[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 89 (Thursday, May 25, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2623-H2626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     HOUSE REPUBLICANS DID OUR JOB

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 9, 2023, the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, we just heard a lot of speeches at a very 
high volume on the topic of the debt ceiling, and many of them had an 
accompanying visual that said, ``House Republicans are forcing a 
default on our debt.''

[[Page H2624]]

  Now, that is a very strange statement, given that the House has 
already passed a bill to stop us from defaulting on our debt. Weeks 
ago, the House passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling. I will say that 
again. The House has passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling that 
protects Social Security, protects Medicare, protects our veterans, and 
puts us on the more fiscally sustainable path that Americans are 
demanding.
  Now, that bill is sitting in the Senate right now. The Senate could 
pass it at any time, but, of course, the Senate isn't even here this 
week, so they haven't done so.
  As we speak, Speaker McCarthy and President Biden are negotiating. 
This is precisely what the overwhelming majority of Americans--
Democrats, Republicans, Independents--say that they want: A bipartisan 
solution that raises the debt ceiling while making responsible reforms 
to spending.
  The speeches we just heard are advocating precisely the opposite. 
They want to pull the rug out from under this ongoing negotiation, 
bring it to a stop, impose a one-sided, partisan solution that allows 
us to keep spending money without limit.
  Indeed, I was particularly struck by a comment from the Congresswoman 
from New York, who in defense of this idea that we should keep spending 
money without limit said this: If anyone wants to entertain the thought 
that we spend too much, think about the last time that someone said the 
government does too much.
  Those are her words. She said, think about the last time anyone said 
the government does too much.
  Well, actually, my constituents say that a lot. The government does 
too much when it overtaxes and overregulates Americans.
  The government certainly did too much when it shut down schools, shut 
down businesses, shut down churches, and imposed unlawful mandates.
  The government does too much when it pays people more to not work 
than to work.
  The government did too much when it went on a multitrillion-dollar 
spending spree that even Barack Obama's top economic adviser warned 
against and gave us this historic inflation crisis.
  The government does too much when it unleashes 87,000 new IRS agents 
on unsuspecting American taxpayers.
  The government does too much when it shuts down the Keystone pipeline 
and inhibits our ability to produce energy domestically and make us 
energy independent.
  At the end of the day, though, we also need to ask, as we have seen 
the budget just grow and grow and grow without limit, what has the 
result of all that additional spending been?
  Do you look around and see beautiful roads and infrastructure?
  Do you see world-leading schools?
  Do you see a prosperous economy?
  No, of course not.
  Therefore, I do think that as we make reforms to spending, we also 
need to focus on waste, fraud, and abuse. We need to focus not just on 
how much money is being spent but on how that money is being spent. Not 
just on the number of dollars that we are spending, but on the results 
that we are getting.

  I am hoping that that is the new paradigm that will emerge from the 
negotiations going on right now between President Biden and Speaker 
McCarthy, a paradigm of customer service, citizen service, a 
performance-based government. That is what Americans deserve, and I 
encourage the President to negotiate in good faith with Speaker 
McCarthy to move us in that direction.


         President Biden Should Withdraw Julie Su's Nomination

  Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the latest 
disturbing revelations relating to President Biden's nominee for U.S. 
Labor Secretary, Julie Su. The nomination remains stalled, and for good 
reason.
  Ms. Su's record of gross mismanagement, historic, unmatched 
mismanagement as California's labor secretary under Governor Gavin 
Newsom is now well understood. For example, under Ms. Su's tenure, 
$32.6 billion in taxpayer funds were fraudulently paid to death row 
inmates, international criminal syndicates, and other fraudsters.
  This fraud was possible because Su waived fraud prevention 
protections, actually removed guardrails despite repeated warnings, and 
she failed to follow the commonsense practices of other States, and 
then failed to take corrective actions as billions were lost to fraud.
  At the same time that this fraud was occurring, by the way, Su 
improperly denied or delayed for weeks, months, sometimes indefinitely, 
legitimate unemployment claims for millions of Americans.
  Madam Speaker, I have now spoken on this floor several times to make 
sure that Americans are aware of that track record and understand the 
risk that elevating Ms. Su poses.
  It is a reasonable inference that a nominee who failed in her role as 
State labor secretary would likewise fail in the role as U.S. Labor 
Secretary, and certainly has failed to earn such a promotion.
  Well, now that is no longer merely an inference. It is the reality 
because as her nomination has stalled, Ms. Su has all the while been 
serving as the Acting Secretary at the Department of Labor, and 
unsurprisingly, she has brought her record of mismanagement from 
California to the Department of Labor as Acting Secretary, with 
terrible consequences.
  A recent report from The New York Times has uncovered evidence of a 
major spike in unaccompanied migrant minors, children, being funneled 
to work in dangerous jobs in violation of Federal labor law. The 
article is titled, ``As Migrant Children Were Put to Work, U.S. Ignored 
Warnings.''
  The Times reports the White House and Federal agencies were 
repeatedly alerted to signs of children at risk. The warnings were 
ignored or missed.
  To take one example from The Times article: ``. . . a boy working 
construction said he felt ashamed about not knowing how to read. He, 
too, was released in 2021--at age 12--and was immediately put to work 
by a man who had sponsored at least five children.''
  In another case: ``At a day-labor pickup site, a 13-year-old released 
last year to a man he had never met, said he wished he could enroll in 
middle school and start learning English.''
  The problem is much broader than a handful of cases. Signs of migrant 
child labor have been uncovered inside industrial workplaces, including 
several auto part factories. Additionally, over 100 children were found 
working the overnight shift scouring meatpacking plants across the 
country, according to The Times.
  Now, I should note, monitoring workplaces to prevent child labor is 
the job of the Department of Labor. Julie Su was Deputy Labor Secretary 
and is now Acting Labor Secretary. She held those roles as children 
were exploited to work in grueling conditions in violation of Federal 
labor law.
  This pattern of conduct almost exactly mirrors Su's tenure in 
California: repeated warnings of a serious problem, little to no 
preventative action, followed by a refusal to accept responsibility or 
change course when her failures are brought to light.
  Unfortunately, this isn't the only major concern that has emerged 
during Julie Su's short time as U.S. Acting Secretary of Labor. At the 
same time that children have been exploited in workplaces, Ms. Su has 
failed to properly manage the H-2A program for bringing in temporary 
agricultural workers on a legal basis.
  Just this morning, House Education and the Workforce Committee 
Chairwoman Virginia Foxx and I sent an oversight letter to Acting 
Secretary Su regarding serious delays in the processing of H-2A 
applications. In the letter we write: ``It has come to the attention of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce that employers applying 
for labor certifications at the Department of Labor for H-2A 
agricultural workers are facing substantial delays. These delays can be 
tremendously harmful for American agriculture. The arrival of workers 
can be delayed by weeks, causing inefficiencies and supply chain 
disruptions. . . . The planting and harvesting windows offer only a 
short amount of time to meet the season's needs. Our understanding is 
that this worsening problem is caused by unnecessary and avoidable 
delays at the Department of Labor.''
  Incredibly, a Department of Labor official, Mike Rios, who serves as 
regional agricultural enforcement director at the Wage and Hour 
Division, is

[[Page H2625]]

quoted as saying this: ``You can see that the H-2A program literally is 
the purchase of humans to perform difficult work under terrible 
conditions, sometimes including subhuman living conditions.''
  This is a bipartisan program that has been created and has existed 
for a long time. But that is what he had to say about it. He is also 
quoted as saying: ``You can throw a rock and hit a violation in the 
agricultural industry.'' That is a strange thing for him to say 
considering that it is his department and Julie Su's department, the 
Department of Labor, that is responsible for preventing those sorts of 
violations, for enforcing our labor laws.
  Under Julie Su's leadership, the Department of Labor is failing to 
protect workers, including children, is unfairly attacking America's 
farmers, and is failing to support our agriculture sector's workforce 
needs under a program authorized by Federal law.

  She has been Acting Secretary for only a matter of months and was 
Deputy Secretary for 2 years. In that time, she has directly 
transferred her record of mismanagement from California to the rest of 
the Nation.
  I should say, in California right now, we have the Nation's largest 
budget deficit. We have the Nation's second highest unemployment rate. 
We have the Nation's lowest rate of income growth. We have the highest 
rate of poverty. This is the direct result of the mismanagement and the 
antiworker, antibusiness, antiopportunity policies from the likes of 
Julie Su and Gavin Newsom.
  With everything we now know, to elevate Ms. Su would be to take our 
country down the failed path of California with eyes wide open. I urge 
President Biden to choose a different course. It is past time to 
withdraw this nomination.


                  Fentanyl Trafficking Must Be Stopped

  Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Halt All Lethal 
Trafficking of Fentanyl Act, which passed the House of Representatives 
earlier today. This bill fixes a critical loophole and empowers law 
enforcement to continue to have the tools they need to prevent fentanyl 
distribution in communities across America.
  We are seeing staggering amounts of fentanyl pour across the southern 
border, flooding our communities with illicit and lethal pills, killing 
tens of thousands of Americans every year. This is now the leading 
cause of death for young people in our country; more than car 
accidents, more than suicides, more than anything. It is affecting 
every community in our country, including my own.
  During the State of the Union a few months ago, I was honored to have 
as my guests two of our Nation's leading advocates for fentanyl 
awareness, the parents of a young man named Zach Didier, who tragically 
lost his life to fentanyl. He was a senior at Whitney High School, a 
standout student with no history of drug use, and from one pill, he 
tragically lost his life. His parents had to go through the gut-
wrenching experience of seeing him get letters in the mail accepting 
him to some of our Nation's leading universities after he had passed 
away. There is simply no doubt that addressing the fentanyl crisis will 
save the lives of many of my constituents and of people in every 
community in our country.

                              {time}  1315

  This act, the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act, is a major 
step in that direction. In fact, the act itself is common sense.
  Fentanyl is currently classified as a schedule I drug, which gives 
the Drug Enforcement Administration the power to enforce and arrest 
criminals involved in producing and distributing fentanyl. To avoid 
prosecution, criminals have begun to manufacture drugs nearly 
chemically identical to fentanyl.
  Now, these drugs are just as deadly. They mimic fentanyl in every 
way, but they don't fall under the technical definition of fentanyl.
  In response, the Department of Justice and DEA temporarily classified 
these fentanyl-related substances as schedule I drugs. This commonsense 
act makes this temporary classification permanent rather than letting 
it expire.
  Giving law enforcement the tools they need to prosecute those 
responsible and involved in the fentanyl crisis, from producers to 
dealers, is a critical component of the multipronged approach needed to 
save lives and stop fentanyl from destroying our communities. We know 
this approach works.
  After the DEA classified fentanyl-related substances as schedule I 
drugs, law enforcement encounters of these fentanyl copycat drugs fell 
by over 90 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support a proven 
measure that will save lives and to vote ``aye'' on the Halt All Lethal 
Trafficking of Fentanyl Act, which just passed the House today with 
bipartisan support and has the support of President Biden, as well.


                      Replacing Senator Feinstein

  Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the situation 
surrounding the senior Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein.
  The latest news is that our Governor, Gavin Newsom, is now talking 
about appointing Oprah to the U.S. Senate as a replacement.
  Now, Gavin Newsom has been talking about replacing Senator Feinstein 
for over 2 years. He started publicly speculating in 2021 about who he 
would replace, and at that point, Senator Feinstein was barely a third 
of the way through her term.
  California's other senator, Alex Padilla, himself first got his 
office through appointment by Governor Newsom, so if there was, in 
fact, an appointment for Senator Feinstein, then both of our U.S. 
Senators would have been handpicked not by millions of voters but by a 
single person to initially get their jobs.
  At this moment, pressure is coming from all directions when it comes 
to this situation and with a race for 2024 already underway. A number 
of sitting Members of the House have actually overtly called on Senator 
Feinstein to resign.
  Ro Khanna said: ``It is time for Senator Feinstein to resign. We need 
to put the country ahead of personal loyalty. While she has had a 
lifetime of public service, it is obvious she can no longer fulfill her 
duties. Not speaking out undermines our credibility as elected 
representatives of the people.'' That is what he said.
  We also had Congresswoman Tlaib, as well as Congresswoman Kamlager-
Dove, make similar comments, urging the Senator to vacate her office.
  The individual who is being supported by Congressman Khanna, Barbara 
Lee, told KQED that she would accept an appointment to the job if 
Governor Gavin Newsom offered it to her.
  Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, of course, herself is from 
California, is supporting another candidate, Congressman Schiff, and 
there have been a number of recent headlines related to this.
  This comes from Politico, which says that Feinstein's primary 
caregiver is Pelosi's daughter. The subheading says: ``A quiet 
caretaking arrangement has raised questions about whether Nancy Pelosi 
has the ailing Senator's personal interests at heart.''
  Another headline from Washington Examiner: ``Pelosi's secret campaign 
to aid Feinstein and get Schiff into the Senate.''
  From FOX News: ``Pelosi's office denies her daughter is aiding 
Feinstein to help Adam Schiff win a Senate seat.''
  This is just a mess. None of it right now is about what is in the 
interest of Senator Feinstein, the interest of our State, or the 
interest of our country. It is all about politics.
  I believe the solution is to do away with the possibility of a 
gubernatorial appointment altogether. That way, Senator Feinstein can 
make a decision on her own terms. She will know that whether she 
finishes her term or whether she steps down before the end of her term, 
it is California voters who will decide who her successor will be. That 
is what will allow her to make a decision without all the distractions 
of politics at the moment.
  To that end, I have introduced a constitutional amendment doing away 
with appointed Senators. Now, this would make it so the Senate is the 
same as the House. You don't have any appointed Members of the House 
who step onto this floor. Yet, you have had a lot of appointed 
Senators. I want to make it the same way, that if you want to represent 
your State as a United

[[Page H2626]]

States Senator, you need to be elected to do so.
  Indeed, this is really an anachronism, this process of appointing 
Senators in the case of a vacancy, and it has been subject to rampant 
abuse.
  We had Governor Rob Blagojevich go to prison after he essentially 
auctioned off Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat. We have had Governors 
who have appointed their family members, who have appointed their 
spouses. Several Governors have even appointed themselves.
  I am calling on Members of the House and Senate to join me in passing 
that to do away with this anachronistic, antidemocratic process of 
appointing Senators.
  In the meantime, this almost certainly will not take effect prior to 
the current situation with Senator Feinstein being resolved, so I am 
calling on the California State Legislature, which has oversight 
over election laws and itself is responsible for creating the procedure 
for gubernatorial appointment, to address the situation.

  There is actually a little bit of a backstory here. When Senator 
Padilla was appointed to the Senate following the election of Kamala 
Harris as Vice President, I raised an issue at the time with the 
legality of that appointment. Actually, the California State 
Legislative Analyst's Office, the legislative counsel's office in 
California, agreed with me that it would not be constitutional for the 
Governor to appoint a Senator who would then serve out the remainder of 
Kamala Harris' term, which was set to expire in 2022.
  The reason for that is that the Constitution, the 17th Amendment, 
only allows temporary appointments. So, if you appoint someone who 
serves the rest of the term, that is not temporary. That is permanent.
  What the legislature did in response to the legal issue I raised, and 
that the legislative counsel's office agreed with me on, is they passed 
a bill to say that they will have a special election to determine who 
the new Senator is going to be and who is going to finish the term, but 
we are not going to have that special election until the next election. 
That actually happened in November 2022 at the exact same time we held 
the election for who would serve the new 6-year term.
  It was an absurdity. We literally had the same election on the ballot 
twice. One was for the new 6-year term, and the other was just for the 
last couple of months, the lame duck portion of the existing term.
  That was the way our legislature figured out to give basically as 
much advantage to the Governor's chosen appointed Senator as possible 
while still abiding by the letter, if not the spirit, of the 17th 
Amendment.
  What I have been in conversations with some members of the 
legislature about is that they should change this law or, at the very 
least, make an exception to it for the current situation with Senator 
Feinstein, to say that if there is a vacancy, then there will not be an 
appointment, that there will be an immediate special election, and that 
is how the successor will be chosen for the remainder of Senator 
Feinstein's term, which is set to expire in 2024.
  I think that this is what will allow for fairness in the process of 
choosing our next Senator. It will give millions of Californians a say, 
rather than just one individual, and it will give Senator Feinstein the 
ability to make a decision that is best for her, best for the State, 
and best for the country.
  I urge that action on the part of the California Legislature and 
Governor.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________