Kevin McCarthy

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. All of these bills will be focusing on one thing: fighting our Nation's opioid epidemic. America has the greatest mission statement in the world: form a more perfect Union. This is our task here. I am encouraged by all of the good things I am seeing around the country. We have 6.7 million jobs open. We have just created our millionth job since the tax cut has been passed. Unemployment is tying a 50-year low. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in the last 49 years, there has only been 7 months where unemployment has been below 4 percent, and two of those months were April and May that we just went through. Americans' net worth has increased to $100 trillion. That is $7 trillion since the election, the highest we have ever seen. We also just passed last night, Mr. Speaker, the largest rescission package in the history of Congress. But I also know that it is our responsibility to work every day to make our Nation even stronger. So, Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of the deadliest drug crisis in history. For the first time, drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 50. 174 of our friends and family, our neighbors, are lost every day to substance abuse. Simply put, we need all hands on deck to attack this crisis. That is why we will bring over 60 bills from eight different committees to the floor in the coming weeks to combat this crisis and save lives. This includes: H.R. 5788, the Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act, sponsored by Representative Mike Bishop. This bill will close loopholes in international shipping to stop the flow of synthetic opioids; Next, H.R. 5735, the THRIVE Act, sponsored by Representative Andy Barr, which would establish a pilot program for evidence-based transitional housing nonprofits that have experience in recovery and skills training; H.R. 2851, the Stop Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, sponsored by Representative John Katko. This bill will enable law enforcement to more swiftly respond to synthetic drugs and keep our communities safe. Along with numerous other bills, passing these will truly help us form a more perfect Union. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend across the aisle. We are no strangers to droughts in California, but a 44-year championship drought is quite something. So congrats to my friend's beloved Washington Capitals on finally winning Lord Stanley's cup. It was a fun series to watch. It was a well-deserved victory for your team and for all of the fans of this region. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I said it before, and I will say it again: Republicans are committed to solving this issue for good, not passing a bill and patting ourselves on the back, but for dealing with this issue in a meaningful way that is beneficial to hardworking Americans. As you know, my door is always open. You have been there many times. I am committed to bringing all Members to the table and working together to solve this problem. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I need to go to a meeting dealing with this subject. I am late to it right now. But we will continue to work to solve this problem.

Mr. McCARTHY. Well, I thank my friend for yielding, and this is just a clear example of the difference in philosophical opinion. We had this same debate when it came to the tax bill--that it was going to be Armageddon; if people got bonuses, it would be crumbs; and that we would be in a really worse position than we are. Well, as we found out, Mr. Speaker, that is totally untrue. The economy is stronger. Again, in the last 49 years there has only been 7 months in the history of America where unemployment was below 4 percent. Two of those seven months are April and May of this year. We just hit 1 million new jobs, based upon that tax cut. More so since the election. Household wealth has increased by $7 trillion just since the election. Now, this is the philosophical difference. Currently, two-thirds of able-bodied adults report no earned income at all. Why? Because the SNAP program is letting them down. Not a single child or family who currently qualifies will be cut off. Our proposal only applies to those age 18 to 59. It exempts pregnant women, individuals who are mentally or physically disabled, and the primary caregivers of a child under the age of 6. What we do is give them the job training to get back into the workforce. Because of that, according to the Foundation for Government Accountability, 83 percent of Americans support work requirements for SNAP. That includes 71 percent of Democrats. Unfortunately, when that bill came to the floor, every Democrat said no. Mr. Speaker, that was the same thing that happened when we gave the American public tax cuts and created new jobs and the lowest unemployment--unemployment claims gives you the best projection of unemployment--in 44 years. Forty-four years, Mr. Speaker. Do you know another statistic that just came out? Small businesses are the greatest creators of new jobs. Since 1974 they have always surveyed them and they asked them this question: Is now a good time to expand? Mr. Speaker, remember what a small business is. They don't have a great amount of capital. It is at its highest level since they took this poll. So I don't mind having a philosophical difference of agreement, because there is a contrast between us. There is a contrast in philosophy. One believes it would be Armageddon if you let people keep more of what they earn. The facts don't pan out. Thankfully, we were successful, Mr. Speaker. The American people can keep more. The other thing that happened, Mr. Speaker, is that 48 out of 50 States have a lower electrical bill. Also, in one company, 1.2 million of their employees have longer maternity leave. The sad part is, I wish I could have sat here and said: As America, making it a more perfect Union, this whole body voted for it. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, one side had to carry the load.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would be upset, too, if I voted against every economic bill brought to this floor that had the opportunity to grow America--and the statistics prove it. It is not me saying it. It is The New York Times. To be frank, Mr. Speaker, I don't think they have ever said many nice things about Republicans. But this is what they said about the economics of today: ``We ran out of words to describe how good the job numbers are. The economy is in a sweet spot, with steady growth and broad improvement in the labor market.'' That is The New York Times. I don't have a problem if you are upset by the fact that the economy is exactly what we said would happen if we got the economic changes we desired. Just as when we looked at deregulation, we will continue to make this move forward. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard many times on the other side of the aisle in these colloquies: Work with us. Work with us on CHIP. But, Mr. Speaker, they are being directed by people higher up not to work with us in the committee, just as they said not to work with us on the farm bill, when we were working together the whole time. But we kept the things they wanted inside that bill. Just as we voted on this floor a little earlier today, there was a message that went out from the leader on the other side to not vote at all. So they held their votes until it passed, and 23 brave, courageous individuals on the other side broke from the letter that the leadership asked them not to vote for. What was it about? It was about VA and veterans. I think you have got to stop playing politics. Just last night on this floor, Mr. Speaker, I heard from my dear friend who was very concerned because there was an agreement and the trust was going to be broken. Even though at the end of the day he couldn't vote for that agreement and trust that we worked so hard together on in an omni, that if we did anything in a rescission package to cut funding that the taxpayers would want us to do, that he couldn't deal with the omni. So I took him at his word. He said: You had 1, 2, 3 years in these committees. They just sat there in these programs. There is a program in there that has $4.7 billion parked by the Obama administration to help fund electric cars. What was the one automotive company that went bankrupt and took the money as well? Fisker. That is $4.7 billion. Nothing has been done on that since 2011. So I took him at his word. We worked with the administration. We brought the largest rescission package here, because, yes, we want to take care of this debt. We think it is the responsibility of everybody here. But, no, those words rang hollow that day. There wasn't a vote for that, but we were able to pass it anyway. I look right here at the Economic Cycle Research Institute in October 2016. It is their numbers. There was a 2 percent average growth under Obama versus 2.7 under Bush. In terms of average pace of GDP growth, Obama's was the slowest expansion on record. The numbers prove otherwise on what you say, but the most important thing it proves is that people are working. People care about the security of their job. People care about the security and safety of the country. I feel very thankful that next week our President will be sitting down with the leader of North Korea with the hopes that we can make this world more secure. We are building the security of jobs. We are building the security of the world. I would firmly believe: Let the American public judge whether they are better off today than they were a few short years ago. I don't need numbers to show it. I can just see every statistic, the jobs, the people, and I am proud of that fact. I ask, Mr. Speaker, the other side to follow through. I have heard time and again: I would never shut the government down; we wouldn't go that political. But when the day came, they did. Politics and the election are over. Let's put people before politics. Let's make sure this country is secure economically and secure with safety around the world. And that is exactly what we are doing here.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Kern River Valley Healthcare District. Nestled in the rolling hills of the southern Sierra Nevada mountain range in Kern County, California, the Kern River Valley Healthcare District was established in 1967 to serve the towns of Kernville, Lake Isabella, Wofford Heights, and many other communities that call the Kern River Valley home. Over the years, the District has grown with the community it serves, providing care for an area that once numbered in the thousands to now playing an integral role in a community with a population now in the tens of thousands. The Kern Valley Hospital forms the core of the District's services. Recognized as a small rural hospital, Kern Valley Hospital offers both inpatient and outpatient services, capable of hosting up to 27 patients in its Acute Care Unit at a time. The hospital also has a robust skilled nursing program, offering classes, activities, and 24-hour care for up to 74 patients. To keep at the forefront of a rapidly-developing field, the hospital has recently begun offering telemedicine to provide its patients the best treatment at the greatest convenience. The work accomplished in the District would not be possible without the assistance of the Hospital Foundation and Auxiliary, which was established shortly after the hospital's inception in 1968. The Pink Ladies and Blue Guys of the Auxiliary help make the work of the District possible, investing countless volunteer hours as companions to hospital residents, as behind-the-counter volunteers at the hospital gift shop and the Lake Isabella Thrift Store, and as community fundraisers so that the hospital can purchase new equipment to better provide for the community it serves. These men and women view each other more as family than colleagues, united not out of obligation, but out of a genuine love of the hospital, its mission, and the Kern River Valley community. Since 2004, the Auxiliary has raised nearly $2 million for the Kern Valley Hospital, helping and saving countless lives. I would like to thank District Board Chairman David Derr, along with Board Members Kathryn Knight, John Blythe, Barbara Casas, and Charlie Busch, as well as the doctors, nurses, staff, and volunteers that have made the Kern River Valley Healthcare District the cornerstone of the community that it is today. The success and local support enjoyed by the District is a testament to its key role in the community, and I look forward to seeing the District continue to serve the Kern River Valley for many years to come. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me to celebrate 50 years of service on behalf of the Kern River Valley Healthcare District and to wish the District another 50 years of continued success.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today alongside my colleague, Congressman David Valadao, to honor Dr. Horace Mitchell, President of California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB). Dr. Mitchell joined CSUB as its fourth president in 2004, and will be retiring after a near 50-year career in education later this month. Horace began his professional career at his alma mater of Washington University, Missouri, where he received his PhD in Counseling Psychology. As a member of the faculty, he served in multiple positions, including Assistant Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Assistant Professor of Education and Black Studies, and Chair of the Black Studies Program. He went on to serve the University of California, first at Irvine for 17 years, and then Berkeley for nearly 10 years, before learning of an opportunity nestled in the southern part of California's San Joaquin Valley. It was at this school--CSUB-- where Dr. Mitchell would leave perhaps the greatest mark of his decades-spanning career. Upon his arrival, Dr. Mitchell announced his goal of making CSUB the pride of the California State University System. Over the next decade, he worked tirelessly to make that vision a reality. Dr. Mitchell saw an untapped potential in the students he served, and dedicated his career to helping the student body of CSUB reach heights they had never seen before. Under his guidance, CSUB attained both its highest enrollment rate, as well as its highest graduation rate in the University's 53-year history. CSUB has seen its profile rise under Dr. Mitchell's tenure and is frequently cited as one of America's top public universities for both its undergraduate and post-graduate programs. Additionally, Dr. Mitchell was the driving force behind CSUB's transition to National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I athletics, allowing the Roadrunners to bring Bakersfield's best athletic talent to the national stage. More than anything else, Dr. Mitchell will be remembered as a leader who put his students first, factoring the well being of CSUB's student body in every decision he made as President. To cultivate a more supportive learning environment, Dr. Mitchell changed CSUB's academic calendar from a quarter system to a semester system, offering students more time to focus on the demands of their curriculum. Upon the opening of the CSUB Children's Center, Mr. Mitchell donated his own money to furnish improvements to the center so that CSUB's students could attend courses knowing that their children would receive the best quality childcare a university could offer. For some, work is a means to a paycheck, but Dr. Mitchell's care and concern for the students and faculty at CSUB and the Bakersfield community was a labor of love and dedication. Mr. Speaker, we join friends, family, students, and faculty of California State University, Bakersfield, and the entire California State University System, in thanking Dr. Mitchell for his commitment to bettering the standard of education in the Bakersfield community and beyond. A man who made Bakersfield his home for 14 years, Dr. Mitchell saw the best that our community had to offer and, in turn, made it his goal to give back to that community. It has been an honor to count Dr. Mitchell as one of our friends, and we will always value the advice and guidance he dispensed over the years on everything from education policy to community volunteerism. After many years in public service, we know that Dr. Mitchell looks forward to spending more time with his wife, Barbara, his children, and his grandchildren. Horace will be missed in the world of CSUB, but we salute his lifetime of service on behalf of our community. We wish him the best as he begins this new chapter of his life.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are approaching the end of spring, but there is still enough time for a good spring cleaning. For families, that may mean doing yard work, cleaning out a closet, or maybe even giving unused items to charity. For Congress, it means tackling long-overdue budgetary spring cleaning. There are billions and billions of taxpayer dollars originally set up to fund different programs and projects that cannot or will not be used for their intended purpose. Tonight, the House will do something about it. We will take a first step in cleaning up the Federal Government's accounts by voting on the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act. We aren't talking about taking spare change here. We are talking about something more than just that. Tonight, we have the opportunity to return $15 billion, with a B, to the Treasury. As Members, we are charged with being good stewards of taxpayer money. Mr. Speaker, it is a responsibility we all have and claimed on this floor many times. It shouldn't be a partisan exercise. Historically, it hasn't been. Mr. Speaker, you can look at many Members who have been here for quite some time. Congress accepted 214 of Ronald Reagan's rescissions. The majority party on the floor was different than it is today. It accepted 111 of Bill Clinton's rescissions. President Trump's spending cut request is a straightforward and smart way to trim a bloated Federal budget. So, where do these savings come from, I know many of you might ask. Have you ever heard of the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program? It is an Obama-era subsidy program to green-car companies like Fisker Automotive, which defaulted on its $192 million loan. Just think Solyndra, but for luxury cars. This failed subsidy program hasn't issued a loan since 2011. Mr. Speaker, that is 7 years ago. Yet, it has $4.33 billion sitting unused in an account. Can any Member think of a good reason why that money should continue sitting in that account, where it cannot and will not be used or just be wasted on another non-related government program? I would really love to hear the reason, but I doubt one will be coming. So, what else does this bill clean up? It also brings back expired funds from CHIP. Before anyone claims Republicans are cutting CHIP funding, which is children's health insurance, Mr. Speaker, we debated this on the floor many times this year where one side of the aisle, the majority, passed it. Not only did they pass it while the other side in the minority, Mr. Speaker, voted against it, we passed it and made history. How did we make history? We signed the longest reauthorization of CHIP, guaranteeing its funding for 10 years, a full decade. A full decade, Mr. Speaker, Members of this floor had the opportunity to vote for it. Unfortunately, it wasn't one time, Mr. Speaker, that the other side voted no, and it wasn't just two times. But, thankfully, Mr. Speaker, for all the children across America that use this program, Republicans were able to reauthorize it for 10 years--a decade--the longest ever. Republicans have made sure that CHIP isn't going anywhere. We have removed any uncertainty about the stability of the funding of that program. The funds we are rescinding tonight were appropriated long ago and will not be used for their intended purpose now. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Democrats voted to rescind those exact CHIP funds just 2 months ago. They know they can't be used for their intended purpose. I would like to remind my colleagues that the minority whip said he would not oppose ``money laying in an account that has not been spent for 1, 2, 3 years.'' He even called it ``a reasonable thing to do.'' So instead of partisan rhetoric and doomsday speeches, let's see this bill for what it really is: a smart approach to cleaning up unused accounts in the Federal budget, which has been done many times before under President Clinton and President Reagan. Before tonight's vote, each and every Member of the House should consider this question: If this body cannot be trusted to reclaim money that will not or cannot be used for its intended purpose, can we really be trusted to save money anywhere else?

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, the Honorable David Valadao, in memory of Mr. Harvey Hall. Mr. Hall served as the mayor of Bakersfield, California from 2000 to 2016 and will be remembered as a community icon who never stopped believing in the city he called home. A lifelong resident of Bakersfield, Harvey Hall was a model civil servant, a community legend who would greet you wearing one of his trademark suits and a welcoming smile. Mayor Hall was a cheerleader for Bakersfield in the purest sense. He was an advocate for the businesses and organizations of the city he served, and it was not uncommon to see him each and every day at ribbon-cutting ceremonies or lending his support at community gatherings across Bakersfield. Everyone knew Mayor Hall, and Mayor Hall made it his goal to get to know everyone he met. He was a man who remembered names and would always make the time to pull you aside for a chat, no matter who you were. When you were with Mayor Hall, you always felt like the most important person in the room. Outside of his responsibilities in City Hall, Mr. Hall focused himself on bettering the quality of life in Kern County. A consummate businessman, Mayor Hall founded Hall Ambulance Services, Inc., an emergency services company that has been a mainstay in Kern County for nearly 50 years. Mayor Hall had a heart for education and dedicated his mayoral salary to the Kern Community Foundation, awarding over $250,000 to fund scholarships for local high school students pursuing secondary education during his time in office. More than anything else, Mayor Hall's love of community was illustrated in quieter ways. He used his own money to help Bakersfield's homeless get back on their feet and would regularly host community clean-ups to beautify a city he saw nothing but potential in. Mayor Hall welcomed the diverse communities that make Bakersfield the community that it is, and was a mainstay at the annual Sikh Parade and Harvest Festival. Most importantly, he understood the power of a thank- you note and would always offer his humble thanks for the smallest of gestures. This love of community extended outside of Bakersfield too, for Mayor Hall understood that Kern County was a better place when all of its communities succeeded. He often gave his ear to neighboring communities and always made himself available to provide assistance or advice when it was needed. There is a lesson to be learned in the manner in which Mayor Hall lived. He was a man who lived life's purpose both in and out of public service. He was a man forged by a city that he made into his own. He was a man who never missed an obligation, who always knew the true potential and promise of Bakersfield and its residents. Harvey Hall made an indelible impression on Kern County, and it is our every hope that those whose lives he impacted honor his legacy by showing the same love, passion, and dedication to Bakersfield as our city's longest- serving mayor did. For some, he was ``Mayor Hall.'' For others, he was just ``Harvey.'' But for us, he will always be ``Mr. Bakersfield.'' We extend our deepest condolences to his wife Lavonne, his children, grandchildren, and a community that loves him as much as he loved it. Mayor Hall exemplified the best qualities of Bakersfield and will be missed, but he leaves behind a legacy that will continue to shape our community for years to come.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the late Ed Grimes, who served as Mayor and chief executive of the City of Tehachapi for six years. He passed away on May 21, 2018 at the age of 75 after a lifetime of service to his community. Mayor Grimes started his storied career in public service on the Tehachapi Unified School District as a member of the School Board, serving a career of 20 years, twelve of which were spent as the board chairman. He would later campaign successfully for a seat on the Tehachapi City Council in 2003, and was first elected as Tehachapi's Mayor in 2006. Over his career in public service, Mayor Grimes served ten years on the Tehachapi City Council and served three terms as mayor during the years of 2006 through 2008, 2010 through 2012, and 2016 through 2018. A man with a true heart for his city, Mayor Grimes refused a paycheck during his tenure as an elected city official, instead donating his salary to fund scholarships for Tehachapi high school students preparing to go to college. Ed, affectionately known at home as ``Mr. Tehachapi,'' called Tehachapi his home for 68 years of his life. A lifelong football fan with a heart for the youth of the community he served, Mayor Grimes dedicated his free time to fundraising for Tehachapi High School's Warriors football team, raising over $50,000 for high school athletics over a period of nearly two decades. His passion for youth athletics was not limited to the sidelines; Mayor Grimes could often be heard narrating Tehachapi High School football games over the stadium public address system, a hobby that earned him the nickname of ``The Voice of the Warriors.'' Mayor Grimes will be remembered for his kindness, leadership, and passion for life. His life of service illustrates the best of public service, and he will be remembered as a man who truly loved the city he called home. It didn't matter if we were discussing the local economy, family or simply football, time spent with Mayor Grimes was always time well spent. I will miss Mayor Grimes' words of wisdom, his humble manner, and his laugh that was so infectious that you could not help but join him. I extend my deepest condolences to his wife Ruthie, his children and grandchildren, and the entire Tehachapi community as we all mourn the loss of this local icon.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. That is great. Will the gentleman offer an amendment to the bill?

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I will answer any question he has or any other reason why he finds a way you can't save taxpayers money, but let me answer your questions. Since we don't touch FY18 funds, it does not affect FY19 baseline. Secondly, I said earlier, the gentleman is a Member of this Congress. Rescissions do not have to be a one-time offer. If you have any ability or any ideas, I am more than willing to work with you. I am more than willing to work in the future not just on that line, but others as well.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman just said nickel-and-dime programs. This will be the largest rescission in the history of this country. It is not nickels and dimes. It is the taxpayers' money. If it is nickels and dimes to the taxpayers, I want to save those, just the same. But this is billions. The gentleman tries to make an argument that doesn't hold. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman argues that CHIP could be in jeopardy. The CBO says that is not true. The press writes that it is not true. I cannot find anywhere that this program would be harmed. I listened to my friend on the other side explain why he voted against CHIP three times. His explanation is because he said there was a promise on the other side for some other bill to come to the floor. I can take him at his word, but my only question back to him would be: Then why does he vote for any bill? Shouldn't he vote ``no'' on every bill that is on the floor then, if that is the protest? I don't understand why he would take it out on the Children's Health Insurance Program. I don't understand why, when we had the opportunity and we were able to achieve it, he voted ``no'' to get the longest extension in a decade. Mr. Speaker, I know the American public will see through what is politics and what is policy and what is opportunity. Yes, we did pass a tax bill and, unfortunately, it was just one side that voted for it. Yes, our unemployment is the lowest it has been in more than 18 years. Our unemployment claims are the lowest they have been in 44 years. Two million more people are now in the workforce. If you go back, 9, 10 years, the participation rate in America was over 65 percent. Unfortunately, just a few years ago, it got all the way down to 62.7, the lowest it has been since 1978. But the good news is, it is on its way back up. The good news is, Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans got bonuses where they could fix their car, maybe buy that new washing machine. The better news is, Mr. Speaker, that the revenues into government are even higher--part of what the argument was on passing the tax bill. Mr. Speaker, it was even an excitement to watch President Trump sitting at Andrews Air Force Base watching three Americans get off an airplane that have been in prison in North Korea, released on the hopes that the war and the battle of North Korea against South Korea can end, and that the President has announced that he has a location and time for that meeting. Yes, the world looks brighter. But there are still places around the world that are not safe. And, yes, we did make an investment into the military that I am very proud of. I actually voted for that bill. People will say a lot of people negotiated. Some that negotiated didn't vote for it in the end. So, Mr. Speaker, I try to listen to the other side and I take what they say very seriously. When I heard in our last colloquy that a rescission bill had to be made on those funds that have sat there for 1, 2, 3, and even 7 years, that is what we did. And I look forward to working on further bills in any department that anyone in this body would like to work on.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has any idea, because I know he has served on the Appropriations Committee, please offer up, like any Member can, what he would cut or what he wants to find as savings. I will look in any department anywhere to find a savings. Now, Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman show me where in the CHIP program--because, one, you cannot use these funds; two, the contingency base is more than what has ever been used in the history of it--show me where the Children's Health Insurance Program, because no one is saying it. No one can show that it is. Please point it out to us. You do not have the authority to spend this money. We put a contingency fund, set aside, and looked at the history of the program. The most that was ever used was $300 million, so we keep $500 million in reserve. If the gentleman could explain to me why, then, for those who voted for the omnibus on your side of the aisle, would you make a larger, same amount, and the argument then to take that money in the omnibus but not now, why is it different? Why is it different when the taxpayers will save money into an account you cannot spend, you don't have the legal authority to, and it is just sitting there, and it goes to the criteria of what you laid out, 1, 2, 3, or 4? The great thing about a rescission, this doesn't have to be the only one. So if you want to work with us and you find areas that you want to find savings to the taxpayers, I will make myself available to have those meetings.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, because if you listened to what I said earlier, it went to HHS. But this is the point: Then the gentleman is acknowledging that you could not use that money for the CHIP program, so it is still sitting there. You do not have the authority for it. It is exactly what you said to me in a colloquy, just our last, that you will look at any account that is sitting there 1, 2, 3, all the way to 7 years. Mr. Speaker, I don't understand the argument, if no child could be harmed, if the Republicans put it for 10 years, the longest it has ever been, you can't use the money, and we leave a contingency fund there. If the gentleman wants to find a reason to get to ``no,'' I understand that. But I am of the belief I want to find a way to save money, and I don't know what points the gentleman tries to bring up and say it is political. No. The whole time I have been in this House, I have always held to the belief: It doesn't matter; we can find in any program waste. But this rescission program is about money that is sitting in accounts that you laid out that you said you would be more than willing to look at, and that is what we have done, and I hope you would be able to keep your word and vote for it.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those many questions. I have got good news for the gentleman. If his concern is the contingency fund for the Children's Health Insurance Program, no need to fear. In the life of the entire program, the most that has ever been used, accumulated completely, is $300 million; that is why we set aside $500 million. Go beyond the long history of it. CBO tells us they don't expect any of it to be used, but we want an insurance, just as we wanted this program to survive; that is why it got extended more than 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I don't have to remind my friend he voted against that. But we care about the Children's Health Insurance Program; we care about the taxpayers. The good news is, in this rescission program, none of that money can be spent. And if you are concerned about it and worried about maybe you would make that vote, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the other side, she voted to take that same amount from CHIP in the omnibus to spend somewhere else, because you can't use the money, and we have already extended it 10 years, and no child is going to be harmed by this. CBO says it, all the way through, and we keep the contingency fund there. But you won't rescind the money that you now have the authority to even spend on the program to give back to the taxpayers? That is what is interesting to me because I listened to you closely, and we have had this discussion before about rescissions. It was just in our last colloquy. I remember when we talked about rescissions because that used to be common practice. President Bill Clinton did it 111 times. President Ronald Reagan did it 214 times. And both Presidents, Mr. Speaker, had Congresses that were from other parties some time during their administration. So when you and I talked about it, because you had voted for rescissions before, I wanted to make sure I got your input before ever talking to the administration because I would like to have your help on this. I think the American taxpayers would like to have everybody's help on this. So I asked you in that colloquy, I was hoping that you would support this bill from our last one because you said, in our last colloquy: ``I wouldn't irrationally oppose a rescission which said we've had money laying in an account that has not been spent for 1, 2, or 3 years. We shouldn't just have it sitting in that account.'' Because in our colloquy, Mr. Speaker, the concern on the other side from my friend was we were going to break a trust; that we were going to take money from that omnibus that he felt a lot of people negotiated in, but, unfortunately, that trust he couldn't vote for. You even interrupted me to say you believe that rescinding those funds was a reasonable thing to do. I agree that it is a reasonable thing to do. So this administration, I think, may have listened to our colloquy, Mr. Speaker, because if you look at this rescission package, the largest one ever done, common practice from President Ford up until Bill Clinton, you asked for funding that has sat for the last 1, 2, or 3 years. But even in this one, we identified programs that have sat there for 7 years. There has not been a loan in a program since 2011, and there is more than $4 billion sitting there. Taking you at your word, you would jump at this. I should have asked you to cosponsor it. Now, I hope all Members will put the politics aside and be able to support this because this is really what the taxpayer is looking for. This is really what this House has a history of doing. I know you have brought up a few other issues in there, and I know, when you talk about the Children's Health Insurance Program, the CBO has said that ``rescinding the unobligated balances would . . . not affect outlays, or the number of individuals with insurance coverage.'' There are so many times I hear CBO quoted here, so I hope we would quote it here as well. In other words, this will have no effect on the CHIP program. Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, in the omnibus, those who voted for it, and the leader on the other side did, it did the exact same thing with a higher number. So it was unobligated then and okay to do it. I am just not sure why it wouldn't be now if you send it back to the taxpayers. Now, I do want to, also, Mr. Speaker, know because we have worked on this CHIP program for quite some time. Now, the Republicans passed the longest and most generous CHIP extension in the program's history. Now, for the record, my friend did vote against it, not once, not twice, but three times in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quote an AP article from Andy Taylor, because you just can't make this stuff up. ``Just weeks ago, Democrats supported almost $7 billion in cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, eager to grab easy budget savings to finance new spending at the Department of Health and Human Services. But some Democrats howled over the Trump proposal anyway.'' Let me get this straight. Is it okay to rescind the CHIP program, Mr. Speaker, when Nancy Pelosi wants to spend more? But when President Trump wants to save the taxpayers money, with no effect on the CHIP program at all, is that what Armageddon is? Now, I don't want to play politics, and I know you have mentioned a lot, and you did mention the tax bill, and you did mention April. There was more good news in America. It wasn't just that unemployment is at 3.9 percent. You know the last time--the whole time I have been elected in Congress----

Mr. McCARTHY. Yes, 18 years ago. Do you know that the claims for unemployment are at the lowest point it has been in more than four decades? That is more than 40 years. Do you know, just in the last year, 2 million more people have jobs? Did you realize the millions of people who actually got bonuses; or just in one company, 1.2 million Americans have a longer maternity leave? And did you see the revenue into America's Government last month? It was the largest surplus in the history. The most revenue coming in. So all of those colloquies we had of the fear of this tax bill, the one that allowed Americans to keep more of what they earned, the one that we promised would create more jobs, the one that would bring more prosperity, facts don't lie. America is in a very good place, and I am thankful that we had that debate. Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, the others on the other side, there wasn't one of them who could agree with us. But I think today they can agree with the numbers of what it says and what it means; that we know for any American who has a child that is 18 years old and ready to go away to college, they don't have the fear that they are going to have to come back and live with their parents. They are going to enter one of the strongest economies to find a job, of course, in their lifetime, but maybe almost in one of the best times we have seen in ours. So, yes, I am excited about this. I am also excited about the idea of bringing a tradition back that saves the taxpayers money, one that, Mr. Speaker, my friend has voted for before, one that protects the CHIP program by setting aside, on a contingency basis, more than what has ever been asked for in the history of it, $500 million when only $300 million it has, and even though they say not one dollar would be spared. So we have the reserve there for it. I am excited that the administration listened to our colloquy, took my friend's wisdom and advice that he would look at any accounts that sat there 1, 2, and even 7 years that was unobligated, to be able to save the taxpayer money. And I look forward to when that is on the floor so that we can vote on it together and show the American public that we are serious about saving taxpayers money.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I remember what the gentleman said. The gentleman is very concerned about the trust that we would have because of the months that went into the omnibus, that we would break this trust, even though those who negotiated, still some did not vote for it. But in that omnibus, because defense had been cut more than 20 percent, because when I wake up this morning and I see rockets flying from Syria into Israel, when we watch the world become unsafe, it is not 20 percent safer. We made an investment into military. The gentleman does not want any cuts to go into that process, but my question to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is there any cut in the rescission the gentleman supports, because I took him at his word. I said to the administration: I just had a great conversation in a colloquy that the gentleman on the other side said of course he would look at anything that was 1, 2, 3, or further years that was unobligated. That is the only thing that is in the rescission. The easiest way not to save taxpayers money is to find something that is not in the bill that you just really need. The gentleman laid out in a colloquy what he wanted in a rescission. It did not deal with the omnibus because the gentleman is worried about the trust. The gentleman said he would look at anything from 1, 2, 3, or further. That is the only thing in here. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend: Is there anything in the rescission bill that he could support by giving the taxpayers more money back?

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman realize that there are 2 million more people in the workforce in less than a year? Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that more than 5 million people got a bonus that, Mr. Speaker, some people on the other side thought was crumbs? Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that the 3.9 percent unemployment rate, many Americans have not seen that in almost two decades? Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that we just watched last night our President at Andrews Air Force Base bring back three Americans that were held in prison in North Korea, and for the first time since that conflict has gone on there is an opportunity to end that war? So, yes, I think some of our best days are right now; but with the potential of what we have not only with our tax bill, but, if we get our farm bill moving where we help individuals to get into that workforce, because that unemployment is so low, I do believe the best days are in front of us.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. Next week is National Police Week, so several bills will focus on supporting the work done each day by our men and women in law enforcement. That includes H.R. 5698, the Protect and Serve Act, sponsored by Representative John Rutherford. This bill would make inflicting or attempting to inflict serious bodily harm on any police officer a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The House will also consider H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act, sponsored by Representative Mike Conaway. Ronald Reagan said, ``American farmers are the backbone of our country,'' and both myself and the data would agree. Food and ag industries drive more than 43 million jobs, over a quarter of all American jobs, and U.S. farm exports generate more than $300 billion in economic activity. This important bill will reauthorize farm and nutrition assistance programs for 5 years, while making reforms to modernize key programs and better support rural America. Since my friend often asks about items beyond the week to come, I would like to make this a bonus colloquy for him, and preview several items that are possible during this work period. This includes H.R. 5674, the VA MISSION Act of 2018, sponsored by Representative Phil Roe. This bill would fundamentally transform the VA and the way American veterans receive care for the better. I want to applaud Chairman Roe for his hard work on this legislation, which recently passed his committee on a bipartisan vote of 20-2. Next, H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act. At $15.4 billion, the bill represents the largest single rescissions request in history. More importantly, this bill allows Congress to give our Federal budget a much needed spring cleaning to the benefit of hardworking taxpayers. Third, H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act, sponsored by Representative Mac Thornberry. This bill supports the historic investments we have made to rebuild America's military and ensures our brave men and women have the resources they need to keep us safe. Finally, the House may take further action on Dodd-Frank reform, including potential action on the community bank regulatory relief bill passed by the U.S. Senate. I look forward to both Chambers taking additional policy actions in this space in the coming weeks as we continue to improve access to capital for American families and businesses. As soon as our schedule is finalized, I will be sure to inform all Members. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has asked before and as we have worked time and time again, the committee is working on a budget, and as they get through, we will bring it to the floor.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Even though I gave him a bonus colloquy beyond the week in front of us, that does not mean if I don't mention something, that that item would not come forward. So as the Budget Committee works, I will keep the gentleman apprised of where they are and when the timing is for us to bring it to the floor.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. Did the gentleman yield to me? On what point?

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman used Congressman Tom Cole's name, saying that he would say something. Congressman Tom Cole is a cosponsor of the rescission bill. He is an appropriator, just as Congresswoman Kay Granger, Congressman Tom Graves. They are all on the Appropriations Committee, and they are all cosponsors of this bill because they want to continue to look to ways that you can save taxpayers money. I know we have gone around and around here. The question really ends to a philosophy. Can we find a place that we can save the taxpayers money, or can we only find the time that we will take that money when you can't spend it and spend it someplace else? I believe we could take money that you cannot spend and give it back to the taxpayer. The gentleman brings up other areas. My door is open. I don't want this to be the only rescission. I look for any department, any area in government that we could find savings that are left over, that are sitting there. Or let's make it more accountable. Let's find savings in the current process as well. I am all for that. But the one thing, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to is voting ``no.'' That is the easiest thing to do on this floor. I can always find a reason why I am against a bill because something else was not in it. What is in this bill today is what my friend said in the last colloquy. His argument against having a rescission package was all based upon the omnibus. So he laid this out. Then we meet that criteria, and then he is going to lay another reason out. You cannot point to anywhere, CBO or any other place, where it states that the CHIP program is harmed. I am sure he was concerned about that, Mr. Speaker, when he voted against it three times, when he extended for 10 years. This isn't about CHIP. It has nothing to do with it, because the CBO says it is all protected. We put a contingency fund in there greater than what was ever used in the history of the program. Mr. Speaker, what the real story here is: Can you take money and give it back to the taxpayers and save money, or do you always have to spend more in Washington? I think when the bill comes to the floor, the American people will get that answer.