Kevin McCarthy

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership guidelines on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I requested that were included as part of H.R. 3288, the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin McCarthy Bill Number: H.R. 3288 Account: Federal Highway Administration, Transportation & Community & System Preservation Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Kern County Roads Department Address of Requesting Entity: 2700 M Street, Suite 400, Bakersfield, California 93301 Description of Request: $400,000 was included for the Kern County Roads Department fund completion of the environmental designs related to the widening of State Route 119 in Taft, California, between Cherry Avenue and Tupman Road. These environmental designs are a requirement as part of the National Environmental Policy Act, and this funding will enable the Kern County Roads Department and Caltrans to complete these studies. State Route 119 is not only the primary commuter road between the Cities of Taft and Bakersfield, but is one of the major transportation corridors in the Central Valley that provides access to Los Angeles, the coastal cities, and northern California.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership guidelines on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I requested that were included as part of H.R. 3293, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin McCarthy Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement for Post Secondary Education Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Kern Community College District Address of Requesting Entity: 2100 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301 Description of Request: $250,000 was included for the Kern Community College District (KCCD) to purchase wind, solar, and other renewable energy equipment for training renewable energy technicians and engineers, and for institutionalization of curriculum for the Renewable Energy Regional Workforce Training program at KCCD affiliated schools (Bakersfield College, Cerro Coso College, and Porterville College), as well as Taft College. Kern County produces over 30% of wind-generated electricity in California and 5% in the nation, as well as ranks 4th in California in potential solar power generating capacity. As more emphasis is placed on renewable and clean energy, estimates indicate there will be a need to fill several thousand new jobs in the region over the next 5 years to meet industry need. This KCCD training program will help ensure the U.S. workforce has the skills to fill today and tomorrow's renewable energy jobs.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, this morning I opened up my hometown paper, The Bakersfield Californian. On the front page of the local section there is an article, Kern County's unemployment rate for the month of June increased to 14.7 percent. If that's a talking point, it's coming directly from the paper. One year ago the unemployment rate was 9 percent. The American people know that if Americans are not working, America is not working. My constituents ask me, Is this Obama economy going to improve? They continue to ask me, If you take more from what people earn, for the energy tax every time you turn on a light, when you go to health care, taxing, are you taking away the choice? But I tell them there is a chance for a better way. There is a better way to work together to focus on small business. Small business creates 70 percent of every job in America. We can do better by working together and stopping the unemployment.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership guidelines on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I requested that were included as part of H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin McCarthy Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Legal Name of Requesting Entity: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Address of Requesting Entity: 1 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo, California 93407 Description of Request: $250,000 was included for California Polytechnic State University Center, San Luis Obispo, to purchase student training equipment and establish educational outreach programs for the Center for Renewable Energy and Alternative Electric Transportation Technologies (CREATT). This Center will serve as an alternative energy test-bed to develop, demonstrate, and validate new alternative energy technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce emission sources, and help the United States achieve better energy efficiency and energy independence.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Larry E. Reider, a resident and community leader from Bakersfield, California, on his retirement as Kern County Superintendent of Schools and to recognize his remarkable and distinguished leadership while serving the students of Kern county. Over the last 44 years, Larry has been instrumental in advancing Kern County's public education system. Larry was born in the State of Washington and was raised on his family's farm. In 1965, he earned his bachelor's degree from Central Washington State University and made the move to Kern County to teach in the Arvin Union School District. A dedicated math teacher, Larry spent 19 years in Arvin schools' classrooms and later as a school administrator. He also earned advanced degrees from the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo and the University of Southern California. In 1984, Larry joined the Office of the Kern County Superintendent of Schools as a district advisory consultant. Recognizing his dedication and commitment to the schools, students, and parents of the community, the Kern County Board of Education tapped him to be the Kern County Superintendent of Schools in 1999. Since becoming Kern County Superintendent of Schools, Larry has been integral to a plethora of local initiatives and projects designed to enhance the reading, writing, and mathematical skills of elementary school students in the county. For instance, he partnered with the Bakersfield Californian to develop the Community Reading Project, which places volunteer reading tutors throughout various classrooms in the county to aid second graders in becoming more proficient readers. Additionally, he developed the Kern Reading Collaborative, an association that analyzes which reading programs are productive and investigates ways those programs can reach more students. Larry also established the Do The Math program, a bi-weekly television homework help channel where teachers assist students in both English and Spanish with their math problems both on and off the air, as well as Ready to Start, a summer pilot program that prepares pre-kindergartners to learn more efficiently as they begin their academic career. As a former teacher, Larry was always cognizant that highly qualified and effective teachers in the classroom are the best recipe for successful students. To that end, he co-chaired a task force which formulated various approaches to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers in Kern County schools and get them in the classroom. This initiative has been highly successful, and our schools have some of the best and brightest teachers in the region. He also recognized that new generations of students are exceedingly technology savvy, and so opened a learning center that helps teachers integrate technology into the classroom to better teach and engage their students. This not only helps teachers be more effective, it also helps ensure their students continue to develop the skills necessary to be successful in the technology-driven workplace of today. Not only has Larry harnessed cutting-edge technology in the classroom, he has also been an advocate to use technology to help keep our environment clean. Under Larry's leadership, Kern County schools are in the process of converting their current diesel school bus fleet to clean burning Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). More than half of the diesel buses have already been replaced. As part of this initiative, in 2006, the Superintendent of Schools opened a CNG fueling station, which serves Kern County school buses and is open to the public. As Kern County unfortunately has some of the dirtiest air in the United States, this initiative is extremely important to helping clean the air in the Central Valley. Larry is also active in several community organizations, including the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, Kern County Network for Children, United Way, Rotary Club of Bakersfield, and Vision 2020. He has also been honored by several local and state organizations over the years for his leadership by organizations such as the Community Action Partnership of Kern, California State University-Bakersfield School of Education, Association of California School Administrators, California Teachers Association, Kern Council of Governments, and Kern Reading Association. Larry exemplifies how one can serve their community with great enthusiasm, fortitude, and dedication. Over the years, I have enjoyed working with Larry and always found his perpetual optimism infectious. There was never an obstacle he did not challenge head-on in his amiable, but no-nonsense style, and fight for the best interests of the students of Kern County. After 44 years in public service, I know that Larry looks forward to spending more time with his wife, Sandy, a retired junior high language arts and drama teacher, and his daughter Mikhail. I know that Larry will be missed in the Kern County public education system, and I salute his lifetime of service and wish him the best as he begins this new chapter in his life.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Bernard ``Ben'' Sacco, a longtime Bakersfield entrepreneur, community leader, and friend who passed away on Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at the age of 87. Ben Sacco was born in a small town outside Salerno, Italy, and immigrated to the United States in 1935. Sacco moved to California after serving his country in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II, and worked in agriculture in Hanford. In 1947, he and Morris Rosenberg founded Sierra Bag Company in Bakersfield to produce containers for local growers. A devoted recycling advocate, Ben also founded Sierra Iron and Metal Company to recycle salvaged metals in 1959. Eventually, it became Sierra Recycling and Demolition, which cleans up land for redevelopment. On a visit to Italy, Sacco visited a scrap yard near Venice and discovered a unique machine--a mobile baler that could process twice as much scrap metal in a day as its U.S. counterparts. He promptly bought one, and at an age when many are considering retirement, Sacco embarked on a new career equipment vendor. He introduced the combination shear/baler in the United States in 1987, and soon Sierra International Machinery expanded into a major industry. Earlier this year, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries honored Ben Sacco with a lifetime achievement award for his dedication to Sierra International Machinery, LLC. Adding to his list of accomplishments, Sacco founded the Italian Heritage Dante organization in 1996. Ben Sacco is survived by his wife, Eunice Sacco; sons John, Anthony, and Phillip; daughters Angela, Aragon, and Laura; and six grandchildren. Devoted to serving his community in a variety of ways, Ben's death is a great loss for the Bakersfield community, but his legacy of dedication to his family, friends, and businesses will always be remembered.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership guidelines on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I requested that were included as part of H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin McCarthy Bill Number: H.R. 2996 Account: Environmental Protection Agency, STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Ridgecrest, California Address of Requesting Entity: 100 West California Avenue, Ridgecrest, California 93555 Description of Request: $400,000 is included for the City of Ridgecrest, California, to help fund Phase I (planning, environmental studies, engineering design and construction monitoring, and legal and administrative issues) of the city's new wastewater treatment facility. Ridgecrest, located in northeast Kern County, serves as a support community to the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake (NAWCWD), and receives and treats all of the base's wastewater, which accounts for more than one-third of the water treated at the existing facility. As the existing plant has limited capacity and with additional personnel expected on the naval base in the future, the current wastewater treatment facility will reach and exceed its capacity requiring another treatment plant in the next few years. The city recognizes the challenges it faces on this front and is proactively working to address this issue before acceptable discharge limitations are exceeded at the current plant.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Do you have a number in mind?

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Just to clarify to my good friend that on the other side of the aisle in the other house, they had passed an amendment to deny the right for those AIG bonuses. And if I recall when I was sitting on this floor, those lights were all green saying ``yes'' to the resolution, that they would have 48 hours, the American people, to see that bill. But in the short timeframe, within the next day, that was not to be true. That was not the agreement that transpired on this floor that, yes, it was handed out after midnight and, yes, we voted on it the next day.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Well, the assurance, will you stay with that, or is there any ability to open it up, to have an open rule?

Mr. McCARTHY of California. You had said earlier that you were looking to----

Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank my friend for expressing the desire to get the work done in this House, and I will tell you from this side of the aisle, that is our desire as well. Knowing when we talk about time, we believe we can get our work done on time as well. But having only been in this House 2\1/2\ years and seeing bills come to the floor and knowing, even when we brought the stimulus, the whole idea about time, that soon we found out, because somebody rushed the bill to the floor, that there were AIG bonuses in the bill at the time. I always think the American people believe it's okay to have some checks and balances; it's okay to have debate on the floor; it's okay to have some amendments asked upon the bill process. And I ask my good friend who brought up the number of amendments, the thing that I would recall, though, this is in a world of preprinting, and when you deal with preprinting of amendments, that you have to submit them earlier, there are numerous ones you submit but they will not come to the floor. Much like when we started the debate this week, we did not enter the first Republican one until six of them had already been denied. So even though a quote will be named of a hundred and some amendments, that's not the number that we'll take up. And when we talked about the ability of having an agreement on time, that came to pass after the bill had started. And I would think in the idea of making sure that the best products come out of this floor that a time idea would not be until you start the bill. Look to where the process is, and how would it be wrong to have a debate? When I just watched the legislative branch today, we only had one amendment that we all agreed to. We had one chance of a motion to recommit, which we were able to save the taxpayers $100,000, where 374 people came together and said, yes, we could do better, that we don't have to settle for good; we could settle for great. But how much more money could we have saved had we had that opportunity to offer it? And one thing I would say to the gentleman is if we did have an open rule, as it was before, and we talked about maybe taking away the preprinting, maybe we could be a little faster in the process. And I think looking at the history of what happened this week, we could have gotten it through faster in an open rule. So I ask the gentleman, as he talks about having a closed structure in the process, is there any assurance that we know you're going to agree to that plan or maybe even have an open rule as we progress?

Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman. And I would just like to ask: he noticed two appropriations bills for next week, the Homeland Security and the Interior. I was just wondering if the gentleman could tell us what he believes next week's process will be in terms of amendments. And I yield.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Well, I appreciate the gentleman because when I was sitting here on the floor, and I saw 17 of your Members join with everyone voting ``no,'' the bipartisan support, that there was a better way, that there was an opportunity. That kind of goes back to the whole debate about amendments. I always thought, coming to this floor, that maybe the power of the idea should win, and no one should be afraid of an idea or an amendment, that we would actually be better. But I think the opportunity to spend time with the gentleman--and I appreciate it if some Members on your side thought differently in the past, that we can get the message out. I appreciate the work that you have done. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. I will gladly yield to my friend.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. I do appreciate the decades of service you have provided, and, again, I say I have only been here 2\1/2\ years. But as I always studied and watched Congress and understood the idea of a filibuster, never did I think a filibuster was 20 minutes. Never did I think when you came to the floor, on the very first amendment a Republican took up, that in 20 minutes somehow it got called a filibuster. And from one perspective on this side of the aisle, please understand, you set the rules. Nowhere did we not abide by the rules. You asked for preprinting; we provided our amendments preprinted. You said to go along with the debate; we got into the debate. We were into 20 minutes. And I think the American people like the idea of debating on this floor. But if I may move on, there is just one final question on this. The reason I asked you about the number of amendments on the Republican side, you've got to understand the questioning of why I would. We just took up a legislative branch, and you said you weren't sure about how many Republican amendments there could be in the future, but to my good friend, there were none. There wasn't one Republican amendment. So our ability within the rules as they're constructed, we have one motion to recommit, and you know what happened? 374 people in this Chamber joined hands together. That doesn't come around very often to save the taxpayers $100,000. So think for one moment what the American people would save in a time of crisis, and you look in my district where it's 15.9 percent unemployment, if they see a few more dollars saved, it helps them a great deal. But if I may move on, to my good friend from Maryland, I would like to ask him about cap-and-trade. The Speaker has announced and I have read a lot of what she has said about if you don't finish this bill in Agriculture and Ways and Means by a certain date, you lose the right of authority. And the Speaker had a goal of considering the cap-and-trade bill on the floor prior to the July 4th process. Does my friend believe that time will still be the case, that we will see the bill before July the 4th?

Mr. McCARTHY of California. If I just may follow up on that, should I believe what I read in the paper, that even though this bill has three different committees of jurisdiction with the Agriculture and the Ways and Means bill, if it was not taken up by a certain date, would they lose the jurisdiction right to take up the bill before it came to the floor, or will we expect it to come out of those committees before the floor?

Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman. And if I may move on to another subject. During the debate of the war supplemental, one major issue was dropped from the bill. The bipartisan provision to prevent release of detainee photos was removed from the final version, knowing the release of these photos could create greater tension in the very region that our troops are now fighting. As the gentleman knows, the Senate unanimously passed the Lieberman bill yesterday, preventing the release of detainee photos. I am just wondering why the bill didn't come to the floor today to protect our troops. Would you consider that to be brought up next week?

Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman. And knowing that and with the Senators knowing that as well, they still passed it yesterday unanimously. Do you believe we could take it up next week?

Mr. McCARTHY of California. I look forward to that. I appreciate that.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Well, I would never bet against you. I appreciate the opportunity to bring that up. And to my good friend from Maryland, knowing that this is the last colloquy before the Fourth of July break, as we look forward to when we come back, there are a lot of big topics coming before this House. I will tell you from a personal level, it was a little disturbing on some of the items I'm reading about. Because in this House on this side of the aisle, I participated really for the first time coming back this year of inviting our President to our conference, inviting President Obama to the conference because we wanted to work in a bipartisan manner. We worked on the idea of the stimulus bill where we got together and we created ideas that he asked for, and we gave it to him. We could create twice as many jobs with half as much money, scored by his own administration. And when I look forward, one thing that we did early on was, this leadership on this side of the House signed a letter to the President, talking about, we want to work together on health care. We want to find common ground. We want to make sure that all Americans have access to health care. We want to make sure that we solve this problem. And in doing that, we even put together our own working group. We set out our principles, and we continue to put them forward. And one of the concerns I had when I tried to find information from the other side of the aisle--I would go to the President's Web page. First there were eight items; and as we got closer, it would get down to three items. They were actually taking things off the Web site. But then when I read in the newspaper Politico where people are being directed on your side of the aisle not to talk to Republicans on the health care issue--I don't know if you read that quote, but I can provide it to you. And then when I hear of other people that are outside of these Chambers working on it, being told not to talk to Republicans or they would not be put in the room, I'm just wondering if there's a chance that that behavior will change and that we will have the opportunity to work together, that we will have the opportunity for our ideas to be presented. That is something the American people would want, that we could work in a bipartisan--much like earlier when a Republican produced the motion to recommit, and 374 people came together to save the taxpayers $100,000. I yield to my friend from Maryland.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Yes, we have.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Well, I thank the gentleman. The only thing I would say, having been in that caucus, the President came to the caucus that we had invited him to prior to our retreat because we wanted to speak to this President before. And I will tell you, knowing that these are closed-door sessions, but this is probably one of the best caucuses I had been to. I thought it was very honest, open, talked about the issue, discussed the issue. There were times when the President disagreed with us. He said, I philosophically disagree. But other times he said, You know what, that's a good idea. Let's work on that. But as the President left that caucus, the other side introduced the bill, so in essence in part we felt crushed with the opportunity to even work in a bipartisan manner. But we continued along the trail where we put the working group together, and we didn't go out and score the bill our way. We took the President's scoring, which will tell you how many jobs and how much money it would cost; and our focus was on small business and job creation. It created twice as many jobs with half the amount of money. Our whip, Mr. Eric Cantor, personally handed it to the President; and the President said, This isn't crazy at all. So we, on this side of the aisle, really look forward to working in a bipartisan manner and especially after seeing the scoring on the latest health care bill from the Democratic side, where it would only help 15 million of those uninsured but costs more than $1 trillion, knowing that that does not solve the problem, but continues to cost taxpayers tremendous amounts of money. I appreciate your assurance that maybe the attitude has changed, that the quote from Congressman Jim Cooper to the Politico where he was told not to work with Republicans, that that will change. I appreciate your work on that and the words you have said today.

Mr. McCARTHY of California

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation I introduced, along with my colleagues Congressman Wally Herger, Congressman Dan Lungren, Congressman Tom McClintock, Congressman Buck McKeon, Congressman Devin Nunes, and Congressman George Radanovich, which would create four new permanent district court judgeships and one temporary district court judgeship in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, as well as designate Bakersfield, California, as a place of holding court for the Eastern District of California. For the year ending September 30, 2008, according to the most recent data available from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Eastern District of California had 1,305 pending cases per judge, a 50.2% increase since 2003, and weighted filings of 970 per judge, a 26.5% increase since 2003, which is substantially above the weighted filing standard used by the Judicial Conference of the United States to determine when additional judgeships are needed. Moreover, in 2008, the Eastern District of California had the highest number of pending cases and weighted filings per judge of all other district courts in the Ninth Judicial Circuit, including the district courts that serve Los Angeles and San Francisco. In the 2005 Biennial Judgeship Survey, the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended four additional permanent judgeships for the Eastern District of California. Specifically, the report states: ``The Court is requesting three permanent judgeships and conversion of the temporary judgeship to a permanent position based on a steadily increasing and consistently high weighted caseload. The Judicial Conference has recommended conversion of the temporary position since 1997, and also recommended one permanent judgeship and one temporary judgeship in 1997 and 1999, two permanent judgeships since 2001, and three permanent judgeships in the 2003 survey.'' More recently, during the March 2009 biannual meeting, the Judicial Conference voted to ask Congress to create sixty-three new federal judgeships, fifty-one of which would be for district courts. Within this proposal, the Judicial Conference recommended the Eastern District of California receive four additional permanent judgeships and one temporary judgeship. My bill seeks to implement the Judicial Conference's recommendations for the Eastern District of California, which includes at its southern-most point, Kern County, which I represent. My bill would also designate Bakersfield, California, as a place of holding court for the Eastern District of California. Such a designation does not require or imply a district court be located in Bakersfield. This designation would simply make Bakersfield eligible to have the Eastern District of California locate a district court judge there should caseload require. Under current law, the City of Fresno, the City of Redding, and the City of Sacramento are all currently designated as a place of holding court for the Eastern District of California. The current population of Bakersfield is 315,837, which is similar in size to Fresno (pop. 470,508) and Sacramento (pop. 460,242), and significantly larger than Redding (pop. 89,780). That said, Bakersfield is a fast growing city in California and, due to affordable housing and its proximity to Los Angeles, is expected to continue to grow in the future. To that end, the City's population is projected to grow by more than 14 percent to over 557,000 by 2015 and Kern County is projected to grow by more than 24 percent to nearly one million over the next decade, growth well above the 8.7 percent national population growth rate projected by the U.S. Census Bureau for 2010 to 2020. Furthermore, Kern and Inyo Counties currently account for almost 23% of the Fresno division civil filings and 9% of Eastern District civil filings. As these counties continue to grow, it is reasonable to assume that filings will increase, and this designation provides the Eastern District of California the flexibility to locate a district judge in Bakersfield in the future. In terms of geography, the Eastern District of California is the largest judicial district of the four federal district court districts in California, encompassing over 87,000 square miles (34 of California's 58 counties) and almost 600 miles long. According to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California, this judicial district is the eighth most populous and physically the tenth largest of all 94 U.S. District Court judicial districts in the United States. Thus, travel within the sprawling Eastern District is time- consuming, not to mention expensive. Furthermore, there is no major metropolitan area designated as a place of holding court in the southern region of the Eastern District of California. Redding is located in the north of the judicial district, Sacramento is located in the north central area of the district, and Fresno is located in the south central area of the district. A designation for Bakersfield would make the largest city in the southern part of this judicial district at minimum eligible to have a district court judge in the future. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees ``the right to a speedy and public trial.'' In order to preserve this constitutional right in the Eastern District of California, I fully support the Judicial Conference's judgeship recommendations, as well as making Bakersfield, California, eligible as a place of holding court. My bill would ensure the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has the requisite number of judges to execute its duties in a timely manner for the citizens the Court serves, ensure the Court has the resources to adjudicate current and future cases, which are only expected to increase, and ensure the equitable administration of justice in California.