Kevin McCarthy

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of William Penn Elementary School. Opened in September of 1917, William Penn started as a five-classroom schoolhouse in the heart of downtown Bakersfield. The tenth school added to the Bakersfield City School District, William Penn opened to one hundred and sixteen students, from kindergarten to fourth grade under the tutelage of then-principal Ms. Eleanor Pavey. Much like the city it called home, William Penn quickly grew from its humble, small-town roots, adding an additional four classrooms in 1925 to accommodate a rapidly-growing student body. During World War II, William Penn stressed the importance of patriotism in its student body, and its teachers instilled a respect for America's Armed Services in the young minds humming through the school's corridors. To support the American war effort, students at William Penn planted victory gardens, collected paper for paper drives, purchased war bonds, and knitted afghans to be given to soldiers serving abroad. In the summer of 1952, disaster struck. A 7.3 magnitude earthquake along California's White Wolf Fault, the third largest in recorded California, damaged much of the school and its grounds. The damage was so great that William Penn was condemned, and its student body was relocated to Wayside Elementary School along with students from other Bakersfield City damaged schools. The students of William Penn, however, were undeterred and made it their mission to rescue their neighborhood school. Each afternoon, students would hold a carnival to raise funds to reconstruct William Penn from the ground up, and with the help of the Bakersfield City School District, students returned to William Penn Elementary in January 1955. Today, William Penn serves nearly 300 students from kindergarten through fifth grade. The school is currently led by Principal Marshall Dillard and its mission could not be possible without his leadership and the passion and hard work of a stellar team of educators including: Alicia Lifquist, Leticia Pacheco Contreras, Robin Johnston, Adriana Humphrey, Sarah Abraham, Janette Hubbell, Nicole Craig, Monica Garza, Leonel Gamino, Crystal Ullrich, Sheryl Daniel, Laurie Kessler, Matthew Lundin, and Kirsten Roza, as well as office and support staff Theresa Blair, Elosia Kelley, Susana Lizardo Hammock, Tina Estrada, Melissa Ednalino, Andrew Morales, Maritza Zuniga, and Monica Gonzales. The measure of a school like William Penn isn't the mere 100 years of its existence; it is the generations of students whose dreams and opportunities have been shaped by the education and influence so passionately driven by their teachers, parents, and community. William Penn's story is one of love of country and community and dedication to its students. This school is a part of what makes Bakersfield such a great place to live and grow up in. As one of Bakersfield's oldest schools, it remains an icon in our community, and on behalf of our community, I wish William Penn another century of academic excellence.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District. Established in 1942 to serve the booming agricultural industry in the southeastern portion of California's San Joaquin Valley, the Arvin- Edison Water Storage District has played an essential role in making Kern County the number one agricultural producer in the United States. The District provides water to over 131,000 acres of agricultural land in Kern County, from both surface water through the Central Valley Project's Friant Unit as well as from groundwater. The water irrigates tens of thousands of acres of almonds, carrots, citrus, grapes, potatoes, and other annual crops with a value exceeding $1 billion in 2016. And in true California fashion of never letting a drop of water go to waste, the water the District provides to irrigate these and other crops results from a true conjunctive use process--District also recharges the underground aquifer to help stabilize groundwater levels in a region that relies on well water as a primary source of irrigation. To accommodate Kern County's ever-expanding agricultural industry and variable surface water supplies, the District has had to take innovative approaches to water management and storage. For instance, when times are good and water is flowing from rain and melting snow, the District developed a network of groundwater banking programs connected by miles of canals and pipes to capture this water for use in dry years. This approach helped our communities and farmers weather the recent multi-year catastrophic drought in California, ensuring that they were able to access life-giving water. In 1997, the District entered into a 25-year agreement with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California that has empowered the District to complete capital improvement projects without increasing water costs to Kern County farmers, including expansion of the aforementioned water banks. I am proud of the work accomplished by the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, currently led by President Edwin Camp, Engineer-Manager Jeevan Muhar, Deputy General Manager David Nixon, Director of Water Resources Steven Collup, General Superintendent Christopher Krauter, and Directors Ronald Lehr, Jeffrey Guimarra, Derek Yurosek, Dennis Johnston, John Moore, Charles Fanucchi, Catalino Martinez, and Kevin Pascoe. They and their predecessors' efforts have made a lasting impact on our community which will continue to play a critical role in the lives of Kern County farmers and those who enjoy the products they grow. The Arvin-Edison Water Storage District's role in shaping the face of American agriculture cannot be understated, and I wish the District another 75 years of success.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 148 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 149.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. So, when someone comes here, they can petition others. They can petition their parents. They can petition their children. They can petition their spouse.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the gentleman's support, because we didn't have it last time. Mr. Speaker, in these rescissions, we can look at these unnecessary programs. That is healthy for the country. The world changes. We should modernize. We should make government more efficient and more effective and, most importantly, more accountable. Now, my friend needs to be familiar with this process, because when I look at history, both in 1996 and 1998, the omnibus bills included numerous rescissions that President Clinton proposed and Congress accepted. Now, that was back when you voted for the spending bills, but I am hopeful you will be for this rescission as well, because I believe the American public will look at it not as a Republican or a Democrat. Every time I watch people run for office, they say: I want to go line by line. For 20 years, we didn't have people that wanted to do that in the administration. Today, we do, And I applaud President Trump for saying it, and I applaud President Trump for doing it. Now, you talked about a few other things. You are concerned about debt. I am concerned about debt. You think there are two different ways to solve this. I believe if we grow the economy and we watch our budget, we can solve this problem. When I look at the revenue coming in, it is hitting its highest level. When I walk across this country, I now see growth of more than 3 percent. I see unemployment at almost the lowest point in my lifetime. And if you happen to be African American, or you happen to be Hispanic, it is the lowest it has been in America. I just saw 800,000 people come back into the workforce. If you look at manufacturing jobs, in the last 3 months, we haven't seen that type of growth since 1984. If I look at the last administration and I go and look for the highest growth year under President Obama, it is still lower than the worst year under Bill Clinton. So let's grow and get this deficit taken care of. But what is interesting to me--I wrote this down because I want to get it right, and you correct me if you think it is wrong--you said: Whatever we spend, we should pay for it. Is that correct? So this concerns me then. That Democrat budget that you voted for not only increased the deficit by $6.8 trillion over 10 years, it calls for the $3.9 trillion in revenue enhancements. We know what that means. That means tax increases. So you want to increase taxes by $3.9 trillion, but you want to increase the debt by $6.8 trillion. That doesn't meet what you just said. You said whatever we spend we should pay for. So you are going to increase the debt almost double, and you are going to increase taxes. That is the difference between us. When we put the tax bill on the floor, and I look at just in one company, 1.2 million of those employees, they got extended maternity leave; the number of companies that raised what they pay; the electrical bills for Americans in 39 States are now lower because of that tax bill. And let's not even talk about the millions of bonuses that Americans got. That is their own money. And the revenues are coming in higher. The growth is bigger. Our opportunity is greater. But what you want to do is snatch that back--say, no, no, government needs it. But you are not saying government needs it to pay off the deficit because you are raising the deficit even higher. It just doesn't work. So what I am hopeful for, when we come back to this table--and I do believe in trust--but if you are at the table and you make an agreement, come to the floor and be honest. Come to the floor and uphold that agreement that you talked through. Because I will tell you, I didn't like that bill. Because we voted on all 12 bills here. I voted for all of those. I voted for those and sent them to the Senate, and the Senate held this country hostage. And do you know what? The military, the number of men and women, there is a greater number who are dying in training than in any combat we have today. That is a direct correlation to the funding they have. And we know where the world is today. We have an obligation to make sure our men and women can carry out their duty and be safe. But today, the question is: Can they carry out their training and be safe? We made a downpayment to make sure that is the case. And so I will say to my friend, I am concerned about the debt as much as you and even more. That is why I voted to grow this economy and get more money in. I voted on this floor to actually curve what is causing the greatest growth, to guarantee it for next generations so it is there. Because if you let it get out of control, it will not be there. But what is more important, at the end of the day, is that we can look back on any unobligated funds. It may be 5--it could be 6, 7, 8 years ago, and that money is just sitting there, and that program is doing nothing. If you are concerned about the debt, you want to take it back and let's pay it down. I look forward to working with you.

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I apologize, you did ask me that the last time. I got caught up, and I forgot the other stuff. The President has sent a budget. The Budget Committee is reviewing it. I think you will see one coming after they review it. But the one thing I do want to bring up, let's not repeat the same things we have gone through. We are living under the Budget Act of 1974. I think the world has changed since then. Why don't we modernize the Budget Act? We put that in that last bill. The bipartisan working group, I would say that should be our top priority. Let's not repeat the same mistakes, and let's not constrain ourselves if we really want to tackle this deficit. I am hopeful you will work with us on that. But you said a few things that are interesting. You support the military, and I don't doubt that. But you voted against the military funding that was on the floor. When you talked about that omnibus that you wanted a lot of trust because everybody worked so closely together on and you are really afraid about the rescissions coming back that can take money back that wasn't even in the omnibus--a trust that that could break that you voted against-- you said, but, of course, the Republicans wanted the military. And you said, we increased it by 10 or so, even though it has been cut by more than 20. You said, but, of course, we wanted to fund other things. I thought you said education.

Mr. McCARTHY. They can petition their brother and sister, and then they can petition their married children.

Mr. McCARTHY. Right as of today, currently, you are only allowing 65,000 for brothers and sisters. That is not a mother, and that is not a child. Right now, today, there is more than a 30-year wait. So what we proposed is that system is not working. So a brother and sister has their own family. So instead of taking those up, why don't you put those into the spouse and the children? So what we offered to you--and maybe they didn't quite understand it--you would speed up the process for parents, your spouses, and your children. I always thought that was very reasonable.

Mr. McCARTHY. You said opioids.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. If I first may answer the other questions the gentleman raised. First of all, when he talks about trust, everybody should know what happens when you get to an omni and why. We had an omni not because of this House. We had an omni not because of this majority. We passed all 12 appropriation bills. The last time that was done by a Republican majority, the iPhone wasn't invented. We sent it to the Senate, and do you know the sad part? The last time when we sent it to the Senate, maybe they debated the bills and the bills failed--no. And it wasn't the majority on the other side in the Senate. It was my friend's party on the other side that wouldn't even allow it to come to debate. Now my friend talks about being very concerned because they spent a lot of time negotiating. You see, I don't really care for omnis. I would never want to see another one on the floor. That is why we did our job. But when it comes to an omni, the minority has power. They could say: No. This can't be in it. And they kind of finally came to an agreement. And when they did, my friend on the other side said: I am worried about trust, so I am voting against it after all these negotiations. And then he brings up: Oh, my God. The Republicans. They spent money on the military. Sequester has cut more than 20 percent from the military. You can look back just the last 2 weeks. How many of our men and women died not in combat, but in training? How many planes of ours can actually fly today? I will tell you this: The world is not 20 percent safer while the military has been cut. As we speak today, our Navy is sailing. As we speak today, we are concerned about what is going to happen with Iran. We are concerned: What is North Korea going to do? And where is Putin on the march? So, yes, I am proud of funding the military. That is why we did it. Did you want to put the other? No. We are held hostage because the minority in the other Chamber decided to hold the country hostage. Now, when it comes to rescissions, let's be truthful with the American public. That could be unobligated funds from prior years. So if there is money, just because it was budgeted and appropriated but they didn't need it all, why don't you save the taxpayers and bring that back to the Treasury?

Mr. McCARTHY. Once I finish this, I will give my friend the date. Tuesday, on the gentleman's Twitter account--I like how my friend uses it more often, maybe the President inspired him--@WhipHoyer, Dreamers can still apply to renew DACA protections. Learn more about the requirement for applying for renewal. I don't know which one is right. If on his Twitter account he says that it is okay because no DACA students or kids are being removed, he says in his Twitter account you can apply right now. But I am going to vote against the omni that we negotiated with because I am really worried about the rescissions that go against maybe some money that has been wasted. But when I look at this, Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact the President made another offer to not only solve DACA, but to solve Dreamers. All he requested was could we have the border secure. He wasn't asking for an astronomical number. When you think back, many times, Mr. Speaker, I get an argument from the other side about the Gang of Eight bill. They spent twice as much on border security than the President is asking for. I know for a fact the President talked to the leader on the other side, of his party. I know for a fact they came back and said no. I know the President actually put it out on his Twitter account. The President wants to solve this problem, but he wants to make sure the border is secure. Mr. Speaker, as we speak right now, there are people who are marching from other countries because they think they can just march directly across our border. I think our border needs to be secure. I would hope everybody would feel that same way. I know the President wants to solve this problem. He offered. As a fact, Mr. Speaker, the President said it from inside these Chambers for the whole Nation to hear. Sometimes I begin to wonder: Do words and action actually do the exact same thing? Could it be possible, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes people play politics with issues? Could it be possible that sometimes people could use that for an excuse? Could it be possible that people would say they want to solve a problem, but when they have the offer of a solution, they say no so they can keep it to try to make a political argument out of it? I don't know. Maybe. But I will tell the American public this: We want to solve that problem. Now, Mr. Speaker, my friend on the other side of the aisle is worried about the debt. I am, too. He voted for a budget that would increase it by more than $6 trillion, but he wants to raise your taxes and take more of your money by another $3 trillion. It still increases it much more than what he takes in taxes. He said he heard those arguments all before that the Republicans, they won't do well if they let people keep more of their own money. Well, I just looked at the latest numbers. In the first 3 months with the new tax bill, do you know what? More revenue came in. Millions of people got to keep more of what they earned. What is interesting is so many Americans got a pay raise simply because government said you could do better with your own. That, I think, is true. And if my friend, Mr. Speaker, agrees with that, I know he will be there for the recision. Where can we stand up for the taxpayer? If there is money wasted here, why wouldn't we go line by line? It won't be just the omni. It will be all those other accounts that have been sitting there. I don't think that is a Republican or Democratic idea. I truly believe that is an American idea, and I think that is the responsibility that we all have. I know these colloquies go long. I like my friend across the aisle, Mr. Speaker. I consider him a friend. But just as anybody has friends, we have different philosophical opinions, and that is healthy. But at the end of the day, we can't make excuses. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, there is a bill on the floor. And, yes, I want it 100 percent my way, but, unfortunately, that is not the way our government is created. It is supposed to find compromise. I can always find an excuse: Do you know what? Someone didn't look right at me, or someone said something I disagreed with. But as we know today, no DACA child is getting deported. As we know today, the President wants to solve this. As we know today, the President has made many offers. So, I think, Mr. Speaker, there is no more time for excuses. It is time for solving.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked me a question earlier. I want to make sure I answer it. I made a claim that the gentleman voted to shut the government down. My claim is based upon three times: January 22, the continuing resolution to keep the government open, you voted ``no''; On February 6, the continuing resolution, you voted ``no''; Then, when government was shut down, there was a bill to reopen the government on February 9, and you again voted ``no.''

Mr. McCARTHY. Yes, I am saying that is not true. Let me explain what it is.

Mr. McCARTHY. The one thing I would say, Mr. Speaker, my friend also told me he would let me answer this question without reclaiming his time.

Mr. McCARTHY. We have.

Mr. McCARTHY. The answer is no, I'm not saying that, and you know I am not. Let me be very clear. They fought for the military funding; and when we got in the room to make the agreement, we held up our word. So let me follow through with a few more, because you make me concerned.

Mr. McCARTHY. So if you care about the military, you care about education, you care about opioids, and you are concerned about breaking a trust because you negotiated this, why did you vote ``no?'' Why did you vote against the things you just said you cared about? Then you said you cared a lot about the deficit. But on this floor, we had a balanced budget agreement--you actually said you supported it--but that is not how you voted. You voted ``no.'' So when you had an opportunity----

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, 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 Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, 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. Next Tuesday, April 17, is also Tax Day. While this is a day Americans usually dread, I am pleased that this will be the last year they will have to file under the old and burdensome Tax Code. Because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, not only will filing be simpler, Americans will keep more of their hard-earned money, on top of the bonuses and increased wages we have already seen. In addition, the House will vote on several important bills aimed at safeguarding all taxpayers next week. First, there is H.R. 5192, the Protecting Children From Identity Theft Act, sponsored by Representative Carlos Curbelo. Studies have shown the rate of ID theft is actually 50 times higher among children than adults. This bipartisan bill would modernize fraud detection systems to prevent such theft from occurring in the first place. Second, H.R. 5444, the Taxpayer First Act, sponsored by Representative Lynn Jenkins, which would improve the independent appeals process at the IRS, along with other crucial taxpayer services within the agency. Lastly, H.R. 5445, the 21st Century IRS Act, sponsored by Representative Mike Bishop. This bill would boost cybersecurity and other IT systems in the IRS to ensure the agency serves all taxpayers effectively and efficiently. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the House passing all these critical bills without delay.

Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCARTHY. He knows that is not true. You just said I want to stop unification of moms and dads? You know that is not true, and you know I made an offer to actually speed that up.

Mr. McCARTHY. May I ask the gentleman if I may finish my answer before the gentleman reclaims his time.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, my friend is correct that in this House we worked to pass all 12 appropriation bills. We sent them to the Senate, and the Senate did not act. So as the process works, we had to come to an agreement. My friend on the other side said he worked very hard on that, but at the end of the day, I tell my friend: You voted against it. A rescission, as my friend knows, is not about an omnibus bill. It is about finding savings for the American people. To quote Ronald Reagan: ``The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that the government spends too much.'' On this side of the aisle, we know that unaccountable and unnecessary spending not only puts our fiscal future on shaky ground, but it also puts burdens on the programs that Americans actually rely on. That is why we passed all 12 appropriation bills. Unfortunately, the Senate Democrats blocked even debate on every single one of these bills. So they wouldn't even debate it, and they put us into this late process. Now, as far as rescissions, I believe the Trump administration is committed to sending Congress a rescission proposal. As my friend knows, the 1974 Budget Act would give this proposal fast-track procedures both in the House and, more importantly, in the Senate, which means, to the American public, it takes 51 votes to pass. So no longer can a minority hold up debate or hold up process to harm the American public. While this has not been done in 20 years, President Trump is not afraid of challenging the status quo, and I personally respect that. But I want to look at history, and I want the American public to understand it. Rescissions were once commonly used by five different administrations, both Republican and Democratic, and at times the Republican Presidents had Democratic majorities in Congress. Let me give you a for-instance: President Bill Clinton proposed 166 rescissions. Congress passed 111 of those. George H.W. Bush, when Democrats controlled both, proposed 169. They passed 34 of those. Ronald Reagan proposed 602, and they accepted 214 times to be able to cut spending. Now, Jimmy Carter proposed 122, and Congress accepted 50. President Gerald Ford proposed 152, and Congress accepted 52. As far as what this proposal looks like, it remains a work in progress. Now, I will continue to work with the administration, but the one thing I want to be very clear about is this is not about an omnibus. This is about saving money. So what a rescission package can do is it can go back into other accounts that have just sat there with money in them with no action. No business would run their business that way. No family would want it run that way, to keep some debt while you have money sitting over here. If you can save, I would believe everybody in this body would want to save the taxpayers some money if there is an opportunity to do this. And if I checked my record correctly, I believe my friend has voted for a few rescissions in the past.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday, April 16, 2018, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.