Geoff Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I just think one thing the gentleman from Texas brought up is very important for us to realize, and that is manufacturing jobs are the best benefit providing jobs we have for working families in this Nation. Eighty-four percent of manufacturing jobs provide full benefits, health care, retirement, opportunity for the future, and that sense of security. What this tax increase is going to do by addressing domestic oil producers is not simply a strike at a mythological big oil company. The international oil producers are not going to be affected by this. They simply have to step back and let the law of supply and demand take over. Who is going to be affected? The local oil producers, the wildcatters, those small investors in Kentucky, West Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other States throughout the heartland that create jobs. In addition to that, dollars for research and development are going to be disincented. With a tax credit is the opportunity to reinvest that, to find new sources of oil, and more importantly develop new technologies that can bring it forward in a low-cost way and create more jobs. But it is not just the small producers. It will be the distribution chain. Those small refiners, like our Catlettsburg Refinery, which creates hundreds of jobs in northeast Kentucky and affects thousands of jobs in the local economy, will be adversely affected by this. It will impair their ability to grow and it will hurt the future for people there. Down the supply chain, the distributors of gasoline and petroleum products. And, again, it is not Big Oil. It is the local convenience store owner, the person who drives that replenishment truck going to the gas stations. It is the lawn care business that might be in somebody's neighborhood or the individual who is taking parts to the manufacturing company. It is going to be the person who distributes milk and food products. It will put a cost burden on every single consumer in this country. Not only will there be a tax increase, but there will be inflation as a direct result of this. Ultimately, it comes down to our consumers. Because if our farmers and manufacturers are all going to be burdened with this, ultimately it will pass to us. And what sounds good in reality is a big, big mistake, because it is taking money out of the economy, and it will send it elsewhere and will keep it away from incentives that will create jobs. We need to make investments in energy, in natural gas, and in oil. Natural gas is critical for our manufacturing economy. But the Democrats in Congress overwhelmingly voted repeatedly in the 109th Congress. Congressmen Conaway and Shuster and I saw this, where in fact one Member was chased down into our Cloakroom to change his vote after Hurricane Katrina against expansion of refinery capacity. We need to make sure that we have natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf and we use the resources that we have here, like the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, in an environmental friendly way to make sure that our economy, our future, is put first, so that children like the young man sitting behind me here can have a job and a future when they grow up. But what we see is this tax increase now and the tax increase in 1,446 days, and I yield back.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Well, I think we need to put in real terms what is going to happen in 1,446 days, and that is a $2,096 tax increase for every working family in America. What does that translate into? For me, that translates into one semester of college tuition for my 21-year-old, who started student teaching this week. She is in her third year at Northern Kentucky University. And what does it hold for my son's future? What kind of opportunity is he going to have by restricting that annuity that could grow and remain strong in the future? If we look at it in the bigger sense and talk about energy security in this tax that is coming, that is going to hit people in their bottom line, in the pocketbook and at the pump, one of the things we got to experience working together on the Armed Services Committee, we see much of the money that America sends to foreign oil producers is sent to unstable parts of the world. It is sent to areas like the Arabian Gulf that are a hotbed of extremism and instability. We see what is happening in Venezuela right now, with a socialist dictator who has risen to power and threatening to nationalize the oil reserves and fundamentally to cut off America's gasoline supply. Fifteen percent of our gasoline comes from that part of the world. The one thing that I want to comment on, from that standpoint, is we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, to keep more of our dollars here. And there are tremendous initiatives and opportunities that we have today that we could do to address this issue in many ways. One of the things we have done in the Ohio Valley is to take advantage of the coal-to-liquid technology. It is a proven technology. South Africa produces 25 percent of their transportation fuel from coal. That is why we have introduced the Coal to Liquids Fuel Promotion Act of 2006. It is a bipartisan bill that I introduced with Nick Rahall. He and I share the largest inland port in the United States, where the majority of America's coal is transited outward. Pennsylvania produces a tremendous amount of coal. Think what we could do by decentralizing energy production, creating jobs here, and literally, as our floor leader, the majority leader in the Kentucky statehouse says, we could have another industrial revolution in the heartland of this country, creating millions of jobs, converting coal to liquids in an environmentally friendly manner, reducing our foreign oil dependency, stimulating jobs here, and giving our youth a future. And replicate that also with biomass, biodiesel, ethanol, and many other types of products. And I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to follow on.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, we both had the opportunities to pursue the American Dream, to start our own businesses and create jobs. I look back on the last time there was a large increase was in the administration that came in in 1993 that passed one of the largest tax increases in American history. What that meant to our business was less jobs, money that could have been reinvested and employed more people. The one thing we need to understand is that people know how to spend their money better than government does, to keep it in their local communities, to stimulate that local economy. And the tremendous increases in taxes just went to further Federal spending. I think the thing that we have seen by policies that allowed people to keep more of their own money is we don't raise taxes, we create more taxpayers. One of the things that is lost in much of the political noise that has gone on over the course of the last year is that revenues from income taxes have been at the highest point in American history because the most jobs have been created by allowing people to keep more of their own money. But in the aftermath of the last election, what most folks don't realize is that the average working-class family making between $30,000 and $50,000 a year has voted themselves a tax increase of over $2,000 that will take place in 1,446 days unless Congress acts as a majority. I invite members of the Blue Dog Coalition, those that are fiscal conservatives, to join together with us to ensure that those tax cuts stay in place. I have my son, Geoffrey, sitting behind me tonight who is 8 years old. I ask myself what kind of a country will he have. Will he have the opportunity to pursue that American Dream, to create jobs, to create a future and pursue his desire? That is what this is all about ultimately, providing personal freedom and discretion with their income to make a difference. We cut taxes in every walk of life. We encouraged families by eliminating the marriage penalty and we doubled the child tax credit so families with a large number of children would not be penalized, but made sure that they could make an investment in their children. We lowered tax rates for all Americans. We removed 10.6 million low-income earners from the tax rolls. To say that these tax cuts were simply for the rich was a myth because the person who benefited was the working family and small business owner who could put their dollars to work in their community to build a nest egg for themselves and ultimately to build a future. And what did it do on average? It returned $1,670 to the average taxpayer who took that money and spent it on personal needs or invested it, building a future for their children and their children's children. One thing that I found interesting when the resolution on tomorrow's energy vote came in, and I think we come from areas that are strong in manufacturing in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, and Illinois. Energy security is one of the most important things that we are facing in the future of this Nation. We talk about it and we talk about initiatives that are going to create jobs coming from folks who have been in business. At the end of the day, what are we seeing, not only a tax increase in 1,446 days, but a tax increase on the American energy consumer that is coming by taxing domestic energy producers and pushing more business to Middle Eastern oil producers. I have some comments on some legislation that we have been working on, but I yield back for your comments on this.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I did a long-term note for them for room and board. We will work that out with the family tax man over time. But the good news is, I think all young people, when you see kids in this country have that natural desire to create opportunity, and what do we do with Big Government? Big Government stifles that opportunity. We stifle it by creating excessive regulations. We stifle it by tax. What might sound good, again, I come back to the politics of class warfare where they say, oh, we have got to just stop these profits from going to companies. It is not fair for somebody who is working 100 hours a week in reality to be more successful than you. But it is those people who are creating the jobs for others. They are fueling the economy for research. They are fueling the education and research and development programs in our universities. I look at another time in history where there was a government attempt to control energy prices, when OPEC began to assert itself in 1973 and 1974. There was an attempt to control prices. What did we end up with? I remember when I was in high school.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. There you go, what did we have? We had rationing; we had gas prices skyrocketing.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 175th anniversary of the Rabbit Hash General Store. Rabbit Hash, located on the banks of the Ohio River, has a very special place in the heart of Kentuckians. I have a picture of the legendary general store hanging here in my office on Capitol Hill, and it seems that nearly every constituent that visits has a story to share about this very unique place. After all, how many towns can say that they have elected a dog as their mayor twice. Rabbit Hash General Store traces its roots back to 1831 when it was first constructed to store goods awaiting the arrival of steamboats traveling on the Ohio River. The general store has remained in continuous operation since then, withstanding the test of time and of Mother Nature. The unique engineering of a blacksmith in the 1880s locks the structure of the general store in place when the waters of the Ohio begin to rise. Rabbit Hash has been listed on the Register of National Historic Places, and in 2002 was sold to the Rabbit Hash Historical Society to ensure preservation for future generations of Kentuckians. I am extremely proud of those who kept this small community vibrant over the years and am excited to share in their celebration of the 175th anniversary of the Rabbit Hash General Store.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1998, the Stolen Valor Act. I commend my colleague from Colorado for introducing this, Ranking Member Conyers and Chairman Sensenbrenner for this important bill, because it will strengthen the penalties for the misuse and misrepresentation of our Nation's highest military honors. I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 3352, the House version of this bill. I thank Congressman Salazar and Senator Conrad for working in a bipartisan spirit to make this legislation a reality. I have had the opportunity during my time in Congress to present medals of valor to many veterans in my district. Though their service was many years ago, it is an inspiring experience to hear these veterans talk about their service to our Nation with great pride and also reflecting the humility of the generation it served. For many of those who lay their lives on the line for our country, there is no greater honor than the receipt of a medal honoring their bravery and sacrifice, reflecting the sentiment of a grateful Nation. It is disturbing to me that people would illegitimately sell these medals or display them as a false symbol of their own valor. While our soldiers have valiantly defended our freedom on the battlefield, others have displayed false symbols of service, misleading our citizens, cheapening the symbol, and dishonoring the heritage, traditions and servicemembers who have had to live the reality of military service. When General George Washington instituted our Nation's first military award, he set forth a number of principles to follow, including one that stated, ``Should any who are not entitled to these honors have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished.'' Those who illegally wear, sell or produce decorations and medals should be punished. These actions are disrespectful to generations of our Nation's veterans and war heroes. The Stolen Valor Act will strengthen the punishment for those who falsely portray themselves as recipients of military decorations and medals. Military decorations and medals honor our Nation's brave service men and women and inspire future generations to military service. They remind us of the great price of freedom, the excruciating time of separation, of loss, of pain, of sadness, and the joys of camaraderie that few can understand. I urge my colleagues to support the Stolen Valor Act and help preserve the integrity of our Nation's military honors.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to echo some comments that were made by Mr. Pomeroy. Our title II language of the original House bill directly addressed the predatory lending issue, and we were disappointed, many of us, that that language was removed from the Senate version. However, I believe that there will be good news in the defense authorization. We have worked very tirelessly over the past couple of weeks, and I am serving as a conferee on the joint House/Senate committee, and I believe that we are going to have some very strong language to begin to address this issue, to control the fees and the percentage rates and ultimately to dissuade our young soldiers, sailors, and airmen from participating in these processes that take advantage of them financially. One thing that I would like to point out is an aspect of my own story and the nature of this behind the bill. I remember experiencing the invitation to the steak dinner at a meeting hall where many soldiers came out to hear a presentation about how much money they could possibly make by joining these programs, and the importance of insurance and how that was going to help, and how one salesperson asked my wife if she would feel safe on the amount of insurance that she had from the servicemen's group life program at that time. She even won a $50 lucky drawing during that. And it wasn't until several years later that we realized that we had based our trust on a false premise and had purchased a product that we didn't need. One of the great things in America is the equalizing capability of the American people, that every person has a say with votes, that we can pursue goals and opportunities, and as the old saying goes, ``What goes around comes around.'' I remember sitting as a new Member in the House of Representative when the then CEO of that very company was sitting across from my desk wanting us to not bring H.R. 458, the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act, to the floor. And having lived that, and knowing the concern of the other Members on the committee, we are very pleased to take this first step as we are addressing many steps in protecting our servicemembers and also enhancing their financial literacy. With that, I want to commend both sides for having worked together. I thank the gentleman from Georgia especially for his long-time interest in this. And I want to say a special note to outgoing Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley. I believe that he has set a stellar example of leadership in his tenure. He has been a mentor to me and other members of the committee. What he has shown is that we can work in a spirit of comity and comedy, that we can have fun as we deal with very, very serious issues. He always kept the vision, the end goal, in sight that we were working toward to keep things in perspective so that when the pressures of the time or the fatigue of the long days might move emotions in a different direction, he was always there to keep us pointed towards that end goal as we run that race to have good financial services legislation like this bill that we have today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the work of the gentleman from Georgia on this important issue which affects so many of our men and women in uniform. I rise today in support of S. 418, the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act. First, let me thank Senators Enzi and Clinton for sponsoring the Senate companion to my bill, H.R. 458, which passed the House last year by a vote of 405-2. This important legislation will protect our troops from certain insurance and investment products, and in particular, the contractual plan. Contractual plans have virtually disappeared from the civilian market due to excessive sales charges, but sales persist among servicemembers and their families, who are often new to managing finances and unaware that there are alternative or more cost-effective opportunities out there. The hallmark of the deceptively expensive plans are front-loaded commission fees of up to 50 percent. S. 418 prohibits the sales of these predatory investment products. Unfortunately, there are some bad actors still out there in the insurance and securities industry that have been taking advantage of military personnel by marketing these questionable products. Mr. Speaker, I understand firsthand the sales tactics used by these companies on our soldiers. As a young officer in the Army, a group of salesmen showed up on my post and convinced me and my fellow soldiers to purchase a contractual plan. I fell for the sales pitch for this contractual plan because the company made it appear as though they were part of the Armed Forces family, and the salesman, a respected military veteran, was somebody I thought I could trust because of his record in the military. That trust was betrayed simply because of our ignorance. What we discovered as time went by was that there were tremendous other options out there; and that many, many service personnel were losing tens of thousands of dollars that could have gone directly into investment products that were available in the commercial world. I invested what was a lot of money to me at the time, not because I was a financial expert, I was a combat arms officer, but because a retired servicemember was working as a salesman and was pushing a product with the referral of other veterans. It was not until I got out of the Army and into the business world that I discovered how uncompetitive these products were when compared to other investment opportunities. However, it was too late. My wife and I lost nearly half our life savings on this so-called investment. S. 418 also addresses the sale of life insurance to servicemembers. The bill requires life insurance companies to provide written disclosures that, among other disclosures, state that subsidized life insurance is available through the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Program and fully disclose the terms of the agreement and any savings feature of the product. The disclosure must be in plain and readily understandable language and in a normal type font. Additionally, I would like to state I am disappointed that the Senate removed the qualifying words ``in person'' from the requirements provision of section 10 on disclosures regarding life insurance products. I have concerns that this could prevent certain well- respected life insurance companies from continuing to do business the way they have for many years, which enables the issuing of insurance in a timely manner to servicemembers who are often about to be deployed or go into combat. I plan to continue monitoring the status of this issue, and I will pursue legislative options in the future should my concern manifest itself. Regulation of these types of insurance and investment products on military bases has clearly been inadequate to this point. The situation required congressional action to address the situation and protect our servicemembers. I applaud my colleagues in the Senate for moving forward with S. 418, and I appreciate the leadership of the House for bringing it to the floor for a vote. I would encourage the Department of Defense to continue with its efforts to improve financial literacy of our troops. I cannot emphasize strongly enough how I agree with my colleague from Georgia on the importance of teaching our young soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines about the opportunities that they have and the benefits they can accrue from taking wise counsel and go for sure and certain return on their investment while they are serving this Nation. However, we as a Congress cannot allow these abusive sales practices to continue. We must not ask the men and women of our armed services to make sacrifices for our security without doing all we can to protect their financial futures. They are laying their lives on the line and putting their families under tremendous stresses and pressures right now. The last thing we must permit to take place is predatory sales practices upon these soldiers while they are getting ready to deploy and weigh these serious life decisions without proper information. Working together, we will solve this problem. Thank you again to Senators Enzi and Clinton for sponsoring the Senate version of my bill, H.R. 458, and to Chairman Baker and Chairman Oxley for their diligent examination of this issue in the House Financial Services Committee. I also want to emphasize that this has truly been a bipartisan effort working together on a compromise that never weakened the provisions but actually made a stronger bill in the long run, particularly with the House version that came out last year. I thank the ranking member, Mr. Frank, and Chairman Oxley for their leadership and the example they set for every committee in the House of Representatives on working together in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that benefits the American people. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), the gentleman from Pennyslvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) have all been integral to this dialogue to offer key provisions and key counsel to strengthen this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 418) to protect members of the Armed Forces from unscrupulous practices regarding sales of insurance, financial, and investment products.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume but first would like to recognize the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Oxley of Ohio.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with tremendous pride to support the Student and Teachers Safety Act. Drugs and violence simply do not belong in our schools. Our teachers and children are entitled to a safe learning environment, free from weapons and illicit narcotics. Time and again at the Columbine High School in Colorado; in Jonesboro, Arkansas; and in my home State, at Heath High School in Paducah, Kentucky, shocking acts of violence have been planned and unfortunately executed in our schools. Last week in Green Bay, Wisconsin, the situation turned out differently. Local law enforcement reacting to information gathered by school officials were able to thwart an attack being planned by high school students and save lives. The National Center for Education statistics found in 2003, the last year for which we have statistics, 17 percent of students in grades 9 through 12 reported having carried a weapon; 9 percent of students reported having been threatened or injured with a weapon, such as a gun, knife, or club, on school property. During the same period, 29 percent of students have been offered drugs on school grounds within the previous 12 months. My friends, these numbers are simply unacceptable. The presence of drugs or weapons in a classroom is not conducive to a productive learning environment. Metal detectors have become a fact of life in many of our schools. Despite that fact, weapons are still appearing in our classrooms. When I was a child in school, no one doubted who had control of the classroom. Teachers were clear in their ability to control their learning environment. Today, we have the opportunity to restore some of that clarity. I am a firm believer in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and I take my oath of office to defend those rights very seriously. This legislation is simple. This act does not issue a blank check to anyone to conduct random, unfounded, or mass searches. It does not change the fourth amendment standards on search and seizure. In fact, it is the parents and school officials who are empowered by this legislation. These men and women will work together in individual communities across the Nation to develop school safety policies that suit the unique needs of their teachers and students and are based on the constitutional standards set by the Supreme Court. Nothing more, nothing less. H.R. 5295 requires local education agencies to have policies in place that adopt a standard articulated by the Supreme Court in New Jersey v. T.L.O. This standard allows teachers and school officials to use their experience and judgments to make decisions that will help control their classrooms and protect the students. Our schools and classrooms should be safe places, free from drugs and weapons; and safety should not be a luxury. Parents should be confident in the safety of their children at school. Children should be able to focus on their studies without fear; teachers and school officials should be confident in their judgment and ability to control school property. I am very proud of the work that we have done with the National Education Association to improve the language of H.R. 5295 since its original introduction, and I am even more pleased that the National Education Association has endorsed this legislation as a positive step toward a safer learning environment for teachers and students throughout our schools. A special thank you is due to Chairman McKeon and his staff for their assistance. I would especially like to recognize the work of three staffers, Joanna Glaze, Taylor Hansen and James Bergeron. I urge all my colleagues to support this simple, commonsense legislation to provide our students and teachers with a safer, more productive learning environment.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 6, 2006 I was absent from the House to attend the visitation for a United States Marine from my district. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 427--``yea''; rollcall No. 428--``yea''; rollcall No. 429--``yea.''

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5024) to require annual oral testimony before the Financial Services Committee of the Chairperson or a designee of the Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, relating to their efforts to promote transparency in financial reporting, as amended.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to recognize this bill as a result of a true bipartisan effort. I want to thank Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their support, and particularly our original cosponsors Congressman Israel from New York and Congressman Scott from Georgia. This has been an effort that has come together across the aisle to provide a bill which would improve financial reporting, simplify our regulatory system over time to ultimately help our country compete in a global economy. In the post-Enron financial era, transparent reporting has become an increasingly important component promoting a healthy corporate environment. Financially stable, accountable corporations are essential for expanding the U.S. business sector, promoting investor confidence, and for strengthening the economy. However, it is important to examine ways in which such accountability and reporting standards can become more efficient and more transparent. A cumbersome, costly system will only reduce our competitiveness in a connected world economy and ultimately will cost us jobs. I regularly hear complaints from business owners and executives in Kentucky about the cost and the complexity of financial reporting requirements mandated by the Federal Government. As a former business consultant, I know firsthand the difficulties faced during the time- consuming and costly process of accounting and financial disclosure. We must update our methods of accountability to reflect 21st century technology in a global marketplace. Unfortunately, financial reporting remains an arduous task with too many opportunities for error and for manipulation. Reassessing outdated accounting standards and improving the ability of the average investor to understand and utilize financial literature is essential to the livelihood of American business and the protection of American investors. Requiring annual congressional testimony by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board stresses that simplification, cost reduction, and transparency in accounting standards and financial reporting are public priorities. We must assure continuity in our markets and continuity in the process. This bill will provide the Federal Government the opportunity to apply a philosophy of continuous improvement, looking for ways to improve the regulatory structure and to reduce costs. As stated in the bill, we would like to direct attention to several areas of particular concern. First, I would like to point out that H.R. 5024 will give Congress a way to measure progress on the efforts of these organizations over the next 5 years, and ensure that they are working to streamline and modernize the process of financial reporting. First, we need to reassess complex and outdated accounting standards. We need to improve understandability, consistency, and the overall usability of the existing accounting and auditing literature. We need to develop principle-based accounting standards. We need to encourage the use and acceptance of interactive data, or extensible business reporting language, XBRL, and, finally, in the end to promote disclosure in plain English. Simplifying the process of accountability will do two things: First, it reduces the risk of error and misuse by making the process simpler and more transparent. And, second, it will help working families have visibility to information they can understand without needing to ask a CPA or a tax attorney. I appreciate the efforts of these organizations thus far to reduce complexity, and I recognize the public statements of support for such efforts by SEC Chairman Chris Cox and FASB Chairman Robert Herz. As SEC Chairman Cox said at the SEC Historical Society meeting in June, this process is going to be a long one, but it is worth it to make sure that the capital markets remain strong and remain vibrant. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, again, I want to reiterate my thanks to the gentleman from New York. It has been a great process to see this come to pass. Let's pass this bill as a first step toward creating a process for continuous improvement that will simplify and improve our financial reporting regulatory framework. Madam Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 12, 2006 I was absent from the House due to an airline delay. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 251--``yea''; rollcall No. 252--``yea''; rollcall No. 253--``yea.''

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 19, 2006, I was absent from the House due to a prescheduled event with the President on his American Competitiveness Initiative at Northern Kentucky University. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 173 (previous question)--``yea''; Rollcall No. 174 (rule)--``yea''; Rollcall No. 175 (Blumenauer amendment)--``no''; Rollcall No. 176 (final passage)--``yea.''

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I also thank the chairman. It is a privilege to serve on a committee chaired by a fellow Army Ranger. Today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5122 and to speak about a matter of importance to our men and women who serve in the Reserve component, in the National Guard and our Armed Forces. As a former enlisted soldier, West Point graduate and 11-year veteran of active duty, and serving a number of years in Reserve, this is an important issue and one of particular interest and concern to me. The bill which we are considering today includes an important provision that will for the first time establish equity in the computation of retired disability pay for all servicemembers, regardless of whether they were serving in the active military, Reserve or National Guard. I thank Chairman Hunter and Personnel Subcommittee Chairman McHugh for their support of my amendment in committee which ensured inclusion of this vital amendment in today's legislation. Earlier this year on one of my trips to Walter Reed Hospital, I visited a severely wounded member of the Kentucky Army National Guard from my district, Sergeant Carlos Farler of Tollesboro, Kentucky. I was stunned in talking with this great American, whose home is not far from mine, as he told me that his disability pay would be computed at a different level for Reservists and for Guardsmen than it is for active servicemembers who have the same wounds from the same battle. After meeting Sergeant Farler, I researched how military disability and retirement pay is computed. I learned that this computation is often based on the years of service. Under current law, a Reservist gets credit only for the time he actually spends in uniform. For example, a soldier who has spent 13 years in the Kentucky National Guard may have only 4 years of service when his or her duty days are added up. With a 30 percent disability this soldier gets about 8 percent less disability retirement pay than their regular Army counterpart. In other words, two personnel with identical disabilities, incurred in the same Iraqi fire fight, will end up with a different disability retirement benefit with the citizen soldier coming up short. A lifetime difference of 8 percent in disability pay can have a significant impact on a retiree's standard of living. The amendment which I offered and which was accepted in committee will change the law so that the actual number of years spent in the Reserves will be used. Any servicemember who earns the Purple Heart for being wounded in action and who was medically retired as a result of that action will be entitled to the same compensation for his or her disability retirement pay as somebody serving in the regular military. A bullet does not discriminate between an active and Reserve servicemember and neither should we. Now is the time to correct this long-standing inequity. With passage of today's bill, we will do so. In closing, I thank Sergeant Farler for bringing this inequity to my attention and for his service to our Nation, and also, more importantly, to his fellow veterans in the Guard and Reserve, and again I thank Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton, Chairman McHugh for their support of this important provision to do right by America's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, truly making the regular Reserve and Guard forces one force to defend this Nation.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, I was absent from the House. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 128--``yea''; rollcall No. 129--``yea''; rollcall No. 130--``yea.''

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago we heard almost all the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus ask for a debate on the war, and one of the comments that was made throughout that series of unanimous consent requests was a statement affirming that they honor and support our troops, as do I believe all Members of this body seek to do that. However, the deeper question I would like to raise in this, if we honor and support our troops, I would suggest to this body that we also listen to our troops and what they are saying on the ground, especially those who have paid a tremendous price. I had the great honor and privilege yesterday to visit with several soldiers from Kentucky, one of whom was from my district, in Walter Reed Hospital. They included Specialist Jeremy Lowe, Sergeant Bill Winburn, and Sergeant Carlos Farler. All of them emphasized strong belief in the mission. All of them shared very clearly and articulated the successes, most unreported by the national media, that they are seeing on the ground. They expressed a tremendous amount of confidence in what the Iraqi people are doing. I think it is important that we stand with the troops in this resolution, that we stand with our country, that we stand with the Iraqi people, and that as we debate the war, and I believe there is an important need for debate, for discussion on policy, on the future, that one thing that we need to keep clear is that the messages that are sent communicate to several audiences: first and foremost to our troops in the field; second, to the Iraqi people; third, to our enemies, who will use our words against us; and, finally, to the entire world who is watching. We must keep our promises, we must keep our commitment to our troops and carry on this mission that they believe in, where they see success, until it is completed.