[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 109 (Friday, June 28, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H4438-H4441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1315
A TURNING POINT FOR CALIFORNIA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kim of California). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 9, 2023, the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California (Mr. Kiley) for 30 minutes.
Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, today is a new day for California.
The United States Supreme Court has just issued a landmark decision
relating to homelessness and has taken the course of action that I
asked it to in an amicus brief that I organized on behalf of myself and
several other Representatives from California and other Western States.
This decision gives our communities back the power to regulate
homelessness in a smart, commonsense, and compassionate way.
Right now, homelessness in California is a crisis. It is a tragedy.
It is a national disgrace. Half of the unsheltered homeless in the
entire country are in California, and the consequences of that
throughout our State have been profound.
The unchecked growth of homeless encampments is causing many of our
communities to deteriorate. It is associated with crime, disease, open
drug use, and many other problems.
Businesses are closing in California seemingly every day because of
this problem. You have families that have to walk around tents or dodge
needles just walking their kids to school or going out to get
groceries. The problem has only continued to get worse and worse.
It is rooted, in many respects, in an extremely misguided and unique,
across the country, decision from the Ninth Circuit, which covers
California and some other States in the West. This decision, known as
Martin v. Boise, tied the hands of States, cities, counties, and local
communities in being able to deal with homeless encampments. It
effectively has made it impossible to ban camping in public
[[Page H4439]]
places or to regulate encampments in our parks, streets, and sidewalks
in a commonsense way, and limit the ability to set up tent encampments.
This decision came from the Ninth Circuit in California covering law in
California. Such a decision does not exist anywhere else in the
country, yet our communities have been subject to it for several years
now.
Today's decision from the U.S. Supreme Court finally looked at
whether that local, lower court decision in the Ninth Circuit was
correct. I wrote an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to
overturn the Boise decision. That is precisely what the Court did
today.
This is an incredibly significant moment for our State. It is
restoring the power to local communities that should never have been
taken away, and it is a chance to truly turn things around. It presents
an opportunity for a much better future in California.
We can now reclaim our public spaces, restore order, and reduce
crime. We can make our communities safer and healthier. Our streets and
sidewalks can become walkable and safer again. Businesses can return,
and local economies can flourish. Our parks can become places for
recreation and can be safe and pleasant for kids and families. Maybe
most important of all, we can get homeless individuals into shelters
and connect them with the services that they need to get back on their
feet and turn their lives around.
This is the true tragedy of the situation that has been allowed to
exist and fester and get worse and worse in California. We have so many
people living on our streets and, all too tragically, nearly every day
dying on our streets; who have substance abuse problems and who have
mental health issues. Yet, because of the state of the law, they are
not getting access to the help they need. These are folks that could
lead great, happy, fulfilling lives, but because of the state of the
law, they are stuck living in terrible conditions, unable to turn their
lives around.
This decision also comes just one day after the California Secretary
of State has certified for November a ballot initiative that would, in
large part, overturn and amend proposition 47, which has also been
linked to the rise of homelessness and crime in California. This
initiative will restore appropriate consequences for repeat thieves. It
will enable us to get treatment for repeat drug offenders, and it will
toughen penalties for fentanyl dealers and help us get that crisis
under control.
These two things, the reversal of the Boise decision and the
opportunity to reform proposition 47, truly are a turning point for
California. For those who look around and wonder every day what became
of our beautiful State, today is a new day.
Our State has been heading in the wrong direction for some time, but
I believe this is a chance to move in a totally different direction.
This is a chance to restore common sense and improve the quality of
life for all Californians. This is a chance to make our communities a
better place to live, work, raise a family, and retire. It is a chance
to become the State that leads the Nation in the right ways again.
California has so much to offer, so much potential, so much
possibility. Today, I am as hopeful for our State as I have been in a
very long time.
President Biden Should Release Interview Recordings
Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, today, I am calling, once again, on
President Biden to release the tapes of his interviews with Special
Counsel Robert Hur.
The House Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena asking for these
recordings, and Biden and his Justice Department have unlawfully
refused and exerted executive privilege in a situation where that
privilege is totally inapplicable.
We don't need to speculate as to why the administration is doing
this. They have told us so directly. In a letter to the Judiciary
Committee, the White House stated that they are afraid that the
recordings would be used against the President and damage him
politically. The thing is that is not an appropriate basis for defying
a congressional subpoena.
Let's remember how this all started. After it was discovered that the
President was unlawfully in possession of classified documents,
Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Special Counsel Robert Hur
to investigate the matter.
After a monthslong investigation, Mr. Hur issued a report in which he
found substantial evidence that the President had committed the crime
of willfully retaining classified documents and his purpose for doing
so was to assist him in writing a book that was going to be sold for
personal profit.
Special Counsel Hur reported the significant evidence of crimes, but
he did not charge the President. One of the reasons he said he did not
do so, even though he testified that a reasonable juror could have
voted to convict, is because he found, based on his experience with the
President in the interviews, that he would come across to a jury as a--
I believe the quote was--``a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man
with a poor memory.''
The Judiciary Committee has multiple legitimate grounds for getting
access to the materials surrounding this investigation. This is a basic
oversight function. This is how it works when it comes to the
separation of powers and checks and balances.
The committee has clearly articulated the rationale for being
entitled to the recordings, yet the Justice Department has refused to
hand them over. Then on the very day that the Judiciary Committee
convened to issue a contempt citation against the Attorney General for
defying the subpoena, suddenly there was an assertion of executive
privilege.
However, there are several reasons that this is invalid. Number one
is that the privilege has been waived, if there ever was a privilege.
The White House has already released transcripts of the interviews, and
so there is no rational basis for saying that the transcripts are not
privileged but the interview itself, the recordings themselves, are
privileged.
Secondly, the administration has now presented contradictory
arguments for withholding the recordings. At first, they said we are
not going to give them to you because we have already given you the
transcripts and that is cumulative, meaning they are the same thing.
Now the administration is arguing that they are so different that one
is privileged and the other is not.
The main basis they have given for withholding the recordings is that
this will somehow discourage witnesses in future investigations from
cooperating with the investigation, but this argument has no merit
whatsoever. Again, they have already handed over the transcripts.
Whatever deterrent effect might exist, surely it would apply to the
possible revelation of the interviews in printed form just as much as
it would in oral form.
That being said, we also need to remember that the President was not
just a witness in this case; he was actually the target of the
investigation. If we are really looking at what effect this would have
on future investigations, it would only apply to that very narrow set
of investigations where a President is being investigated by his own
administration.
Apparently, the argument that the President and Attorney General are
making is that in that future, very narrow circumstance, if the
President knows that the transcript of his interviews will be released,
he will be okay sitting for the interview, but if he knows that the
recording will be released then he won't. Obviously, this makes no
sense whatsoever.
The reason that the White House is grasping for completely frivolous
arguments is because they have actually already revealed their true
motivation. They put it in print. They put it in writing. They said
they are afraid this will be used against the President politically.
That is not the way the rule of law works. I find it offensive, as a
Member of the House, that the White House and the Attorney General have
so little respect for the separation of powers and checks and balances
and are willing to put politics before the rule of law.
Today, I am once again calling upon the President and the Attorney
General to follow the law, comply with the subpoena, and release those
recordings to the public.
Vehicle Choice for Consumers
Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, following the testimony before our
committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, yesterday
by
[[Page H4440]]
Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, I am again calling for the
Senate to pass legislation that has already passed this House to stop
California from banning gas-powered vehicles.
California has announced this ban, and now some 18 other States are
going along with it, States that have linked their emissions policies
to California. The ban is set to go into effect by 2035. This was done,
by the way, simply by regulation, not even by a vote of the
legislature.
Now, I am all for electric vehicles. I have many constituents who
drive them. However, I think that it should be a matter of choice, that
folks should have the chance and the opportunity to select what vehicle
they want to drive.
The interesting thing about yesterday's testimony by Secretary
Buttigieg is that he actually agreed with me. He testified several
times, and confirmed in response to my questioning, that he does not
favor a ban on gas-powered vehicles. He said that this should be a
matter for consumers to choose. Supposedly that would appear to be the
same position that I have, that this should be a matter of consumer
choice.
Then I asked him whether he is against California's attempt to ban
gas-powered vehicles, and the Secretary responded: This is a matter of
States' rights. The State should be able to do whatever it wants.
Here is the problem. The Federal Government, the Biden
administration, is actually enabling California to do this. California
would not have the ability to ban gas-powered cars if it were not for
the Biden administration giving it special authority to do so, giving
California a waiver under the Clean Air Act.
This is something that California asked the Biden administration for
and the Biden administration granted. Saying they are just deferring to
what the State is doing, that argument has no merit. In fact, it is
precisely the actions of the Biden administration that is allowing
California to take this completely overreaching action of saying we are
going to ban all gas-powered vehicles within about a decade.
{time} 1330
I was very happy that legislation that I am supporting, the
Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, passed the House of
Representatives.
This would simply rescind the authority that the Biden administration
gave California to ban gas-powered cars. It passed the House of
Representatives, but it has been languishing in the Senate.
I think it is incredibly important that the Senate take action so
that we restore the confidence on the part of consumers in California
and now in many other parts of the country that their right to choose
which vehicle to buy will not be taken away.
High-Speed Rail Boondoggle
Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, following yesterday's testimony by
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, I am, again, calling for
oversight and, ideally, the end of the high-speed rail projects in
California.
The Biden administration recently awarded California high-speed rail
$3.1 billion, and Secretary Buttigieg stood behind the project in his
testimony yesterday.
However, this project has now been going on for 16 years. Its cost
has multiplied many times over. Estimates are it is now around $128
billion, and The L.A. Times reported that there is a $100 billion
funding shortfall even with the $3.1 billion that the Biden
administration provided.
Yet, nevertheless, despite this enormous increase in cost and despite
the fact that essentially nothing has been built for 16 years, the
Biden administration is giving life support for the project in a way
that will cause Californians to have to keep paying taxes to support it
going forward and in a way, as well, that takes money and funding away
that could have gone toward maintaining our roads and providing the
transportation services that California so desperately needs.
I asked Secretary Buttigieg about a report from The New York Times
that the bullet train actually is not even on track to be finished this
century. It is not on track to be finished this century, and the
Secretary disagreed with The New York Times. He said that it will be
finished this century. In fact, he said that it would be finished by
2050, by mid-century, although he would not provide any further
estimate other than to say that it should be completed within the next
26 years.
However, Madam Speaker, if you look at people who have been directly
involved in the project, they say it is not going to be finished at
all.
Michael Tannenbaum, who was the first leader of the High-Speed Rail
Authority, said: I realize the system didn't work. I don't know how
they can build it now.
Dan Richard, who was also chairman of the High-Speed Rail Authority,
in fact, he was the longest serving chairman, said: I don't think it is
an existing project. It is a loser.
Rich Tolmach, who is head of the nonprofit California Rail
Foundation, said that it will never be operable.
Why is the Biden administration giving it $3.1 billion?
Moreover, why is a project that has a $100 billion funding shortfall
allowed to continue?
The reality is that high-speed trains have been built in many parts
of the world, and folks who travel abroad in America see it work.
Indeed, one of the first operators of the High-Speed Rail Authority
worked on it here in California for several years and then said: We are
out. Enough is enough.
They left. They said that it is too politically dysfunctional here,
so they decided to go to North Africa where they said it was less
politically dysfunctional. Indeed, they did bring a high-speed rail
train on line in Morocco in 2018.
This project has failed not because of the limits of the technology
or even necessarily because of a lack of demand, it has failed because
of political failures. At this point, our State would be much better
served if we stopped throwing good money after bad.
I am fortunate and I am glad to see that the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee led by Chairman Graves has opened up an
investigation into the High-Speed Rail Authority. I believe it is about
time there was finally some accountability for what might be one of the
biggest boondoggles in the history of the United States.
recognizing pottery world
Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I now wish to recognize a few outstanding
organizations in my district.
Madam Speaker, I wish to mark and celebrate the 50-year anniversary
of Pottery World, a valued retailer in California's Third Congressional
District.
Throughout the years, this business enterprise has served as a
premier destination for one's home and garden design needs.
In 1974, Jim and Sharon Rodda started the business by setting up shop
at an open-air market, Denio's Auction, in Roseville.
Their first outlet was on Auburn Boulevard where they sold salt and
pepper shakers, dinnerware, and cookie jars.
While the style, times, and types of items sold at the store have
changed, one constant has remained, and that is their commitment to
selling pots.
Marked by the American entrepreneurial spirit, a passion for
beautiful design, and tireless devotion, working 7 days a week for 7
years, the Rodda family's dream blossomed into a thriving business and
became a family legacy.
In 2000, their second retail location in Rocklin opened, featuring a
spectacular 30,000-square foot indoor showroom and a 3-acre outdoor
display area.
The Rocklin retail complex is completed by the highly acclaimed
restaurant, the Pottery World Cafe. In 2008, they opened their third
store in El Dorado Hills.
Through this growth, their family business now employs over 80 people
and offers thousands of unique luxury items, including pottery imported
from seven different countries.
Pottery World is known not only for having a large selection of
indoor and outdoor living amenities, fountains, pottery, and a
boutique, but also for their generous spirit and participation in their
community.
I applaud Pottery World for their five decades of contributions to
our local economy and dedication to inspiring luxury home decor and
design.
Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives
and California's Third Congressional District, I am proud to recognize
and congratulate Pottery World for reaching
[[Page H4441]]
this significant milestone, and I wish them continued success in the
years to come.
Recognizing Flights to Freedom
Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize
Flights to Freedom for their significant contributions toward fighting
human trafficking.
Sadly, human trafficking occurs across our country in all 50 States,
and it has become one of the fastest growing criminal activities in the
world as an approximately $150-billion-a-year global criminal industry.
This form of modern-day slavery can include sexual exploitation,
domestic servitude, child soldiers, forced labor, organ selling,
financial bonding, forced marriage, and extortion.
However, Flights for Freedom is dedicated to partnering with law
enforcement and government agencies to provide rescued human
trafficking victims with private and safe air transportation to
transport them to safety and reunite them with their family, loved
ones, and support groups.
It is because of organizations like Flights for Freedom that children
and other victims are able to find a way out of these horrific
situations, recover, and lead a successful life.
Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives
and California's Third Congressional District, I am honored to
recognize Flights to Freedom today for their dedicated efforts toward
ending human trafficking and providing hope, as well as a way home.
100th Anniversary of Alice Piper Decision
Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, I wish to celebrate the centennial
anniversary of the Piper v. Big Pine School District of Inyo County
decision which led to the desegregation of Native American youth in
California public schools.
At a young age of 15 years old, Alice Piper, a member of the Big Pine
Paiute Tribe of California, was joined by six other Native American
students from Inyo County who sought to enroll in the new, local public
school.
When they were denied entry due to their Native American heritage,
these young students courageously fought for equality by taking their
case to the California Supreme Court. On June 2, 1924, the Supreme
Court of California unanimously ruled in Piper's favor, opening the
door for Native American students in the State of California to attend
public schools.
This ruling was cited as precedent in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court
Brown v. Board of Education case, which, of course, established racial
segregation in public schools as unconstitutional.
Alice Piper was a trailblazer in California history whose bravery and
tenacity was instrumental toward expanding the civil rights and
educational opportunities available to millions of students across the
State, and eventually the country, for generations to come.
As a former educator myself, I am proud to stand on behalf of the
United States House of Representatives and join the Big Pine Paiute
Tribe and Native American communities throughout the State of
California in commemorating, 100 years later, this landmark decision
that changed the course of history and ended the racial segregation of
Native American students in California schools.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________