[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 90 (Thursday, May 23, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3514-H3519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             CONDEMNING ANTI-SEMITISM AT U.S. UNIVERSITIES

  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. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Rutherford).


   Congratulating Matthew Gapinski for 42 Years of Dedicated Federal 
                                Service

  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Matthew Gapinski of 
Jacksonville, Florida, for his 42 years of dedicated Federal service to 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to our Nation.
  He graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 
1984 and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers.
  Following graduation, he spent 8 years on Active-Duty assignments in 
Korea, North Carolina, and, Kevin, in your State, California.
  He continued his service in the U.S. Army Reserves as commander of a 
company and served on Active Duty with the 350th Civil Affairs for 
Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and 2004. He retired from the Army 
Reserves in September 2008 at the rank of lieutenant colonel.
  Matt graduated from Stanford University with his master's in 
environmental engineering and science and began his civilian career in 
1994 working at the Presidio of San Francisco.

[[Page H3515]]

  Following that role, he worked for the Army Corps at the San 
Francisco District in the planning division and then to the Savannah 
division as a project manager and eventually the Jacksonville District 
as a senior project manager.
  Since 2007, Matt has been the executive assistant and congressional 
liaison for the Jacksonville District where he served as the main point 
of contact for all congressional inquiries related to the district's 
civil works and military programs.
  I can tell you, in that role, he also supported Jacksonville District 
Commanders, the South Atlantic Division Commanders, Chief of Engineers, 
and the Assistant Secretaries of the Army for Civil Works in their 
annual testimony before Congress and in their written responses to 
inquiries from Congress.
  During this time, Matt also served temporarily as the acting deputy 
commander of the Jacksonville District and chief of the Military, 
Interagency, and International branch.
  Through his expert knowledge of the civil works process, Matt 
consistently provided timely and accurate information and service to 
the public, to Members of Congress and their staff, and really was just 
an amazing resource for all of us in northeast Florida.
  Matt has received numerous awards in recognition of his outstanding 
efforts, including the Superior Civilian Service Medal and the Legion 
of Merit.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to join me today to thank Mr. Gapinski 
for his contributions to the Corps of Engineers, his local community, 
and the United States of America.
  I sincerely wish Matt and his wife, Nina Kannatt, every success in 
the future and a very restful retirement.
  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.

                              {time}  1445

  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.

[[Page H3516]]

  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

[[Page H3517]]

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.

                              {time}  1500

  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.

[[Page H3518]]

  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.

                              {time}  1515


   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

[[Page H3519]]

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 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 back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________