[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 86 (Friday, May 17, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3346-H3351]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  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, 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.

[[Page H3347]]

  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.

                              {time}  1145

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
       Dear President Drake and Chancellor Garcia: 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.
       While Chancellor Garcia's decision to place President Lee 
     on leave is a start, the problem is not limited to that 
     campus. Other examples include UC Riverside, which agreed to 
     review its investments and explore the removal of its 
     endowment from the UC system, while also agreeing to 
     discontinue its business school's study abroad programs to 
     Israel; UC Berkeley, which agreed to start a ``rigorous 
     examination'' of the school's investments; CSU Sacramento, 
     which agreed to divest from Israel-tied investments; and CSU 
     San Francisco, which agreed to reexamine its investments.
       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 system-wide 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. As a Member of the Education & the 
     Workforce Committee and Chair of the Workforce Protections 
     Subcommittee, I am actively involved in the House of 
     Representatives' ongoing investigations of anti-Semitism in 
     higher education. I would appreciate a timely response as to 
     what steps you are taking to avoid further damage to 
     California's public universities, which have long been a 
     tremendous asset to our state and country.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Kevin Kiley,
                                               Member of Congress.

  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

[[Page H3348]]

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 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?

                              {time}  1200

  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. 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

[[Page H3349]]

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

[[Page H3350]]

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 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.

                              {time}  1215

  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 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 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 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.

[[Page H3351]]

  

                          ____________________