[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.

                          ____________________