be greatly missed. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that frustrates so many Americans is that our government has gotten involved in doing many things that it really shouldn't be doing, so many excessive regulations and outsized bureaucracies. Then, all too often, it fails to competently perform the basic functions the people actually expect from the government and that they are entitled to as taxpayers. The FAFSA fiasco is a very clear example of that. Every year, high school students across the country fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. The FAFSA opens doors for millions of students nationwide, ensuring that postsecondary education is accessible and affordable. Traditionally, the form is released by October 1, giving students and their families plenty of time to decide what postsecondary option is right for them. Unfortunately, the Department of Education has neglected its core responsibility to these students. The Department's failure to meet deadlines has created unnecessary uncertainty for students and families already struggling with the college application process, which is already stressful to begin with. The FAFSA Simplification Act passed in 2020 was supposed to make the application process easier to navigate. The Department was even given an extra year to ensure a smooth rollout of the revised form. However, despite that extended timeline, it failed to deliver on time, and the ones who suffered the most were the students who could least afford it. The Department knew as early as August 2022 that they would miss the October 1, 2023, deadline but then failed to inform the public. Eight months later, they announced a delay until ``sometime in December,'' and we had to wait until the last day of the year for a so-called soft launch. This incomplete rollout left critical parts of the form completely unusable. Even more troubling, the Department abused the statutory gap that allows the release by January 1 by not even being fully prepared for that hard cutoff. When processing finally began, millions of applications were riddled with calculation errors, forcing reprocessing and causing chaos for students and institutions. The consequences were devastating. About 430,000 fewer students filed a FAFSA this year compared to last year. To make matters worse, millions of calls for help went unanswered. Families were left in the dark, scrambling for answers with no support during one of the most critical periods in a child's academic journey. This is why I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 8932, the FAFSA Deadline Act. This bill would hold the Department of Education accountable by setting a hard deadline of October 1 for releasing the FAFSA and requiring an accountability check-in each September to ensure they stay on track. Mr. Speaker, I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, yesterday, FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker testified before the House Aviation Subcommittee. In response to my questions about his agency's fines and the delays they have imposed on SpaceX, he made a number of statements that appear to be completely false. For example, he said that SpaceX launched without a license. That is simply not true. There are two possibilities. Either, number one, he doesn't know what is going on at his own agency, or number two, he deliberately deceived a congressional committee. Either possibility raises serious questions about his fitness to lead the FAA. I have sent a letter along with questions for the record to Administrator Whitaker, which he is compelled to answer to explain his false testimony. Madam Speaker, I implore him to look at this chart: Objects launched into space over time. The point where the United States breaks away from Russia and China and sees absolutely exponential growth is when SpaceX started launching rockets. This company and the broader commercial space industry are tremendous national assets, and those seeking to hold back their progress for, at best, arbitrary bureaucratic reasons are acting directly against our national interests.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous honor to represent the entire California side of Lake Tahoe, and this legislation, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, is of the highest importance to my constituents. It is also of great importance to the State of California, as well as the State of Nevada. More than that, Lake Tahoe is an American treasure. Preserving its beauty and accessibility is a great national interest, and a national responsibility, with 80 percent of its watershed under Federal ownership. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act has been crucial in enabling the communities of the basin to protect the lake for all Americans and for generations to come. Indeed, this bipartisan legislation has become a national model for collaboration in the name of conservation. Over 50 years ago, California Governor Ronald Reagan and Nevada Governor Paul Laxalt signed an interstate compact to cooperatively manage the environmental health of Lake Tahoe. This compact was ratified by Congress and signed into law by President Nixon, establishing a regional planning agency to work with the Federal Government on responsibly managing the Tahoe basin. Congress continued to support its role in the basin's health by passing the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000 and again 16 years later in 2016. This generational, bipartisan support for Lake Tahoe has been vital to its preservation. The Restoration Act needs to be reauthorized to enable continued conservation efforts. This legislation does that for another decade. Specific programs include forest health and fuels reduction, combating invasive species, water infrastructure, and water quality improvement. As one example, the forest health treatments enabled by the act serve as a model of effective forest management, with 21,000 acres treated. This work proved crucial in stopping the devastating Caldor fire of 2021 from becoming an even more catastrophic event, saving the city of South Lake Tahoe. Studies have shown that the forest health treatments in the area reduced the fire's 150-foot flames to 15 feet, making it easier for fire crews to get the blaze under control. However, much more work remains to restore the areas burned by the Caldor fire and to stop such a disaster from imperiling the basin again. Beyond just forest health, the restoration efforts enabled by the act are working. In 2023, Lake Tahoe achieved its highest clarity since the 1980s, thanks to projects that prevented more than 500,000 pounds of fine sediment and pollution from flowing into the lake, as well as wetlands restoration spanning 342 acres and invasive species protection spanning 271 acres. However, in the face of extreme weather and other threats, more work is needed to reduce stormwater pollution and keep Tahoe blue for the next generation. The coalition supporting the act's renewal today spans a tremendous diversity of viewpoints. Yet we can all agree on the goal of protecting something that is larger than any of us. Protecting Tahoe is a responsibility for all of us. At the same time, it is an opportunity to forge new partnerships and to form habits of cooperation and collaboration as we work to protect a precious resource and build a better future together. I look forward to continuing the long legacy of bipartisan leadership that has preserved this special place. I thank my colleagues on both sides, and, in particular, Senator Cortez Masto for guiding this legislation through the Senate. I thank Chairman Westerman for his tremendous leadership and all his help in getting this bill to the floor today, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lament the death of comedy in California, the death of satire in California or, more seriously, to lament a serious blow that has been struck against freedom of speech and a healthy democratic process in California. That is because the California legislature has passed, and Governor Gavin Newsom has signed, a law explicitly designed to outlaw political parodies. We don't need to speculate about this being the purpose of this law because the Governor said so directly. Several weeks ago, a parody video of Kamala Harris began circulating on social media. Governor Newsom reposted it, and he said this should be illegal. ``I will be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is.'' This week he made good on that promise. The Governor again reposted the parody and said: ``I just signed a bill to make this illegal in the State of California.'' Sort of on its face, it is a classic authoritarian move, a person in power sees speech he doesn't like, sees speech that threatens his power, and so he uses that power, uses whatever tools he has at his disposal to silence those who would dare speak against him to make them go away. That is by his own admission, in his own words what he has done. Now, I will say, there are legitimate issues when it comes to AI, deep fakes, voice cloning, generative video, and other tools that may be maliciously wielded to confuse voters and corrupt the political process. There is room, and perhaps even a need, for regulation designed to assure that these tools are not abused. However, that is not what Newsom is doing. By his own acknowledgment, what he is doing is banning parody. Parody and satire have been central to American political discourse throughout our history, from the founding era, with satirists lampooning King George, through the works of Mark Twain, through the advent of television, ``Saturday Night Live,'' through the present day with The Onion, The Babylon Bee, and all manner of parody and satire on social media. It has thrived as a way for artists, comedians, and the public at large to humble those who have become too powerful, and to convey truths in a particularly compelling way. Not only that, but satire and parody are clearly protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has long held that parodies of public figures are protected even if they are ``outrageous,'' and the Court has long held that any satirical statement is protected so long as it cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts. In short, if a reasonable person could discern that something is a parody, then it is protected by the First Amendment; so the question, when evaluating this new law, would be, is it stepping over that line? We have a very clear test case in the Kamala Harris video that in the Governor's own acknowledgment was the inspiration for the law. It is exactly the sort of thing that the law was designed to stamp out. Let's just look at a few lines from this Kamala Harris video and see whether a reasonable person would actually believe that it is Kamala Harris. The first line of the video is this: ``I, Kamala Harris, am your Democrat candidate for President because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility at the debate.'' Now, would a reasonable person think that Kamala Harris said that when they see this video, that she actually made that statement? The video goes on. It says: ``If you criticize anything I say, you are both sexist and racist.'' Would a reasonable person believe that was actually Kamala Harris saying that in that video? There are other examples. It goes on: ``I may not know the first thing about running the country, but remember, that is a good thing if you are a deep state puppet.'' Would a reasonable person believe that Kamala Harris actually said that? It goes on: ``Joe Biden taught me, rule number one, carefully hide your total incompetence.'' Would a reasonable person believe that this is actually Kamala Harris saying ``rule number one, carefully hide your total incompetence''? The video goes on. It says: ``My work on the border was `catastrophic.''' Would a reasonable person think she said that? One of the keys to effective satire, and you can judge for yourself whether this is effective or not, is that it actually does illuminate a deeper underlying truth. Therefore, one might argue, I would argue, that Kamala Harris' performance as border czar was, in fact, catastrophic, but a reasonable person will not actually believe that she is saying that herself in this video. Gavin Newsom, in order to maintain that consistent with the First Amendment he can eliminate this video from our public discourse would have to somehow argue that he thinks a reasonable member of the public would actually think that Kamala Harris would say those things. It makes you wonder about the regard that Mr. Newsom has for the public in California and across the country. The better explanation for his behavior is just that he doesn't have any regard for the First Amendment at all. The courts have time after time struck down measures that he has signed on First Amendment grounds. It just happened again a couple weeks ago. It happened not that long ago with respect to a law that he signed that sought to punish people for supposedly spreading COVID misinformation. The legislature and Newsom had to repeal their own law after the court weighed in on First Amendment grounds. This highlights a broader, very concerning tendency, not just in California but across the country, where we have this brewing crisis of freedom of speech, which in many ways started at colleges and universities and then expanded to certain social media platforms, and then became intertwined with the government. We got an acknowledgment of this recently from Mark Zuckerberg, CEO at Facebook, Meta, who said that he was, indeed, pressured by the Biden administration to censor content on his platform, and he acknowledged that Facebook was wrong to give in to that pressure. We are also seeing elsewhere in the world some alarming regression when it comes to protections for freedom of speech. This has been, throughout U.S. history, one of the things that has set our country apart. We have always had ironclad or at least striven to have ironclad protections for freedom of speech. It is one of the things that has propelled progress of all kinds in the history of our country. I would argue that there is perhaps no greater threat to democracy than the suppression of freedom of speech, so the assault on free speech led by Gavin Newsom and the Biden administration is cause for great alarm by all Americans. Fortunately, I think there are some reasons to believe that the tide is starting to turn. Of course, the social media platform X has become a leader in protecting freedom of speech after we have learned about prior efforts at that platform and others working at times with the government. We have seen, of course, the Zuckerberg letter that I just mentioned where Facebook is committing to be more mindful and respectful of free speech principles in the future. Just yesterday, this House passed my Free Speech on Campus Act, which is designed to restore the importance of freedom of speech on our college campuses as a foundational campus value. I would urge the Senate now to pass that same measure, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in whatever efforts we can to end the assaults on free speech we have seen in this country and return to the founding principles that have been so central to our country's prosperity and progress. Proposition 36

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pass on some incredible news about Proposition 36 in California. This is an initiative that is designed to make crime illegal again in California, to restore appropriate consequences for theft and drug crimes. Prop 36, which will be on the ballot in just a few weeks here, was recently polled by the Public Policy Institute of California, and the results are overwhelming--71 percent of California voters are in support compared to 26 opposed. You have 85 percent of Republicans in support with just 11 percent opposed. You have 73 percent of Independents in support with just 24 percent opposed. There are 63 percent of Democratic voters in support with only 33 percent opposed, about two-thirds of even Democratic voters in support of this initiative to make crime illegal again in California. Seeing those numbers, you understand why the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, fought tooth and nail to keep this from this even being on the ballot. He concocted a number of truly outrageous schemes that were specifically designed to cancel the vote, to stop Californians from even having an opportunity to vote on this important proposition. Fortunately, those efforts failed, and a vote will be held very soon. When the Governor was told about these numbers at a press conference yesterday, he said: ``I was wondering what State I am living in.'' ``I was wondering what State I am living in,'' Newsom said, when informed that Californians overwhelmingly favor restoring consequences for criminal activity. Maybe I will enlighten him about the State he is living in. The State he is living in is one where crime has simply spun out of control and where people are seeing the consequences of that in their daily lives. Proposition 47 is the primary culprit. It was passed about a decade ago, and it effectively eliminated consequences for retail theft, no matter how many times you stole, and it eliminated consequences for possession of even hard drugs, which basically ended the ability to get addicts into treatment. The consequences of these two things are that in many parts of California, on your way to the grocery store or walking around a downtown, you will have to go through open-air drug markets. You will have to dodge needles. You will see people suffering, withering on our streets, tragically dying all too often from overdoses on our streets. Then if you want to go in and shop at a grocery store or even a convenience store, a CVS, you will see almost everything under lock and key. You have to go get a clerk to open up the lock for you if you want to buy frozen goods or if you want to buy shampoo and conditioner. It is really the sort of thing you really would have never expected to see in America, and yet it is what Prop 47 and its progeny in California have spawned, the reality they have created where Californians overwhelmingly say that crime has continued to get worse. Indeed, that is borne out in the numbers. Property crimes have gotten much worse since Prop 47, all types of crime. Violent crime has gotten significantly worse in just the last few years. The results of this poll, the overwhelming support for Prop 36, are a recognition of that. I will read you, by the way, the title of the initiative. It says: ``Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes.'' That is all it says. That is the information people have. The overwhelming majority of California voters, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, liberals and moderates, conservatives, folks of all economic and racial backgrounds from all parts of the State, across every group, people say overwhelmingly: Yes, that is something we need. Yet, somehow, the Governor still lectured Californians yesterday about how they are wrong. I believe that once this measure passes--and there can be no doubt that it is going to pass--it is going to be a new day for California. We are going to restore commonsense policies when it comes to public safety. We are going to provide law enforcement with new tools to keep our communities safe. We are going to go a long way toward reversing the homelessness crisis in California. Maybe most importantly, the people of California will demonstrate the agency that we all have to set our State on a different course, even when our out-of-touch political class attempts to stand in the way. Congratulating SpaceX

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate SpaceX on the Polaris Dawn mission, which is the first of three planned missions in the program and took astronauts in an elliptical orbit 870 miles from Earth. The four astronauts pictured here are Jared Isaacman, Scott Poteet, Sarah Gillis, and Anna Menon. Now, this mission sat a number of records, a number of firsts. For example, it climbed higher over Earth than any human spaceflight since the last Apollo mission in 1972. It contributed to having the most humans in Earth orbit at the same time ever. It was the first commercial space walk and the first time four people were exposed to the vacuum of space at the same time. They even downlinked the first violin performance from space using Starlink, and it was the first time that Doritos were eaten from space, with a special safe-for-space chip that was designed. As part of this, they collected data for future missions to the Moon and beyond. SpaceX, of course, is a company that started in California. I had the opportunity to tour their facility a few years back. It truly is a marvel. The company is also vital to U.S. leadership around the world when it comes to space, and is vital to our national security. This was recently underscored as NASA is now having to rely on SpaceX to bring home two astronauts that are stranded at the International Space Station. It is also underscored by the statistics. When it comes to delivering payloads into orbit, in Q1 of this year, 87 percent of the world's tonnage to orbit was delivered by SpaceX. Eighty-seven percent of the total tonnage delivered to orbit around the world was delivered by SpaceX. This includes commercial customers. It includes SpaceX's own Starlink system, which is providing internet to remote areas of the world, in fact, to some of my constituents in Death Valley as well as to cruise ships and airlines. It also includes launches that are absolutely vital to U.S. national security and space exploration. Given what a tremendous asset this company is, it makes it all the more stunning that the company is being targeted in multiple ways and for frivolous reasons. Recently, the FAA fined the company $633,000 for trivial, nonsafety-related reasons. More concerningly, the agency has delayed flight 5 of Starship for 2 months, again for nonsafety-related reasons. Now, Starship is the largest and most powerful space transportation system ever developed. It is fully and rapidly reusable in its design. They have already had four very successful missions where they have done better each time, and the idea is they iterate their design, and they learn from each flight. This fifth flight, which is ready to go, would attempt to return the super heavy booster to the launch site and catch it midair using what they call their giant chopsticks. Now, this rapid reusability is completely--and already is--changing the economics of space exploration and making it orders of magnitude more affordable. It is truly a Herculean feat of technology and ingenuity in order to make this happen. Yet, we have these roadblocks that are being thrown in its way. SpaceX itself put it this way: ``We continue to be stuck in a reality where it takes longer to do the government paperwork to license a rocket launch than it does to design and build the actual hardware.'' When it comes to launching a rocket, obviously there are important regulatory concerns when it comes to safety. The company has been steadfast in prioritizing safety, and it is important that that collaboration exist. In this case, the reasons they are being held back are completely unrelated to safety or any other legitimate public interest. In fact, the company has bent over backward to comply with environmental regulations. There simply should not be delays related to paperwork or bureaucracy. The FAA and related agencies need to prioritize enabling launches, not standing in their way. Some have suggested that there might be political motivations here. I think that perhaps the broader issue might be one of cultural incompatibility, in the sense that when you think back to the lunar program, when you think back to President Kennedy saying that we will put a man on the Moon within this decade, not because it is easy, but because it is hard, and when you think about the way that the entire country was captivated when that vision ultimately came to fruition and what it meant for U.S. leadership in the world, for our national security during the Cold War, it was a way in which the country was able to come together around a truly awe-inspiring vision. That is the sort of vision that SpaceX is pursuing, the sort of truly big and forward-looking thinking that captivates people's imaginations, that allows us to push beyond the limits of our current knowledge and to explore new frontiers. There is just something perhaps about the nature of modern bureaucracies in this country that is incompatible with that way of thinking. When they encounter it, their impulse is not to facilitate it but to throw roadblocks, to find trivial reasons to hold it back. I do think it is a moment to think about how we got to this point and the sort of reforms that we might make to our bureaucracy here and really across the board that will allow our government to be on the side of innovators, to facilitate innovation rather than constantly trying to hold it back. Notwithstanding, I know that SpaceX as well as others in this industry are going to push forward. I congratulate them on this latest history-making success, and I look forward to many more history-making successes in the years ahead. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY

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

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Chair, one of the most important things that has happened in this Congress is the exposure of the alarming state of affairs at American universities. Our institutions of higher learning have been gripped by retrograde prejudices and abhorrent ideologies that are in many ways abandoning the values of the enlightenment itself. Fortunately, we are finally seeing accountability and a new course. Following testimony before the Education and the Workforce Committee that highlighted the true state of affairs on their campus, the presidents of several leading universities have resigned, including the presidents of Harvard, Penn, Columbia, and Rutgers. What is more, several of these universities are reversing misguided policies like forced faculty diversity statements and are renewing their commitment to institutional neutrality. Even the entire California public university system, the UCs and the CSUs, recently came out and said they are going to ban these disgraceful tent encampments that have produced chaos on their campuses. This is a moment of reckoning for American higher education. A very important part of that is restoring the place of free speech on campus, which is why I am very happy that included in today's bill, H.R. 3724, is a measure that I introduced, the Free Speech on Campus Act. This measure seeks to assure that free speech is not only protected as a legal right but is restored as a foundational principle in American higher education. Now, my colleague on the other side of the aisle from New York stressed the importance of bipartisanship in these matters, and I could not agree more. As a matter of fact, I developed this measure alongside one of the leading liberal scholars in California, the dean of UC Berkeley, Erwin Chemerinsky, someone who I don't agree with on much, but we were able to come together on a principle that transcends political differences. The best way to resolve differences, to learn to find common ground, is the free and open exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, many universities have lost sight of this and have become the most repressive institutions in American life. They have stifled disfavored viewpoints and created an environment where students are afraid to speak their mind and participate in the marketplace of ideas. We have seen universities adopt unconstitutional speech codes or designate only certain areas on campus as open to speech or allow a heckler's veto to shut down speakers or force faculty members to espouse certain points of view in order to get hired or built up entire bureaucracies devoted to censorship. All the more pervasively, this last year, the very same universities allowed the banner of free speech to then falsely be used to justify not speech but illegal actions such as building tent encampments, occupying buildings, or setting up checkpoints to exclude students based on their identity. As one example, Harvard University, which became the poster child for abhorrent, horrifying anti-Semitism on campus, was also ranked as the university with the worst protections for free speech. In fact, they got the worst ranking in the history of the survey. These two things are not unrelated, by the way, because the biggest threat to hate, ignorance, and prejudice is reasoned argument. Institutions that systematically shut down reasoned argument and debate allow retrograde ideas to flourish because they don't have the needed opposition. This bill seeks to reverse this troubling trend and to restore First Amendment freedoms at the place where they are most vital, our institutions of higher learning. My legislation ensures that our universities inform students of their First Amendment rights as soon as they step on campus. As a condition of receiving Federal funds, universities will be required to provide new students with a written statement at orientation. It will outline their First Amendment rights, affirm the institution's commitment to free expression, and guarantee that neither students nor invited speakers will have those rights violated.

Mr. KILEY. Too often, students arrive on campus without an understanding of why free speech is important or how it has been such an important force for progress throughout our Nation's history. This legislation will make sure the First Amendment itself is a key part of their college education so they grasp its vital role in safeguarding freedom and democracy. Mr. Chair, we may often disagree, sometimes fiercely, on a range of ideas, but we should all be able to agree on the importance of ideas themselves. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, the United States Census Bureau has just announced that California once again leads the Nation in poverty. It has the highest poverty rate, according to the widely accepted supplemental measure, of any State in the country: 15.4 percent. The Public Policy Institute of California, when you expand this definition to include those living at or near poverty, estimates the number to be at 31.1 percent. To put that in perspective, an adult with one child living in San Francisco, one study found, would have to work 22 hours a day, 7 days a week just to cover basic living expenses. This is significant not only because it means life is more difficult than it needs to be for millions of people in our State but also because our Governor, Gavin Newsom, has said that California is a model for the Nation. Another Californian, Vice President Kamala Harris, has said that California is a role model for what can be done around the country. Newsom even recently put out a press release titled: ``10 Ways California Leads the Nation.'' That is the title of his press release: ``10 Ways California Leads the Nation.'' The items on this list range from the meaninglessly vague, like belonging and unity, to the downright farcical, like transportation, with Newsom citing high-speed rail, even though The New York Times estimates that the California High-Speed Rail won't be completed this century. Even if it is completed, it will be the slowest and most expensive high-speed train in the world. Of course, what wasn't on Newsom's list of the 10 ways California leads the Nation is poverty, even though California has held that dubious distinction for many years running. So, I thought I would take a moment this morning to go through a few other things that were not on Newsom's list. That is, a few other ways in which California leads the Nation yet he neglected to include on his press release. In addition to poverty, California also leads the Nation in homelessness. In fact, it was just announced our homeless population grew again to 186,000 people. At this point, over half the unsheltered homeless in the entire country are in California. California also leads the Nation when it comes to crime. On the list of cities with the worst retail theft problems, California is by far the most represented of any State in the country, and that is one of the reasons businesses are closing left and right, especially in our major cities like San Francisco. If you are a business trying to operate in California, especially a small business, California leads the Nation in many ways. California leads the Nation in terms of having the worst business climate, routinely rated as having the most business-unfriendly set of regulations. California, also for that reason, leads the Nation in business departures. California also leads the Nation as being the number one judicial hellhole--that is the technical term that is used--and California rated as having the most frivolous lawsuits of any State in the country. If you are a worker, California also leads the Nation. For most of this year, we have been number one out of the 50 States in unemployment. In the last few years, California has been number one out of the 50 States in wage stagnation. That is, worker wages have gone up less in California than in any other State. California is also number one when it comes to restrictions on worker freedom, being rated as having the most onerous and arbitrary restrictions on the right to earn a living, including, most egregiously, Assembly Bill 5, one of the most notorious laws in the history of the United States. If you are just trying to get by and raise a family, California leads the Nation in all the wrong ways when it comes to the cost of living. We have the highest gas prices of any State in the country, about $1.50 above the national average. We are routinely in the top five when it comes to the cost of energy and electricity. We are number two in the country when it comes to water bills. We are number two when it comes to the cost of housing and number one in the continental United States. Only Hawaii has higher housing costs than California does. Largely, because of all this, we are routinely in the top few States in the entire country when it comes to inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient. Progressive California is leading the Nation in inequality. If you are a citizen expecting a basic standard of service when it comes to public services, California also leads the Nation in dubious ways. We have the highest taxes of any State: highest income tax, highest gas tax. We have not only the largest budget but, by far, the largest budget deficit. This last year, California had a $68 billion budget deficit. Many other States were running a surplus. California also leads the Nation in debt for our hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. Yet, despite all of this spending, California leads the Nation in terms of the disrepair of our roads, usually being in the top few States rated in terms of the lowest quality of our roads. Our schools are also rated as among the worst in the country. We lead the Nation in illiteracy. That is, we have the lowest literacy rate in the United States. We also lead the continental United States when it comes to achievement gaps in our schools. Our education outcomes for students living in poverty are worse than any other State in the continental U.S. Only Alaska does worse in the whole country. This Newsom leadership was compounded during COVID-19. California led the Nation in school shutdowns. It was the slowest of any State to get our kids back to school. Also, it led the Nation, first out of any State, in business shutdowns and church shutdowns. California led the Nation in mandates by, for example, being the only State, Newsom being the only Governor, to announce a student vaccine mandate. Yet, California was also the slowest State in the country in actually getting therapeutics to people who wanted them. There is one group for whom California's leadership--Gavin Newsom, specifically his leadership--might be viewed favorably. That is illegal immigrants. Currently, the San Diego border sector has the most illegal border crossings of any sector in the country. That is the first time that has been the case since the 1990s. California also leads when it comes to the amount of money spent on illegal immigrants, being the only State in the entire country to offer free healthcare to everyone in the State illegally. Now, as a result of all of this, California finally leads the Nation in one other way, and that is in U-Haul departures, U-Haul rentals on a per capita basis. California has now led the Nation 4 straight years when it comes to out-migration, the number of people leaving. The effect is particularly pronounced in Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris' San Francisco, a city that, as it was put in the newspaper of record, the San Francisco Chronicle, is literally on the verge of collapse and, in fact, has been losing population faster than any major city in U.S. history, faster even than Detroit when it went bankrupt. A former Governor of ours, Ronald Reagan, in his inaugural address as Governor, said that California should never take second place, but this was not what he had in mind, us leading the Nation in all the wrong ways. So, when Gavin Newsom says California is a model for the Nation, when Kamala Harris says California is a role model for what can be done around the country, we can look at what has happened to our State for what the consequence of taking that playbook national will be. It will mean more poverty. It will mean more homelessness. It will mean more crime, more inequality, a diminishment of economic opportunity, and an increase in the cost of living. The good news, however, is this: California is not politically monolithic, and in my district in particular, we have established a different model, where we support law enforcement. We have compassionate and commonsense policies when it comes to things like homelessness. We support our workers and our small businesses. We are mindful of how we spend taxpayer dollars in a prudent way. Because of that, we have maintained a quality of life, fighting against the headwinds of State policy that is much different than in places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland. It is why, while people are leaving California as a whole, they are wanting to move into my district. In fact, it is the fastest growing part of California and, in some sense, some of the fastest growing communities in the entire country. I am very proud of the model that we have established in my communities, and I think that, actually, you are starting to see that spread to the rest of California. That is, while Newsom and Harris say California is a model for the rest of the country, Californians themselves are starting to reject that model in our own State. We are starting to see, after the Supreme Court's Grants Pass decision, homeless encampments finally being broken up and folks being brought to services, getting to shelters, and getting connected with the services that they need. We are seeing reckless district attorneys being recalled from office. We are seeing cities that defunded their police departments now refunding their police departments. We are seeing that one of the worst laws in the history of our State and maybe even the country, Proposition 47, which is largely responsible for the increase in crime, homelessness, and conditions of disorder in our cities, is on the verge of being repealed, at least in its major provisions. There is an initiative, a citizen-led initiative, on the ballot right now that Gavin Newsom has fought tooth and nail every step of the way but that has overwhelming public support. According to a recent poll from the LA Times, it has the support overwhelmingly not just of Republican voters and Independent voters but also Democratic voters by a 19-point margin. I believe that when this initiative passes, it will be a new day for California, that we will finally turn the page on the failed model of Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, and we can perhaps one day, as Reagan said, start leading the Nation in the right ways again. TART Connect Reaches Million Milestone

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to mark and celebrate the 100-year anniversary of Boy Scout Troop 29, located in Rocklin, California. Troop 29 was first chartered in 1924 in the historic Mother Lode region of Alta, Dutch Flat, and Gold Run. Reconstituting itself in 1949 and 1950, Troop 29 made its resurgence as an active force in Rocklin, and the Rocklin Lions Club became their official sponsor. Since this debut, it has served as a youth-led troop that boasts approximately 60 Scouts at a time, who are focused on learning essential skills through an immersive merit badge system. This program bolsters the Scout values of leadership, citizenship, and responsibility, and works to build character in the next generation of leaders. They engage in a multitude of diverse fields, enriching our communities one project at a time. Throughout the years, the Scouts of Troop 29, both alumni and current, have provided countless hours of volunteer service and leadership development in our communities. I applaud Troop 29 for their ongoing presence in Rocklin and their 10 decades of commitment to doing good and helping others. It is because of organizations like Rocklin Boy Scout Troop 29 and the youth who participate that those around them are given a great sense of hope for the future. Their determination, resilience, and commitment to excellence of character is inspiring. On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize Rocklin Boy Scout Troop 29 for reaching this significant milestone, their centennial celebration. Celebrating Captain Annalisa Sanfilippo

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Tahoe Truckee Area Regional Transit micro-transit service, known as TART Connect, for providing over 1 million rides in the North Lake Tahoe-Truckee region. Since its inception in 2021, this free, on-demand, and curb-to-curb transportation solution has revolutionized public transportation in the Tahoe area. In order to participate in the program, residents and visitors simply order a ride from a mobile app and then, from there, can travel to a number of local spots or even connect to a mainline bus system. Originally implemented in Placer and Washoe Counties, the popularity of this service has led to its expansion throughout the north shore and town of Truckee in the years since. Recognizing that outdoor recreation and tourism is a main driver of Tahoe's economy, TART Connect provides a remedy to the traffic challenges posed by 15 million visitors per year. Not only has this program improved traffic conditions, reducing congestion and high vehicle volume on the roadway, but it also promotes environmental health and sustainability, protecting the stunning natural beauty of the Tahoe region while meeting the demands of economic growth. Surpassing 1 million rides is a testament to the success of TART Connect and the vital role it plays in fostering sustainable and acceptable transportation options that enhance mobility and connectivity, enriching the lives of those who visit or live in Tahoe. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and California's Third Congressional District, I am honored to recognize TART Connect in celebration of this historic milestone. Celebrating 40th Anniversary of Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area for its 40 years of protecting the remarkable ecological and cultural resources of the Mono Basin. The basin is located immediately east of Yosemite National Park and hosts a diverse range of nature's beauty. From the famed Mono Lake at the heart of the basin to the volcanic Bodie Hills and the Mono Crater volcanoes, this area accommodates a plethora of thriving plant and animal species, some of which cannot be found anywhere else in the world. Countless advocates devoted their efforts to the preservation of this unique diversity in the Mono Basin, which led to Congress' invention of the National Scenic Area in 1984. Mono Basin is proud to be the first in United States history of these National Scenic Areas dedicated by Congress, and it has continued to be a staple of rich history and wildlife. Over the past four decades, the Mono Basin Scenic Area has committed itself to supporting natural resource protection and education, which can be found in its initiatives at the scenic area visitor center. Focusing on both the natural and human history of the Mono Basin, there are interactive activities, films, and galleries for patrons to explore. The Mono Basin and its established centers and areas set a high standard for excellence in the preservation of ecological resources. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to join the United States Forest Service, Inyo National Forest, as well as Tribal, local, and State partners in celebrating the 40-year anniversary of the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area, and I applaud their ongoing efforts to maintain the natural beauty and history of the Mono Basin. Recognizing the 100th Anniversary of Rocklin Boy Scout Troop 29

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to celebrate and congratulate Captain Annalisa Sanfilippo on becoming the first female fighter pilot assigned to the 144th Fighter Wing in the California Air National Guard. Annalisa is a graduate of Vista del Lago High School in Folsom, California, and attended the University of Oklahoma in 2020 to earn her bachelor's degree in meteorology. It was here during college that she had the opportunity to shadow Air Force officers in ROTC and ultimately set her sights on flying. After graduating college, she worked as an air quality specialist in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District in Fresno, where she focused on forensic meteorology, determining sources of air pollution. She just recently completed the F-15C fighter pilot training at Kingsley Field Air National Guard Base in Oregon and uses her degree in meteorology as an asset in her role as a pilot. Annalisa will now go on to protect the constituents of California's Third Congressional District and the State of California with the 144th Fighter Wing, which provides air defense for the Western United States. The mission of the Wing is air dominance, a sentiment that Annalisa plans to fulfill and exceed in her position. Her courage and commitment to her community and commitment to giving back to the place that she calls home is truly inspirational. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize Captain Annalisa Sanfilippo for her historic accomplishment, as well as for her heroic and invaluable service to our State and our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, today, Sergeant Nicole Gee of Roseville was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor that Congress can confer. Nicole's story has inspired millions across the country. Her heroism is cause for such pride in our community. Her loss remains so difficult to fathom. A graduate of Oakmont High School, she was one of the 13 Americans killed during the withdrawal from Afghanistan. She had volunteered to go to the Hamid Karzai International Airport to help with the evacuation. Her fellow marines will report that she worked tirelessly, foregoing sleep and rest to help as many women and children escape as she could. Many have seen this heart-wrenching photo Nicole posted shortly before her death, holding a baby and saying how much she loved serving our country. Over the last 3 years, we have continued to honor the legacy of Sergeant Gee. Her former high school, Oakmont, created the Sergeant Nicole Gee Memorial Scholarship. West Roseville is now home to Nicole Gee Road. The Women's Veterans Alliance now annually awards the Beyond the Call of Duty Award in Nicole's honor. We will carry on the memory of Nicole's life and sacrifice in the years ahead and faithfully abide the solemn responsibility America owes to a fallen soldier: to honor, to memorialize, to never forget, so that Sergeant Gee's legacy will forever be woven into the fabric of our communities.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today with an update on the condition of San Francisco, a city whose fate has been largely shaped by several politicians of prominence here in Washington, D.C. Foremost among them are Vice President Kamala Harris and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. I think it is important for all Americans to understand the tragedy of San Francisco and what has happened to one of America's most beautiful cities because the same radical failed policies that have caused San Francisco's decline and collapse are gaining increasing traction in Washington, D.C. I want to go over just a few of the reasons why it is that as the San Francisco Chronicle put it last year, this city is ``on the verge of collapse.'' Indeed, in many ways, my entire State of California offers a preview of where our country has been headed, but San Francisco offers an even starker warning. It is the part of our State where failed policies, radical politics, and public corruption are in their most advanced stage and where residents are most rapidly fleeing. In an article headlined ``San Francisco Falls Into the Abyss,'' UCLA economics professor Lee Ohanian writes: ``No major American city has failed at the same level as Detroit, whose population dropped from 1.85 million people in 1950 to about 630,000 today. Move over Detroit, here comes San Francisco, which lost 6.3 percent of its population between 2019 and 2021, a rate of decline larger than any 2-year period in Detroit's history and unprecedented among any major U.S. city.'' The city is declining faster than any major U.S. city in the history of our country. The reasons they are not a misery, foremost among them are crime, drug addiction, homelessness, waste, unaffordability, and failing schools, all a result of failed governance. Let's just start with the crime situation in San Francisco, which is a city that has had a progression of self-described progressive prosecutors starting with now-Vice President Harris who has used that term to describe herself, progressive prosecutor, followed by others in her mold, George Gascon and then Chesa Boudin, who was ultimately recalled from office by voters. On a State level, California law has essentially legalized many forms of crime, making theft of merchandise below $950 a misdemeanor, as well as the possession of even class A drugs. In practice, this means offenders are rarely, if ever, prosecuted, and, in many cases, businesses have stopped even reporting losses. San Francisco's anti-law enforcement policies have compounded these problems. For example, a few years ago in 2020, San Francisco defunded the police shifting $120 million away from law enforcement. If you park your car while in the city, the advice is just to leave the doors open and make sure there are no valuables inside. That will at least spare you the cost of replacing your windshield. Last year, the Castro Merchants Association, representing 125 businesses wrote a scathing letter regarding the city's failure the address the lawlessness around them. One said: We are just seeing constant vandalism, constant drug use in public, people passed out on the sidewalk, people having psychotic breakdowns, it is just not something a small business owner should have to deal with. On top of these general problems relating to crime, retail theft, and car thefts is the issue of drug use. Walking through San Francisco you will see open drug use and drug dealing with an open-air drug market scene that is so rampant that even last year Governor Gavin Newsom sent in the National Guard ostensibly to get it under control. While California has among the highest rates of illegal drug use in the country. San Francisco is well above the national average with 22 percent of the population in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont area using an illegal drug in the last year. Tragically, the number of overdose deaths has skyrocketed from 222 to now 647 in a given year. Things only got worse during the COVID shutdowns as far more people in the city died from overdoses than from COVID. Facing one of the most punishing lockdowns in the country, emergency room mental health visits increased substantially, especially for young people. It certainly doesn't help matters that the supply of drugs is abundant thanks to the crisis at our border, largely overseen by this administration's border czar, Vice President Kamala Harris. It should be noted that San Francisco declared itself a sanctuary city long before California became a sanctuary State. On that note, the current Vice President also played a starring role when she was district attorney abiding by the city's sanctuary policies. Then when she was the State's attorney general, she actually paved the way for California to become a sanctuary State by opposing a Federal law meant to stop sanctuary jurisdictions. A third issue that one will confront immediately in San Francisco is the explosion of homelessness. This is very much connected to the crisis of crime, drug use, and mental health. Once again, while California leads the Nation in homelessness, San Francisco is worst of all. Between 2005 and 2020, the number of homeless increased from 5,404 to 8,124. During that same period, homelessness declined significantly nationwide. Within a 3-year span, complaints of homeless encampments to the city's 311 line increased from 2 to 62 each and every day. Meanwhile, the share of the homeless population that is unsheltered has also gone up in recent years. Fourthly is the waste situation. Between 2014 and 2018 in San Francisco, calls about human feces doubled to 20,933. $100 million was spent on street cleaning in 2019 alone. In a 3-year span, the city replaced 300 lampposts corroded by urine. The overall condition in many areas is something that no American should ever have to experience, especially kids walking to school. Speaking of kids, the San Francisco Unified School District has the second widest achievement gap of any school district in California with over 5,000 students. A CalMatters investigation from 2017 found that San Francisco had the worst Black student achievement rate of any county in California. Just 19 percent of Black students in San Francisco passed the State's reading test compared with 31 percent Statewide. This was before COVID. While California was last in the Nation in getting students back to school, San Francisco was worst of all, keeping schools closed not only in 2020 but through the end of the 2020-2021 school year. While they refused to actually operate schools, the district instead spent time on a commission to rename them, even proposing taking Abraham Lincoln's name off of an elementary school. The district then came up with a scheme to scam the State by pretending to open for the last 2 weeks of the school year in order to get millions of dollars in extra funding. Predictably, test scores have since plummeted even further. The citizens of San Francisco, by the way, responded by recalling three of the school board members from office, each by over 70 percent of the vote. A fifth issue is bureaucracy. It costs an estimated $100,000 to build one tiny home for the homeless, 10 times more than even other places in the bay area. Almost $1.2 million is the cost to build a single unit of affordable housing. This is the city where it takes 87 permits, a thousand days of meetings, and $500,000 in fees to build residential housing projects. San Franciscan politicians boast that they brought home the bacon when they brought home a $1.7 million taxpayer-funded toilet. As the San Francisco Chronicle puts it: ``San Francisco's bureaucracy isn't just incompetent and comically inefficient. It is a corrupting force in our city life.'' They say: ``Spiritually, yes. But also literally.'' They call it ``corruption born of needlessly complicated government bureaucracy.'' The public transportation system is a model of mismanagement, with the Bay Area Rapid Transit facing a $1.1 billion deficit over 5 years with trains that are dangerous to ride and that rarely show up on time. No wonder ridership has plummeted and they are projecting a $728 million deficit for the city as a whole over a span of 2 fiscal years. Finally, there is the cost of living. A survey from the Economist Intelligence Unit found that San Francisco is 1 of the 10 most expensive cities to live in, in the world. The average rent for a one- bedroom apartment is over $3,500. According to data from the California Association of Realtors, a San Franciscan needs to make nearly $400,000 to buy a median-income home. The cost of utilities, groceries, and other goods is also well above the national average. The city has simply become unaffordable for far too many people. Now, this is the political situation. This is the reality on the ground in San Francisco, and it is directly linked to the political culture of radicalism that has developed in that city over the course of the last, say, one and a half decades. What is truly alarming is that many of the people who have had positions of leadership, like Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, and Nancy Pelosi, have assumed greater power over our State and over our country. Indeed, California has seen its own population decline significantly. In fact, we led the Nation in outbound U-Haul rentals over the course of 4 years. Many of those problems I just discussed for San Francisco started to become problems for the entire State and are indeed now starting to become problems for the entire country. I personally believe it is not too late to turn that particular city around. For proof, look at the communities of my district. While California as a whole is declining and 53 out of 58 of its counties are declining, the vast majority of my district is growing. Placer County and Folsom, for instance, are growing as much as anywhere in the State. Our communities are rated among the best in California to live, raise a family, and retire. While California, as I said, leads the Nation in U-Haul departures, Roseville is the second-place city in the entire country in U-Haul arrivals. Many of the people leaving San Francisco, in fact, come to my district for safer communities, a more affordable cost of living, better schools, and an overall quality of life. We still face headwinds of misguided policies enacted on the State level, but we strive to use the tools of local governance and community partnerships to do what is best for our citizens. This is the model that our State should strive for, and it is the model that many other States are following. It is the model for our country to reverse the policies that have gotten us so off track in 3 years. If we are going to get ourselves back on the right trajectory as a country, then we should, indeed, look to San Francisco as a model, but it is a model of precisely what not to do. Addressing Homelessness

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I share some news out of California just today where Governor Gavin Newsom has issued an executive order for State officials to begin dismantling thousands of homeless encampments on State properties and also encouraging local jurisdictions to do the same thing. Mr. Speaker, this is in response to the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Grants Pass case. I asked the Supreme Court to do what it did in an amicus brief--that is to say, overturn a misguided Ninth Circuit decision and give our communities back the power to deal with homeless encampments and to have commonsense limits on the public spaces where they can be. It is important to note that Governor Newsom did not join me in those efforts. He did file his own brief, but he explicitly opposed overturning this lower court decision that has handcuffed our local communities' ability to deal with homelessness. I am glad to see now that the decision came out as it did and the Court sided with my view as opposed to his, he is seeing the benefits of the decision and is apparently ordering the State to deal with homeless encampments in as much as it can within its jurisdiction and encouraging local jurisdictions to do the same. I know that, in my district, we already have had communities that have done a very good job limiting homelessness within the constraints that they have, but this decision is going to provide a new set of tools to address the problem in a more comprehensive and compassionate way. There are other parts of California, such as San Francisco, where the homeless situation has gotten totally out of control. At least to their credit, some of the political leaders there have now realized that they no longer have an excuse now that the Supreme Court has ruled. Mayor London Breed of San Francisco has announced she will be undertaking ``very aggressive'' sweeps of homeless encampments in that city. We are also hearing of action coming soon potentially in Oakland and in other cities across California. I did an amicus brief in this case, calling on the Court to rule as it did because I believed it could be a new day for California. The issue of homeless encampments on our streets and sidewalks, in our parks, and on the paths of families walking their children to school or going to the grocery store has been one of the biggest problems facing our State. It has been causing communities to deteriorate. It has been associated with crime, sexual assault, waste, fires, disease, and many other problems. It has also manifested a complete lack of compassion for the homeless individuals themselves who oftentimes don't go to shelters when available because they are struggling with substance abuse issues and mental health issues. This Court decision is giving back to our communities the ability to place commonsense restrictions on where homeless encampments can set up in order to protect order, safety, and public health while also allowing the tools to connect these individuals with the services they need to turn their lives around, whether that is substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, other forms of counseling, family reunification, job training, and the like. It has been shown time and time again that that is the way to help people turn their lives around and get back on their feet, whereas allowing people to simply live, fester, and all too often tragically die on our streets has proven to be a disastrous policy. Indeed, it has gotten to the point where California, at this time, has about half the unsheltered homeless in the entire country. I do believe that this Court decision that has just come down, combined with our efforts to restore consequences for criminal activity with what is now being called Prop 36, really can be a path back to sanity and a new day for California. I am glad to see that the Governor has at least recognized the potential of this Court decision, and I encourage him to make good on these promises to deal with the State's own issues when it comes to State property and provide encouragement for local jurisdictions to do the right thing while respecting their autonomy and flexibility to meet the needs of their communities as they see best. Honoring Lou Conter

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, we lost a true hero in my district, Lou Conter, who passed away at the age of 103 and was the last survivor of the attack on the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor. I have just introduced legislation to honor the memory of Commander Conter by naming the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Auburn, California, as the Lou A. Conter VA Clinic. I will share with folks in my district and across the country, since this is a true American hero, the text of this resolution. ``Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Congress finds the following: ``Louis `Lou' Anthony Conter was born on September 13, 1921, in Ojibwa, Wisconsin. ``Lieutenant Commander Lou Conter, the last remaining survivor of the attack on the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, was an American hero. ``On that fateful day, Petty Officer Conter helped evacuate shipmates who were blinded, wounded, or burned, even restraining some of his fellow shipmates from jumping overboard into the burning sea. ``In the days after the attack, he helped with recovering bodies and putting out fires. Lou Conter's heroic actions saved the lives of many of his shipmates on December 7, 1941. ``Following Pearl Harbor, Conter continued serving during World War II in New Guinea and in Europe as an enlisted naval aviation pilot assigned to VP-11, a `Black Cat' Squadron. ``Lou Conter would be awarded with the Distinguished Flying Cross for actively taking part in the rescue of 219 Australians trapped by Japanese troops in New Guinea. ``Later, in the Korean war, he served on the USS Bon Homme Richard as both an intelligence officer and a Navy aviation pilot. Following his service in the Korean war, he served as a military intelligence adviser to three Presidents: Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson. ``During the 1950s, Lou Conter played a prominent role in the establishment and development of the Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape training program. ``In addition to the Distinguished Flying Cross, he was awarded the Navy Commendation Medal and became the first recipient of the USS Arizona Medal of Freedom. ``Louis Conter retired from the Navy in 1967 after serving 28 years as a lieutenant commander. ``Following his retirement, he generously gave his time to share his personal experiences at veterans' ceremonies and by giving lectures to students. ``Lieutenant Commander Conter's lectures were popular with generations of local students who were equally fascinated and enthralled by his first-person accounts. ``He is eminently deserving of recognition for his decades of service to a grateful nation. ``Lieutenant Commander Conter passed away in Grass Valley, California, on April 1, 2024. ``The Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Auburn, California, shall after the date of the enactment of this act be known and designated at the `Louis A. Conter VA Clinic.' Any reference to such clinic in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be considered to be a reference to the Louis A. Conter VA Clinic.'' Commending Interns

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, on National Intern Day, I recognize my three summer interns, who graciously came all the way from the great State of California to our Nation's Capital to serve in my Washington, D.C., office. Amelia Sanchez recently graduated from Long Island University and was also a student athlete who shares a passion for public service. I commend her for the hard work that she has done, and I wish her all the best in her future endeavors. The second intern I commend is Kevin Scanlan from Grass Valley, California, who recently completed his freshman year at Harvard. He previously distinguished himself as one of my top-performing interns during my 2022 election campaign for the House. His outstanding contributions were recognized statewide in California, culminating in the 2023 Kinder Award for exceptional campaign internship experience. Following his graduation from Forest Lake Christian High School, Kevin pursued his studies in economics and government at Harvard College. He is deeply passionate about local governance and remains dedicated to fully representing and advocating for constituents to the best of his abilities. Finally, I commend one of my longest-serving interns, Raghava Kodavatikanti. Raghava is a resident of Folsom, California, and recently wrapped up his freshman year at UCLA. Even throughout his academic success, Raghava interned with my office while I was in the California Legislature and served in my district office last summer. I truly could not be prouder of these three young men and women who have been outstanding public servants and have done such a tremendous job for our office. They have tremendously positive attitudes. They are smart. They are dedicated. They understand the importance of the work they do, the responsibility that comes with working for a congressional office, and the responsibility that runs between us and constituents. I look forward to hearing all about their academic success and look forward to following what is to come next in their respective futures. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks there have been growing concerns among many Americans relating to the capabilities of the President to carry out his duties. Not only that, but there have been concerns about the extent to which some in the White House, perhaps also in the Congress, have limited the ability of Americans to get access to the information that they need to form their own judgment as to those capabilities. I think there is a lot that is going to need to be investigated in the weeks and months ahead in that regard. I wanted to just highlight today what might be the most disturbing facet of this situation, and that is the systematic efforts by the Attorney General, the Justice Department, and the White House to illegally defy a congressional subpoena in order to deprive Americans of access to this sort of information. I want to specifically highlight what is perhaps exhibit A, you might even call it a smoking gun, that the White House acted in a consciously political way and deprived Americans of access to information, defied a congressional subpoena, defied the idea of the separation of powers and checks and balances for purely political reasons. For months, the Judiciary Committee, under its lawful oversight authority, asked for the Justice Department to produce the interviews that President Biden had with Special Counsel Hur. These interviews were conducted, of course, as part of an investigation into the President's mishandling of classified information. The ultimate report produced by Special Counsel Hur stated that there was significant evidence the President had broken the law, but he was not going to recommend charges for, among other reasons, the fact that the President exhibited diminished faculties and a poor memory in the course of these interviews. The House Judiciary Committee had several legitimate bases to request access to those interviews, and, indeed, the Justice Department appeared to agree in as much as they did produce transcripts of those interviews. However, they have adamantly and consistently refused to actually provide the best available evidence of materials that they have agreed are pertinent to our oversight responsibilities, and that is the recordings themselves. These recordings exist. There are audio recordings that continue to be suppressed and concealed from the American people. What I have here is the letter from the White House counsel Edward Siskel written to the chairman of the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee formally invoking executive privilege. This happened after weeks and weeks and weeks of stonewalling from the Justice Department. It happened moments before a hearing was convened to hold the Attorney General to cite him in contempt. Suddenly, the President exerts executive privilege. What they said in this letter, this line right here, is really the giveaway. You might even call it a smoking gun. It says: ``The absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings''--of course we had a legitimate need for them cited repeatedly in correspondence, but this is what he said: ``The absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal--to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes. Demanding such sensitive and constitutionally protected law enforcement materials from the executive branch because you want to manipulate them for potential political gain is inappropriate.'' First off, this might remind you of what we have been hearing now for weeks and for months about various videos posted online, that these were somehow selectively edited, these were deepfakes, these were eliminating context. We now know that all of that was fairly bogus in terms of what Americans have now seen plainly with their own eyes. What is clearly going on in this paragraph is the White House is relying on a political justification for withholding materials, but they know they can't state that explicitly, so they simply accuse us on the committee of having a political motivation. You don't even have to read between the lines. It is stated right there directly that they are afraid that these materials would be used against the President for potential political gain. In other words, they are afraid that they would be politically harmful to the President. That is not--that is not--a valid legal basis for defying a congressional subpoena. It is not a valid basis for asserting executive privilege, and it is very revealing as far as what the White House knew about the recordings and about the concerns that the American people have in overwhelming numbers right now is they feared that what was revealed in those recordings would be politically disadvantageous to the President. As we continue to learn more about the efforts that have been undertaken by the White House to deprive Americans of their right to know the most crucial of information, I think that this report and this entire series of events related to the subpoena issued to the Attorney General is going to be a very important starting point. Celebrating Proposition 36