[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]]

  

                          ____________________