Kevin McCarthy

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, to answer the gentleman's question, yes, that will come under a structured rule. So Members will be able to offer amendments but before the Rules Committee and then have the debate on the floor prior to passage of the bill.

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, it will be a structured rule exactly the same as we have used a structured rule before. Amendments will be presented to the Rules Committee, be debated, and then brought to the floor for a vote.

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, yes, it will be a very fair, wide open process in the Rules Committee looking at amendments--those that have not been able to be offered already in committee, where these bills have gone through subcommittee and full committee with amendments being offered, and then they will be brought to the floor so we can get the work done and move the bill forward.

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, the gentleman has sat in this position that I have today as majority leader in the past, and the gentleman knows the history of bills he brought to the floor and the manner in which they did. But if I could be frank with my friend, I am a little disappointed. This is not a place to play politics. This is not about one amendment. We have a process for amendments for Members that are serious about making a passionate argument for a bill, not to kill a bill and not to have an amendment pass and then an entire side of the aisle vote against it. What we are bringing forth is a process that the American people want to see. They want to see ideas get brought here, debated, and moved forward. If we look at the appropriations process in the Senate, they have amendments that go through. If the gentleman wants to go back and recite a history of the number of bills that were open here under his leadership, I more than welcome him to do that. But we should be honest with one another. If Members want to offer an amendment and want to debate the amendment and want to make the bill, in their view, better, I would suspect that, if they win an amendment, they would vote for the bill. The gentleman has a long history here, and that is really probably the history that he remembers as well. I want to see the work get done. So any ideas that get brought forth in committee, they are debated, they are offered, and they are voted on. Ideas will get brought forth further as the bill comes forward. If it is an amendment and someone wants to move it to the floor, so be it. But we are not going to sit back with the idea of people who want to play politics on the outside and play politics on the inside. I just expect more.

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his work on the Puerto Rico crisis. It is something that we worked on together very early from all leaders' sides, making sure that we protected the taxpayers from a bailout, and I think we met all the criteria for helping Puerto Rico move forward and protecting the taxpayer. The gentleman is correct on Zika. We want to make sure the funding is there. As the gentleman knows, there is currently funding, and, as the gentleman knows, we have passed a bill on Zika and we have named our conferees. It is my understanding that the Senate is just now naming their conferees, so I am very hopeful that we can get that conference done very quickly and a bill brought back to the floor. As of now, I had met with the Director of the CDC the week when we departed before the district work period. There are enough resources currently, but we need to get our work done as rapidly as possible.

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, I thank him for recognizing the life of Muhammad Ali. He touched so many of those who met him and those who did not, and there are so many stories out there of what he was able to do even privately on helping change people's lives and actually stand up for what he believed. I think so many times when you look at his life from where he rose and where he stayed rooted in his belief in this country, his belief in the courage to fight for what he believed in. There was a quote he made. I just read it today. It was put up by Forbes as the quote of the week, but Muhammad Ali once said: ``He who is not courageous enough to take risks will accomplish nothing in life.'' I know they are going to honor his life today. He was one who took risks and had the courage to stand up when others didn't believe the same as he did. One great foundation of this country provides the individuals the right to do that, to challenge others and to live a life that is very full. He lived his life to the fullest and reached many. In the athletic world, he reached the heights, and in reaching others, he did the same in his personal life as well.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, there are places in this world that hold people's imagination--Washington, D.C., New York City, and Paris, the great rolling plains crossed by American pioneers, and the Himalayan mountains touching into the heavens. I was blessed, blessed more than I knew, to grow up in such a place, a place called California. It is so distinctive and impressive, it is unreal. Warm, sun-drenched beaches, snowcapped mountains, great cities, forests, deserts, farmland growing fruits, nuts, and vegetables stretching as far as the eye can see. It is a place that is always filled with promise and potential. In many ways, California's history mirrors the history of America. It started as nothing much, but people came and they built it. We grew and prospered. We became the envy of the world. Like America, today, California faces great uncertainty. Some problems are the same, shared by the entire Nation, but California and almost the entire Western United States are enduring something much worse--the drought. The drought has lingered for years. El Nino helped alleviate some of the problem, but the drought continues. Communities have less water, farmland that once fed the world now sits dry. People are losing their livelihoods and their hope. There is no way to end the drought, but it doesn't have to be as bad as it is. Now, water that can be stored is being lost. Bureaucrats release freshwater out to the sea. Our most valuable resource is being wasted. This matters today because we are considering a bill from our colleagues in the Senate--the Energy Policy Modernization Act. Before the Senate passed this bill, they added several provisions, including language to address water issues in Washington State. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very happy that the Senate brought this up. After all, if we are going to address the water issue in Washington State, we should address the water issue across the West. So we included in our amendment to the legislation Representative Valadao's Western Water and American Food Security Act. We passed this last year in the House so we could build more water storage and increase our reservoirs while still allowing water to flow through the Sacramento delta. Water is so necessary for our constituents that we aren't stopping with this bill. We have already began consideration of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which includes even more provisions to deal with the drought. So there is a simple message for our Democrat colleagues in the Senate. House Republicans won't stop. We will keep passing bills until our people get the water they need. Because once we get water, so much of the uncertainty facing California and the entire West will be brushed aside. You see, California and America as a whole face a crisis of bad governance. Many look around and see life isn't getting any better. They wonder if our Nation is in decline. But that is not who we are, not as Americans and not as Californians. Our best days are not behind us. We will not quietly manage our decline. I reject the idea that we have reached the heights of our shining city on a hill, and that it is time to come back down to a world of limits and uncertainty. The choice is ours to make because as Americans we write our own future. That is what this vote means for me and for every Californian. The laws governing water are broken. The bureaucracy is working against the people. The system is holding us back, but this is not how it has to be. California has long been a reflection of America's promise. We also helped America to realize its promise. We led the way in media, technology, agriculture, and even space. Bring the water back and I know we will lead America once again, and help to restore hope in our future.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I am always amazed by the debates on this floor, and I think they are healthy. I like to listen to what people say and what people desire. Let me explain what I have heard as a desire to deal with the water crisis in California. People request that whatever we do, do not change the Endangered Species Act. Could we work together on both sides? Could we make sure we stay within the biological opinion? For some of those people who are watching at home, they may not have watched the last three terms of this Congress. This drought is not new. But what is interesting is, if you just go back in this decade of the snowpack in California--let's go back 5 years--we had 160 percent of snowpack, which was an amazing year for California. But do you know what was allocated from the State Water Project for water? Eighty percent out of 160 percent. The next year, we had only 55 percent. In 2015, we only had 8 percent of snowpack. This year was an El Nino, so we got up to 87 percent. Yet, if you look at the numbers, we have only pumped about the same amount of water as we did when we had 8 percent. My parents would always read me bedtime stories. The one I loved the most was one in which they talked about a grasshopper and an ant. It was interesting how one of them would save for that rainy day. In this case, it would be putting the water away. It would be saving for that next year because, as we go through these years, our snowpack is always not the same. If we are not pumping the water down, where is it going? It is going to the ocean. For the last three terms, we have tried to solve the water crisis, and, every time, we have heard these same arguments; so every term we did something different. A term ago, we got together with Republicans and Democrats, and we worked with our Senate leaders on the other side; but when it got time to make a final decision, I was told: no, no, we couldn't do this because it didn't go through committee, and there weren't enough people in the room. So we said: All right. Well, we will go back to the drawing board. This time we went through and we put Republicans and Democrats in the room. Do you know what is interesting? It just so happens Republicans are in the majority and Democrats are in the minority, but not in that room. There were more Democrats than there were Republicans, and we stayed months in there talking. We came to a lot of agreements. Maybe some people who were in the room won't say that on the outside, but on the inside, they agreed to a lot of the pieces of the legislation. I will tell you that those pieces that we agreed to are in this bill. Do you know why? Because we listened. We don't change the Endangered Species Act. We don't go beyond the biological opinion. Are you concerned about fish? We say in this piece of legislation to pump higher unless there is a concern in the harming of the fish. You don't have to come back to Congress to change the level of pumping. So those solutions I hear on the floor are in the bill. I think it is about time that we stop making false accusations and actually stand for what we need. Do you know what in these rooms I heard a lot about? Desalinization. And I said I will help with that. Because the whole concept of desalinization is we will spend a lot of money with a lot of energy to take that ocean water and take the salt out of it and make it freshwater. Don't you think it would kind of be smart of us first to make sure that our freshwater is not becoming saltwater first? That is all we are asking here. We are saying let's live within the biological opinion. We are protecting the Endangered Species Act, but we are doing something different in California. We are planning for the future. We are planning for those years that you won't have the big snowpack. We are planning for the years that California continues to grow. We are also planning for those people who work in the fields. We are planning for the people who want to build the homes. Central Valley may be a little different than everyplace else, but those jobs are just as important as any job anywhere else in California. So, yes, we have sat in the rooms. Yes, there were more on the minority side than on the majority. Yes, we listened to you and we took what we heard and put it into a bill. Because the other thing I heard when we couldn't do this is that it had to be regular order. That is why it could not be in the omnibus bill even though that was an idea from my Senate colleague in the other house. So you know what? This is regular order on the floor of the House with the ideas that we heard, and it is in the bill.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for the tireless work that he has done on these appropriations. I want to take a moment to thank another Representative, Representative David Valadao. It is rare to find a person so tirelessly devoted to his constituents. Every time the House passes legislation to address the drought crisis in California, David Valadao is at the center of it. Like Congressman Valadao, I also represent the people of the Central Valley of California. For too long, our constituents have been suffering, so I am going to put this as simply as possible. We need water. California Republicans have tried for years--three Congresses now--to get a water bill signed into law to help the people of California. As the drought worsened and its reach grew, we tried last year to get legislation through the Senate that would help all the States in the West facing drought conditions. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats opposed the legislation and blocked it. So we tried again. We added in provisions from my Republican colleagues and provisions supported by our California Senators, ideas both sides could support. We worked to make this bill as bipartisan as possible and focused on good policy. Again, our efforts were blocked. But my constituents can't and won't take no for an answer. Water is not a luxury. It is a necessity, and we need it now more than ever. And it is very clear how we can get more water. Now, earlier this year, bureaucrats allowed water from storms to flush out into the ocean instead of capturing it for our communities. Regulations and bad laws are keeping water from the people who need it. We need more pumping, and we need more storage capturing more runoff. Too many times our Senate Democratic colleagues have ignored or blocked action to help the people of California. So today, the Senate can no longer ignore it. They need to come to the table and negotiate with us in conference. After all, this should not be controversial. We were elected to serve our constituents, and our constituents need water. My colleagues and I have come back again and again to find an agreement because, as El Nino passes and the drought continues, our homes, our farms, and our people won't see relief until something is done. Now is the moment.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to take one moment. Very seldom do we see a bill of this significance come to the floor in such a bipartisan manner. That takes leadership, it takes experience, and I want to thank the chairman for that. He knows that I trust his judgment, but more importantly, whenever we are talking about national security, he is the first one that I call. But I am not the only one who calls him: those around the world do as well. I want to take a moment to thank the ranking member as well. The vote to come out of this committee was 60-2. That shows the leadership on both sides that when America looks at national security, they want Republicans and Democrats alike to work together. Both of you have shown that leadership, and I want to congratulate you for that, bringing it to the floor in that manner. Mr. Chairman, it is indisputable that our national security has declined under President Obama's watch. Terrorists are attacking us right here at home. Europe is under siege. And, yet, the President is more focused on closing Guantanamo Bay and releasing detainees than he is on the real threats to American security. Afghanistan is increasingly unstable, and the Taliban and al Qaeda are gaining ground. Yet, President Obama remains committed to withdrawing our troops while constraining their ability to take the fight to the enemy. These are just two examples, and I don't need to go through the whole list. Just look at the map of the world, and what do you see? Allies that have been slighted, enemies that have been appeased, regions that have fallen into conflict and chaos. The Obama administration is not the direct cause of every problem, but the President's inadequate responses, naive beliefs, and failures of leadership have put American interests at risk and made our country less safe. Now, House Republicans have always been and remain committed to a strong American military, an active foreign policy, and continued American leadership in the world. We must counter the terrorist threats forcefully. We must reaffirm and strengthen our strategic alliances, like NATO. We must engage and prevent, not retrench and respond. This National Defense Authorization Act demonstrates our commitment by prioritizing funding to support more troops, better defenses, and better equipment. Most importantly, this bill works to improve readiness, and ensures that our men and women are prepared to go into battle. The President has fought this approach and has said he will veto this bill as it currently stands. That is despite a 2.1 percent pay raise for our troops, better resources for the warfighter, an aggressive stance against Russian expansion, and funding for Israel's missile defense. This is the height of irresponsibility. With this bill, the House makes it clear that we intend to reinvigorate the Department of Defense, take care of our men and women in uniform, stand with our allies, and make every possible effort to defeat global extremism. The President should share these goals and sign this bill.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank the chairman for his work in dealing with opioid abuse throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, where I come from in Kern County, California, over 160 people are sent to the emergency room for opioid overdoses every single year. Every single one of those stories is tragic. Addiction tears families apart, it uproots communities, and it deprives people of the basic freedom to live the lives they want. Opioid addiction is only getting worse in this country. The most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show that 78 Americans die every single day from overdose--78 Americans. We need to do something about it. Ultimately, it is individuals, families, and the communities that are on the front line in the fight against addiction. But Congress can do something, too. The Federal Government can and should support community efforts to stop opioid abuse and help those in recovery. So we have over one dozen bills we will pass this week that target at the center of the opioid addiction: the drug trade, prescription abuse, health care, prevention, you name it. But it is not enough to pass laws and start new programs. After all, a lot of government programs sound good, but they don't mean as much if they don't work. Most programs, if not every government program, are created with the very best of intentions; but good intentions don't make good government. When Congress decided to set up a program using money and resources from the American people, we had better be sure that what we are doing is making a difference and actually helping those in need as best we can. That is why Congressman Steny Hoyer and I drafted the Opioid Program Evaluation Act, better known as the OPEN Act, because we need to actually help stop the abuse, not just create programs to talk about it. We need to prevent addiction from happening. We need to help those addicted to recover, and we can't afford to waste time and money accomplishing these goals. Ultimately, we need to use the power of data to determine if these programs actually work. It is that simple. We live in the age of data, and innovators around the country and around the world are using data to do everything from providing better service to customers, to preventing disease and to preventing crimes across this country. We can learn from that. We need to bring data and innovation into government. When we do that, we can ensure government programs work as intended and that it is in the most effective way possible. That is what this bill will do. It gives healthcare officials, researchers, and engaged citizens the opportunity to see exactly what their government is doing and then to use the information to make the best possible treatment for those who are addicted to opioids. For months now, I have been working with other Members on the Innovation Initiative with this exact goal: to modernize government. This is just the latest bill shaping our policies and reforming the way Washington works. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to join and support this bill. I want to thank the minority whip for his work, his thoughtfulness, and his research in making this happen. Today is a vote for accountability. Vote for more than just words. Vote to effectively fight the opioid epidemic.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Before I move on, I thank the gentleman for his work on the Committee on Financial Services. Mr. Speaker, this is another bill that comes to the floor with a large bipartisan vote coming out so as to create jobs, and that is what this floor is all about. Today we are talking about an American economy that is ripe for innovation. This is what is needed to create jobs and opportunity. To my colleagues, I ask them: How many times have you traveled back to your districts and sat down and seen individuals who crave to be entrepreneurs? It could be that single mom or maybe it is that person who is stuck in a job or is a young kid with a great idea. But as they roll out their ideas, they find they are not going to get stopped except by, maybe, a government regulation. Think of the jobs they could create and the places in which we can grow. Because of the technological revolution of our country's experience, the startups we have come to know are now some of the largest companies in our economy. Our goal shouldn't be to stop the next great American company from coming into existence. We should actually enable it. We should tear down the government-made barriers to their potential and embrace the positive disruption that will keep America as the world leader in innovation. That is the goal of the Innovation Initiative, and that is what we are doing here today. We will pass today the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act, which enables ready investors to invest in startups. Startups are in a world of high risk and high reward. They can't just go to a bank for a loan. They need angel investors who are willing to take that risk for the next company that will change the world, and Washington should not stand in the way of making that happen. Several years ago Congress passed and the President did sign the JOBS Act. Our goal was to help increase access to capital. Unfortunately, some of the provisions in our bill were misinterpreted by the SEC against the spirit of entrepreneurship, thus keeping the barriers to capital in place. Today's bill gives new companies an opportunity to identify and to interact with potential investors, thus opening the door for the next great idea to get the funding it needs to get up and running. I give a special thanks to Chairman Chabot for identifying this inefficiency and acting to solve it. I started my first business when I was 19 years old. There are three lessons you learn: you are the first one to work; you are the last one to leave; and you are the last one to be paid. The last thing you need is for government to stop you from achieving your dream. It is very simple, when I talk to my colleagues here, in that there are one or two ways to go on this bill. If you sit back and you look at Facebook, Amazon, or Starbucks, they are amazing success stories in America and are where millions of people work. The idea would be, if you believe America needs to continue the opportunity for our entrepreneurs and for more companies such as those, it starts with angel investing. So you would vote ``yes.'' If you believe America doesn't need innovation, that America thinks that the new Facebook shouldn't be there, that we should put up new barriers to stop a dream, to stop the growth, you would probably vote ``no.'' That is why later today, when this bill gets through, it will be a big bipartisan vote: because we believe in America.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11:30 a.m. on Monday, April 25, 2016.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and his work. Mr. Chairman, every year the American people pay their taxes; and every year to do that, they have to deal with an agency that is inept and increasingly unethical. You can't make this stuff up. The IRS failed to answer 8 million calls during tax season last year. Yet, over a short 5-year period, they handed out nearly $6 million in bonuses to themselves. Just to make this clear, that means the IRS can't take the taxpayers' phone calls, but they sure as heck can take the taxpayers' money for their bonuses. Or how about this? The inspector general found that nearly 1,600 IRS employees willfully avoided paying their own taxes over a 10-year period; yet, we trust these same people to collect taxes from their fellow citizens. How is it that the agency charged with collecting taxes employs people who don't pay their own taxes and that agency does nothing about it? Now, it doesn't stop there. The IRS has a slush fund of money it collects from fees that it uses however it wants. No accountability. No transparency. Meanwhile, about 500 IRS employees have been fired for misconduct, such as snooping on private taxpayers' information; yet, they have been hired back again. The IRS selectively targeted for sanctions taxpayers who donated to Romney, intimidated nonprofit citizen groups, and sent out millions in potentially fraudulent tax refunds all in the past few years alone. You wonder why American people don't trust their government. Now, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to look at these bills on the floor. We are not trying to make some partisan statement here. We just want our government to work for the people and work well. But, to do that, we can't leave the IRS the way it has been. We had bills yesterday on the floor by Congressmen Jason Smith and David Rouzer that put an end to the slush funds and to make sure the people working at the IRS actually paid their taxes, and today we are going to pass more bills by Kristi Noem and Pat Meehan to stop the IRS from hiring people who can't be trusted and to fix the agency's absolutely terrible customer service. These are good bills. They are smart bills. Frankly, they are bills that make you wonder how any reasonable person could ever vote against them. But I forgot how irrational some people could be. Just a few days ago the Obama administration said they were against all four of these bills. Really? They are against accountability? They are against IRS agency employees paying their taxes? They want the IRS to fail to answer the vast majority of customer service calls? They want to rehire bad employees? I couldn't understand it. Frankly, the administration's statement didn't clear things up either. The Office of Management and Budget actually said this: ``These bills would impose unnecessary constraints on the Internal Revenue Service's . . . operations . . .''. Now, let me get one thing out of the way. The administration is worried about imposing constraints on the IRS, but it has no problem imposing constraints and regulations on small businesses, energy producers, manufacturers, to the point that it is driving them out of business. That shows you how backwards this administration's priorities are. The IRS targets conservative groups, fails at basic tasks, and employs people who don't pay their own taxes. But the people who are trying to earn an honest living and power their homes and produce products right here in America? The administration thinks they are the problem. They think they need to be regulated. That is wrong. That is not what our country stands for, and it is not what this majority is going to stand for either. But there is another principle here. The House is not trying to write some laws and impose some rules on the IRS just because. We are trying to restrain government because unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats have shown that they can't be trusted with the power they have been given. When you say ``IRS,'' I can assure you that the last words people think of are honest, fair, transparent, or even trustworthy. That is not how our government should be, especially the arm of government entrusted with collecting our taxes. Because when people can't trust that their government is treating them fairly, they lose faith in politics. They become cynical, and it increases the divisions within our country. Now, good government shouldn't be a one-party issue. I love the debates about how small or how large government should be or how high or how low taxes should be. But we can and we should agree that government should do its job well without abusing the trust of the American people. That should never be a one-party argument. That is what these bills are about. That is what this debate is about. The American people are watching, Mr. Chairman, and they want us to make our choice, good government or bad.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, the Appropriations Committee has already marked up three bills. The gentleman having served on Appropriations, he also understands that that is where you get a lot of questions answered, that that is where you get a lot of the good information from both sides of the aisle. There is close to $600 million for Zika right now. I have the same concern that you have. That is why I am telling the administration and the agencies that it would be very helpful if they would answer the questions needed. Where would this money go? There are so many from the perspective of: Is Ebola no longer a public health risk? You have $2 billion, unobligated, sitting in there that we could use. If we want to solve the Zika problem, I think we should all work together. I am looking for the administration to answer some questions. I think that is the most responsible way to go about solving this problem. I haven't given up on the appropriations process. I think it is a perfect opportunity, and I would think, for Members on both sides of the aisle, maybe it would give them a little incentive, in knowing the challenges that are out there for the American public, that this is the process that was created. And we could all have input. One thing that we know, since this majority has taken over, is that we have an open process in appropriations as well; so, anybody can offer an amendment. I think that would be the best place to deal with this. I do have a very personal compassion in talking about water. I know the situation that happened in Flint. I have lived with water problems in California for quite some time. For the last three Congresses, I have fought very hard to solve that for California. Unfortunately, the other Chamber has done nothing. I have kids in the Central Valley who do not have water, people who are on bottled water they bring in, people who have portable water, where they have to come in and bring the tanks. We have lived this for quite some time; so, you will find, on this side of the aisle, someone who is very compassionate about it and who wants to deal with that water issue at the same time as well. I think it would be appropriate.

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to take the opportunity to thank the gentleman for working with us on Zika. As he knows, I approached him early on to make sure we dealt with this in a bipartisan manner. As to any threat, we want to make sure it is not a partisan issue. As the gentleman knows, there was somewhere around $2 billion in unobligated Ebola money. One of the ideas, especially when the administration had requested money, was to have time to go through and ask the question, and many of those questions have not been answered yet. We wanted to make sure no funding problems would happen. We are proud of the administration for its being able to take our idea and move almost $600 million into Zika as we go forward. That will take us quite a ways into this fiscal year. We are continuing to look at and to ask questions. I have a whole list here of questions that have been asked from a standpoint of an updated spending plan from HHS, which still hasn't been planned, of where they go, of what activities will the funds carry out, of how much funding do the agencies anticipate needing in 2016. I mean, as the gentleman knows, never should we write a blank check, but never should we turn a blind eye to a problem. I am proud of the fact that we have not and that we have responsibly made sure that close to $600 million is used right now. We have asked the questions of what we need to go forward. I know the Appropriations Committee is continuing to work on that. We have the appropriations process going through, and that will probably be the ideal time to deal with it and anything going any further because we would have the questions answered and the ability to fund it.

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes, the gentleman is correct in that we have been working together, especially with the Natural Resources Committee, on the proposal. I appreciate the gentleman's commitment as well in making sure that we produce a bill that has solid financial footing and no financial bailout, which the work we are doing right now does not. As the gentleman knows, the discussions are ongoing, and part of the challenge of finishing it is the Treasury Department. The Treasury Department still had some concerns. I know there were some meetings this week, and I know there were Members on your side of the aisle who did not feel comfortable in moving forward until the Treasury Department had finished some of those negotiations. But we look forward to getting the bill finished and moving it forward on a bipartisan basis, a bill that has no bailout, but that meets the needs with what is going on in Puerto Rico.

Mr. McCARTHY. 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 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 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. 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. Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider H.R. 4498, the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act, sponsored by Representative Steve Chabot. This bill extends the role of angel investing in assisting start-up businesses to acquire the financing needed to grow, innovate, and create jobs. The House will also consider H.R. 4901, the Scholarship for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act, sponsored by Representative Jason Chaffetz. This bill is essential to improving education outcomes for low-income students in the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.J. Res. 88, sponsored by Representative Phil Roe, which disapproves of the rules submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the definition of the term ``fiduciary.'' This ill-advised rule will result in thousands of individuals being dropped by their financial advisers and unable to receive sound financial advice.

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We will continue to work through the budget process, and I will update the Members once there is more information.

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and asking again. As for the schedule, we are not scheduled for next week. We continue to work through. We think the budget is very important. When we have it scheduled, I will notify.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Supervisor Don Knabe, who has served the County of Los Angeles for the past two decades. Supervisor Knabe was first elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in November of 1996 and has represented the Fourth District, a uniquely diverse area that is home to over two million residents and includes two of the nation's largest economic hubs: the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the Los Angeles International Airport. Supervisor Knabe has spent much of his political career working to protect innocent and vulnerable children in Los Angeles County. He established the Safe Surrender program in Los Angeles County, which allows for the surrender of an infant within 72 hours of birth at a County hospital or fire station. Since 2001, over 140 babies have been safely surrendered in Los Angeles County. In 2015, Supervisor Knabe launched a scholarship program to benefit children who have been safely surrendered. Supervisor Knabe also is a national leader on combating child sex trafficking. He launched a County-wide awareness campaign to bring attention to the heinous practice of young children being sexually exploited in southern California. In 2013, he testified on the issue of child sex trafficking at a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in Washington, D.C. In 2007, Supervisor Knabe was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council, which worked with the White House to establish national programs to prepare and protect communities across the nation from terrorist attacks. Supervisor Knabe has a passion for the arts and attributes his own personal success to an early involvement with music. His enthusiasm for the arts has led to the creation of several innovative youth programs, such as the Pediatric Arts Program at Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center and the Arts Education Partnership Program that provides grants to schools and community-based organizations to fund visual art, dance, music, and theatre programs for students. In addition, Supervisor Knabe has led the County's efforts to improve overall water quality, including 19 projects within the Fourth District that will lower pollution and divert storm water from the ocean, including the Dominguez Gap Wetlands Project that was completed in 2008. This also enhanced recreation opportunities for residents and visitors through environmental cleanup efforts, creating an open space habitat for the community. Supervisor Knabe is an avid golfer and hosts the Knabe Cup in cooperation with the California Interscholastic Federation, a golf tournament for high school boys and girls. He also supports junior golf clinics for kids to develop a love for golf at a young age. While these are just some of Supervisor Knabe's significant accomplishments, on behalf of the County of Los Angeles and the State of California, I want to extend my gratitude for his valuable contributions throughout his illustrious career to helping our communities. With sincere best wishes, I congratulate Supervisor Knabe upon his retirement from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and wish him and his wife, Julie, well as they enter this new chapter of their lives.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, who has served the people of the County of Los Angeles and the State of California for over four decades. Since 1980, Supervisor Antonovich has effectively represented the two million residents of Los Angeles County's 5th Supervisorial District, which includes all or part of the San Gabriel, San Fernando, Crescenta, Santa Clarita and Antelope Valleys. As a government and history teacher for the Los Angeles Unified School District in 1966, Mike credits his fifth grade teacher for the inspiration to enter public life. He entered the teaching profession as a government and history teacher for the Los Angeles Unified School District in 1966, and subsequently, he was elected to the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees in 1969. In 1972, he was elected to the California State Assembly, where he served three terms and rose to the rank of Republican Whip, before serving the County of Los Angeles. His 36 years as a County Supervisor has been characterized by his dedication to public safety and support for foster children, seniors, veterans and the mentally ill. He has been a strong advocate for the environment, successfully preserving thousands of acres of open space and enhancing parks, trails and recreational programs and facilities. The Supervisor also serves on the Board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metrolink (Southern California Regional Rail Authority), Southern California Association of Governments, San Fernando Valley and San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. His experience and accomplishments have been recognized nationally. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointed Antonovich to numerous presidential committees and commissions, including the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, the U.S.-Japan Advisory Committee, the Commission on Privatization, and the U.S. Delegation to the United Nations International Conference on Indo-Chinese Refugees. His many significant accomplishments over the years include: The High Intensity-Criminal Alien Apprehension and Prosecution Program, involving federal, state and local law enforcement collaborative efforts targeting repeat criminal illegal alien offenders which served as a prototype for future federal law enforcement programs; The DISARM program which has seized over 10,000 weapons and $700 million in illegal drugs and money from convicted felons on probation; The construction of a state-of-the-art courthouse expanding access to justice for the residents of the Antelope Valley; The Child Abduction Regional Emergency (CARE) Alert program, a model for the nationwide Amber Alert system; State legislation extending foster care services for emancipated foster youth between the age of 18 and 21 and the Youth Self- Sufficiency Initiative providing housing, education and job training for emancipating foster youth; The co-founding of the award-winning L.A. County High School for the Arts; The Veterans Internship Program and the annual ``Salute to Veterans'' event providing programs and services to veterans and their families; Laura's Law which provides treatment for the chronically homeless mentally ill; The Quality and Productivity Commission to streamline government services and programs saving taxpayers more than $4 billion; The rebuilding of the Olive-View/UCLA Medical Center which had been destroyed by the 1971 Sylmar earthquake; The development of the Gold Line rail system serving the San Gabriel Valley; The expansion of the county's parks and trail system including the preservation of over 2,300 acres of open space; The Pet Adoption program rescuing over 1,000 dogs, cats and other pets; The restaurant and nursing home grading system protecting public health; Successful economic development and job creation efforts including attracting international companies to the region. Over the years, I have had the distinct honor of being able to work with Supervisor Antonovich to help our community and constituents in the Antelope Valley. His advice and counsel have been invaluable-- whether offered in Washington or Los Angeles or from the back of a horse in chaps and cowboy hat during one of the famous Antonovich Trail Dusters Rides. On behalf of the State of California, the County of Los Angeles, and our constituents, I want to extend my heartfelt gratitude for Supervisor Antonovich's commitment to public service and inestimable contributions as a member of the Board of Supervisors. As he completes his final Board term this year, I look forward to Mike's continuing contributions to our communities, and wish him, his wife Christine, and his children Michael and Mary, all the best in this next chapter of his life.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 150th anniversary of Kern County, California, which I am proud to represent. When the California legislature founded Kern in 1866, they could not have imagined the empire they were creating. The borders they drew circumscribed a vast, underpopulated territory slightly smaller than New Jersey, where Spanish ranchers grazed their herds beside Paiute and Yokuts tribes living as they had for centuries. A few determined pioneer families worked the land, preparing that first cycle of spiraling growth and development that would ever afterward characterize our County. Agriculture came first. Kern's early farmers planted cotton--our original cash crop--in 1865. Waves of settlers from the crowded East and the farthest stretches of the Old World brought new seeds, orchards and vineyards, carrots, almonds, and all the bounty of the Earth that would flourish in the rich alluvial soil and Mediterranean climate of the San Joaquin. Last year's $7.4 billion harvest is but the latest manifestation of the vast fertility of our Valley, a miracle of irrigation, agronomy, and hard work. As the 19th Century ended Kern discovered an abundance of that resource which would dictate the 20th: petroleum. The Kern River strike of 1899 set new records in the West, unsurpassed until a still larger reservoir in West Kern spouted 24 million barrels in 1910. Energy quickly joined agriculture to become the twin engine of Kern's economy, augmenting the steady clip of rural development with the iridescent bloom of oil wealth. Just as suddenly, a supersonic boom in the skies above Kern announced the birth of modern flight in 1947, and with it, the introduction of high-tech aerospace to our County. It was a natural fit. For whenever our community applies itself to a new challenge, it leverages that unique fusion of technical talent and practical entrepreneurialism that makes possible such feats of industry and science as accomplished in our County. Consider that Kern not only produces more petroleum than any other county in America, but also provides half of California's renewable energy, much of it from windfarms pioneered in our own Tehachapi Mountains. In agriculture too, our people were not content with the Valley's natural advantages, but invested in cutting-edge drip irrigation and precision sprinkler systems to double Kern's crop yield in less than 50 years while conserving water. And so in aerospace, where many of the same scientists responsible for the best military aircraft in history are now inventing a new industry--civilian space flight--in desert laboratories at the world's first spaceport, in Mojave, California. There is so much about Kern that inspires pride. Those things I mention today are only the contours of our accomplishments, the tangible residue of the life's work of generations--visible and easy to identify. The true value of Kern, measured by the compassion and quality of our families and neighbors, is not so easily described. To understand this, you must know the people. You must live, and laugh, and love as fiercely as we do. You must walk the streets of Bakersfield. It is our home--my home--forever.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, the biggest goal of the innovation initiative is to bring government into the modern age, making the policies that come out of Washington reflect and adapt to the world today. What has shaped our world more in the 21st century than the Internet? Education, commerce, communication, information. Everything in our lives has changed because of the Internet. How did the Internet become something so important, so useful, and so widespread? Government left it alone. It expanded to reach and help billions because bureaucrats weren't allowed to micromanage it. I remember hearing this from AOL founder Steve Case. It was back in 1985. He said only 3 percent of people were online for an average of just 1 hour a week. Today, the Internet has reached about 40 percent of the world. That is an amazing growth. Unfortunately, the freedom that led to this amazing success is at risk. Right now, it is an open question whether the FCC can regulate Internet rates. Congress needs to clarify that it has no authority to do so. If the FCC were to regulate rates, it could harm every American across the country that has a Wi-Fi connection by imposing artificial restraints on their plans and service options, it would stop needed investment in expanding and improving the Internet, and it would block innovation that we depend on to create better and faster Internet. Regulating rates means its bureaucrats think that they can manage the Internet better than the private sector, which has already brought fast and affordable connections to millions across the country. I know the FCC and President Obama promised they wouldn't regulate broadband Internet rates from their offices in Washington, and that is a good thing. But that doesn't mean I am not concerned. I don't know about you, Mr. Chair, but after 7 years of broken promises, I have a hard time trusting this administration will follow through. So today we are voting to hold the administration to its word. They promised not to regulate rates. This legislation bars the FCC from regulating rates. It is as simple as that. I can't imagine why anyone would object. I want to thank Congressman Kinzinger for his work on this legislation, holding the FCC and the Obama administration accountable. The innovation initiative is all about giving the American people the freedom to grow and prosper. With this, the Internet stays a little freer, executive overreach is held back, and we leave space for the people to innovate without the Federal Government trying to control it all.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. 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. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and at noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. No votes are expected in the House on Friday. 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. Mr. Speaker, since next Monday is Tax Day, the House will also consider four commonsense bills aimed at protecting all taxpayers. First will be H.R. 1206, the No Hires for the Delinquent IRS Act, sponsored by Representative David Rouzer, and will ensure that IRS employees--the very people who are responsible for collecting taxes from every American--pay their own taxes. H.R. 4885, the IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending Act, sponsored by Representative Jason Smith, will require fees collected by the IRS to be subject to congressional appropriations so that there is proper oversight into how the taxpayer money is spent. H.R. 3724, the Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act, sponsored by Representative Kristi Noem, will prohibit the IRS from rehiring someone who has been fired for cause. Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4890, the IRS Bonuses Tied to Measurable Metrics Act, sponsored by Representative Pat Meehan, will ban IRS bonuses until they can demonstrate improved customer service. It just doesn't get any more common sense than that.