Kevin Kiley

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an important moment for the people of my State of California with the official qualification of Proposition 36 for the November ballot. This is the initiative to end the era of Proposition 47 in California, which has been responsible for a huge increase in theft, other crimes, homelessness, drug use, drug overdoses, and a whole host of other problems. The initiative has qualified for the ballot and will be voted on by Californians this November, and I believe it will pass overwhelmingly this November in spite of one of the most corrupt schemes in the history of our State that was cooked up by the Governor of California-- actually, a series of repeated schemes, all very novel and unprecedented in character, all directly meant to undermine the democratic process in California, all meant to continue to make our communities unsafe, and all of which, despite the Governor having an overwhelmingly supermajority legislature, failed. The people of California, despite the Governor's best efforts, will have the chance to reverse one of the most damaging laws in our State's history. I think that it is simply important to note, for all Americans to see, when you have something like this that happens within our system where you have an elected official--in this case, the Governor-- who directly seeks to undermine the democratic process. After they tried and tried to stop this initiative from getting the requisite signatures to qualify for the ballot in every way, they began a scheme to try to remove it from the ballot, using a host of pressure tactics to try to get the organizers of the initiative to withdraw. When that failed, the Governor came up with a truly unprecedented scheme where they inserted poison pills into a smattering of existing public safety bills in the legislature. These poison pills stated something truly incredible, which is to say that they would be automatically reversed if voters passed the end Prop. 47 initiative in November. The point of this was to give the attorney general a pretext for lying to voters about what the initiative would do. They would say because now there was this poison pill that would reverse all of these public safety bills, if voters pass the initiative, then the initiative is actually an anti-public safety bill. Fortunately, the legislature ultimately refused to do the Governor's bidding. They said this is too corrupt for us. We want nothing to do with it, and that plan failed. Then, in the eleventh hour, when it was past the deadline even to put an initiative on the ballot, the Governor offered up a Hail Mary where he said: Okay, I can't get the end Prop. 47 initiative off the ballot, so what I am going to do is to put on my own competing initiative, which is watered down, which is a very weak initiative, but that will be enough to confuse voters. What is more, he put in there that if his initiative passed with higher numbers, then the other initiative would be wiped out in its entirety, even though there are a lot of things in it that didn't conflict. It was literally a mechanism that the Governor proposed, drafted, and introduced in the legislature to overturn the results of a democratic election in California where the end 47 initiative could have passed with 60 percent of the vote. Nevertheless, it would have been null and void, according to the trick that the Governor tried to implement. He even moved back the deadline for propositions to qualify. He even moved back the deadline for the secretary of state to number the proposition so that his own proposition--the imposter initiative, we called it--would get a higher number and then have a better chance of getting more votes. Fortunately, this scheme failed, as well. Once again, his own supermajority in the legislature refused to do the Governor's bidding. So now, it is official. Californians will have the opportunity to vote on what has now been numbered as Proposition 36. It will be a fair vote where voters can decide whether we want to continue with this failed experiment or whether we want to return respect to our law enforcement officials, have appropriate consequences for thieves, be able to get drug offenders the treatment they need, and be able to hold fentanyl dealers accountable. That is what this initiative is going to do. I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the concerted efforts by the Governor of California to thwart and undermine our democratic process in an attempt to keep our communities unsafe. Supporting the SAVE Act

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, the SAVE Act, which requires individuals to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in Federal elections. I am very grateful to say that I voted for this bill today and that it has passed out of the House of Representatives with bipartisan support, though not nearly as much bipartisan support as it should have. In States like Massachusetts, Ohio, and Virginia, noncitizens have recently been removed from the voting rolls, and many of those noncitizens, it appears, have actually voted. The Arizona secretary of state website is currently falsely promoting the idea that individuals who fail to present proof of citizenship when registering will be eligible to vote in Federal elections. We also have several municipalities, including in California, that have explicitly authorized noncitizens to vote in municipal elections. H.R. 8281, the SAVE Act, seeks to address these problems in a couple of ways. It will, number one, require an individual to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in Federal elections and, number two, provide States with access to existing Federal databases so they can clean up their voter rolls and remove noncitizens from the rolls. This should be a pretty commonsense idea, that only American citizens should vote in American elections. It is astonishing to me that you had a couple of hundred people in the House of Representatives today who voted against this, although, fortunately, it did pass, again, with bipartisan support. One of the objections to the bill was very interesting. The objection was: Wait a minute, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections. We don't need this law. It is also already illegal for folks to cross our border illegally. It is kind of a tautology. It is illegal to immigrate illegally. Does that mean it is not happening? No. Of course, it is happening in an overwhelming way unlike we have ever seen in our country's history, with millions and millions of people coming into this country illegally. What we have learned from this administration's approach to illegal immigration is that simply having something be unauthorized under our laws is sometimes insufficient to address the problem. While it is true it is already illegal to come into this country without being granted a pathway to be here legally, nevertheless, we need to pass bills like H.R. 2 that provide enforcement and safeguards and that ensure that the law is being followed. In a similar vein, even though it is already illegal for noncitizens to cast a ballot, we need to have this legislation to put in place equivalent safeguards to make sure that it doesn't occur. That is why I am encouraging the Senate to act promptly, now that it is in its court, to pass the SAVE Act to close the loopholes that are allowing this to happen, to enhance our election security, to minimize the risk of outside interference, and to restore and protect Americans' confidence in our elections. Addressing FAFSA Deadlines

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, every year, millions of high schoolers across the country who are interested in pursuing higher education fill out the Federal Application for Federal Student Aid or FAFSA. The FAFSA is designed to make post-secondary education accessible and affordable for students across the United States and let students know what Federal student aid, Pell grants, or work-study programs are available to them. Traditionally, the FAFSA is released by October 1 every year, giving students, families, and schools plenty of time to decide what post- secondary education is right for them. Unfortunately, the Department of Education under President Biden has been unable to meet this standard. As early as 2022, the Department of Education refused to commit to the traditional October 1 release of the FAFSA application for the 2024- 2025 school year. Mr. Speaker, 6 months later, in March, the Department finally admitted that it would be delayed until ``sometime in December,'' only to reveal in November that the launch date would be on December 31, the very end of December. When the forms were finally released, processing of completed FAFSAs was delayed for months. Once processing finally began, millions contained calculation errors, rendering them useless for schools and requiring reprocessing. This caused great confusion for schools and families, and schools were forced to push back deadlines, causing uncertainty and stress for fall enrollment as if the process of applying for college isn't stressful enough. Current law recommends FAFSA be released by October 1 but allows the Department of Education to delay the FAFSA release until January 1. Last year, the Department abused the statutory gap and continually failed to give a clear date for when the FAFSA would be released. That is why I am cosponsoring a piece of legislation that passed the Committee on Education and the Workforce yesterday, the FAFSA Deadline Act. The FAFSA Deadline Act gives students, families, and schools much- needed clarity and stability by ensuring the FAFSA is released on October 1. Choosing the right college is stressful, and students and families should not have to deal with added uncertainty from the Department of Education. This legislation will prevent any future delayed rollouts by the Department of Education. I am proud to have supported it in committee, to be a cosponsor. I am hoping it will soon pass the House and Senate and be signed into law by the President. Preserving Lake Tahoe

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent truly one of the most beautiful places in the entire world, Lake Tahoe, and I am very proud to be a sponsor of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act. We got some good news just this week. The Senate has acted on this legislation to extend the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act for another 10 years. Lake Tahoe is a national treasure, and we must honor our commitment to preserving it for generations to come, which is what this legislation seeks to assist with. For over 50 years, Presidents, Governors, Senators, and Representatives from both parties have worked in a bipartisan fashion to protect the natural beauty and wonder of Lake Tahoe. I was honored to join many of them last year at the Lake Tahoe Summit and will be doing so again this August. Nearly 80 percent of the land in the Lake Tahoe Basin is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service. The bipartisan Lake Tahoe Restoration Act provides the Federal share for the environmental restoration projects in the basin in partnership with California, Nevada, local governments, and nonprofit and for- profit partners. Since its enactment, a total of $104.7 million has been appropriated for the current Lake Tahoe Restoration Act as of fiscal year 2023, which is about 27 percent of the total authorization. While Congress has steadily increased the pace of appropriations under the bill since its enactment, the act has a significant level of spending authority remaining under what was originally a 7-year bill. Since its previous authorization, funds have gone to more than 700 projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and Lake Tahoe's waters are the clearest they have been in decades. We are keeping Lake Tahoe blue. Nonetheless, that won't happen without continued work on the part of all of these stakeholders and the assistance provided by this legislation. Lake Tahoe welcomes millions of visitors from around the world every year and is home to 55,000 residents. I remain committed to continuing the long history of bipartisan leadership that has preserved and protected this special place. It is up to all of us working together to assure that future generations will continue to be able to experience the beauty that those of us who live or vacation or travel to Tahoe have the great fortune to experience. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to act quickly on this bipartisan legislation, and I urge the President to sign it into law. Honoring the Memory of Jackie Weston

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I wish to take a moment to honor the memory of Jackie Weston, an Auburn resident and community leader who, sadly and tragically, passed away recently at the age of 40. Jackie was an anchor to the local business community, serving as the chief executive officer of the Auburn Chamber of Commerce. Her journey began when she moved to Auburn, California, in 1985, where she became an integral part of the community, graduating from Placer High School and embedding herself into the fabric of the community. She dedicated herself to the betterment of Auburn, channeling her enthusiasm and dedication into countless community initiatives. Jackie embodied the essence of leadership, tirelessly volunteering her time, organizing parades, nurturing the local business community, and extending a helping hand to all. Her impact on Auburn has been profound, and it will be enduring, leaving an indelible mark that will resonate for a long, long time to come. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and California's Third Congressional District, I wish to extend my deepest condolences to Jackie's partner, Ian; her children, Solomon and Evelyn; and the countless others whose lives were touched by her remarkable spirit and generosity. Celebrating the 25th Anniversary of Scott's Seafood Roundhouse

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to mark and celebrate the 25-year anniversary of Scott's Seafood Roundhouse in Folsom, California. In 1976, Scott's Seafood Grill & Bar opened in San Francisco, but it was in 1999 when John and Suzanne Cook brought Scott's to the Folsom community. For the past 25 years, the bar and grill has served as a premier community establishment, engaging and enriching Folsom and the broader region with its quality food and service. While it has always been located in Folsom, it moved 4 years ago to the city's historic district. Now located in the heart of Folsom, Scott's Seafood is becoming a local household name that was able to navigate through the immense challenges of COVID-19, as well as the devastating passing of the owner, John Cook, in 2022. However, the resilience and continued passion for their business is very much evident in John's widow, Suzanne. Scott's Seafood is known not only for their fresh seafood and delicious meals, but also for their commitment to actively participating in and serving their community. It is a true honor to represent exemplary businesses, such as Scott's Seafood, here in Congress. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, it is my privilege to recognize Scott's Seafood Roundhouse for reaching this significant milestone of 25 years in business. I congratulate them, and I thank them for all they do for our community. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, today is a new day for California. The United States Supreme Court has just issued a landmark decision relating to homelessness and has taken the course of action that I asked it to in an amicus brief that I organized on behalf of myself and several other Representatives from California and other Western States. This decision gives our communities back the power to regulate homelessness in a smart, commonsense, and compassionate way. Right now, homelessness in California is a crisis. It is a tragedy. It is a national disgrace. Half of the unsheltered homeless in the entire country are in California, and the consequences of that throughout our State have been profound. The unchecked growth of homeless encampments is causing many of our communities to deteriorate. It is associated with crime, disease, open drug use, and many other problems. Businesses are closing in California seemingly every day because of this problem. You have families that have to walk around tents or dodge needles just walking their kids to school or going out to get groceries. The problem has only continued to get worse and worse. It is rooted, in many respects, in an extremely misguided and unique, across the country, decision from the Ninth Circuit, which covers California and some other States in the West. This decision, known as Martin v. Boise, tied the hands of States, cities, counties, and local communities in being able to deal with homeless encampments. It effectively has made it impossible to ban camping in public places or to regulate encampments in our parks, streets, and sidewalks in a commonsense way, and limit the ability to set up tent encampments. This decision came from the Ninth Circuit in California covering law in California. Such a decision does not exist anywhere else in the country, yet our communities have been subject to it for several years now. Today's decision from the U.S. Supreme Court finally looked at whether that local, lower court decision in the Ninth Circuit was correct. I wrote an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Boise decision. That is precisely what the Court did today. This is an incredibly significant moment for our State. It is restoring the power to local communities that should never have been taken away, and it is a chance to truly turn things around. It presents an opportunity for a much better future in California. We can now reclaim our public spaces, restore order, and reduce crime. We can make our communities safer and healthier. Our streets and sidewalks can become walkable and safer again. Businesses can return, and local economies can flourish. Our parks can become places for recreation and can be safe and pleasant for kids and families. Maybe most important of all, we can get homeless individuals into shelters and connect them with the services that they need to get back on their feet and turn their lives around. This is the true tragedy of the situation that has been allowed to exist and fester and get worse and worse in California. We have so many people living on our streets and, all too tragically, nearly every day dying on our streets; who have substance abuse problems and who have mental health issues. Yet, because of the state of the law, they are not getting access to the help they need. These are folks that could lead great, happy, fulfilling lives, but because of the state of the law, they are stuck living in terrible conditions, unable to turn their lives around. This decision also comes just one day after the California Secretary of State has certified for November a ballot initiative that would, in large part, overturn and amend proposition 47, which has also been linked to the rise of homelessness and crime in California. This initiative will restore appropriate consequences for repeat thieves. It will enable us to get treatment for repeat drug offenders, and it will toughen penalties for fentanyl dealers and help us get that crisis under control. These two things, the reversal of the Boise decision and the opportunity to reform proposition 47, truly are a turning point for California. For those who look around and wonder every day what became of our beautiful State, today is a new day. Our State has been heading in the wrong direction for some time, but I believe this is a chance to move in a totally different direction. This is a chance to restore common sense and improve the quality of life for all Californians. This is a chance to make our communities a better place to live, work, raise a family, and retire. It is a chance to become the State that leads the Nation in the right ways again. California has so much to offer, so much potential, so much possibility. Today, I am as hopeful for our State as I have been in a very long time. President Biden Should Release Interview Recordings

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, today, I am calling, once again, on President Biden to release the tapes of his interviews with Special Counsel Robert Hur. The House Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena asking for these recordings, and Biden and his Justice Department have unlawfully refused and exerted executive privilege in a situation where that privilege is totally inapplicable. We don't need to speculate as to why the administration is doing this. They have told us so directly. In a letter to the Judiciary Committee, the White House stated that they are afraid that the recordings would be used against the President and damage him politically. The thing is that is not an appropriate basis for defying a congressional subpoena. Let's remember how this all started. After it was discovered that the President was unlawfully in possession of classified documents, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Special Counsel Robert Hur to investigate the matter. After a monthslong investigation, Mr. Hur issued a report in which he found substantial evidence that the President had committed the crime of willfully retaining classified documents and his purpose for doing so was to assist him in writing a book that was going to be sold for personal profit. Special Counsel Hur reported the significant evidence of crimes, but he did not charge the President. One of the reasons he said he did not do so, even though he testified that a reasonable juror could have voted to convict, is because he found, based on his experience with the President in the interviews, that he would come across to a jury as a-- I believe the quote was--``a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.'' The Judiciary Committee has multiple legitimate grounds for getting access to the materials surrounding this investigation. This is a basic oversight function. This is how it works when it comes to the separation of powers and checks and balances. The committee has clearly articulated the rationale for being entitled to the recordings, yet the Justice Department has refused to hand them over. Then on the very day that the Judiciary Committee convened to issue a contempt citation against the Attorney General for defying the subpoena, suddenly there was an assertion of executive privilege. However, there are several reasons that this is invalid. Number one is that the privilege has been waived, if there ever was a privilege. The White House has already released transcripts of the interviews, and so there is no rational basis for saying that the transcripts are not privileged but the interview itself, the recordings themselves, are privileged. Secondly, the administration has now presented contradictory arguments for withholding the recordings. At first, they said we are not going to give them to you because we have already given you the transcripts and that is cumulative, meaning they are the same thing. Now the administration is arguing that they are so different that one is privileged and the other is not. The main basis they have given for withholding the recordings is that this will somehow discourage witnesses in future investigations from cooperating with the investigation, but this argument has no merit whatsoever. Again, they have already handed over the transcripts. Whatever deterrent effect might exist, surely it would apply to the possible revelation of the interviews in printed form just as much as it would in oral form. That being said, we also need to remember that the President was not just a witness in this case; he was actually the target of the investigation. If we are really looking at what effect this would have on future investigations, it would only apply to that very narrow set of investigations where a President is being investigated by his own administration. Apparently, the argument that the President and Attorney General are making is that in that future, very narrow circumstance, if the President knows that the transcript of his interviews will be released, he will be okay sitting for the interview, but if he knows that the recording will be released then he won't. Obviously, this makes no sense whatsoever. The reason that the White House is grasping for completely frivolous arguments is because they have actually already revealed their true motivation. They put it in print. They put it in writing. They said they are afraid this will be used against the President politically. That is not the way the rule of law works. I find it offensive, as a Member of the House, that the White House and the Attorney General have so little respect for the separation of powers and checks and balances and are willing to put politics before the rule of law. Today, I am once again calling upon the President and the Attorney General to follow the law, comply with the subpoena, and release those recordings to the public. Vehicle Choice for Consumers

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, following the testimony before our committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, yesterday by Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, I am again calling for the Senate to pass legislation that has already passed this House to stop California from banning gas-powered vehicles. California has announced this ban, and now some 18 other States are going along with it, States that have linked their emissions policies to California. The ban is set to go into effect by 2035. This was done, by the way, simply by regulation, not even by a vote of the legislature. Now, I am all for electric vehicles. I have many constituents who drive them. However, I think that it should be a matter of choice, that folks should have the chance and the opportunity to select what vehicle they want to drive. The interesting thing about yesterday's testimony by Secretary Buttigieg is that he actually agreed with me. He testified several times, and confirmed in response to my questioning, that he does not favor a ban on gas-powered vehicles. He said that this should be a matter for consumers to choose. Supposedly that would appear to be the same position that I have, that this should be a matter of consumer choice. Then I asked him whether he is against California's attempt to ban gas-powered vehicles, and the Secretary responded: This is a matter of States' rights. The State should be able to do whatever it wants. Here is the problem. The Federal Government, the Biden administration, is actually enabling California to do this. California would not have the ability to ban gas-powered cars if it were not for the Biden administration giving it special authority to do so, giving California a waiver under the Clean Air Act. This is something that California asked the Biden administration for and the Biden administration granted. Saying they are just deferring to what the State is doing, that argument has no merit. In fact, it is precisely the actions of the Biden administration that is allowing California to take this completely overreaching action of saying we are going to ban all gas-powered vehicles within about a decade. I was very happy that legislation that I am supporting, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, passed the House of Representatives. This would simply rescind the authority that the Biden administration gave California to ban gas-powered cars. It passed the House of Representatives, but it has been languishing in the Senate. I think it is incredibly important that the Senate take action so that we restore the confidence on the part of consumers in California and now in many other parts of the country that their right to choose which vehicle to buy will not be taken away. High-Speed Rail Boondoggle

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, following yesterday's testimony by Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, I am, again, calling for oversight and, ideally, the end of the high-speed rail projects in California. The Biden administration recently awarded California high-speed rail $3.1 billion, and Secretary Buttigieg stood behind the project in his testimony yesterday. However, this project has now been going on for 16 years. Its cost has multiplied many times over. Estimates are it is now around $128 billion, and The L.A. Times reported that there is a $100 billion funding shortfall even with the $3.1 billion that the Biden administration provided. Yet, nevertheless, despite this enormous increase in cost and despite the fact that essentially nothing has been built for 16 years, the Biden administration is giving life support for the project in a way that will cause Californians to have to keep paying taxes to support it going forward and in a way, as well, that takes money and funding away that could have gone toward maintaining our roads and providing the transportation services that California so desperately needs. I asked Secretary Buttigieg about a report from The New York Times that the bullet train actually is not even on track to be finished this century. It is not on track to be finished this century, and the Secretary disagreed with The New York Times. He said that it will be finished this century. In fact, he said that it would be finished by 2050, by mid-century, although he would not provide any further estimate other than to say that it should be completed within the next 26 years. However, Madam Speaker, if you look at people who have been directly involved in the project, they say it is not going to be finished at all. Michael Tannenbaum, who was the first leader of the High-Speed Rail Authority, said: I realize the system didn't work. I don't know how they can build it now. Dan Richard, who was also chairman of the High-Speed Rail Authority, in fact, he was the longest serving chairman, said: I don't think it is an existing project. It is a loser. Rich Tolmach, who is head of the nonprofit California Rail Foundation, said that it will never be operable. Why is the Biden administration giving it $3.1 billion? Moreover, why is a project that has a $100 billion funding shortfall allowed to continue? The reality is that high-speed trains have been built in many parts of the world, and folks who travel abroad in America see it work. Indeed, one of the first operators of the High-Speed Rail Authority worked on it here in California for several years and then said: We are out. Enough is enough. They left. They said that it is too politically dysfunctional here, so they decided to go to North Africa where they said it was less politically dysfunctional. Indeed, they did bring a high-speed rail train on line in Morocco in 2018. This project has failed not because of the limits of the technology or even necessarily because of a lack of demand, it has failed because of political failures. At this point, our State would be much better served if we stopped throwing good money after bad. I am fortunate and I am glad to see that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee led by Chairman Graves has opened up an investigation into the High-Speed Rail Authority. I believe it is about time there was finally some accountability for what might be one of the biggest boondoggles in the history of the United States. recognizing pottery world

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I now wish to recognize a few outstanding organizations in my district. Madam Speaker, I wish to mark and celebrate the 50-year anniversary of Pottery World, a valued retailer in California's Third Congressional District. Throughout the years, this business enterprise has served as a premier destination for one's home and garden design needs. In 1974, Jim and Sharon Rodda started the business by setting up shop at an open-air market, Denio's Auction, in Roseville. Their first outlet was on Auburn Boulevard where they sold salt and pepper shakers, dinnerware, and cookie jars. While the style, times, and types of items sold at the store have changed, one constant has remained, and that is their commitment to selling pots. Marked by the American entrepreneurial spirit, a passion for beautiful design, and tireless devotion, working 7 days a week for 7 years, the Rodda family's dream blossomed into a thriving business and became a family legacy. In 2000, their second retail location in Rocklin opened, featuring a spectacular 30,000-square foot indoor showroom and a 3-acre outdoor display area. The Rocklin retail complex is completed by the highly acclaimed restaurant, the Pottery World Cafe. In 2008, they opened their third store in El Dorado Hills. Through this growth, their family business now employs over 80 people and offers thousands of unique luxury items, including pottery imported from seven different countries. Pottery World is known not only for having a large selection of indoor and outdoor living amenities, fountains, pottery, and a boutique, but also for their generous spirit and participation in their community. I applaud Pottery World for their five decades of contributions to our local economy and dedication to inspiring luxury home decor and design. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and California's Third Congressional District, I am proud to recognize and congratulate Pottery World for reaching this significant milestone, and I wish them continued success in the years to come. Recognizing Flights to Freedom

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize Flights to Freedom for their significant contributions toward fighting human trafficking. Sadly, human trafficking occurs across our country in all 50 States, and it has become one of the fastest growing criminal activities in the world as an approximately $150-billion-a-year global criminal industry. This form of modern-day slavery can include sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, child soldiers, forced labor, organ selling, financial bonding, forced marriage, and extortion. However, Flights for Freedom is dedicated to partnering with law enforcement and government agencies to provide rescued human trafficking victims with private and safe air transportation to transport them to safety and reunite them with their family, loved ones, and support groups. It is because of organizations like Flights for Freedom that children and other victims are able to find a way out of these horrific situations, recover, and lead a successful life. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and California's Third Congressional District, I am honored to recognize Flights to Freedom today for their dedicated efforts toward ending human trafficking and providing hope, as well as a way home. 100th Anniversary of Alice Piper Decision

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I wish to celebrate the centennial anniversary of the Piper v. Big Pine School District of Inyo County decision which led to the desegregation of Native American youth in California public schools. At a young age of 15 years old, Alice Piper, a member of the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of California, was joined by six other Native American students from Inyo County who sought to enroll in the new, local public school. When they were denied entry due to their Native American heritage, these young students courageously fought for equality by taking their case to the California Supreme Court. On June 2, 1924, the Supreme Court of California unanimously ruled in Piper's favor, opening the door for Native American students in the State of California to attend public schools. This ruling was cited as precedent in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education case, which, of course, established racial segregation in public schools as unconstitutional. Alice Piper was a trailblazer in California history whose bravery and tenacity was instrumental toward expanding the civil rights and educational opportunities available to millions of students across the State, and eventually the country, for generations to come. As a former educator myself, I am proud to stand on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and join the Big Pine Paiute Tribe and Native American communities throughout the State of California in commemorating, 100 years later, this landmark decision that changed the course of history and ended the racial segregation of Native American students in California schools. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a textbook example of the executive branch obstructing the oversight function of Congress. The committees of jurisdiction here have clearly set forth the legal basis for compelling disclosure of President Biden's interviews with Special Counsel Hur. Now the administration has agreed with us inasmuch as they have produced the transcripts of those recordings. However, they have grasped wildly for some basis on which to withhold the recordings themselves. The most telling is that they have given contradictory reasons for doing so. At first, they said they weren't going to hand over the recordings because they were cumulative of the transcripts, meaning they were so similar to the transcripts that we didn't need them. Later, they argued that, in fact, they are so different from the transcripts that one is privileged and the other is not. When you have self-contradictory arguments being made, that is a sign that the true purpose here is obstruction. Perhaps the most absurd argument we have heard is the supposed interest asserted by the administration for withholding the recordings, which is disclosing them might discourage witnesses from cooperating in future high-profile investigations. In this case, the President is not merely a witness. He is the target of an investigation by his own administration. By the way, Special Counsel Hur testified before our committee that based on that investigation, a reasonable juror could have voted to convict President Biden. What is the administration arguing the interest here is? It is that if somewhere down the line there might be another President who is subject to an investigation by his own administration, then the argument goes that if that President knows that the transcript will be released, then he will sit for the interview, but if he knows there is a chance that a recording might be released, then he won't cooperate. This is an absurd proposition, Mr. Speaker, certainly not sufficient to override the legitimate oversight interests of the House of Representatives. Frankly, this is not how we would like to be spending floor time, but the recalcitrance and obstruction of this administration has made it necessary.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to name the following members of the Placer County Sheriff's Office to the 2024 Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll: Sergeant Isaiah Tchobanoff, Deputy Richard Porter, Deputy John Tannarome, Deputy Brandon Winschell, Deputy Paul Solbos, Deputy Kevin Hills, Deputy Joseph Durant. On the night of May 2, 2024, deputies in the Placer County Sheriff's Office were on patrol in the city of Colfax in Placer County. The deputies observed a suspicious vehicle parked at the rear of a local restaurant that matched the vehicle description of one used while in the commission of a residential burglary earlier in the week of a Placer County citizen. Deputies Solbos, Porter, and Tannarome attempted to contact the van occupant, who was verbally uncooperative and refused lawful orders to exit the vehicle. Deputy Solbos called for his supervisor, Sergeant Tchobanoff, and Deputy Durant to respond and assist them. Deputies Winschell and Hills arrived a short time later. While instituting a plan to deescalate the situation and remove the occupant from the vehicle safely, the driver of the van fired a gun from inside the vehicle, striking Deputy Porter in the upper torso. Deputies at the scene returned fire, and Deputy Porter was immediately provided medical aid by deputies on the scene and was transported to the nearest helicopter landing zone by his fellow deputies awaiting an air ambulance. Additional deputies and officers from outside agencies began arriving as Deputy Porter was flown to the nearest trauma center, Sutter Roseville Medical Center. Deputy Porter spent four nights in the hospital surrounded by his loved ones and his colleagues from the sheriff's office. In tremendous news, he was released to go home on Monday, May 6, 2024, and was escorted home by the sheriff, undersheriff, and assistant sheriff, along with the command staff and patrol staff. These law enforcement officers acted with the utmost professionalism and bravery on May 2, 2024. They trusted the advanced officer training the sheriff's office had provided and were calm, committed, and focused. That night was a true testament to their unwavering commitment to the community they serve. Their actions embody the core values of the Placer County Sheriff's Office, and all Placer County residents can take enormous pride in these outstanding officers. For their bravery and dedication to public safety, I am honored to include these fine law enforcement officers in the 2024 Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll. In Remembrance of Aldo Pineschi

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with a very heavy heart that I wish to take a moment to honor the memory of Aldo Pineschi, a Roseville resident and community leader who passed away a few weeks ago on May 28, 2024. Aldo was born and raised in Roseville, California, which is also where he decided to raise his family. Aldo attended the local high school and community college until he transferred to UC Davis, where he graduated with a degree in political science. After his education, he worked in government relations and public affairs for 40 years and owned and operated Aldo Pineschi Consulting. Beyond his thriving career, Aldo placed his heart at the center of Placer County and served the communities within numerous leadership and volunteer positions. His contributions to the region include his work with the Placer Business Alliance, with many of the area chambers of commerce, and several local nonprofits, such as Lighthouse Counseling, Visit Placer, The Placer Breast Cancer Foundation, and many, many more. He raised scholarship funds for local students and was a driving force behind organizations that would help struggling families afford everyday necessities. He had a strong commitment to and understanding of the pulse of the local business community and was an invaluable contributor to the economic vitality and success of the region. Aldo's wide diversity of accomplishments improved the quality of life and experiences for residents, businesses, and visitors in the area. It is because of the exceptional leadership and passion of people like Aldo Pineschi that Placer County and the communities that comprise it are such great places to live, work, raise a family, and retire. Aldo will be remembered for many, many things: by his countless friends in our county, for his wise counsel, his innate kindness, and his care and consideration for those around him. As a pillar in our community, I am confident that the remarkable legacy he left behind in Placer County will be felt for generations to come. Therefore, on behalf of California's Third Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I want to offer a heartfelt condolence to Aldo's wife, Lesli, children, Evangeline and Anthony, and the countless other lives that he touched throughout Placer County and the surrounding region. Mr. Aldo Pineschi will be greatly missed, but his legacy will be felt for a very, very long time to come. In Recognition of Johanna Tackitt

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to recognize an outstanding and prominent educator from California's Third Congressional District. I would like to highlight a teacher from the Eastern Sierra Unified School District, Johanna Tackitt, who has dedicated 22 years toward a career in education. Mrs. Tackitt earned her bachelor of science degree in elementary education from the University of Nevada, Reno, and a master's in advanced teaching leadership from Sierra Nevada College. She proudly teaches at Antelope Elementary School in Coleville, California, where she has instructed classes of students in the third grade and transitional kindergarten and kindergarten. As a young girl, Mrs. Tackitt became passionate about horses and barrel racing. Through this passion, she was inspired to become a teacher by her friend and mentor, Lauretta, who taught her dressage. She strove to emulate Lauretta's qualities of patience, positivity, and care, and later became a coach herself. This ultimately led Mrs. Tackitt to the teaching profession, where she used these skills and values to become beloved by students, parents, and staff. Her unique abilities as a former coach help her build trusting relationships with students in which she guides them toward reaching their goals, and thereby creates confident young students who believe in themselves and know they can achieve anything. For these reasons and many more, Mrs. Tackitt was recently recognized as the 2022-2023 Mono County Teacher of the Year. She is known by others for her strong work ethic, patience, and knowledge, as well as for treating her students with respect, kindness, and empathy. Students leave Mrs. Tackitt's classroom excited about school and learning, which is commendable. I applaud Mrs. Tackitt for her dedication to education, to the development of her students, and to promoting overall student success in academic achievement. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am pleased to recognize Mrs. Johanna Tackitt for her significant contributions to the Eastern Sierra Unified School District and to the students of Antelope Elementary School. Recognizing Tahoe Forest Health System

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Tahoe Forest Health System for 75 years of providing exceptional healthcare services to the Tahoe region. In 1949, Richard Joseph and his family donated the land necessary for the construction of the new hospital in Truckee. The donation was made with the desire to care for their local community members and in memory of their son, Levon Joseph, who was tragically killed during his military service in World War II. The community rallied behind the idea of a new hospital, and under the legacy of generosity, the Tahoe Forest Hospital District was formed. In 1952, the hospital facility named the Tahoe Forest Hospital officially opened its doors. The original hospital consisted of 15 beds and 2 physicians. Since its inception, the Tahoe Forest Health System has grown along with the community it serves. The Tahoe Forest Hospital expanded to 25 acute care beds and 36 long-term care beds while also providing a wide array of critical rural healthcare services, including community health outreach programs. The hospital service area now covers six rural counties, two States, and approximately 3,500 square miles. The hospital was further developed by building the Gene Upshaw Memorial Tahoe Cancer Center and the Incline Village Community Hospital, a four-bed critical access hospital offering 24-hour emergency care, as well as a variety of other clinical health services. The Tahoe Forest Health System has contributed to the health and well-being of Tahoe residents and visitors for more than seven decades and is a vital resource for our local mountain communities. Tahoe Forest Health has earned multiple awards, partnerships, and recognitions and sets a high standard for excellence in rural healthcare. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize the Tahoe Forest Health System in celebration of their 75-year anniversary, and I applaud them for their ongoing commitment to providing quality and compassionate healthcare services. Overturn Proposition 47

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment this evening to bring the country's attention to one of the most shocking and twisted things I have ever seen in the world of politics, which is happening right now in my State of California. There is a scheme playing out right now on the part of the State's ruling politicians to undermine a democratic election and make nearly 40 million Californians less safe. This relates to the crime problem in our State, which, of course, is not just a California issue. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been part of several field hearings in some of America's worst cities when it comes to high crime rates, including Chicago, Philadelphia, Manhattan, and right here in Washington, D.C. It is perhaps in my State, in California, especially in cities like Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, where the problem is most pronounced, thanks in large part to a series of criminal laws that have been passed that are uniquely permissive and that are uniquely restrictive of the ability of law enforcement to keep our communities safe. Yet, there is one law in particular that is at the root of many of the problems that we see in California when it comes to homelessness, open-air drug markets, retail theft, and smash-and-grabs. That is an initiative known as Proposition 47, which was passed in 2014 under the false name of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, and since that time has caused an epidemic of retail theft by eliminating virtually any consequence for stealing. It has also had the tragic consequence of making it so we cannot get drug addicts who are living on our streets, in many cases dying tragically on our streets, in many cases for fentanyl and other drugs, where we can't get them the help they need now because it has decimated our drug court system. Prosecutors no longer have the ability to use a possible felony conviction as leverage to get offenders to sign up for treatment. For the last decade, this very misguided initiative, Proposition 47, has caused these problems to build and build in California and has made our communities less and less safe, has made our quality of life in California lower and lower, has been a major reason why people have been leaving our State in record numbers when, for much of its history, California has been the State that everyone wanted to come to. After a decade, over the course of the last several months, there has been a citizen-led effort in California to overturn the worst provisions of Proposition 47, to restore consequences for retail theft, to revive drug treatment for those who need it, and to take on the scourge of fentanyl that is ravaging far too many of our communities. The people of California responded overwhelmingly, with over 900,000 people signing the petition to get this measure on the ballot. Just about an hour ago this evening, it was officially announced by the California secretary of state that the initiative has qualified and that it will appear on the November ballot. All indications are that the people of California will vote for it and end this radical failed experiment in our State and set our State on a new course. Unfortunately, there are some who hold power right now in California who do not want that to happen. I want to be very clear that this is not a partisan statement because the initiative has broad bipartisan support. For example, it is endorsed by the Democratic mayor of San Francisco, the Democratic mayor of San Jose, and the Democratic mayor of San Diego because it is just common sense that we need to restore public safety in California. Yet, at the State level, the supermajority in the legislature, along with Governor Gavin Newsom, have decided that they should take matters into their own hands and deny voters the opportunity to bypass this bipartisan initiative. How might they do this, you ask? It has already qualified for the ballot. The people have made their voices heard. It is official. What is their plan? This is the scheme that they have come up with that surpasses anything I have seen, perhaps, and I have seen a lot when it comes to the machinations of California politics. Here is what they have done. The Governor and leaders in the legislature came up with their own package of bills that are ostensibly designed to promote public safety. In fact, most if not all of those bills are unobjectionable. Some of them are even positive, but they are really just tweaking at the edges of the problem. None of them does anything to deal with the actual problems of Proposition 47. In fact, the bills by definition couldn't do that because Proposition 47 was a voter initiative, and it could only be corrected by voter initiative. The legislature doesn't have the power to do that. Nevertheless, for whatever reason, maybe to look like they were doing something about the problem, maybe they genuinely wanted to help make communities safer, you had these bills that were introduced that would take some fairly modest steps in the direction of public safety. We actually learned just a few days ago that there was a much more sinister purpose behind these bills. The leaders of the legislature will be introducing an amendment to these bills, which has what they are calling an inoperability clause. What does that mean? They are stipulating in the language of the bills that if voters pass the initiative that is now going to be on the ballot in November, then those bills will automatically be repealed. They are putting in a provision that says that their own bills will be repealed automatically if voters make a decision that they don't like in November. This is truly extraordinary. It is a threat to the people of California. Don't pass this initiative or we will weaken other criminal laws. It is a loaded weapon because the effect is automatic. The threat doesn't even need to be carried out; it is just there the moment the initiative passes, at least, this is the way they have designed it. Then those bills will be repealed, but the true purpose of this is even worse. The true purpose is to mislead voters and give them an upside-down description of what this initiative will actually do. Because in California, the language that appears on the ballot when you go to vote that says, here is what this initiative will do, that language is written by the attorney general who is, himself, a Statewide-elected official. The point of including what some are calling a poison pill, which says that if you pass the initiative, then these public safety bills are going to be repealed, is to influence the way that the initiative is written, an initiative that is supposed to be about helping to limit crime, reduce crime, and restore consequences. They will describe it in precisely the opposite way. On the ballot, it will now say, oh, no, this initiative is going to repeal these public safety measures. It is a deeply cynical scheme designed to undermine a popular voter initiative that is desperately needed to get our State back on track. I think that when people ask whatever happened to California, how did our beautiful State come to have all of these problems, where you walk through the streets of San Francisco or Los Angeles and you can't even believe that you are in the United States of America, how did this happen? This is how it has happened. Unfortunately, we have political leaders who are willing to go so far as to undermine a democratic election and to make our State less safe in order to advance their own particular political goals. Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely shameful; however, I have faith that at the end of the day, the will of the people will win out, and I think that people are frustrated with what has happened to our State. I hear it every day. They are frustrated with machinations like this, and the people of California will find a way to make sure that this change that is desperately needed happens and that our State gets back on the right track. 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. Madam Speaker, I rise today to sound the alarm again about the rapidly advancing capabilities of artificial intelligence systems. I will say at the outset that while in a sense this is alarming, it is also incredibly exciting. The level of innovation and the expansion capabilities that we are seeing hold the promise of making life better in countless ways for people across the country and around the world. Yet, at the same time, the pace at which these capabilities are growing has unpredictable risks, as well. We are seeing more and more people who work at or have worked at the leading AI companies who are starting to sound this alarm, as well. Today, we got a letter from employees of OpenAI, former employees and other researchers. This is according to WIRED reporting. A group of current and former OpenAI employees have issued a public letter warning that the company and its rivals are building artificial intelligence with undue risk, without sufficient oversight, and while muzzling employees who might witness irresponsible activities. These risks, the letter says, range from the further entrenchment of existing inequalities to manipulation and misinformation and to the loss of control of autonomous AI systems. As long as there is no effective government oversight of these corporations, the letter says, current and former employees are among the few people who can hold them accountable. What the authors of this letter are calling for is protection for whistleblowers at the companies who bring to light information about what might be going on there that could be of public concern. Now, there might, perhaps, be some role for us here when it comes to the question of protecting whistleblowers, but I think there are a couple of other actionable steps that we can take to try to give a greater level of attention and scrutiny to a topic that truly merits it. I will also say that I am quite skeptical of efforts that we see in several States now to try to regulate this innovation in a way that just stops it in its tracks. I think that the measures that I have seen are rather crude in their formulation and probably wouldn't work. If they did work, they would deprive us of innumerable potential benefits. What we can do is try to find ways of promoting much greater transparency as far as what is going on at these leading companies so that we all can become more aware of the potential for new capabilities to emerge or for what those capabilities are when they do emerge in the lab. I think it is worth exploring what sort of reporting and dialogue avenues we might be able to put in place, as well as using our ability to provide transparency and encourage public debate here through, for example, holding hearings on what is going on at some of these leading companies or on questions such as whether AGI, known as artificial general intelligence, is something that might be just around the corner and what the implications of that will be. I think that given the profound ways in which this technology is already changing the world, and is very likely to do so at a whole other level in the not too distant future, we need to have as many voices as possible participating in these very urgent questions as to how we ensure that this technology continues to benefit humanity and how we can collectively control the risks in a way that is consistent with our values. The final thing that I think we could do right now to really have a positive impact is to promote basic research or cutting-edge research when it comes to AI safety and alignment issues. Today, one of the employees who left OpenAI made a statement saying: ``These systems are not ordinary software. They are artificial neural nets that learn from massive amounts of data. There is a rapidly growing scientific literature on interpretability, alignment, and control, but these fields are still in their infancy.'' There is a growing scientific literature on these fields of interpretability, alignment, and control, but they are still in infancy. What we need to do is try to propel that field into full maturity as quickly as possible because the pace of innovation is truly breathtaking right now as models are being scaled up and new capabilities are emerging. We need to do everything we can to encourage research that can be helpful in mitigating the risks as those capabilities continue to grow. That is something we can do here. I have introduced a bill to do just that. It would provide grants for AI safety research as well as some reporting back from those who receive the grants. A fundamental function of government is to catalyze research in areas where there might not be a commercial incentive. That is, perhaps, the most important thing that we could do now to try to prepare us for the future ahead and to ensure that we maximize the benefits while minimizing the risks. Funding California's High-Speed Rail Project

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I stand in strong support of the House Transportation Committee's investigation into California's so-called high-speed rail project. This project has truly been a disappointment of historic proportions. It has now tripled in cost to $128 billion with little more to show for it after 15 years than one bridge to nowhere that was recently unveiled. The House Transportation Committee, in addition to its Senate counterpart, is demanding documents on the Biden administration's decision to allocate substantial Federal taxpayer dollars to this highly questionable endeavor when there is no reasonable path forward for successful completion. In fact, a New York Times expose found the train is not even on track to be completed this century. A lead operator several years ago abandoned the project to build in North Africa where it was ``less politically dysfunctional'' than California. That operator, by the way, brought a high-speed train online in Morocco in 2018. The letter from Chairman Graves and Senator Cruz goes into some detail about the problems that have beleaguered the California High- Speed Rail Authority, CHSRA. It says: ``Despite California's reputation as a high-tax State, the high-speed rail project far exceeds the State's ability to finance the project, and it is now seeking Federal subsidies. In March 2023, CHSRA Peer Review Group, whose job is to evaluate CHSRA's funding plans, sounded the alarm. It reported an astounding `unfunded gap of $92.6 billion to $103.1 billion between estimated costs and known State and Federal funding' for the full San Francisco-to-San Diego system.'' The letter is requesting documents from the Department of Transportation concerning its decision to award $3 billion more to this project and to keep it on life support, which is a concern to California taxpayers not only because these Federal funds are partially our taxes but also because it is continuing to keep the project going so that more and more of our State tax dollars will have to go to it, as well. Among the requests that are being made of the Department of Transportation is information concerning the Department's ``evaluation of the issues facing the CHRSA, including but not limited to the level of risk associated with the unbid, technically challenging elements of the project, including tunnels and viaduct; the low ridership projected for the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment; the remaining gap in funds needed for completion of the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, even after the recent awards of more than $3 billion; the lack of an independent review of the economic and financial justification for the project as noted by the peer review group; and the large gap in funds needed for completion of at least the phase I segment from San Francisco to Los Angeles; and DOT's plans to address the issues raised by the CHSRA IG and peer review group prior to obligating funds to CHSRA.'' Madam Speaker, I have been calling for this project to end for years. It is not even clear that if and when it is ever built, it will be anything close to state-of-the-art technology. For Californians to have to continue to pay billions and billions of dollars more for this project when our roads continue to deteriorate and to be among the worst in the country despite us paying the highest taxes when it comes to gas is absolutely unacceptable. I am hoping that this investigation, which I will look forward to being part of as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, will play a role in finally bringing the project to an end. Concerns About President Biden

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express grave concern over the Biden administration's decision to withhold information that is of very much legitimate public interest and concern. Specifically, that is the audio recordings of President Biden's interviews with Special Counsel Robert Hur, which were subpoenaed but have not been turned over, and over which the President has now made an assertion of executive privilege. I have discussed before the many legal problems--indeed, absurdities--of his assertion of executive privilege. I want today to make perhaps a more important point: That is that the administration is going out of its way to prevent the public from getting information that the public very much wants and needs. During today's Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Merrick Garland, I asked him about Robert Hur and his report. I asked, first of all, whether he regrets picking Robert Hur to be special counsel, and the Attorney General said no. I asked him about his statement when he appointed Robert Hur, about his long and distinguished career as a prosecutor, if he stood by that, and the Attorney General stood by that. Moreover, he did not dispute any of the substance of Special Counsel Hur's report. For example, I asked him about Special Counsel Hur's finding that there was evidence the President willfully retained classified documents, and Attorney General Garland did not dispute that finding. Indeed, when Special Counsel Hur himself testified before our committee a few months ago, I asked Special Counsel Hur if a reasonable juror could have voted to convict President Biden. Special Counsel Hur said yes. That is that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of President Biden for committing a felony. Of course, President Biden has not been charged. The special counsel did not recommend charges. One of the reasons that he gave for not doing so was the President's ``diminished faculties and faulty memory,'' at other points referred to as ``poor memory'' or that his memory had ``significant limitations.'' Special Counsel Hur concluded that these factors would make it more difficult to obtain a unanimous jury verdict. I will say again the language from the report: ``diminished faculties and faulty memory.'' These were the conclusions that Mr. Hur reached based upon his interviews with the President. Again, Merrick Garland, Attorney General Garland, who is withholding these recordings, has not disputed any of the special counsel's findings. Merrick Garland and now President Biden himself are withholding the evidence that Special Counsel Hur used to conclude that the President has diminished faculties and a faulty memory. There is nothing the President or the Attorney General could say to dispute that. It is the inescapable conclusion of the fact that Attorney General Garland continues to stand by the Hur report and not dispute it. That is a big problem because I am not myself offering any opinions here on the faculties or cognitive abilities of the President. I am simply quoting the findings of Special Counsel Hur. The public is very much concerned about these issues when it comes to the competency of the Commander in Chief. I don't think anyone would doubt that there is a legitimate public interest in whether the Commander in Chief does have diminished faculties and a faulty memory. Again, the conclusion is inescapable, that we now have the administration withholding this evidence that is of great concern to the public, and the basis on which they are doing so is almost trivial. The basis on which they are doing so is that if they turn over these recordings, then somehow that will deter future witnesses from cooperating in future investigations because they don't want their words to become public. Let's take that at face value. Let's assume that it is true, that there would be a deterrent effect or a chilling effect. The problem is that the Justice Department has already released transcripts of the recordings, so if we were to weigh the interests here, there is the undeniable public interest in whether the President has diminished faculties and a faulty memory, as Special Counsel Hur reported. That is the interest on one side. The interest on the other side is whatever marginal added deterrence there might be from releasing a recording over and above a transcript with the exact words from that recording. One would have to conclude that that additional deterrence effect, to the extent that there is any, is quite small, quite marginal, negligible compared to the overriding public interest in the matter at hand. Therefore, there is simply no justification for the Justice Department to continue to stonewall or the White House to claim executive privilege. Indeed, it is even more disturbing in light of the fact that the White House tried to alter the Hur report itself. Special Counsel Hur testified to our committee that the White House did request to make edits to the report. I am, again, calling on the White House and Attorney General Garland to release these recordings of which the public has a legitimate interest in hearing so that they can draw whatever conclusions they might for themselves. Appropriations Funds for Veterans

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, today we began work on passing the fiscal year 2025 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to maintain our commitment to our Nation's veterans and bolster our national security. The bill provides a total of $378.6 billion in overall funding. This includes $337.4 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is $75.5 million more than President Biden's request. It includes $112.6 billion for medical care. This is tremendously important to me and so many folks in my district. One of the things that we are most proud of in my district office is helping veterans get the care and the benefits that they deserve, and this bill will go a long way toward delivering on what we owe our veterans. Indeed, the bill takes away experimental programs and makes sure that the funding that is in the bill is there to fully support our veterans. This bill is deserving of bipartisan support, and I will continue to support veterans and support the funding for veterans that they are entitled to. I am very glad to see that it is coming up for consideration and is on its way to passage and, hopefully, being signed into law very soon. Congratulating Sarah Koligian on Her Retirement

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize Folsom Cordova Unified School District Superintendent, Dr. Sarah Koligian, who is retiring after 37 years in public education, the past 7 of which she spent serving Folsom Cordova schools. Dr. Koligian was born and raised in California's San Joaquin Valley and attended Cal State University, Fresno where she earned her doctorate in education. She began teaching in Fresno, where she was a resource teacher at Madison Elementary. She held various administrative positions and served as a superintendent for other school districts before joining Folsom Cordova in 2017. In her role as superintendent for the Folsom Cordova Unified School District, Dr. Koligian supported over 20,000 students and almost 3,000 employees across 36 schools. Under her supervision, Folsom Cordova continues to be considered one of the top performing school districts in the region, with award-winning schools and programs. During her tenure, she faced unprecedented challenges, including those related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite those obstacles, she received the Association of California School Administrators Superintendent of the Year award in 2021, which is quite the distinction. Throughout her career, she also achieved many long-term goals for the district, including overseeing the opening of two new schools and expanding school resources by implementing transitional kindergarten, community schools, and growing career technical education programs. Dr. Koligian is known by others for her expertise, enthusiasm, and devotion to her work. I applaud Dr. Koligian for her unwavering dedication to providing educational opportunity, promoting student success, and leading the school district through significant growth and achievement. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize Dr. Koligian for her leadership and nearly four decades of service to public education. I join the students, teachers, and parents of the Folsom Cordova Unified School District in wishing her the very best in her retirement. Detective Jason Westgate Named to Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll