[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 115 (Thursday, July 11, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H4620-H4623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GROWING CONCERNS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 9, 2023, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California
(Mr. Kiley) for 30 minutes.
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks there have been growing
concerns among many Americans relating to the capabilities of the
President to carry out his duties. Not only that, but there have been
concerns about the extent to which some in the White House, perhaps
also in the Congress, have limited the ability of Americans to get
access to the information that they need to form their own judgment as
to those capabilities.
I think there is a lot that is going to need to be investigated in
the weeks and months ahead in that regard.
I wanted to just highlight today what might be the most disturbing
facet of this situation, and that is the systematic efforts by the
Attorney General, the Justice Department, and the White House to
illegally defy a congressional subpoena in order to deprive Americans
of access to this sort of information.
I want to specifically highlight what is perhaps exhibit A, you might
even call it a smoking gun, that the White House acted in a consciously
political way and deprived Americans of access to information, defied a
congressional subpoena, defied the idea of the separation of powers and
checks and balances for purely political reasons.
For months, the Judiciary Committee, under its lawful oversight
authority, asked for the Justice Department to produce the interviews
that President Biden had with Special Counsel Hur. These interviews
were conducted, of course, as part of an investigation into the
President's mishandling of classified information. The ultimate report
produced by Special Counsel Hur stated that there was significant
evidence the President had broken the law, but he was not going to
recommend charges for, among other reasons, the fact that the President
exhibited diminished faculties and a poor memory in the course of these
interviews.
The House Judiciary Committee had several legitimate bases to request
access to those interviews, and, indeed, the Justice Department
appeared to agree in as much as they did produce transcripts of those
interviews. However, they have adamantly and consistently refused to
actually provide the best available evidence of materials that they
have agreed are pertinent to our oversight responsibilities, and that
is the recordings themselves.
These recordings exist. There are audio recordings that continue to
be suppressed and concealed from the American people.
What I have here is the letter from the White House counsel Edward
Siskel written to the chairman of the Oversight Committee and the
Judiciary Committee formally invoking executive privilege. This
happened after weeks and weeks and weeks of stonewalling from the
Justice Department. It happened moments before a hearing was convened
to hold the Attorney General to cite him in contempt. Suddenly, the
President exerts executive privilege.
What they said in this letter, this line right here, is really the
giveaway. You might even call it a smoking gun. It says: ``The absence
of a legitimate need for the audio recordings''--of course we had a
legitimate need for them cited repeatedly in correspondence, but this
is what he said: ``The absence of a legitimate need for the audio
recordings lays bare your likely goal--to chop them up, distort them,
and use them for partisan political purposes. Demanding such sensitive
and constitutionally protected law enforcement materials from the
executive branch because you want to manipulate them for potential
political gain is inappropriate.''
First off, this might remind you of what we have been hearing now for
weeks and for months about various videos posted online, that these
were somehow selectively edited, these were deepfakes, these were
eliminating context. We now know that all of that was fairly bogus in
terms of what Americans have now seen plainly with their own eyes.
What is clearly going on in this paragraph is the White House is
relying on a political justification for withholding materials, but
they know they can't state that explicitly, so they simply accuse us on
the committee of having a political motivation. You don't even have to
read between the lines. It is stated right there directly that they are
afraid that these materials would be used against the President for
potential political gain. In other words, they are afraid that they
would be politically harmful to the President. That is not--that is
not--a valid legal basis for defying a congressional subpoena. It is
not a valid basis for asserting executive privilege, and it is very
revealing as far as what the White House knew about the recordings and
about the concerns that the American people have in overwhelming
numbers right now is they feared that what was
[[Page H4621]]
revealed in those recordings would be politically disadvantageous to
the President.
As we continue to learn more about the efforts that have been
undertaken by the White House to deprive Americans of their right to
know the most crucial of information, I think that this report and this
entire series of events related to the subpoena issued to the Attorney
General is going to be a very important starting point.
{time} 1315
Celebrating Proposition 36
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an important moment
for the people of my State of California with the official
qualification of Proposition 36 for the November ballot.
This is the initiative to end the era of Proposition 47 in
California, which has been responsible for a huge increase in theft,
other crimes, homelessness, drug use, drug overdoses, and a whole host
of other problems.
The initiative has qualified for the ballot and will be voted on by
Californians this November, and I believe it will pass overwhelmingly
this November in spite of one of the most corrupt schemes in the
history of our State that was cooked up by the Governor of California--
actually, a series of repeated schemes, all very novel and
unprecedented in character, all directly meant to undermine the
democratic process in California, all meant to continue to make our
communities unsafe, and all of which, despite the Governor having an
overwhelmingly supermajority legislature, failed.
The people of California, despite the Governor's best efforts, will
have the chance to reverse one of the most damaging laws in our State's
history. I think that it is simply important to note, for all Americans
to see, when you have something like this that happens within our
system where you have an elected official--in this case, the Governor--
who directly seeks to undermine the democratic process. After they
tried and tried to stop this initiative from getting the requisite
signatures to qualify for the ballot in every way, they began a scheme
to try to remove it from the ballot, using a host of pressure tactics
to try to get the organizers of the initiative to withdraw.
When that failed, the Governor came up with a truly unprecedented
scheme where they inserted poison pills into a smattering of existing
public safety bills in the legislature. These poison pills stated
something truly incredible, which is to say that they would be
automatically reversed if voters passed the end Prop. 47 initiative in
November.
The point of this was to give the attorney general a pretext for
lying to voters about what the initiative would do. They would say
because now there was this poison pill that would reverse all of these
public safety bills, if voters pass the initiative, then the initiative
is actually an anti-public safety bill.
Fortunately, the legislature ultimately refused to do the Governor's
bidding. They said this is too corrupt for us. We want nothing to do
with it, and that plan failed. Then, in the eleventh hour, when it was
past the deadline even to put an initiative on the ballot, the Governor
offered up a Hail Mary where he said: Okay, I can't get the end Prop.
47 initiative off the ballot, so what I am going to do is to put on my
own competing initiative, which is watered down, which is a very weak
initiative, but that will be enough to confuse voters.
What is more, he put in there that if his initiative passed with
higher numbers, then the other initiative would be wiped out in its
entirety, even though there are a lot of things in it that didn't
conflict.
It was literally a mechanism that the Governor proposed, drafted, and
introduced in the legislature to overturn the results of a democratic
election in California where the end 47 initiative could have passed
with 60 percent of the vote. Nevertheless, it would have been null and
void, according to the trick that the Governor tried to implement.
He even moved back the deadline for propositions to qualify. He even
moved back the deadline for the secretary of state to number the
proposition so that his own proposition--the imposter initiative, we
called it--would get a higher number and then have a better chance of
getting more votes. Fortunately, this scheme failed, as well.
Once again, his own supermajority in the legislature refused to do
the Governor's bidding. So now, it is official. Californians will have
the opportunity to vote on what has now been numbered as Proposition
36. It will be a fair vote where voters can decide whether we want to
continue with this failed experiment or whether we want to return
respect to our law enforcement officials, have appropriate consequences
for thieves, be able to get drug offenders the treatment they need, and
be able to hold fentanyl dealers accountable.
That is what this initiative is going to do. I condemn, in the
strongest possible terms, the concerted efforts by the Governor of
California to thwart and undermine our democratic process in an attempt
to keep our communities unsafe.
Supporting the SAVE Act
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Safeguard
American Voter Eligibility Act, the SAVE Act, which requires
individuals to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in
Federal elections.
I am very grateful to say that I voted for this bill today and that
it has passed out of the House of Representatives with bipartisan
support, though not nearly as much bipartisan support as it should
have.
In States like Massachusetts, Ohio, and Virginia, noncitizens have
recently been removed from the voting rolls, and many of those
noncitizens, it appears, have actually voted.
The Arizona secretary of state website is currently falsely promoting
the idea that individuals who fail to present proof of citizenship when
registering will be eligible to vote in Federal elections.
We also have several municipalities, including in California, that
have explicitly authorized noncitizens to vote in municipal elections.
H.R. 8281, the SAVE Act, seeks to address these problems in a couple of
ways.
It will, number one, require an individual to provide proof of
citizenship when registering to vote in Federal elections and, number
two, provide States with access to existing Federal databases so they
can clean up their voter rolls and remove noncitizens from the rolls.
This should be a pretty commonsense idea, that only American citizens
should vote in American elections. It is astonishing to me that you had
a couple of hundred people in the House of Representatives today who
voted against this, although, fortunately, it did pass, again, with
bipartisan support.
One of the objections to the bill was very interesting. The objection
was: Wait a minute, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in
Federal elections. We don't need this law.
It is also already illegal for folks to cross our border illegally.
It is kind of a tautology. It is illegal to immigrate illegally.
Does that mean it is not happening? No. Of course, it is happening in
an overwhelming way unlike we have ever seen in our country's history,
with millions and millions of people coming into this country
illegally.
What we have learned from this administration's approach to illegal
immigration is that simply having something be unauthorized under our
laws is sometimes insufficient to address the problem.
While it is true it is already illegal to come into this country
without being granted a pathway to be here legally, nevertheless, we
need to pass bills like H.R. 2 that provide enforcement and safeguards
and that ensure that the law is being followed.
In a similar vein, even though it is already illegal for noncitizens
to cast a ballot, we need to have this legislation to put in place
equivalent safeguards to make sure that it doesn't occur.
That is why I am encouraging the Senate to act promptly, now that it
is in its court, to pass the SAVE Act to close the loopholes that are
allowing this to happen, to enhance our election security, to minimize
the risk of outside interference, and to restore and protect Americans'
confidence in our elections.
Addressing FAFSA Deadlines
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, every year, millions of high schoolers across
the country who are interested in pursuing higher education fill out
the Federal
[[Page H4622]]
Application for Federal Student Aid or FAFSA.
The FAFSA is designed to make post-secondary education accessible and
affordable for students across the United States and let students know
what Federal student aid, Pell grants, or work-study programs are
available to them.
Traditionally, the FAFSA is released by October 1 every year, giving
students, families, and schools plenty of time to decide what post-
secondary education is right for them. Unfortunately, the Department of
Education under President Biden has been unable to meet this standard.
As early as 2022, the Department of Education refused to commit to the
traditional October 1 release of the FAFSA application for the 2024-
2025 school year.
Mr. Speaker, 6 months later, in March, the Department finally
admitted that it would be delayed until ``sometime in December,'' only
to reveal in November that the launch date would be on December 31, the
very end of December.
When the forms were finally released, processing of completed FAFSAs
was delayed for months. Once processing finally began, millions
contained calculation errors, rendering them useless for schools and
requiring reprocessing. This caused great confusion for schools and
families, and schools were forced to push back deadlines, causing
uncertainty and stress for fall enrollment as if the process of
applying for college isn't stressful enough.
Current law recommends FAFSA be released by October 1 but allows the
Department of Education to delay the FAFSA release until January 1.
Last year, the Department abused the statutory gap and continually
failed to give a clear date for when the FAFSA would be released.
That is why I am cosponsoring a piece of legislation that passed the
Committee on Education and the Workforce yesterday, the FAFSA Deadline
Act. The FAFSA Deadline Act gives students, families, and schools much-
needed clarity and stability by ensuring the FAFSA is released on
October 1.
Choosing the right college is stressful, and students and families
should not have to deal with added uncertainty from the Department of
Education. This legislation will prevent any future delayed rollouts by
the Department of Education.
I am proud to have supported it in committee, to be a cosponsor. I am
hoping it will soon pass the House and Senate and be signed into law by
the President.
Preserving Lake Tahoe
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent truly one of the
most beautiful places in the entire world, Lake Tahoe, and I am very
proud to be a sponsor of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization
Act.
We got some good news just this week. The Senate has acted on this
legislation to extend the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act for another 10
years.
Lake Tahoe is a national treasure, and we must honor our commitment
to preserving it for generations to come, which is what this
legislation seeks to assist with.
For over 50 years, Presidents, Governors, Senators, and
Representatives from both parties have worked in a bipartisan fashion
to protect the natural beauty and wonder of Lake Tahoe. I was honored
to join many of them last year at the Lake Tahoe Summit and will be
doing so again this August.
{time} 1330
Nearly 80 percent of the land in the Lake Tahoe Basin is controlled
by the U.S. Forest Service.
The bipartisan Lake Tahoe Restoration Act provides the Federal share
for the environmental restoration projects in the basin in partnership
with California, Nevada, local governments, and nonprofit and for-
profit partners.
Since its enactment, a total of $104.7 million has been appropriated
for the current Lake Tahoe Restoration Act as of fiscal year 2023,
which is about 27 percent of the total authorization.
While Congress has steadily increased the pace of appropriations
under the bill since its enactment, the act has a significant level of
spending authority remaining under what was originally a 7-year bill.
Since its previous authorization, funds have gone to more than 700
projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and Lake Tahoe's waters are the
clearest they have been in decades. We are keeping Lake Tahoe blue.
Nonetheless, that won't happen without continued work on the part of
all of these stakeholders and the assistance provided by this
legislation.
Lake Tahoe welcomes millions of visitors from around the world every
year and is home to 55,000 residents. I remain committed to continuing
the long history of bipartisan leadership that has preserved and
protected this special place.
It is up to all of us working together to assure that future
generations will continue to be able to experience the beauty that
those of us who live or vacation or travel to Tahoe have the great
fortune to experience.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to act quickly on this bipartisan
legislation, and I urge the President to sign it into law.
Honoring the Memory of Jackie Weston
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I wish to take
a moment to honor the memory of Jackie Weston, an Auburn resident and
community leader who, sadly and tragically, passed away recently at the
age of 40.
Jackie was an anchor to the local business community, serving as the
chief executive officer of the Auburn Chamber of Commerce.
Her journey began when she moved to Auburn, California, in 1985,
where she became an integral part of the community, graduating from
Placer High School and embedding herself into the fabric of the
community.
She dedicated herself to the betterment of Auburn, channeling her
enthusiasm and dedication into countless community initiatives.
Jackie embodied the essence of leadership, tirelessly volunteering
her time, organizing parades, nurturing the local business community,
and extending a helping hand to all.
Her impact on Auburn has been profound, and it will be enduring,
leaving an indelible mark that will resonate for a long, long time to
come.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States House of
Representatives and California's Third Congressional District, I wish
to extend my deepest condolences to Jackie's partner, Ian; her
children, Solomon and Evelyn; and the countless others whose lives were
touched by her remarkable spirit and generosity.
Celebrating the 25th Anniversary of Scott's Seafood Roundhouse
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to mark and celebrate the 25-year
anniversary of Scott's Seafood Roundhouse in Folsom, California.
In 1976, Scott's Seafood Grill & Bar opened in San Francisco, but it
was in 1999 when John and Suzanne Cook brought Scott's to the Folsom
community.
For the past 25 years, the bar and grill has served as a premier
community establishment, engaging and enriching Folsom and the broader
region with its quality food and service.
While it has always been located in Folsom, it moved 4 years ago to
the city's historic district. Now located in the heart of Folsom,
Scott's Seafood is becoming a local household name that was able to
navigate through the immense challenges of COVID-19, as well as the
devastating passing of the owner, John Cook, in 2022.
However, the resilience and continued passion for their business is
very much evident in John's widow, Suzanne.
Scott's Seafood is known not only for their fresh seafood and
delicious meals, but also for their commitment to actively
participating in and serving their community.
It is a true honor to represent exemplary businesses, such as Scott's
Seafood, here in Congress.
Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives,
it is my privilege to recognize Scott's Seafood Roundhouse for reaching
this significant milestone of 25 years in business.
I congratulate them, and I thank them for all they do for our
community.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
[[Page H4623]]
____________________