Kevin Kiley

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to offer congratulations to Sheriff Mike Fisher of the Sierra County Sheriff's Department for being named to the Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll. Sheriff Fisher has now been named to the honor roll twice in as many years. As a sheriff in a small rural community, Sheriff Fisher wears many different hats. He runs the office, deals with budgets, handles recruitment and hiring, and is the head of the Office of Emergency Services. At a time when many law enforcement agencies are struggling with hiring and retaining good, qualified candidates, the Sierra County Sheriff's Office has expanded and hired new, enthusiastic deputies who have become solid members of the community. Although Sheriff Fisher deals with the same administrative responsibilities as in bigger counties, he also remains available to everyone in the community. He personally responds to questions and concerns of his constituents. He is approachable and responsive and cares deeply about all members of the community. Public safety is Sheriff Fisher's primary goal. He has been instrumental in educating the community to prepare for wildfires. As director of emergency services, he has implemented several notification alternatives to alert the residents regarding emergencies and how to evacuate. He has also been a fierce advocate for Sierra County to retain landline phone service since cellular service in the area is not reliable. In addition to these challenges, Sheriff Fisher is active on patrol and conducting investigations. He works closely with other departments and agencies, coordinating search and rescue operations in remote areas. Sheriff Fisher has consistently and selflessly put the well-being of the county ahead of any personal considerations. He is willing to make hard choices to protect our community. For his continued dedication to Sierra County, organizational leadership, and commitment to public safety, I am honored to include Sheriff Mike Fisher of the Sierra County Sheriff's Department in the Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll. Officer Shannon Rauls Named to Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to name Detective Jason Westgate of the Rocklin Police Department to the Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll. With an exemplary career spanning over 29 years in law enforcement, Detective Westgate has demonstrated unparalleled commitment to justice, community safety, and the highest standards of law enforcement. After joining the Rocklin Police Department, Jason quickly distinguished himself as a formidable force against narcotics and crime, earning positions such as canine handler, narcotics detective, SWAT officer, corporal, and eventually leading to his crucial role in the Tri-County Drug Enforcement Team, known as TRIDENT. His tenure in TRIDENT has been marked by significant achievements that reflect his dedication, strategic intellect, and leadership. From 2016 onward, Detective Westgate and his drug-trained canine, Maddie, have worked together to significantly disrupt drug trafficking operations, leading to the recovery of vast quantities of illegal substances and illicit money which might have otherwise devastated many lives and communities. In addition to his field work, Jason's contributions to training programs for new officers and his involvement in community education on drug abuse prevention highlight his holistic approach to law enforcement. He embodies the spirit of community policing by building strong relations with citizens and educating the younger generation, thereby nurturing a safer environment. Throughout his distinguished career, Detective Westgate has earned numerous honors, reflecting his exceptional skills, reliability, and esteemed reputation among his peers, supervisors, and the community. These accolades include being named the TRIDENT Detective of the Year twice and a Chief's Certificate of Commendation, as well as recent recognitions from the Sacramento FBI and various local law enforcement agencies. However, the most distinguished of his numerous recognitions is the International Narcotics Interdiction Association 2023 Officer of the Year award. This award serves as evidence of his exceptional impact and contributions to narcotics interdiction, not just on a national scale, but internationally. His unwavering dedication and outstanding contributions to law enforcement deserve this high recognition, not only as a testament to his personal achievements, but as a beacon of exemplary service that inspires officers across the Nation. Sheriff Mike Fisher Named to Third Congressional District Police Honor Roll

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

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

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I will take a moment to recognize Ms. Elizabeth Isaacs, a kindergarten teacher in the Folsom Cordova Unified School District at Oak Chan Elementary School. Ms. Isaacs teaches kindergarten at Oak Chan and has been employed there since 2015. However, her experience goes back 19 years. Ms. Isaacs' mission is to make the world a better place, and she finds herself continuously motivated by the positive impact she has on her students' lives. Ms. Isaacs teaches in innovative ways to keep her students motivated and engaged and is passionate about instilling her students with the knowledge and tenacity that is needed to help each child reach their full potential. Just the idea that she is contributing toward this development of her students brings her great joy and satisfaction. Ms. Isaacs' students and the opportunity to teach kindergarten have contributed to her unwavering commitment to education. Every day, she comes to class feeling cherished, challenged, and fulfilled. Growing up, Ms. Isaacs learned how education has the power to affect meaningful change in the world. Even as a child, she enjoyed playing school with her siblings, where she took on the role, of course, as the teacher. Both of her parents were educators, and she grew up helping set up bulletin boards in her mother's classroom at White Rock Elementary in the Folsom Cordova Unified School District. Additionally, she appreciated being able to observe her father's lectures as a professor at the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. It is a true honor to represent exemplary teachers such as Ms. Elizabeth Isaacs in the United States Congress. Therefore, in honor of her passion, dedication, and belief in the transformative power of education, in honor of her commitment to her students' success, it is my privilege to recognize Ms. Elizabeth Isaacs as the outstanding teacher that she is.

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford). Congratulating Matthew Gapinski for 42 Years of Dedicated Federal Service

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for his words. Today, the Education and the Workforce Committee held a hearing with the presidents of three universities: UCLA, Northwestern, and Rutgers. At the hearing, I joined the Anti-Defamation League in calling for the resignation of at least one of them, but I will provide some reflection on what transpired today and what has transpired at several hearings that we have now had. We have had the chance to hear testimony and question seven university presidents now, including Columbia, Penn, Harvard, and MIT. Two of those presidents, from Penn and from Harvard, have already resigned following the hearings. What is striking about these hearings is just how difficult it is for these university presidents to answer in a straightforward way to the clearest questions of right and wrong. It is striking the way that they have been unable to take the most commonsense steps on their campuses to stop lawlessness and to curb this terrible rise in anti-Semitism. When you look at the folks who testified today or, for that matter, any of the seven presidents we have heard from, I don't think there is any of us who would suggest that these individuals are themselves anti- Semitic or prejudiced, and, yet, they seem to believe that appeasing anti-Semites, appeasing anti-Semitic constituencies on their campuses and thereby institutionalizing, normalizing, to use the word that the Anti-Defamation League does, anti-Semitism at their universities, they seem to believe that is what they have to do in order to keep their jobs. This is, itself, a fundamental failure of leadership and a reason to doubt the fitness of any of these particular individuals to lead major universities, but it also speaks to the overarching challenges we now face in American higher education where they feel the need, these leaders of our top universities, to cater to the most bigoted and backward forces at the expense of their own students' safety, well- being, and education. I think it is vitally important that the Education and the Workforce Committee continues to shine a light on the horrible things that are unfolding at American universities, while at the same time trying to direct our higher education system in the direction of badly needed reforms because we have seen how many longstanding problems have gotten us to this point. Mr. Speaker, I will go into a little more detail about what transpired today. I asked each of the three university presidents, the president of Rutgers, the president of Northwestern, and the chancellor of UCLA, if physically blocking a student from entering their campus on the basis of the student's race, ethnicity, or religion is an expellable offensive, and I was rather taken aback by the responses. Not one of them could give a simple ``yes,'' that is, by its very nature, an expellable offense. Instead, they said it depends upon the circumstances, the context, and so forth. I found that to be a rather shocking response. I think the correct response would have been: Well, yes, of course. If the facts show that someone is physically blocking a student from entering campus, is using force to deny them access to our university that they are paying tuition to, and they are explicitly doing so in order to exclude people of that person's race, ethnicity, or religion, that is by its very nature something that would mean you should never be able to set foot on that campus again, any individual who would engage in such conduct. Yet, not one of them could give that response. What is worse is this, of course, is not a hypothetical situation. It is something that we saw happen repeatedly at several campuses and, in particular, at UCLA. I played a video clip for the chancellor that showed exactly this happening: A Jewish student with a Star of David who was trying to gain access to his campus to go to class, who has his student ID card in his hand and a group of self-appointed enforcers lock arms and form a blockade to stop the student who tries to enter, who puts his hands in the air to show he means no harm, and they physically, by force, stop him from entering his own university. I asked the chancellor of UCLA: Who are these people who formed these blockades? Are they students? He didn't know. I asked: Have they been disciplined? He didn't know. It seems very clear that they got away with this absolutely monstrous conduct that should have no place in the United States of America. To make things even worse, a member of the committee, the Representative from Minnesota, Congresswoman Omar, actually tried to minimize what had happened. In her questions, she suggested that this wasn't such a big deal because there are other pathways available to that student. Apparently it is okay to block people from moving about, their freedom of movement, based upon their Jewish identity if there are other places that they are allowed to walk. It is absolutely unbelievable. UCLA's response to this situation was, of course, deeply problematic in a number of other ways. The situation there was allowed to build and build and build. The encampment got larger and larger and larger, and eventually things spiraled out of control until eventually the chancellor did the right thing and called upon law enforcement to come and enforce the rules for those who refused to leave. It never should have gotten to that point. Indeed, we now know that the police chief had advised the university not to allow an encampment, yet UCLA allowed it anyway. Chancellor Block claims that there is a systemwide UC policy that prevented them from moving more quickly. If this is so, the University of California needs to change its policy. If it is really true that the university will not seek the assistance of law enforcement until violence actually manifests itself, that is a deeply problematic policy on a number of levels. Number one, it allows for the violence to happen until you actually do anything to protect students. Number two, it allows for all manner of other illegal activity to continue unabated so long as those engaging in it characterize their actions as a protest. We saw all kinds of illegal activity in this anti-Semitic encampment at UCLA. We saw self-appointed students set up checkpoints, as I mentioned before, stopping Jewish students from being able to get to class. The university did very little, it would seem, to stop this from happening. Indeed, the chancellor couldn't even tell me what happened to the students caught on video who were responsible. This particular university leader, Chancellor Block, has served for 17 years and is retiring. He will not be at that university very soon. I would leave it to the judgment of the UC system to decide what the consequences for him, in particular, should be, with just a few months remaining in his tenure. I will say there is news just today that a new encampment has started at UCLA, and I would suggest that the chancellor needs to learn from what just happened and make sure that that is taken care of in short order. Generally, I don't think it is my role to be deciding which university leaders should stay and which should go. Ideally, that would be decided upon using the appropriate channels and that when you have clearly fireable conduct, the board of regents, the governance boards, would take appropriate action. Where I would draw the line on a broad level, on a general level, and say that anyone who crosses that line is unfit to lead a university is the line that was drawn by the Anti-Defamation League as well as the Brandeis Institute and others in the specific case of the president of Northwestern, who also testified today. What was different about what happened at Northwestern from some other universities--and I believe Northwestern was the first prominent university to do this--is that the university president actually ended the encampment by giving the lawless members of that encampment what they wanted. He agreed to their demands. I want to go through in detail, just to have it on the record, what those demands were. First, I will read you the statement from the Anti-Defamation League as well as the Brandeis Center and StandWithUs. It says as follows: ``As the three leading organizations in the United States holding colleges and universities accountable for creating hostile environments for Jewish students, we are shocked and dismayed by the agreement Northwestern University President Michael Schill reached on behalf of Northwestern University with encampment protesters yesterday. ``For the last 7 months, and longer, Jewish Northwestern students have been harassed and intimidated by blatant anti-Semitism on campus, worsening since October 7.'' Yesterday, at the time this was written, ``President Schill signed an agreement with the perpetrators of that harassment and intimidation, rewarding them for their hate. ``For days, protesters openly mocked and violated Northwestern's codes of conduct and policies by erecting an encampment in which they fanned the flames of anti-Semitism and wreaked havoc on the entire university community. Their goal was not to find peace but to make Jewish students feel unsafe on campus. Rather than hold them accountable, as he pledged he would, President Schill gave them a seat at the table and normalized their hatred against Jewish students. ``It is clear from President Schill's actions that he is unfit to lead Northwestern and must resign. President Schill capitulated to hatred and bigotry and empowered and emboldened those who have used intimidation, harassment, and violence to achieve their ends. Instead of issuing fines and suspensions in accordance with university policies, he awarded protest groups with scholarships, professorships, and a renovated community home. Instead of permanently shutting down the encampment and making the campus safe for all, he told protesters they can stay until June 1. Instead of reaffirming a longstanding university policy rejecting the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign, he created new pathways to its implementation. And instead of holding the perpetrators accountable, he committed Northwestern to actively defend, protect, and shield students from anyone else, such as potential future employers who may choose to hold the protesters accountable for their harassing and discriminatory conduct.'' The statement concludes: ``A prestigious institution that is supposed to be preparing our students for the future catastrophically failed to teach responsibility, respect for community values, and the fundamental principle that no one is above the law regardless of how deeply or passionately they believe in their own cause.'' They reiterate: ``We call on President Schill to resign immediately and trust that if he fails to resign, the Board of Trustees will step in as the leaders the university needs and remove him.'' That statement was issued a couple of weeks ago--of course, before the testimony that we heard today. President Schill still has not resigned, and the board of regents still has not removed him. It can only be concluded that the board of regents is endorsing the institutionalization and normalization of anti-Semitism that President Schill is responsible for by appeasing these demands. There is the substance of the demands, which are deeply rooted in anti-Semitism, and then there is also the means by which they were achieved, those means being force. This is what I found particularly upsetting about the agreement reached by this president, President Schill of Northwestern, as well as President Holloway of Rutgers: They congratulated themselves for it. They said this was the way to negotiate a peaceful resolution. As a matter of fact, the exact words of the president were that they negotiated with their students through dialogue rather than force, engaging our students with dialogue rather than force. Every part of that statement is utterly preposterous. First of all, a lot of them weren't students. I believe he even admitted to that. Second of all, this was not dialogue. The president, for one thing, did not even consult with his own anti-Semitism committee to ask if they were okay with this agreement. In fact, six members of that committee resigned after he reached the agreement with the encampment. When he was asked at the hearing today if he had consulted with Jewish students, he said that was impractical. What an utterly preposterous statement. He decides to change university policy in response to the demands of an anti-Semitic encampment, and he says it is impractical to even consult with Jewish students. Engaging our students with dialogue rather than force--it wasn't just students. It was not dialogue; it was one-sided. The entire negotiation, as it was, was predicated on force. The only reason he talked to them at all is because they set up an illegal encampment that was used to terrorize students, and they refused to leave when they were ordered to. What precedent does that set? What incentive does that set for others who want to achieve their objectives, even if they are unobjectionable objectives, that the way to get what you want on this campus is to use force, defy the rules, defy the law, refuse to leave when you are told to, to try to be as disruptive as possible? What is worse is that after Northwestern University's president did this, we have seen this chain reaction where other universities are doing the same thing, one of which is Rutgers, whose president, President Holloway, was with us today. He reached a similar agreement. He said something similar. He said: ``We engaged students in a conversation that led to a peaceful resolution''--again, an utterly preposterous statement. The entire negotiation was predicated on force. It was not a conversation. It was a one-sided agreement with only those who are willing to resort to the use of force in order to get their way. I was glad to hear today, by the way--it was confirmed by President Holloway--that he is no longer under consideration to be the next president of Yale University, of which I am an alum. There are many of us who are deeply concerned about the message it would send if Yale, which has had many of its own problems when it comes to anti-Semitism on campus, accepted as its new president someone who was just responsible for institutionalizing anti-Semitism at his own university. There have been others as well throughout the country, several of which are in my State of California. There has been one instance, at least, where there has been accountability. The president of Sonoma State, after reaching an agreement with the encampment there with a number of deeply anti-Semitic provisions like cutting off study abroad to Israel and even scrubbing university materials of any reference to Israel, and then even appointing the encampment as a permanent governing council to enforce that agreement, that university leader was placed on leave and has now resigned. That was the right thing for the leader of the California State University system to do. However, there are other campuses in California, in the CSU and UC systems, that have reached similar capitulation agreements with the lawless encampments on their campuses and who have followed this same script of rewarding the use of force, of institutionalizing and normalizing anti-Semitism, of setting a precedent that the way to get your way on their campuses is to break the rules, break the law, refuse to do what you are asked to do. They all need to face discipline, as well. There were a number of other remarkable statements at today's hearing with the three university presidents, though, of UCLA, Rutgers, and of course Northwestern. In particular, the president of Northwestern said that he will not be commenting on the speech of their students, faculty, or staff, a completely preposterous statement. This individual has commented on all manner of political issues. I was able to find a number of examples just googling on my phone as he said it. The idea that he wouldn't call out, fire, or condemn a high- ranking university official who makes overtly racist statements absolutely defies belief. Incredibly, when asked by my colleague Burgess Owens if he would have dealt with a KKK demonstration in the same manner, he said he would not engage in a hypothetical, refusing to even condemn this most offensive of speech--or more than speech, of course, when we are dealing with the conduct that we have seen play out on these campuses. The president also said--and the president I am referring to is President Schill of Northwestern--that a police option on that campus was not possible. This is how he justifies appeasing the demands of the encampment rather than enforcing the law. I find it quite difficult to believe that there couldn't have been a sufficient police response coordinating with local law enforcement to ensure that those who were in the encampment left. It is absolutely hypocritical when you look at the record of this president, President Schill, who actually reduced police and defunded police when he was the president of the University of Oregon. The committee, I know, is committed to continuing this investigation of anti-Semitism across American higher education, but it is also important to understand the need for broad reform in higher education based upon what we have learned. There have been some encouraging signs lately. We saw, for example, MIT just recently said it is no longer going to require so-called diversity statements in the faculty hiring process. Even the Washington Post came out with an op-ed opposing the use of these diversity statements in hiring. I think our work is only just beginning. The hearings that we have seen so far have been deeply disturbing. It is highly important that we continue them and that we continue to keep an eye on every university that is failing to adequately address anti-Semitism in order to protect the students, to protect their safety, and to protect their right to an education. We also need to think about fundamental reform when it comes to academic freedom, when it comes to free speech, when it comes to faculty hiring, and when it comes to so many of the other issues related to even the value of a higher education degree in America today. I truly believe this can be a turning point. America's universities have long been national assets that have helped us to become the greatest country in the world, the greatest economy in the world, the leader in innovation on all fronts, and that is now in danger. I look forward to continuing to work with the committee and colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We had a number of colleagues across the aisle who asked very good questions and expressed appropriate concerns today, as well. I look forward to working together to reclaim our universities as national assets rather than the liabilities that they have increasingly become. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a concerning situation in the world of artificial intelligence that has developed over the last couple of weeks following the release of OpenAI's newest ChatGPT model, which has demonstrated some truly breathtaking, amazing features and capabilities that are going to have wide-ranging applications that I think we are only just beginning to understand. After that release, there has been an exodus from the company of employees who are there to focus on issues related to safety. The reason for this was stated by Jan Leike, who is the leader of the team at OpenAI responsible for safety and alignment issues. This is what Jan Leike said: ``I joined because I thought OpenAI would be the best place in the world to do this research. However, I have been disagreeing with OpenAI leadership about the company's core priorities for quite some time, until we finally reached a breaking point.'' I believe much more of our bandwidth should be spent getting ready for the next generation of models on security, monitoring, preparedness, safety, adversarial robustness, superalignment, confidentiality, societal impact, and related topics. These problems are quite hard to get right, and I am concerned we aren't on a trajectory to get there. Jan writes: ``Over the past few months, my team has been sailing against the wind. Sometimes we were struggling for compute, and it was getting harder and harder to get this crucial research done. Building smarter-than-human machines is an inherently dangerous endeavor. OpenAI is shouldering an enormous responsibility on behalf of all humanity. But over the past few years, safety culture and processes have taken a back seat to shiny products. We are long overdue in getting incredibly serious about the implications of AGI,'' meaning artificial general intelligence. ``We must prioritize preparing for them as best we can.'' This is what the outgoing leader of safety and alignment issues at OpenAI recently said on Twitter, on X. I am not intending to criticize OpenAI. I have no basis to assess the veracity of the claims that were just read. I, like everyone else, have been truly dazzled by what the company has been able to accomplish. I think that this exodus of safety employees and this particular testimonial for the person leading the alignment team should be a wake- up call for many of us who have perhaps not been giving this issue of safety and alignment in the development of artificial intelligence the attention that it deserves. In fact, I don't know if there has ever been a time where the consequences, the stakes, of a particular issue are so wildly disproportionate to the small level of attention that is being paid to it. The basic issue here is that as AI systems become more advanced, as their capabilities become more sophisticated, the risks are heightened as well when it comes to many things--when it comes to privacy, when it comes to confidentiality, when it comes to potential misuses, which are limitless, and when it comes to the alignment of those capabilities with the well-being of the machine's creator, with the well-being of humanity. This is an issue that the company has been focusing on at OpenAI. They have, of course, this whole team there. There has been some discussion about what percentage of their overall compute has been dedicated to it. If you believe the testimony here, it is less and less, but the company itself, as well as perhaps to a greater degree other leading AI companies, understand this to be an extremely important issue, especially as these models scale up and become more sophisticated and new capabilities emerge, sometimes perhaps in an unsophisticated way. The important thing that has been understood by many is that we need to make sure our ability, our sophistication in aligning those systems with our own objectives, proceeds in a way that is commensurate to the sophistication of their capabilities. I am concerned that that is no longer the case, that perhaps things are developing more quickly on the capabilities end than on the safety end. I think the wake-up call that we need to take from what has happened at OpenAI is that we simply can't rely on any particular company, or even all of them collectively, to prioritize safety to the extent that is needed. I do think there is some role for us here in Congress to catalyze safety research and to try to ensure the proper incentives for companies to invest in safety as much as they are investing in product development and other things. There are some States, and perhaps even some folks here, who are already proposing new regulations that would hamstring this new technology, that would stand in the way of developing more advanced models. Personally, I think that is the wrong approach for a number of reasons. First of all, it is not at all clear that it is going to actually be successful in limiting the development of these technologies, and if it is, it would only apply to us here in the U.S. in our jurisdiction whereas our potential adversaries in other countries could continue to develop this technology unabated and in a way that poses a risk to the United States, our competitiveness, and our national security. Moreover, to try to block the further development of AI will limit the manifold benefits that are now appearing before us, which are limitless. As these models become more and more advanced, so, too, do their applications in the fields of medicine, in the fields of transportation, and, basically, in any field that you can think of. We have seen applications already, and these applications are only going to become greater and greater and have enormous potential to save lives, to extend lives, and to enhance the quality of life. The position, from a humanist point of view, should be one of not trying to hold the development of that potential back but, rather, trying to ensure that it proceeds in a manner that unlocks the benefits while mitigating the risks. Those risks will, perhaps, become most pronounced as we work toward what is commonly called AGI, which was referenced in that series of tweets, artificial general intelligence. There is a lot of debate on this topic among people who know a lot more about it than I do, but there are many who believe that it is not that far away, that it is much closer than we might have thought even a few years ago--that is, the creation of an AI system that has the capacity to outperform human intelligence across multiple domains or across all domains. What is more, once AGI is achieved, if, indeed, it is achieved, then the capabilities could well accelerate in a very rapid manner from there on out. That is why many who focus on issues related to AI safety have urgently emphasized the need to get the safety question right before that threshold is crossed. Indeed, when Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, was here last year, I asked him straight up how close they were to developing AGI. He basically said they were one big breakthrough away. That was a while ago. I don't think anyone really knows how close we are or what that will look like, but I think there is an urgent need to prepare for that day by doing everything we possibly can to ensure that as capabilities develop in an unpredictable way, we have done the groundwork to make sure that those capabilities are aligned to our objectives, serve human purposes, and don't have the potential to serve other purposes or to misinterpret their commands in a way that has grave consequences. I have introduced a bill, a bipartisan bill, that I think is a modest proposal that will help us get there. It will have the National Institutes of Health create a grant program that will fund basic research into AI safety. I think that is something that would be helpful, that would be a start. In fact, I ran the idea by the CEO of OpenAI itself, Sam Altman. He thought it was a good idea. I think that it would help us get moving in the right direction, but I think it is also important at the same time that we make sure that the companies themselves have the right incentives to prioritize safety and alignment in the way that is needed. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We also have an AI task force being led by my colleague from California Jay Obernolte, who has done some tremendous work in this area. I think it is urgently important that we begin to think about our role in ensuring that artificial intelligence ushers in the best possible future while mitigating the risks that are in front of us. Recognizing Folsom Police Department's Special Investigations Unit

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to recognize some truly outstanding individuals from my district. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to include the members of the Folsom Police Department's Special Investigations Unit for the Police Honor Roll. The SIU team consists of one sergeant, Sergeant Brandon Monsoor, and three detectives, Detective William Maslak, Detective Justin Cain, and Detective Andrew Graham, whose responsibilities include narcotics prevention and weapons enforcement along with fugitive apprehension. I believe that their work surrounding fentanyl poisonings throughout the last year is truly worthy of recognition. Along with several other areas of this country, the city of Folsom has seen an increase in fentanyl-related deaths. These tragedies are the direct result of individuals who carelessly furnish this product to often unsuspecting customers on the illicit drug market. In early 2023, the SIU team decided to address this issue by developing criminal homicide cases against drug dealers that knowingly sold this dangerous product. This was no small task, as these types of cases had never been attempted or prosecuted in Sacramento County. They began by coordinating with the Sacramento district attorney's office to determine the type of evidence that would be required to bring this type of case to conclusion. These cases are inherently difficult to prosecute. They require swift and relentless action by detectives upon notification of an overdose, a significant amount of digital evidence, and out-of-the-box investigation techniques. In July 2023, SIU detectives were notified of a potential fentanyl poisoning within the city of Folsom. The victim was a 24-year-old female who recently moved to the area to begin work as a preschool teacher. The detectives worked all night to eventually identify her supplier, develop probable cause to arrest him for homicide, and coordinate with the district attorney's office. Approximately 48 hours later, her supplier was arrested for murder, the first case of its kind within Sacramento County. Since that first case, the SIU team has successfully arrested three other individuals for manslaughter or homicide after knowingly supplying this dangerous drug to their customers. They remain the only investigative unit in our region to bring this type of case to the Sacramento district attorney. The Special Investigations Unit has truly distinguished itself and had an incredible impact on the community we serve. I believe they have very much earned the right to be recognized on the Third District Police Honor Roll. Recognizing Rebekah Perez

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Rebekah Perez, an English teacher at Loyalton High School in Loyalton, California. Rebekah is a remarkable and gifted educator who enriches the lives of her students and her community alike. Before accepting her position at her hometown high school 8 years ago, Rebekah taught in title I schools in southern California for 5 years. Rebekah is one of those teachers who changes lives for the better. Her advanced placement students have scored in record-passing rates at Loyalton High School. As a former educator, I understand the essential role that a teacher plays in the lives of their students, and Rebekah has high expectations for her students. She provides excellent support to ensure they can meet those expectations. Knowing that reading literature and participating in thoughtful discussions are essential for rural students to get a glimpse and understanding of the bigger world, its diverse cultures and complexity drives Rebekah's work. Active in her community, she serves on the board of her church and as a 4-H project leader. Her big laugh and huge smile makes students, colleagues, and parents alike feel like they have come home and are deeply cared for. Rebekah's positive leadership at Loyalton is reflected in a sign she has made for her classroom. I love this. It says: ``Get excited, people.'' Whether teaching English, providing academic advisement, leading the accreditation process, serving as a senior class adviser, or coaching young people, Rebekah brings infectious, joy-filled excitement to all those around her. Loyalton High School shines so bright because of her great work, and we are forever grateful that she has chosen to teach at Loyalton High School. Therefore, in honor of her passion, dedication, and her commitment to her students' success, it is my privilege to recognize Rebekah Perez as the truly outstanding teacher that she is. Recognizing Elaina Stoll

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to recognize the outstanding and prominent educators of California's Third Congressional District. I will briefly highlight a teacher from the Bishop Unified School District, Elaina Stoll, who has dedicated 34 years of her career to educating the students of her community. Ms. Stoll graduated from Bishop Union High School in 1983 and then returned in 1990 to serve and spend two decades as a primary teacher. She later became a reading specialist for Bishop Unified and continued to further her education by obtaining her master's degree in education administration with an emphasis in reading. Ms. Stoll has worked tirelessly on strengthening Bishop's Reading Intervention Program, implementing phonics-based small group instructional strategies, and creating systemic improvements across the grade spans. She approaches her work pertaining to students with high levels of enthusiasm and love and strives to meet best practice standards. She is known for her unique ability to motivate others to meet the high standards set by her performance. I commend Ms. Stoll for her exceptional dedication to education and to promoting student success and academic achievement. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am pleased to recognize Ms. Elaina Stoll for her significant contributions to the Bishop Unified School District and to the students of the Bishop community. Recognizing Elizabeth Isaacs

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

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge passage of the Ensuring Safe and Ethical AI Development Through SAFE AI Research Grants Act. This is bipartisan legislation that I have introduced. Just recently, the company OpenAI unveiled the latest chat bot model which had some truly amazing new features. Yet shortly after that, there was an exodus of employees from the company devoted to safety with one of them even saying that this part of the company is not receiving the compute that it needs to. Now, I don't know if that is true, and I don't know the particulars of what is going on in that company, but it does underscore the fact that we cannot rely or assume that companies are devoting the attention to safety issues that they should. I do think there is a role for the Federal Government to catalyze cutting-edge AI safety research. That is what my legislation does, and I think it is of the highest urgency that Congress assure that as we look ahead to the limitless potential benefits of AI, that we do whatever we can to understand the risks and take the steps that we need to mitigate them.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to share a remarkable moment from a committee hearing this week with Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra. Mr. Becerra began his testimony by saying that we can now manage COVID like we do the flu. I asked Mr. Becerra: If that is true, then what about these 30 colleges and universities across the country that still have COVID-19 vaccine mandates? That is, they require students to get a vaccine in order to enroll, and they will expel students who do not comply with that mandate. I asked the Secretary: If it is true that we can now manage COVID like the flu, then will you call on these 30 universities that, right now in May of 2024, still have COVID vaccine mandates? The Secretary refused to do it. He is just fine with these institutions continuing to impose these exclusionary policies. Now, at this point in time, it is so beyond the pale to continue to have these mandates that I think it is important to specifically call out the universities that still have them. Of course, we now know there was never any public health justification for universities to have COVID vaccine mandates, and it certainly was not consistent with the values of our country or the values of higher education. Nevertheless, to still have them now is so beyond the pale and so utterly absurd that I think we should recognize each and every university that still has them. There is Cal State University Cal Poly Humboldt, CSU Dominguez Hills, CSU San Francisco State, Harvey Mudd College, Mount Saint Mary's University, Pitzer College, Pomona College, University of San Francisco, Scripps College, Mitchell College, Trinity Washington University, Clark Atlanta University, Morehouse, Morris Brown College, Oglethorpe University, Spelman, Methodist College, Dillard University, Southern University System, Wellesley, Wayne State University, Franklin Pierce, Mount Saint Vincent, Kenyon, Oberlin, Wooster, Reed, Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore. I am calling on these 30 universities to end their COVID vaccine mandates immediately and end their status as bastions of ignorance in American higher education. Madam Speaker, 2 days ago, I rose on the floor of this House to call for the resignation of the president of Sonoma State University in California. This institution is one of a disturbing number that has chosen to deal with this highly disruptive trend of encampments on campuses not by evenhandedly enforcing university rules and enforcing the law but, rather, by caving to the demands of this small minority of unlawful protesters, appeasing their desired changes in university policy in order to make university policy anti-Israel and anti-Semitic in nature. What happened at Sonoma State was particularly egregious. In response to the demands of the illegal encampment, the university president agreed to divest, agreed to an academic boycott, agreed to even scrub any mention of Israel from university materials. Perhaps worst of all, he agreed to convert the unlawful encampment into a permanent advisory council with the members of the encampment responsible for picking who was part of it, and they would then have the power to enforce these anti-Israel policies going forward. We finally have a little bit of good news in that this call was heard by the chancellor of Cal State University, and that university president is now on administrative leave. Of course, that doesn't go far enough. He has no business leading the university in our State or in this country when he is willing to institutionalize the anti-Semitic demands of those who are disrupting the university by unlawful means. Unfortunately, Sonoma State University is not alone in California, as can be seen right here from these headlines. There are a number of other universities within the California State University system, within the University of California system, and in other institutions, public and private, across our State and across the country, where suddenly administrators have decided to negotiate with these encampments and to reach agreements with them based on what they want. It is hard to overstate just how perverse this truly is. Let's leave aside for a moment the substance of what they are agreeing to and just consider the message that this sends, the precedent that it sets, that the way to get what you want on a university campus is not by presenting a reasoned argument or by convincing the governing body and your fellow students and other stakeholders. Rather, it is to try to use force to get your way. These unlawful encampments, as we heard in an example from a student at Harvard in a committee hearing the other day, are refusing to leave. They are occupying public spaces. They are disrupting the function of the university. In this particular example, they had self-appointed campus monitors who would follow Jewish students around on campus and monitor their activities. We have seen examples of occupying buildings. We have seen students being stopped from entering the campus, entering the library, and entering other public spaces. We have seen loud disruptions that stop academic activities from proceeding. In a number of cases, universities have responded in a way that is also unacceptable, which is by canceling classes, canceling graduation ceremonies, and thereby punishing all students. The message this sends is that we are going to give those who are engaging in these unlawful activities, many of them not students, by the way, and with a lot of funding coming from the outside, what they want. We are going to reward those tactics. What exactly does that encourage in the future? Of course, what it does is encourage these tactics to be repeated. The reason that these tactics are being resorted to is because those who are behind the encampments know that their argument is completely morally bankrupt and bigoted and would never prevail in a reasoned dialogue, which is why it is such a farce that some of these university leaders have patted themselves on the back and said that dialogue is the answer, negotiations are the answer. The problem is they are only giving voice to those who are creating the disruption. When these so-called negotiations are going on, it is only those who are responsible for the problem that are being listened to. We are not seeing any evidence that they are bringing in representatives from Jewish student groups or, for that matter, the broader law-abiding student body to come and have their voices heard. Rather, they are elevating this small, disruptive minority and privileging their despicable points of view. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter that I have written to the leaders of our public education systems in California.

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I wish to take a moment to recognize Amanda Coppa, an outstanding educator in California's Third Congressional District. As an English and history teacher, Amanda embodies the essence of going above and beyond for her students, ensuring that each student receives an exceptional education. Amanda's tireless efforts have resulted in significant academic achievements, as demonstrated through significant improvements in CAASPP test scores for students with disabilities alongside a remarkable increase in overall scores. Moreover, Amanda's reach spans well beyond the classroom as she takes on various leadership roles as a behavior committee member, W.E.B. leader, Safe Schools Ambassador leader, and Read-In coordinator, highlighting her true commitment in building a positive environment for her students. Her enthusiastic dedication and unwavering connections with students enrich the lives of both her students and her peers. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize educator Amanda Coppa for her years of hard work in our community and the enormous difference she has made in the lives of her students. Honoring Julie Ferguson

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I wish to take a moment to recognize an outstanding educator, Mr. Kellen Wirth, in California's Third Congressional District. In his 8 years of instruction as a science teacher in the Loomis Union School District, Mr. Wirth has made remarkable contributions within the Ophir STEAM Academy as well as in the general Loomis School District as a whole. Kellen's tireless efforts have resulted in significant academic achievements, as demonstrated through his 5E Lesson model, a hands-on approach to engage collaboration and critical thinking. Moreover, Kellen's reach spans well beyond the classroom as he takes on various roles such as leading science camps and innovation programs, showcasing his true commitment in instilling a sense of wonder and passion in his students. Alongside these achievements, Kellen is also serving on the Curriculum Team and coaching multiple sports, exemplifying his holistic dedication in serving students. On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize educator Kellen Wirth for his years of hard work in our schools. Commending Jennifer DeBortoli

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight a teacher from Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District in Roseville, Jennifer DeBortoli, who has dedicated 31 years of her career to educating the students of her community while acquiring accolades of high regard. Jennifer DeBortoli is a distinguished educator and exceptional leader who contributes significantly to her school and district. She has a passion for writing and leads the Area 3 Writing program at her school as well as spearheading Spark the Fire Committee, fostering a love for literature with students. She also mentors new team members by offering valuable insights into lesson planning, guided reading, and GLAD strategies. Jennifer's impact extends beyond her immediate school, as she conducts districtwide staff development and has become a sought-after resource for teachers looking to bring writing to life for their students. I commend Mrs. DeBortoli for exuding an immense level of passion and commitment to student success, which has no doubt redounded to the benefit of many, many young people in our community. Amanda Coppa Commended as Outstanding Educator

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I will now move on to recognize some truly outstanding individuals in my district. Madam Speaker, I recognize District Attorney Investigator Lieutenant Brandon Olivera who has served as a law enforcement officer since 1996. In his 27-year career, he has worked on patrol, in investigations, as a SWAT operator, and currently leads one of California's most successful narcotics investigation units. Lieutenant Olivera works collaboratively with local, State, and Federal agencies to investigate drug trafficking organizations with the goal of reducing their impact on the northern California Central Valley region. Lieutenant Olivera has led his team to remove 4,447 pounds of methamphetamine, 129 pounds of cocaine, 135 pounds of heroin, and 643 pounds of fentanyl from the streets of our communities. Those are truly staggering numbers. In 2021 and 2022 alone, his team seized 344,465 counterfeit fentanyl tablets. Currently in America and California, we are losing our youth to fentanyl at a truly alarming rate. In 2021, California lost 224 young people between the ages of 15 and 19 to fentanyl overdose. In America, while drug use among youth has trended down from 2019 to 2020, overdose deaths have increased 94 percent from 2019 to 2020 and 20 percent from 2020 to 2021. In the same period, drug trafficking organizations have changed marketing tactics, creating rainbow or multicolored fentanyl tablets. These tablets look similar to candy, making them even more enticing, tragically so, to our Nation's youth. Lieutenant Olivera has led the fight against these dangerous narcotics making it to our communities. He and his team, in fact, seized the first rainbow fentanyl trafficked in the Central Valley of California. The work done by Lieutenant Olivera has certainly saved lives, though few will ever understand how many. Through his dedicated service and his dedication to protecting our community from drug trafficking organizations, Lieutenant Olivera truly has made our community and its surrounding areas a safer place to live. I thank him for his years of service and dedication. Honoring Outstanding Educator Kellen Wirth

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I will address an extraordinary development that happened yesterday right before a Judiciary Committee hearing in which we ultimately voted to cite the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland, for contempt of Congress, for defying a congressional subpoena. Just minutes before this hearing happened, we received a letter from the President's counsel, Edward Siskel, invoking executive privilege with respect to the materials that our committee has been seeking. Those materials being recordings of President Biden's interviews with Special Counsel Robert Hur. I will take a moment to address just how absurd this invocation of executive privilege is. Indeed, I will identify the six absurdities of this invocation of executive privilege, but first a little bit of background as to how we got here. In 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered an unprecedented raid of Mar-a-Lago, purportedly in search of classified documents. This became awkward for the administration when it was soon revealed that President Biden himself had various classified documents scattered about his personal properties. Attorney General Garland, in an attempt, I suppose, to appear even-handed, appointed a special counsel. He appointed Robert Hur special counsel to investigate President Biden's possession of classified documents. Earlier this year, we received the report from Special Counsel Hur, and the report found considerable evidence that President Biden had willfully obtained classified documents in violation of the law. He found evidence as to each of the elements of that criminal offense. I asked Special Counsel Hur when he came to testify before our committee, I asked him a simple question: Could a reasonable juror have voted to convict the President? Special Counsel Hur answered yes. Now, it is important to note that while some in that hearing tried to cast aspersions on Mr. Hur's integrity, when Merrick Garland appointed him, he praised him, praised his long and distinguished career as a prosecutor. Now, despite those findings, Special Counsel Hur opted not to charge the President, citing his age and the lapses in memory that he displayed during his interviews with Hur. The Judiciary Committee sought access to these records of those interviews, given the obvious public interest in matters pertaining to the Commander in Chief's competency or, for that matter, his potential criminality. Eventually, the Justice Department responded by producing redacted transcripts of President Biden's interviews with Special Counsel Hur. However, they continually refused to produce the actual recordings of those interviews with shifting explanations over time until the Judiciary Committee was forced to convene a hearing yesterday to cite the Attorney General for contempt because the subpoena that had been duly issued for those materials was being defied. Attorney General Garland refused to comply with it. It was only moments before that hearing yesterday, after months of back and forth, that suddenly this letter lands from the White House that says, well, we are invoking executive privilege with respect to those recordings of President Biden's interviews with Special Counsel Hur. Now, I will go through the six absurdities of that particular use of executive privilege. The first is just the timing. As I have already mentioned, this had been going on for a long time and it is only right when we are about to begin a hearing that they suddenly come in and invoke this privilege. The second absurdity is that this is not at all what executive privilege is meant for. Executive privilege is a facet of the separation of powers that is designed to protect the President's internal deliberations so that, for example, his advisers can give unvarnished advice when it comes to policy decisions and don't have to fear that anything they say, even if it is advice that the President doesn't ultimately take, will suddenly be made public. That is the purpose of an executive privilege. It is to protect these internal deliberations of the President on matters of policy. This is an entirely different situation. It is not pertaining to the collaborative discussions involved in policymaking, rather it is the adversarial situation of an investigation of the President himself and the President's interview with his investigator. There was no decision on the part of the President that was being made; it was a decision on the part of the special counsel that was being made as to whether or not the President ought to be charged with a crime. The justification for executive privilege simply doesn't exist in this scenario. The third absurdity is that the President had already waived the privilege. At the time that this was invoked, when we received the letter yesterday, we already had the transcripts of the interview that had been produced. So how exactly is it the case that the transcripts of the interview are not privileged, but the recordings of the interview are? The fourth absurdity is that the justification for invoking the privilege completely contradicted the justification that the Attorney General had been giving for not complying with the subpoena in handing over the recordings. The Attorney General has maintained throughout this process that he doesn't need to hand over the recordings because they are cumulative; meaning, they are the same as what has already been produced, so they don't need to keep producing the same thing. Now we have the President's counsel coming in and saying that, no, they are actually different. They are so different, the transcripts versus the recordings, that one is not privileged and the other is. The fifth absurdity of this letter from the President's counsel is that it explicitly cites a political motivation for invoking the privilege. The President's counsel, Edward Siskel, states a fear that the recordings will be used ``for potential political gain.'' Suffice it to say, a fear of political fallout, a fear of adverse political consequences, is not an adequate basis for invoking executive privilege. Now, the letter tries to couch it a little differently. The letter says: Well, what we are actually afraid of is that the recordings are only being requested for political purposes and that once they are obtained, they will be sliced and diced and used to politically damage the President. However, that amounts to saying exactly the same thing as we fear the political consequences of handing over these recordings. There is no precedent nor will there ever be a precedent in any court or otherwise for executive privilege to be invoked explicitly for political purposes or to spare the President political embarrassment. The final absurdity of this invocation of executive privilege by President Biden is there will be a chilling effect if he hands over the recordings; that this will make it less likely that witnesses will cooperate in future law enforcement investigations, and there are several layers of absurdity to that claim. The first is that they have already produced the redacted transcript of the interview. So they are saying there is not going to be a chilling effect for cooperation if someone knows a transcript could be revealed, but there will be a chilling effect if the actual recording is released. However, the problem is deeper than that because the statement I just read, the justification that was given by the Attorney General and given by the President's counsel, is that this is going to deter witnesses from participating in the future. The President is not a witness. He was the target of an investigation initiated by his own Department of Justice. What exactly is the chilling effect here? Who does it apply to? The only possible future scenario that this could affect is if at some point in the future another President is under investigation by his own administration. What is the fear? If we release the recordings here that that future President will not want to sit for an interview? Well, the President in that situation would have to answer for his refusal to cooperate, which would be a pretty good incentive to be cooperative in the first place. Whichever way you look at this, there is simply no legitimate basis for invoking executive privilege in this scenario, which is why the Judiciary Committee did move ahead yesterday and pass a resolution citing Attorney General Garland for contempt. I would encourage the President and the Attorney General to ensure that this does not have to go any further and the way to do that would simply be to hand over the requested recordings. Let the American people see them for themselves. Truly, the President should never be in a position where he deprives the public of information of this kind, especially when it pertains to vital matters of his competency and culpability with respect to the matters being investigated. This is a clear case of the public's right to know, and so I would encourage the administration to do the right thing here, albeit very belatedly. Recognizing Placer County DA Investigator Brandon Olivera

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I call the House's attention to an extremely concerning statement made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, at a hearing this week. I asked Secretary Becerra about the illegal Chinese biolab that had been discovered in California with very close ties to the Chinese Communist Party. This lab was discovered in Reedley, outside of Fresno, early last year and was discovered to have many dangerous pathogens. Some were labeled in Mandarin, and some were labeled in some code that was not decipherable. There were 32 refrigerators and freezers containing pathogens like E. coli, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HIV, malaria. There were about a thousand mice, some of them dead by the time they were discovered, that were, by some reports, genetically engineered to carry the COVID-19 virus. At the time that this was discovered, I called for an investigation and, eventually, the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party produced an incredibly disturbing report about how this lab had been set up by a gentleman named Jesse Zhu, who had come from China and ran several companies linked to the CCP. He had then gone to Canada, where he started a company designed specifically to steal American IP. He was found liable in court for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, so he eventually fled as a fugitive to the U.S., where he eventually set up this lab that was illegal, violating all sorts of laws, and had all manner of code violations. It wasn't exactly clear at all what the lab was for because they said it was there to make test kits, such as pregnancy test kits and COVID test kits, but that is actually not what they were doing. The test kits they were selling were coming from China or being sold as counterfeits. Mr. Zhu, by the way, is now under Federal indictment. I asked Secretary Becerra at this week's hearing if he can tell us with confidence that there are not similar such labs operating secretly and illegally throughout the United States. He said, no, that he could not say that with confidence. This is an incredibly disturbing situation. I am authoring bipartisan legislation with Representative Costa designed to close the regulatory loophole that allowed for these dangerous pathogens to be in this lab undetected. I also have recently sent a letter to the Director of the CDC, Mandy Cohen, which is under the jurisdiction of Secretary Becerra's Health and Human Services, because one of the truly disturbing parts of this story is that the CDC completely dropped the ball and ignored the situation long after it had been discovered. The Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party's report found that local officials in Reedley had begged the CDC to come in and investigate after they found this lab and that CDC repeatedly ignored them and even hung up on them. I have spoken with the city manager myself, and she said that their calls for help from both the Federal Government and the State were completely ignored, and it was only after Representative Costa, who represents that area, got involved that the CDC finally came to investigate. Even then, their investigation was completely inadequate. Incredibly, they didn't test any of the actual samples, so some of these were labeled with E. coli or hepatitis or whatever it was, and they just sort of assumed that that was accurate. Some of them were labeled in some indecipherable code. We don't know what was in there, and they didn't bother to test those. There is a refrigerator labeled Ebola that was found by officials afterward that completely escaped the CDC's notice. I have sent a letter to Director Cohen, asking for an explanation as to how it is that the CDC ignored and then failed to sufficiently investigate this danger to public health with pathogens that the CDC itself cites as being of grave danger to human health and communities. These are the questions that I have posed to Director Cohen: Why were local officials ignored by the CDC? Why were none of the unlabeled agents tested? Why did the CDC falsely claim that it could not test unlabeled select agents when they have previously tested unlabeled select agents in many cases, such as when anthrax was sent to this building? Why did the CDC order State officials not to test any samples themselves even though this will result in an abatement order requiring all samples found in the lab to be destroyed? How did you miss a freezer that was labeled Ebola? How did this lab escape detection in the first place? What is the CDC doing to prevent future labs of the same nature from being built? What pathogen enforcement gaps allowed the illegal importation of deadly pathogens? What efforts are being made to crack the code that was used to label various vials on site? Is there any investigation into what the Ebola samples were being used for since there is little market for Ebola tests, making a financial motive unlikely? Indeed, there is little apparent financial motive for the activities in the lab, given that the kits that they were selling were coming directly from China. We also know that Mr. Zhu, who ran the lab, put it there, and he is now under Federal indictment. He was receiving regular payments from China while the lab was in operation. I would ask the director for a timely response to these questions, and I am also urging my colleagues in the House to pass my legislation with Representative Costa so we can do everything possible to get to the level where we have the confidence that Secretary Becerra--now by his own admission lacks--to say that there are no other CCP-linked, illegal biolabs operating in this country. Citing Attorney General Garland for Contempt

Mr. KILEY. This is to President Drake, the president of the University of California, and Chancellor Garcia, who is the chancellor of California State University. I will read a few excerpts here. We are sending them this letter today, and I am hoping that it will put a stop to this incredibly disturbing trend. ``Over the past month, campuses in both the UC and CSU systems have been disrupted by illegal encampments. These encampments violate university rules, violate the law, and have given rise to other disruptive activities posing a threat to the safety, civil rights, and learning of students. ``Some UC and CSU campuses have responded by rewarding the perpetrators and incorporating their anti-Semitic demands into university policy. Specifically, a number have agreed to boycott, divest, and sanction (BDS) programs relating to Israel. Just this week, we saw Sonoma State's president agree to end all study-abroad programs in Israel and divest from companies associated with Israel. President Lee even went so far as to promise to scrub university materials of references to Israel and to convert the illegal encampment into a permanent `advisory council' charged with enforcing the new anti-Israel policies.'' The letter then goes on to list several other examples within the UC and CSU systems at UC Riverside, UC Berkeley, CSU Sacramento, and CSU San Francisco. The letter continues: ``Irrespective of the merits of these policy changes--which, to be clear, are altogether unmeritorious, bigoted, and quite possibly illegal under California's anti-BDS law--allowing a small minority to get their way through force is no way to run a campus. It is not clear what efforts, if any, these campus leaders made to consult with Jewish student groups or the broader law-abiding student body before capitulating to the demands of encampment participants. ``There is an urgent need for systemwide action in both the UC and CSU systems to restore order on campus, stop the adoption of BDS policies, and, where appropriate, appoint new campus leadership.'' I am a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee and chair of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, and I am actively involved in the House of Representatives' ongoing investigations of anti- Semitism and higher education. I tell these university system leaders that I would like a timely response as to what steps they are taking to avoid further damage to California's universities, which have long been a tremendous asset to our State and country. I will, of course, share with the public the response that I receive from these university officials. Moreover, this next week, we have the leader of one campus, UCLA, who will be appearing before our Committee on Education and the Workforce to be held to account for the horrifying events that unfolded on that campus, thanks to the university's failure to take action to protect students. Questions for the CDC

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I wish to take a moment to recognize an outstanding educator of California's Third Congressional District. The communities I represent offer both outstanding public and private school education to our students, due in large part to the dedication, sacrifice, and hard work of our communities' teachers. I would like to recognize Julie Ferguson, a dedicated third grade teacher from the Roseville City School District at Brown Elementary School. Julie began her teaching journey in 1998 and has continued to influence and better the youth of our district for the last 26 years. Mrs. Ferguson has been a dedicated master teacher to countless student teachers. She participates in all professional development with a student-first focus, and she has written numerous grants to help obtain resources, giving her the ability to provide better experiences and opportunities for her students. Julie Ferguson is the definition of a teacher-leader and will be serving as RTA co-president this upcoming year. I thank her for being a faithful, positive, and thoughtful educator contributing to the development of our communities' students. Madam Speaker, it is an honor on behalf of the United States House of Representatives to recognize Julie Ferguson for her outstanding contributions as an educator in California's Third Congressional District. She is making and will continue to make, I know, an enormous difference in the lives of her students. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the Israel Security Assistance Support Act. President Biden's threat to withhold aid from Israel is reckless, unjustifiable, and indecent. It flies in the face of the bipartisan support this House recently showed for continuing support of Israel. The American public understands the importance of the American-Israel relationship, how it is in the national security interests of both countries. The American public understands that Israel is our longstanding ally, a democracy in a region that has very few of them; whereas, Hamas is a terrorist organization that has committed historic atrocities and would not hesitate to do so again. The President is catering to the most radical elements of his party, the sort of elements that have unleashed chaos on college campuses across this country. It is vitally important that reasonable people on both sides of the aisle come together to reassert our support for Israel as it struggles against this terrorist organization.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, a couple of days ago, the former Democratic majority leader of this body called out the radicals in his own party who are reflecting the talking points and rhetoric of Hamas, which, of course, wishes for the destruction of the State of Israel. Unfortunately, it now seems that these radical elements have won out in terms of influencing policy in the White House and, as the former majority leader of Democrats in this House stated, in terms of getting their views that reflect the views of Hamas to become official policy of the White House. The President's recent statements suggesting that he will withhold vital security assistance for Israel are appalling and absolutely unacceptable. They fly in the face of the strong bipartisan vote that this body recently took to provide support for our vital ally, Israel, as it seeks to make sure that Hamas can never do again what it did on October 7. The President's actions, moreover, threaten to prolong the conflict that currently exists and are a threat to the long-term peace and stability of the region. I am glad that we now have legislation before us that will rebuke the President and will ensure that the security assistance that this House has already approved finds its way to our ally, Israel. I also speak in support of H.J. Res. 1213, which denounces calls to defund the police that have been so damaging to public safety and to law enforcement across this country. In my own State of California, we have a number of jurisdictions, like in San Francisco, the East Bay, and Los Angeles, that did defund police and were then forced to restore that funding and to backtrack. The reality is this is just one of a number of policies that have caused crime in California and many other places in this country to spiral out of control and have made the job of our law enforcement officers more and more difficult, to the point at which many departments are having a very difficult time with recruitment and retention and making sure they are fully staffed and have the personnel that they need to keep their communities safe. Policies like defunding the police, policies that have removed the consequences for criminal activity, policies by district attorneys who refuse to enforce the law, and sanctuary policies where individuals who are here illegally and commit serious crimes cannot be turned over to the immigration authorities are destructive policies that have manifested a disrespect toward our men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every single day to keep our communities safe. Madam Speaker, I urge strong bipartisan support for this resolution denouncing calls to defund the police, and I hope that we can swing the pendulum further in the direction of the support that our law enforcement deserves so that we don't continue to face these problems with recruitment and retention and so that we can keep our communities safe.

Mr. KILEY

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, at university after university, we have been seeing acts of moral cowardice and failures of leadership as university presidents cave to the demands of lawless encampments and anti-Semitic demands like cutting ties with Hillel or divesting from Israel or ending study abroad in Israel. Today brought the most egregious example yet where Sonoma State in California, not far from my district, not only agreed to the full set of BDS demands of the encampment but also agreed to convert the encampment into a permanent governing authority to assure that that agreement is enforced in a sufficiently anti-Semitic manner. I am not kidding. You almost can't believe this is real. It says the council here will be composed of members from the encampment, faculty, staff, administrators, Palestinian alumni, and other interested students as determined by Students for Justice in Palestine. Any university leader who is entering into these kind of agreements is elevating groups who are willing to engage in lawless action and to pursue their despicable agenda by force while silencing other groups and silencing any debate to the contrary. Any president who would agree to this is not fit to lead a university in our State or our country.

Mr. KILEY

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