Kevin McCarthy

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a well-respected parochial school in my community. St. Francis Parish School, located in Bakersfield, California is celebrating 100 years of education this upcoming April. The St. Francis Parish School has a unique history. Started by the Sisters of Mercy in 1910, the school consisted of two classrooms in the basement of a church. After sixteen years of various makeshift learning environments, an actual school structure was constructed, and in 1940 the St. Francis High School was created which gave the two schools a combined K-12 presence. In 1943, the Sisters of Mercy were unable to staff a high school and lower school, so they delegated the Dominican sisters of the Congregation of St. Thomas of Aquinas, Diocese of Seattle to take over the St. Francis students. The present location of St. Francis Parish School was opened in 1952, and the Dominican Sisters continued to run the school until 1978. After changing hands once more in 1978 to a different sister group, the school is presently operated by lay teachers and one Mercy Sister. It is fitting that the staff has come full circle to include this one Mercy Sister. Today, St. Francis Parish School has a preschool through eighth grade platform that serves 586 students. The school's curriculum has grown to add computer technology, and grades 2-8 have smart boards, internet capability, and sound systems in every classroom. Growing with demand, the school has evolved to include Spanish, art, and music. Additional teachers have been added to St. Francis' staff to teach these new curriculums, and yearly textbook updates occur in every class in order to maximize the school's educating potential. Most importantly, St. Francis Parish School pushes its students to be lifelong active leaders and responsible citizens. Every age group is required to do community service through both class service projects and quarterly school service projects. An array of community service organizations welcome the school's generosity such as the American Heart Association, the Cancer Society, Mercy Beyond Borders, the Homeless Center, Catholic Charities, Mercy Hospital, Lion's Club, SPCA, the Valley Achievement Center, Alpha Canine, and St. Faustina's. For 100 years, St. Francis Parish School has instilled high leadership, faith, and service qualities throughout its students. St. Francis Parish School is a keystone of our educational community that measures success in its loyalty from generations of students. I thank St. Francis for its 100 years of service to the people of Bakersfield and wish them the very best in its next 100 years.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. At this time, I will yield the remaining time to my good friend from Texas, Mr. Jeb Hensarling.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. At this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Chair, may I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, this amendment would strike section 6012 from the bill, which changes the liability standards for credit rating agencies that are Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, or NRSROs, when they include their ratings on the new securities offerings. First, I'm not here to defend credit rating agencies. I am supportive of other credit rating agency reforms that the committee passed, including removing references to credit rating from Federal statutes. I think the government and the private sector should use credit ratings for what they are--predictive opinions about inherently uncertain futures. To cut through the technical discussion about section 7 and section 11 liability related to this issue, let me just make three points. Structure dictates behavior. Increased liability may lead to agencies being hesitant to even allow their ratings on security offerings, thereby providing potential investors with less information. This also reminds me of the health care debate and our discussion of defensive medicine. Costs go up when doctors must practice defensive medicine to protect themselves from reckless lawsuits. In the same way, if rating agencies must practice defensive ratings for fear of being sued, this would ultimately increase costs and restrict credit. Opening NRSROs to unlimited civil liability will not guarantee more accurate credit ratings. Litigating an industry to death does not solve any problems. Additionally, the SEC is currently seeking feedback on whether to rescind Rule 436(g), with comments due December 15. I am a critic of the SEC, and I do not always agree with their actions. However, I do think making this change, which will significantly affect security offerings, should be done thoughtfully and with an eye to the impact seemingly small changes will have on information investors receive as part of new securities offerings. The SEC has asked for comments on a variety of issues, including whether rescinding 436(g) will disrupt access to capital, make it more difficult for smaller companies to obtain a credit rating, or would have negative consequences for smaller NRSROs. These are good issues to examine at any time. They are vital issues to examine in our current economy. We should be very careful about seemingly small changes that have huge consequences. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is my second term. Since being elected by the people of California's 22nd District, I am reminded about how much things have changed. Three years ago on this date, unemployment was 4.5 percent. Today, the unemployment rate has more than doubled to a 26-year high of 10.2. Three years ago on this date, the stock market was over 12,000. Today, the stock market has dropped by 2,000 points. Three years ago on this date the current House majority promised to drain the swamp. Today, the swamp in Washington isn't drained; it's overflowing. And 3 years ago on this date, November 7, 2006, the Democratic Party was victorious in winning control of this House. Today, we are here on the floor to vote on a $1 trillion government takeover that can replace the health insurance that millions of Americans have. This is a defining vote for this Congress. We can reject tax increases on small business at a time when 2.8 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was signed into law and say yes to helping small businesses access more affordable health insurance for their employees. We can reject the government takeover of our health care that will increase health insurance costs and say yes to saving American families up to $5,000 off their current health care premiums. I know that over the last 3 years there have been many disappointments, when the voices of Americans have been overruled by government bailouts and now a government takeover of health care, but I urge my colleagues to reject the politics of the past and fight for a better direction for our country, for our children, and for our grandchildren. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3962 and a ``yes'' vote for the Republican bill.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to H.R. 3962. Specifically, I am very concerned about how the House Democratic Leadership's government takeover of health care legislation will affect the biotech industry, which has been a source of innovation and job creation in California. Californians know very well how the burden of heavy taxes and regulations can harm small businesses and innovation, as our state economy continues to lag and continues to have an unemployment rate much higher than the national average. On top of state taxes and regulatory burdens, H.R. 3962 would only add on to the devastating burdens facing our biotech industry, through its $20 billion excise tax on medical devices and by establishing a pathway for follow-on biologics that could harm innovation and American jobs. As one of the biotech leaders in our country, California boasts more than 2,000 biomedical companies and has created more than 271,000 jobs. The proposed excise tax, whose purpose seems to be solely to raise revenue, is a job killer and would stifle innovation. It will ultimately result in making it more difficult for millions of Americans to have access to life-saving medical devices that they need for their health and well-being. Further, H.R. 3962 would establish a new pathway for follow-on biologics that could slow advances to new life-saving therapies, and ultimately reduce the number of American jobs. The bill does not expressly require clinical trials for follow-on biologics to be completed in the United States, which could allow for these studies to be conducted overseas. Over the past decades, many innovator biologics have demonstrated to be safe, reliable and life-changing--the product of strong clinical trials and research done by dedicated researchers here in America. As unemployment has now crossed 10 percent nationally, and is over 12 percent in California, I hope that we could continue to foster the creation of jobs and research in America. These are some of the many concerns I have with H.R. 3962, which is why I instead support the Republican health care alternative. The alternative excludes the unnecessary and burdensome excise tax in H.R. 3962, and also includes a responsible pathway for follow-on biologics by including provisions from the Pathways for Biosimilars Act, which I am a proud cosponsor of. By passing the Republican alternative, we can ensure that the American biotech industry can continue to lead the world in innovative therapies and that the necessary research and clinical testing in the field can continue to be done domestically so we can continue to create good-paying American jobs. Californians, and all Americans, need Washington to pass strong common-sense health care solutions. But we need solutions that strike a balance in reducing health care costs, strengthening health care access, and allowing health innovators, like our biotech industry, to continue to research and improve therapies for patients. That is why I support the Republican health care alternative--it addresses the needs of patients and ensures that we keep good-paying jobs in America.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, when I listened to thousands of my constituents on tele-town halls this past summer and held town halls with 5,000 constituents in August, the overwhelming and consistent message they told me was to find real solutions. My constituents told me we need to improve health care, but H.R. 3200 is bureaucracy; it's deficit spending; it's taxes; it's intrusion into the personal health care decisions between our doctors and ourselves moved in the wrong direction. I don't think any one of my constituents told me that Congress needs to double down on H.R. 3200, but that's what the new 1,990-page Pelosi health care bill is. It is version 2.0 in the government's taking over of the health care of Americans. It creates government bureaucracies that make health care decisions for us. It costs over $1 trillion, and it uses Medicare cuts on seniors and new taxes on Americans and small businesses to pay for them. We want solutions that will give us the ability to purchase health insurance across State lines. We want solutions that will help people who can't get insurance because of preexisting conditions. We want solutions that don't use Medicare to pay for non-Medicare spending, and we want solutions that will control health care costs.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, as a former small business owner, I know that success is measured by results. If you don't achieve results, you have to rethink your approach to make your business successful. The same cannot be said of this Congress. Bipartisan stimulus ideas to help small businesses grow jobs were ignored. Instead, a $1 trillion spending bill was crafted behind closed doors with the stated purpose to create 3.5 million jobs. The results? We now find ourselves with an unemployment rate not seen in over 25 years. In my home State of California alone, the White House predicted that 396,000 jobs would be created. Well, 336,000 jobs, and counting, have been lost. So where are the jobs? Now in addressing health care, the Democratic majority is again crafting a bill behind closed doors. Can we expect the same lack of results? Likely. Because how do you save money for American families and small businesses by raising taxes and once again ignoring bipartisan ideas, like lawsuit abuse reform? Our families deserve better; our small businesses deserve better; America deserves better.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jim Liptak, a resident and community leader from Paso Robles, California, for his outstanding and exemplary leadership while serving as the 2009 President of the California Association of REALTORS'. Jim has been a longtime successful leader in local real estate matters, reflecting immense enthusiasm, care, and commitment to his community. He has served the Paso Robles Association of REALTORS' in all levels of leadership and has served two terms as President since being named Realtor of the Year five times by his peers at the Paso Robles Association of REALTORS'. Jim has also ably represented Paso Robles realtors and the Paso Robles community in the state and national association. He started his career in 1983 as a California Association of REALTORS' (C.A.R.) Director, winning an election for the position as a ``Write-in Candidate.'' He has since served as Chair on over 5 committees and was a 1995 Chairman of the California Association of REALTORS' Legislative Committee, where he holds the record for most bills introduced in a single session, 17. In 1998 he became the Honorary Director for Life in the California Association of REALTORS', and is the first realtor in Region 31 of the Central Coast to be named a National Association of REALTORS' Director. Since 2006, Mr. Liptak has been an Honorary Life Member by the Paso Robles Association of REALTORS', and is a ``National Ten Year Golden R'' Member-- President's Circle. A true mark of leadership is the generosity of time and talents that one gives on behalf of his neighbors and communities. Jim Liptak exemplifies this time-honored tradition. I commend Jim for his service and leadership as President of the California Association of REALTORS' and wish him and his family well as he continues to serve our community.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. If the gentleman from across the way in the majority would ever let me have the gavel, I will guarantee you, I could bring a lot of bills to the floor.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Well, I thought that I would put that offer out there to you. When you bring it, I will be there to help you. I thank the gentleman for his time.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. I will make this pledge: I know you asked me for help. I will help you with this bill, too.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Let me make sure I hear you correctly. The committee says, the chairman, it will pass out within the next 2 weeks approximately. And your pledge to the committee chairman was to bring it to the floor directly afterwards within that week? I yield.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. So should I assume by the end of October, or am I missing something?

Mr. McCARTHY of California. And I was telling you, I will be more than glad to help you as long as it is a clean bill, that you have an open rule, the way the American public believes this floor is supposed to be run, that people could have power of the idea, could actually raise an issue and raise a debate. I thank the gentleman for the colloquy. But the one thing I would like to lead in with is the last couple of questions. This week the House overwhelmingly voted for the Barney Frank-authored Iran Sanctions Enabling Act. I know you put out a press release about the strong message to Tehran that unless it abides by its international norms, its economic isolation will continue. On the same day we passed the Frank bill, news reports from Moscow indicated that Russia has no stomach for further sanctions against Iran. Given your praise for the Frank bill and the fact that Russia feels unwilling to go along with new sanctions, is it your intention not to consider Chairman Howard Berman's Iran sanctions bill this year?

Mr. McCARTHY of California. I want an open rule. Is that unfair? We just talked about transparency, sir.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. The only person who could actually put the very top together was a slave, because we bought it from the French, and they wanted more money to put the directions together. A slave sat inside and put that monument together. And that's what this body was built on. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. To the gentleman, I will always help you work because you explain to me each and every day, and you show us each and every day from the committee to the bill we took up today on the floor when it came up about water. You have the power of the Rules Committee. If you can guarantee me that it's an open rule when it comes to the floor and has open debate, the idea that the Founding Fathers, the idea that the dome of this Capitol, it's the second dome, when did they start building it? During the Civil War, not even knowing if this country would come together. But the idea that the power of this floor, that the idea would be able to work----

Mr. McCARTHY of California. I would add to the gentleman, I know you know numbers. You got elected majority leader. You have more than 218. There's 178 on this side. You have the power I never had when we were here to schedule this floor at any time. You have the power to schedule this floor. You have the power to move forward. When I asked you about at the very beginning as we talk about our troops, let's make sure we have a very clean bill is the desire on this side of the aisle.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Gladly.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. One thing I would offer to the gentleman, the passion which you started speaking when you talked about the troops, I will never question your passion for the troops. I haven't been in this House long. This is my third year. When I come into this building, I still get goose bumps. I know we have our philosophical differences. I think they are constructive. I think debates are constructive. But the one thing I firmly believe, when we talk about the Department of Defense, when we talk about the fact that we have men and women in harm's way, we should never play politics with it. I will make this pledge to you. When you talk Department of Defense and you talk about funding supplementals and others, I won't come here as a Republican, I will come here as an American. And the more ability that we have to not put anything within that, I would guarantee you, you would have a much greater ability to work together to make sure our men and women have whatever they need to carry out whatever mission.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for his passion and the answer, but should I take it that that is still a possibility, then?