Geoff Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), for working with me to bring this measure to the floor today and thank him and thank both the majority and minority staffs for their hard work on this effort. H.R. 2883 is a bipartisan, bicameral, no-cost effort to extend and make modest adjustments to programs designed to help ensure the safety and well- being of children at risk of abuse and neglect. We need to do all we can to ensure more children remain safely in their homes, and this bill will help to do so. National Conference of State Legislatures, September 13, 2011. Hon. Dave Camp, Chairman, House Ways & Means, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Sandy Levin, Ranking Member, House Ways & Means, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Camp and Representative Levin: On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), we urge you to support H.R. 2883, a bill to renew the authority of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to approve demonstration projects designed to test innovative strategies in state child welfare programs and reauthorizing the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program. Congressmen Geoff Davis and Lloyd Doggett have fashioned bipartisan legislation that helps create opportunities to enhance the state-federal partnership to assist our nation's most vulnerable children. NCSL supports reinstating and expanding federal waiver authority so that states can test the results of increased funding flexibility on the development of service alternatives and on the overall delivery of child welfare services. This allows states to target programs to address the needs of their youngest citizens. By renewing and extending Title IV-E waiver authority through 2014, H.R. 2883 will give states an enhanced ability to provide early intervention and crisis intervention services that will safely reduce out-of-home placements and improve child outcomes. NCSL supports the reauthorization of the PSSF program. The PSSF program enhances state efforts to develop additional family preservation, family reunification, and family support programs. We appreciate the flexibility provided to states in H.R. 2883 and that the legislation does not preempt current state laws. H.R. 2883 will allow states to improve the quality of their child welfare interventions and reinvest savings in their programs. It will also provide both state and federal legislators tools to develop innovative an effective approaches to transform the lives of children who are at risk of abuse and neglect. We applaud Congressmen Davis and Doggett for crafting this legislation. Sincerely, William T. Pound, Executive Director, NCSL.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 12, 2011, I was unable to return to Washington, DC for votes, due to an important family event. Had I been present I would have voted: on rollcall No. 699--``yes''-- H.R. 2076, Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2011; on rollcall No. 700--``yes''--H.R. 2633, Appeal Time Clarification Act; on rollcall No. 701--``yes''--H.R. 1059, To protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact information contained in their financial disclosure reports.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act. The Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act is bipartisan legislation that extends and makes modest adjustments to the Child Welfare Services and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families programs that both expire September 30th of this year. Although only a small part of all federal child welfare funding, these programs help ensure that children can remain safely with their own parents or be supported by other caring adults when necessary. The bill reflects agreements between Republicans and Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, as well as with our colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, for reauthorizing these programs. The bill is bipartisan and bicameral, and draws on the findings of several hearings we have had in the Human Resources Subcommittee this year on child welfare issues. Further, this bill does not increase spending or raise the deficit. When the American people ask us to work together across party lines to craft meaningful legislation that is fully paid for, this is the type of bill they have in mind. In addition, this bill would renew authority for the Department of Health and Human Services to approve child welfare waivers. These waivers have been a valuable tool for States seeking to test new ways of helping children at risk of abuse and neglect, and the renewal of this authority will allow innovation to continue. This bill adds important transparency and accounting requirements, and does not increase spending or deficits. This bill also requires that States establish common data standards to improve information sharing, which will improve the efficiency of the programs while allowing States to better coordinate services for children and families. I thank the Ranking Member on the Human Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Doggett of Texas, for introducing this legislation with me, and for his efforts to move it forward and thus better serve children and families across the country. I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2790, the Child and Family Services Extension and Enhancement Act of 2011. Two child welfare programs expire on September 30 this year, namely the Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable Families programs. Although only a small part of total federal child welfare funding, these two programs support State efforts to keep families together so children can safely remain with their own parents or be supported by other caring adults when necessary. The Child and Family Services Extension Act will ensure that these two programs continue to help children remain safely with their own families or be cared for by other loving adults. This bipartisan bill extends these important programs, while adding important transparency and accounting requirements. Additionally, it does so without increasing spending or deficits. This bill also requires that States establish common data standards to improve the sharing of information, which will improve the efficiency of the programs while allowing States to better coordinate services for children and families. In introducing this bill, we are continuing the tradition of bipartisan child welfare legislation in Congress. I thank the Ranking Member on the Human Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Doggett of Texas, for introducing this legislation with me, and for his efforts to move it forward. I look forward to moving this legislation through the Ways & Means Committee in the coming months.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 7, 2011, I mistakenly voted ``no'' on Rollcall No. 522--Cole of Oklahoma Amendment No. 4, an amendment to H.R. 2219, Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The amendment stated that none of the funds made available by the underlying bill may be used to implement any rule, regulation, or Executive Order regarding the disclosure of political contributions that takes effect on or after the date of enactment of the underlying bill. I intended to vote ``yes'' on Rollcall No. 522.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize U.S. Army Sgt. Jeremy R. Summers from Bracken County, Kentucky, who lost his life on July 14, 2011 in Paktika Province, Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. His unit was attacked by enemy forces while he was on duty as a forward scout observer. Sgt. Summers joined the Army after graduating from Bracken County High School in 2002. He was assigned to Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, out of Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He served tours of duty in Korea and Iraq in addition to his service in Afghanistan. Sgt. Summers was a dedicated soldier and demonstrated great character in his service. His dedication to defending our Republic was proven again when he recently reenlisted in the United States Army. Sgt. Summers' life is yet another reminder of the high cost of freedom. Today, as we remember the life and accomplishments of this extraordinary Kentuckian, my thoughts and prayers are with Sgt. Summers' family and friends.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 25, 2011, I was unable to vote during the first vote series of the day. Had I been present I would have voted: on rollcall No. 630--``yes''-- H. Res. 363, Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2584, Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2012; on rollcall No. 631--``yes''--On Approving the Journal.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on May 26, 2008, Sgt. 1st Class Leroy Petry of Sante Fe, New Mexico, while on his 8th tour of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan and in the midst of a firefight, distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty. Ranger Sgt. Leroy Petry lost his right hand and suffered severe wounds after picking up a live grenade and throwing it away from his fellow soldiers, thereby saving the lives of his comrades. He also was wounded in both legs and in the midst of the battle tied tourniquets to his legs and arm. Today we honor this great American Hero and the many like him with the presentation of The Medal of Honor to him at The White House by President Barack Obama. I ask that this poem penned in his honor by Albert Caswell, be placed in the Record. In Honor's Light In . . . In the battle, but comes the light! From out of such darkness, so very bright! All between life and death, that which so ignites! So brilliant, and so very bright! To lead the way, to win that fight! To save their Brother In Arms, its height! While, forsaking one's own most precious life! Shining there, all in their most heroic glare so bright! Leading the way, all in what they so gave so right! All In Honor's Light! For, from only out of one's soul . . . Can but only such brilliance, so flow! Can but only such light but shine so! When, who lives . . ., or dies? And who but lives to see another sunrise? When, it all so depends on you! Such Splendid Splendor, Such God-like Light! Which, bring's such tears to even The Angels eyes! All in such selfless sacrifice! While, bathed all In Honor's Light! Goodness! Evil! Darkness! Light! Those Brave Hearts, Who Evil Must Fight! Who so shine, who but bring their light! All In Honor's Light! Moments! Are all we have! When, it all so depends on you! When, death but lies so very close! As when you Leroy, so rose to such new heights! Ranger, all in your most brilliant light! As it all so came shining through! All in valor's most magnificent hue! For what child will now be born? For which love's, will so live on? Who might change the world, or rise . . . all In Honor's Height! Sgt. 1st Class Petry, All because you! When, All In Honor and Death . . . What your fine heart, so pledged! For what was right and what is true! 'Ah yes, Ranger's lead, Leroy as so did you! All for our nation, and that old Red, White and Blue! All for your Brothers In Arms, as your most courageous heart so grew! All in, Your Most Magnificent Hue! All In Honor's Light, So Very True! As why this day Ranger Petry, you so shine so true! With all of those other magnificent's . . . Who now so who, have so shown All Honor's Light so too! As this Medal of Honor, we now bestowed upon You! All In Honor's Light! This hue!

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor COL Keith A. Landry, the Commander and District Engineer for the Louisville District Army Corps of Engineers. After nearly 2 years of serving in this post, Colonel Landry will be retiring on July 14, 2011. Colonel Landry received his commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Corps of Engineers in 1985 after graduating from our shared alma mater, the United States Military Academy at West Point. He has since completed five overseas tours, including deployments with the 3rd Infantry Division during Operation Iraqi Freedom and two tours of duty teaching at the United States Military Academy. During his tenure as the Commander for the Louisville District Army Corps of Engineers, Colonel Landry oversaw all military construction in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. His work has had a tremendous impact on the mission readiness capabilities and quality of life of soldiers and airmen across the nation. Today, as we celebrate a distinguished career spanning 26 years, I am pleased Colonel Landry has decided to remain in the great Commonwealth of Kentucky and I am certain he will approach his future endeavors with the same level of excellence in service we have come to expect from him. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in commending COL Keith Landry and in offering him our sincerest thanks for his incredible service to our country and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Jennifer Forseth, a teacher at Centerfield Elementary School, and her fourth grade class from Oldham County in the fourth district of Kentucky. Ms. Forseth and her students have been recognized by the National Energy Education Development Project for their outstanding work on energy programs this year. Ms. Forseth's class conducted a study detailing how to improve energy efficiency in their school that culminated in a presentation of their findings. Their academic initiative earned them a scholarship and recognition by the NEED Youth Awards. It is my hope that the accomplishments of Ms. Forseth and the fourth grade students from Centerfield Elementary School serve as inspiration for others to increase their own energy efficiency. I ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing their accomplishments.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1194) to renew the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to approve demonstration projects designed to test innovative strategies in State child welfare programs.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise tonight in support of H.R. 1194, a bill to extend the child welfare waiver authority for States. This bill will allow States to test innovative approaches to improve the way we protect children from abuse and neglect. In doing so, it extends authority that was in place between 1994 and 2006 but has since lapsed. Since 2006, the Department of Health and Human Services has not had the authority to approve new efforts by States to test better ways of helping children at risk of abuse or neglect. The bill before us today would simply allow HHS to approve new waivers once again so States can test new ways of better serving children and families. As the current chairman of the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over child welfare programs, I'm pleased to cosponsor this legislation with my friend, Mr. McDermott, a current member of the subcommittee, as well as its prior chairman. The Human Resources Subcommittee held a hearing on child welfare waivers last year, which showed the value of State flexibility in this area. Since 1994, 23 States have run waiver programs that helped inform the child welfare policy debate and, more importantly, improve the lives of children and families. Seven States have been granted extensions and have continued their waiver programs approved before 2006. This bipartisan bill before us today will allow such current waiver programs to continue, while importantly providing the Secretary of HHS with authority to approve up to 10 new waivers a year. The bill before us is identical to legislation the House approved unanimously on September 23, 2010. However, the Senate did not act on that legislation before conclusion of the last Congress. This bill is supported by the National Conference of State Legislatures, as well as groups active in promoting effective child welfare programs. I would like to insert in the Record following my remarks copies of their letters in support of H.R. 1194. Especially in challenging financial times, we must be sure that taxpayer dollars are well spent. The original 1994 law required rigorous evaluations of each waiver program, and this bill continues that requirement. This means States will have the flexibility to test new ideas, but the American people and the Congress will know if these ideas have made a difference. And because these waiver programs must be cost neutral to be approved in the first place, the Congressional Budget Office has assured us that this legislation as a whole is cost neutral. I would like to include the CBO analysis to that effect in the Record as well. It is fitting we are debating this measure in May, which is National Foster Care Month. National Foster Care Month is a time to celebrate the great work done by thousands of foster parents across the Nation, and also a time to raise awareness of the hundreds of thousands of children in foster care who need a permanent home. This legislation will let States test better ways of helping these young people, including by working with families to keep kids from entering foster care in the first place. So as we recognize National Foster Care Month, this bill is a great way to work towards solutions that ensure that each child has a permanent home. Child welfare legislation has often been an area of bipartisanship in this Chamber, and I'm grateful that we can continue that tradition with the bill before us today. I thank Mr. McDermott for his extensive work on this bill and look forward to continuing to work with him and all our colleagues as this legislation moves forward. I urge support for this legislation. National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, DC, April 13, 2011. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, Longworth HOB, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, Cannon HOB, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), we urge you to support H.R. 1194, a bill to renew the authority of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to approve demonstration projects designed to test innovative strategies in state child welfare programs. Congressman Jim McDermott and Congressman Geoff Davis have fashioned bipartisan legislation that helps create opportunities to enhance the state/federal partnership to assist our nation's most vulnerable children. NCSL supports reinstating and expanding federal waiver authority so that states can test the results of increased funding flexibility on the development of service alternatives and on the overall delivery of child welfare services, targeting programs to address the needs of their children. By renewing Title IV-E waiver authority from 2011 through 2016, H.R. 1194 will give states an enhanced ability to provide early intervention and crisis intervention services that will safely reduce out-of-home placements and improve child outcomes. H.R. 1194 will allow states to improve the quality of their child welfare interventions and reinvest savings in their programs. It will also provide both state and federal legislators more information on what innovations are effective to transform the lives of children who are at risk of abuse and neglect. We applaud Congressmen McDermott and Davis for crafting this legislation. Sincerely, Hon. Mary Jane Wallner, New Hampshire House of Representatives, Chair, NCSL Standing Committee on Human Services and Welfare. Hon. Wes Keller, Alaska House of Representatives, Chair, NCSL Standing Committee on Human Services and Welfare.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful again to acknowledge my colleague Mr. McDermott and his many years of work on this issue. The staff in both the majority and minority on the subcommittee have worked very hard through time on this issue to bring this bipartisan measure to the floor today. Passage of H.R. 1194 will renew child welfare waiver authorities so States can again test new ways of helping at-risk youth. These waivers will let States develop new ideas, and allow them to spend money on what we know is most effective, which is working to keep children safely together with their families. I urge passage of this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Private Class Phillip Wysocki of Hebron, Kentucky. Phillip has served honorably with the United States Army's 101st Airborne Division during two deployments to Afghanistan, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He joined the United States Army after graduating from Conner High School in Boone County, Kentucky in 2009. He played Varsity football for the Cougar football team and was a standout athlete. He is also a volunteer firefighter with the Hebron Fire Protection District which he joined during his junior year of high school. On November 1st, 2010, while serving in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, Phillip and other members of his unit came under attack from Taliban fighters. An IED exploded, critically injuring several soldiers. Phillip contributed significantly to facilitating the evacuation of casualties under heavy enemy fire and repelling the enemy attack. In February of 2011, he was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in this combat action. His actions were in keeping with the proud military heritage of Kentucky and the heroism of Kentuckians in the defense of our Nation for over two centuries. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the outstanding heroism of Private First Class Phillip Wysocki, Jr. in service to the United States Army and our Nation.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Charles Rutledge, III, a Mathematics Content Specialist with the Kentucky Department of Education in Northeast Kentucky. Mr. Rutledge was recently selected by President Barack Obama to receive the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. This award is recognition of Mr. Rutledge's achievement and dedication during more than a decade in the education field. Before joining the Kentucky Department of Education, he was a teacher for 10 years at Prichard Elementary School in Grayson, Kentucky where he taught mathematics, second grade and third grade. Mr. Rutledge was recognized by the President for his hands-on teaching style that brings math to life for his students and helps them to recognize numbers as representations of values, and not merely symbols. Today, as we celebrate the accomplishments of this exceptional Kentuckian, it is my hope that others are inspired by his hard work and perseverance. I urge the House to join me in commending Charles Rutledge for his time and devotion in teaching and helping the youth of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 11, 2011, I was unexpectedly detained for one vote. Had I been present I would have voted: on rollcall No. 302--``no''-- Hanabusa of Hawaii amendment No. 4, an amendment to H.R. 1229, Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Private First Class Brandon T. Pickering, from Ft. Thomas, Kentucky, who lost his life on April 10, 2011 from wounds he suffered while fighting enemy forces in Wardak Province, Afghanistan on April 8th. A 2008 graduate of Highlands High School, Brandon joined the Army in September 2009. After completing basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia he was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, based in Fort Polk, Louisiana. He deployed with his unit to Afghanistan in October of 2010. His awards and decorations include: the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the NATO Medal and the Combat Infantryman Badge. Today, as we celebrate the life and accomplishments of this exceptional Kentuckian, my thoughts and prayers are with Brandon's family and friends, especially his parents. We are all deeply indebted to Brandon Pickering for his service and his sacrifice. By giving his life for the freedom of others, we are reminded of the great price at which our freedom is preserved.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Mr. Bill Samuels, Jr. After 40 years of working for his family's company, Bill is retiring as President of Maker's Mark Distillery in Loretto, Kentucky to become the company's Chairman Emeritus. As the seventh generation in a long line of Kentucky bourbon makers, Bill took over the family business in 1980. Through clever marketing and an unwavering commitment to the tradition and quality of his bourbon, he was able to make the company a global icon. In 1980, the Maker's Mark Distillery became the first distillery in the country to be designated a National Historic Landmark. All Kentuckians can be proud of the work that Bill has done to grow a family business into a successful brand. In doing so, he has represented and shared part of the spirit of the Commonwealth across the country and around the world. I thank Bill for his contributions to Kentucky and our community and wish him the best of luck in his new endeavors. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Bill's significant accomplishments.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on March 10, 2011, Alfred ``Al'' Klingenfus of Crestwood, Kentucky passed away after a lifetime of humbly serving the people of Oldham County. Mr. Klingenfus was born in 1918 in Crestwood, and graduated from Crestwood High School. In addition to being a lifelong dairy farmer, he served for decades on the Oldham County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Committee and the Oldham County Zoning Appeals Board. He also played a key role in establishing the Oldham County Water District. In 2008, Mr. Klingenfus was named one of the county's ``Living Treasures'' by the Oldham Era newspaper and the Oldham County Historical Society. He was the loving husband of his wife, Etta, for more than sixty-six years, the father of five sons, the grandfather of eleven, and the great-grandfather of twelve. Our thoughts and prayers are with Al's extended family and his many friends as they mourn his loss and celebrate his life.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I think it's more the ``reins'' you use in Texas to pull back on that bull or that horse that's getting away. It's appropriate to Kentucky, too, with our equine culture as well. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. To your point, when we talk about bills, like the health care bill that was forced through last year that has so many new rules that are going to be propagated over time and the challenges that we're facing with an increasing complexity of government, all of these rules are placing a burden on the consumer and are leaving virtually no recourse for voters and no recourse for our communities. The operationalized term would be ``unfunded mandates,'' but I think what we really have to come down to is looking at this as costs that are being levied that affect every area of our lives. The last, probably, five or six administrations have seen a tremendous amount of growth in the amount of regulations. As you mentioned, over 3,000 new rules and regulations were queued up last year. This is a real concern that affects all of us. If we think about education and the challenges that our schools have today, with regard to No Child Left Behind, which was a well-intended bill in terms of goals of improving student performance, when that law was written into enough compromising or overly general language to be thrown over the wall to the Department of Education, the detailed implementing of regulations moved to place a massive unfunded mandate on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which is for disabled children or for children who fall into that category. It was supposed to be funded at 40 percent of the expected level. It has never gotten above 12 percent in any school district in Kentucky, in my congressional district. Those funds have to be reallocated from elsewhere; and in order to comply federally, we are seeing schools lay off teachers, cancel PE programs, and cancel other programs that are deemed nonessential for Federal compliance. This doesn't help our students. It doesn't help those the law was intended to help. When we think about the EPA, certainly we can talk about greenhouse gas regulation. There is a case where there is a move on the part of the executive branch--regardless of whether a person is Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or an independent, the Constitution mandated that the legislature, both Houses of Congress, had power of the purse and the power to hold the executive branch accountable. The executive branch was to execute the laws, not make the laws. When there was a Democratic supermajority in the House and in the Senate, what we were seeing was cap-and-trade, an energy taxation. The production of energy in this country was not able to be accomplished because there were not functional majorities in either Chamber for the President to sign a bill, which he said in his own campaign would necessarily cause utility rates to skyrocket. Now we hear the announcement, well, we're going to go ahead and do this anyway. Then it comes home full circle in a way that has hit almost every community in the country in one way or another, and that's the issue of EPA compliance with stormwater or drainage mandates. Again, these could be well intended, but we have to look at the regulations in context, what they want to achieve. In my own area of Boone, Kenton, and Campbell Counties, in my first year in Congress-- and, actually, I'd been in Congress for about 2 months--the EPA imposed a consent decree on three Kentucky counties for $800 million, in effect an $800 million tax on one water and sewer district for these upgrades which, frankly, in most cases across our communities were entirely unnecessary at a standard way beyond what reality was and one that imposed a huge, huge burden on working families and on the poor. This bothered me for years. We looked at different ways to deal with that. The Congressional Review Act was a good attempt, but the challenge that we've had with the CRA is that it has only worked one time to repeal a regulation. That was the Clinton era ergonomics rule. In that case, all the stars lined up. We had a House that could pass it, a Senate that could pass it, and a President who was willing to sign the repeal of this regulation from a prior administration. I want to come back to the constitutional point because here you have working families and, in fact, towns in my district where the compliance cost with the stormwater decree are actually more, in some cases, than the actual revenues of the budgets of the towns. We went back and forth with different ideas; and in August of 2009, a constituent of mine came into my office as we were working through different ways to look at reducing and relieving the regulatory burden on businesses, on citizens. Let's have regulations in the context of their costs and also one with scale. This gentleman said to me, How come you all can't vote on these things? The light bulb went on. We went back to work, approaching it in different ways and came up with the REINS Act. It stands for the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. In the last Congress, it was H.R. 3765. We started with the simple premise of major rules that have an economic impact of $100 million or more cumulatively. Once the 60-day comment period is over, instead of being enforced upon a particular constituency, as they are today with very little interaction with industry and, frankly, with very little heeding of industry in the comment areas or in our communities--for example, for things like that stormwater bill, for things like No Child Left Behind, for things like net neutrality, for things like doing Card Check by regulation versus, again, going against the will of the people's elected representatives-- what that would do is, before enforcement, force that rule back up to Capitol Hill under a joint resolution. It's constitutional. It would have to pass in the House, pass in the Senate, and then go to the President's desk for signature. And what that would do is be able to give people back in the United States-- Washington, D.C. was one time described as a 10-mile by 10-mile square surrounded by reality. Back in the world real, where our taxpayers live, where the jobs are created, they would now have people to hold accountable, the men in the House and the Senate, if these large rules that are imposing such significant economic burdens were imposed upon them. So, as we moved forward, got a tremendous amount of support for that across the business community, across the legal community, citizens; and, frankly, local governments have lauded this, and we're looking forward to moving that forward. There was so much momentum that we had at the end of the last Congress that this was put into the Pledge to America and was reintroduced. Let me back up, Senator Jim DeMint introduced the Senate version of this intact; and then in the new Congress, we reintroduced a slightly improved version of the legislation in the House, and the identical bill was introduced by our new junior Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, with 23 additional Senate cosponsors. We're up to 134 cosponsors in the House of this bill and have had two hearings in the Judiciary Committee about it where this discussion on ultimate accountability is there. Before I yield back in this portion, the one thing I would share with you also is this is not a partisan bill. The opponents of the bill have tried to say it is anti-regulation or it is an attempt to go after the administration. It is not that at all. In the Bush administration, in the Clinton administration, in the Reagan administration, in the Carter administration--we can keep going on back--finding rules and regulations that were implemented outside what the original intent of the Congress had been. You know, in the past we could work around these rules and regulations. Economically, now, things are so tight and so tough we cannot afford to burden the competitiveness of our businesses any longer. When we come back, I'll give you some examples of that that will personalize this to an additional degree, but I'm really glad you're holding this hour tonight to discuss the critical impact of regulations, a cost that's approaching $2 trillion a year on the American economy. Frankly, the cost of regulation is substantially more than the annual tax revenue that is collected by the government.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank you, Judge Carter. The real question when it comes down to Presidential support of this, Presidents regardless of party don't tend to want to relinquish party, but I think from a constitutional prerogative there is so much importance in changing the dialogue, the dialogue between the House and Senate on Capitol Hill, but also the dialogue between the executive branch and the legislative branch. To this point, the thing that I would share, President Obama during his campaign called for a post-partisan area, and that as soon as his legislative agenda did not pass, he moved to want to implement everything by regulation that could not get through the House and the Senate. The reality is, to get to the post-partisan era and to restore balance between Congress and the executive branch is to pass a bill like this. A senior EPA executive, who has to remain nameless because of who this person shared with me, he thought a concept like REINS was a great idea for two reasons, not from a partisan perspective--and this is somebody in an agency that's regulated. And the first thing that he shared with me was his unutterable frustration that the Congress often sends overly generic or nonspecific or, in fact, many times contradictory titles in bills, health care being a specific example of that, where it is so difficult for the regulators to try to determine what the intent of Congress was. Oftentimes in order to get that interpretation, they come out with something entirely against the intent of what people wanted who were supporting the bill. The other thing that happens in that same vein is legislation is often crafted to get a majority of votes in each Chamber and to get a conference acceptance between the House and Senate with language that creates holes, that creates opportunity for the executive branch to legislate or tax by regulation versus working through the regular order of the House and the Senate. To me, that's not constitutional. I am not an attorney, but the one thing I can say is the Constitution reads pretty clearly on who is supposed to legislate. And I believe that, frankly, Congress has abdicated, in the past, its responsibility to maintain that control because it was easier, usually in a crisis. This really began in earnest during the Depression. Growth in the regulations related to national security began during the Cold War. We have seen the Great Society programs where many other agencies began to grow, and it affects us in a huge number of ways. The second reason that the gentleman was supportive of a concept like the REINS Act was this: that it would force a dialogue for clarity between the agency that would have to implement regulations under rules that were being written in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, it would force that dialogue to make sure that the intent of Congress is clear. Instead of having 2,700-page bills that show up hours before a vote, the dialogue could be ongoing, reduced down to a concise piece of legislation that had very clear intent, very clear expectations and metrics, and a clear outcome to maintain context for our citizens. I would like to touch on a couple of these that affect all citizens. The first one, people like to have their privacy protected. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in the late 1990s that was enacted into law was intended to protect patient privacy. It was intended to make sure that people's most intimate information would not be freely available outside of very legitimate and necessary venues or where that person gave permission. That law, known euphemistically as HIPAA by its acronym, has accomplished vastly more than the original intent of the law, and mostly damage. I can give you an example. I was doing what is called a mini internship at St. Elizabeth's Medical Center in northern Kentucky the week that HIPAA implemented. And I watched in the space of that time-- the internship was an opportunity for people in the business community to come in and learn more about how the health care infrastructure works, business practices that are being implemented. It fosters a dialogue between health care professionals. HIPAA ended that because of liability concerns. Just simple interaction that had taken place before. More importantly than that, every doctor's office that I had visited, every department of the hospital suddenly saw their paperwork overnight double in dealing with the same patients with the same procedures. So the cost of actually getting the treatment prepared was, in effect, doubled. We are seeing nurses no longer do nursing, and it's now the patient care assistants. We are seeing doctors no longer doing medicine--it's charge nurses and senior nurses on units--because, again, the amount of documentation that is required in order to cover the bases on this rule have had an impact far out of proportion to the original intent of simple privacy protection that could have been accomplished in other ways had Congress been more clear. On transportation, there is always interest in discussion. As you well know, coming from Texas, Texas is different from Kentucky, is different from New York, and everybody is different from California as trendsetters. We all have uniquenesses in this Nation. It's what makes America great. In my part of Boone County, Kentucky, where I live, we experienced a tremendous amount of growth: from one tiny subdivision to nine subdivisions; a new elementary school; commerce that was going up and down Highway 237, known as North Bend Road, a little two-lane road that would snake and curve up to the most northern part of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Well, originally in our 6-year road plan, it was supposed to be a four-lane highway that was going to be built to support all of this new traffic. However, some of the new transportation rules got in place about green space and bike paths, and this is what we got at the end of the day. After tens of millions of dollars, 2\1/2\ years of construction work, what we got was a beautiful two-lane highway with bike paths and green space in between where a public safety vehicle can't be turned around, and two traffic circles. Now the traffic is just as bad as it was before all of these millions and millions of dollars were spent in order to comply with Federal regulations. To me, things like that don't even need to be levied at the Federal level. That can be decided at the State or a community level if we want to do things like bike paths, if we want to do things like traffic circles, if you want to place green space in the middle of that road to use Federal transportation dollars that are appropriated to the State. Another example that comes to mind, a place that I dropped off some suits and shirts this morning--or, actually, my wife did after I came to Washington, D.C. early this morning. Nick Bell is an entrepreneur in Boone County, Kentucky. Years ago, he started a dry cleaners, known as Braxton's Dry Cleaners, with some friends. They have top-notch customer service. They go out of their way to grow their business. In the late 1990s, Nick had a vision to expand. His service was so effective and the quality of care he gave his customers was so good that he grew to a point where he had more business than his current physical plant could handle in this small dry cleaner. So he did what any enterprising entrepreneur would do: He pooled his savings, the company revenues, and decided to install an additional dry cleaning machine. He suddenly found out--this was his first real encounter with the regulatory state from the time that he had started his business--that the clean water rules had changed after 1996, and he was under a whole new set of mandates. Nick was informed that he was going to have to do about 18 boreholes into the concrete pad of his little dry cleaner to test for potential carcinogens. Dry cleaning fluid was listed a potential carcinogen. A potential, I might add. In fact, one oncologist told me that you would basically have to drink gallons of the stuff on a daily basis in order to induce the pH level or the toxicity level in your body to cause cancer to grow. But nonetheless, the rule was the rule. The environmental inspector came out to his facility. He did the 18 boreholes and paid the additional money for that, and then an interesting thing happened. On one of those boreholes, they discovered one teaspoon of groundwater underneath the concrete pad of this business, which created numerous jobs for our county. In that teaspoon of water was several parts per million of dry cleaning fluid that had apparently been spilled on the floor and had leaked through a small fissure. To you and me, we wouldn't think twice about that if we spilled some windshield wiper fluid or something on our driveway. We would clean it up and we would move on. Or maybe some paint falls off of a windowsill that we're painting on the outside of our house. Nick was informed immediately that he was going to have to remediate that teaspoon of water. He said, Well, sir, I can't afford that. I just won't install the dry cleaning machine. Then the full encounter with the regulatory state came into being. He was told, No, if you don't remediate it to the standard, we are going to shut down your business. There was no environmental risk. There was no true remediation risk. I am speaking as an engineer. There was just no risk. What was at risk were the jobs of the people there, the clothing of the folks that were trapped in there. And what Mr. Bell had to pay was $60,000 in remediation fees for one teaspoon of water. It might have been different if Dow Chemical had a major spill, but this is a dry cleaner in Boone County, Kentucky. It had a great impact. It made him an activist, among other things. These examples are rife. I live in the longest river district in the United States, along the Ohio River. We have a lot of flooding today that is going on. People can't pick up the trash that comes up on their properties, on the riverbanks. You know why? Very simple. Under the rules that are laid forth in implementing the legislation under the Clean Water Act and under the Corps of Engineers, if you reach down and take hold of any of that detritus that washes up on your land, you own that for liability purposes and are responsible for all the remediation costs of whatever that might be. Hence, as you go in businesses up and down our inland waterways, you will find all of this garbage, all of this waste that has washed up because, by our own laws, the people who want to clean it up free of charge to the Federal Government with no overhead to the State or local communities--think of the Boy Scouts who want to go out on a weekend--they're stopped from doing this and will not do it. And finally, the last point that I would make on this: We talk about the issues of clean water. I care about clean water. I want to see our water clean, our water pure, but we need to take a look at what standards are again in context. An enterprising new county judge executive in Lewis County, Kentucky, Thomas Massie, a brilliant MIT graduate who has patented many technology devices, came back home to settle down, to bring these practices back home, and he is an expert in sustainable energy. We are from a coal State, and he wants to do something that is tremendously innovative. He wants to build in this county that doesn't have inherent natural resources but is along a long section of the river, to wall up some of the large draws, with the large hills that come down to the river's edge, and to create, in effect, a hydroelectric generating capability with two large reservoirs. The proposition was simple: to fill them with water from the Ohio River, and then they could naturally be drained or refilled based on need, based on precipitation and evaporation. But it would be largely sustaining and could generate enough electricity for several counties around the area. Guess what the new judge ran into? The Environmental Protection Agency, because the clean water standard says that if I take one gallon of water out of the Ohio River, I cannot put a gallon of Ohio River water back into the Ohio River unless it is purer than drinking water. This is an issue that's completely out of context. And this is part of the challenge I think that we face, that many citizens don't realize as we encounter this regulatory culture, that these are the rules that hit the pocketbooks of people. It's not simply an issue of big business. It's working families, the elderly, the working poor, our farmers, our small businesses who create jobs are all effected by the $2 trillion in regulations. And ultimately, if we are going to compete in a global environment, it's not that we want to stop regulation, but we need to bring it into context and make it concise, make sure there is real impact and something that, at the end of the day, doesn't prevent us from creating jobs and doesn't prevent us from competing and keeping our country strong in the 21st century.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman. And just your point on being responsible. One thing that I would share along these lines is that one of the jobs that all Members of Congress have is to explain to their constituents what is happening in Washington and also to explain to Washington what their constituents think. And when we come down to these issues with the rules, I think of one thing so critical for us to understand is, and I have seen it in my early time here. I saw it certainly during the health care debate when people would walk out and they would do press conferences and do press releases talking about all the great things that were happening. We read the bill in our office, I didn't see any of that happening, but it took 3 months and then 6 months and 12 months, and people were waking up to all these things that weren't there, and it created a great backlash. And much of that was expressed in frustration at the election because of ultimately this growth and intrusion of policy that the American people didn't want. By having this check and balance, it does several things. It restores transparency so people can see. It forces Members of Congress to communicate with their district. If we think a regulation is something that is important to have enacted or a law that will empower a regulation that is going to have significant reach, we need to have that discussion with our constituents so they understand, as well as a discussion with the agency community long before that legislation ever goes to the floor of the House. By bringing about this REINS process, it would take these major rules at the end of 60 days back up here for an up-or-down vote. Really, if the House and Senate are doing their job and the agency community and the executive branch is doing its job, that should be a relatively straightforward exercise. But if there is an attempt by the executive to step outside the will of the people, then we get into this. And it is important. I go back to the question of the Congressional Review Act. In corollary, not directly tied to this by regulation, but oftentimes in the agencies there is an attempt that takes place to fall into a routine of operation. And in times of crisis, those are not always the most effective thing. Many of us remember back in the early days of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of one's politics, positions on the policy, we suddenly found ourselves in a new kind of counterinsurgency that had not been expected by the military, had not had the expectation set by the administration that this was going to unfold, and in fact they were caught by surprise. Because of the promulgation of thousands of improvised explosive devices by the fall of 2003, the Army and Marine Corps specifically realized we were in a full-blown counterinsurgency and had to react. The first words out of the civilian bureaucracy and the Defense Department were that it would take several years in order to accomplish what was necessary because laws would have to be enacted and following test doctrines for various programs. I think of some of the things I have seen in military programs that began 15, 20, 25 years ago and simply die because, by the time something gets to a flyable prototype or an executable weapons system, it ends up making itself obsolete because there is not that agility to respond because of the internal regulations, not even germane to what we are talking about tonight, but these rules that govern the mindset of how the government operates. Well, telling division commanders and brigade commanders and regimental and battalion and company commanders, well, it will be a couple years down the road, and we will have a solution to your immediate combat problem, is not the way Americans think and operate. In World War II, we fielded all kinds of technology. What worked was made in mass, and it showed the agility of our industrial complex. And we were looking for everything, long before this large military- industrial bureaucracy came into being. What it took for Congress to get the up-armored vehicle program into theater, and it was an amazing thing after enactment; you were here to see that, 39,000 armored vehicles that would not have gone into theater specifically in Iraq were there in 16 months, but it took an act of Congress to do that, to exert on the executive branch the will of the American people. This was even a case when the President agreed and wanted this, but even he couldn't overcome the inertia of his own agency community. Something not uncommon for Presidents, regardless of party. Coming back into our world here with the regulations that affect us economically in day-to-day time. Restoring accountability, restoring the dialogue, restoring the constitutional primacy of the legislature allows us to do our job to protect the American people, to make sure that their interests are seen, and give them somebody to hold accountable at the end of the day. You can't fire the EPA administrator or the director of the FCC or the Secretary of Education or any of a number of other agency heads if they implement regulations that are not what our communities, what our country, what our citizens want. And, frankly, it brings an end to this paternalistic government that is run by experts that don't necessarily reflect what the will of the American people is. Your colleague from Texas gave a remarkable speech a couple of years ago on the issue of CFC light bulbs. I find it so amazing in the mandate that was put down to have CFC light bulbs. In 2007, I remember when one was dropped in the Longworth Office Building and the building was evacuated over the issue of this. Mr. Poe from Texas read this draconian list of regulatory requirements in dealing with a dropped light bulb. The thing that struck me is it is so expensive to comply with the regulations on the production side that none of them are made nor will ever be made in the United States of America. They are made in China. And I think that is one example that shows this complete dissonance. We can restore American economic competitiveness. We can strengthen our regulatory framework for real, sound regulations that protect consumers, that protect the American people, that protect the integrity of our commerce, but do it in such a way so it is in context and not putting layer over layer over layer that just increases complexity, increases the size and reach of government, and ultimately the cost to our pocketbook.