Geoff Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to recognize the achievements of Community Christian Academy in Independence, Kentucky. Founded in 1983 by the Community Pentecostal Church, the academy was born out of a strong desire to provide a first-rate education rooted in the fundamentals of Christianity. What began as a small school has grown into one of the most respected private schools in northern Kentucky. The academy offers curriculum from kindergarten through high school. Recent years have seen the school and its facilities grow by leaps and bounds, becoming a fixture in the community. CCA is accredited through the International Christian Accrediting Association and the Non-Public School Commission of Kentucky. The academy is known for its family-oriented atmosphere that emphasizes the participation of the entire family in the education of their 200 students. Recently, CCA was recognized by Cincinnati Magazine as one of the best private high schools in the greater Cincinnati area. This achievement would not be possible without the support of an outstanding staff and faculty, guided by Principal Tara Bates. I am pleased to recognize the achievements of students, parents and educators at the Community Christian Academy. For over 20 years, CCA has produced highly educated students in God's image. Tonight, I would ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing their commitment to excellence in education, dedication to their students and to thank them for their contributions to our community.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to one of our Nation's heroes, Staff Sergeant Delmar White. Sergeant White lost his life when serving a convoy mission in Baghdad, Iraq on September 2, 2007. Sergeant White was a dedicated soldier and served in the Marine Corps in the Persian Gulf War. He had been a member of the Kentucky Army National Guard since 1998 and was serving in Iraq with Battery B, 2nd Battalion, 138th Field Artillery based in Carlisle, Kentucky. I recently had the opportunity to visit with Sergeant White's family, and his wife conveyed to me that he died for a cause that he truly believed in. His fellow officers, noncommissioned officers and soldiers told me of a kind and gentle man who was dedicated to the military and to his family. Today, as we honor his memory, our thoughts and prayers turn to his wife, Michelle, their two children, Shelby and Seth, and his family and friends as they struggle with the loss of this great man. Our Nation is deeply indebted to Sergeant Delmar White for his service, dedication to his mission, and for making the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to Sergeant Nicholas Carnes, a citizen soldier who believed in our Nation and acted on that belief to answer the Nation's call to serve. Nick Carnes was from Dayton, Kentucky. He lost his life on August 26, 2007, in Orgun-e, Afghanistan. Sergeant Carnes served with Alpha Battery, 2nd Battalion, 138th Field Artillery Regiment in the Army National Guard in Carrollton, Kentucky. Nick Carnes was a lifelong Kentuckian who grew up in Dayton and graduated from Dayton High School in 2000. Nick joined the Army National Guard at 17 and began working at BB Riverboats. Shortly before his deployment in October 2006, he became a riverboat captain and married his sweetheart, Terri Bernstein Carnes. Sergeant Carnes was due back in Kentucky this month to celebrate his first anniversary with his wife. I was at the sendoff for Alpha Battery in October of 2006. We saw the families. We saw the motivated soldiers who were ready to go and answer the call of service. I had the great honor and privilege to see Nick, to meet him and talk with him while I was there. And I was impressed with him. The one thing that this old soldier can say is I know a good noncommissioned officer, the backbone of our military, representing the character of our Nation, when I see one, and he clearly showed me that. A man or a woman is the product of many things. First, Nick's mom, Wray Jean, and dad, Gove, you gave the Nation a great young man. You gave our community a great young man. And that was reflected in a letter that he sent to Terri on November 11, 2006, a few weeks after the unit had activated. He wrote this: ``Dear Terri: ``Hello, beautiful. I hope this letter finds you in good spirits. Also, I hope you are coping well with my absence. You mean the world to me, my beautiful wife. I am so sorry that my decisions in life have forced me to be away from you. Unfortunately, I can't change those decisions. Even if I could, I believe that I would sacrifice time with you to be part of helping another country and defending our own. If the other soldiers who came before me did not stand up for freedom, then we would not have freedom. So I feel that I am obligated to stand up for freedom to ensure that everyone else after me has the same freedoms we do today. ``I am not going to Afghanistan to kill Afghans. I am going there to help them stand up to the Taliban and regain control of their country. As people, sometimes we need help. Afghans happen to need help. Yes, helping the Afghans may put me in harm's way, but I have been well trained and will continue to receive training for the rest my military career. ``Everything will be fine. I feel confident and will do everything within my power to bring myself home safely. You need not worry, baby doll. I will go and do the job that is asked of me and return myself to your arms. I love you. Nick.'' The greatest value of our citizens serving is not simply their military proficiency, but the amazing character of a free people, embodied in the life of a young man like Nick Carnes, who understood the call that he was accepting and saw the higher good and the greater purpose. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I ask that we honor Sergeant Carnes and his service to our great Nation. Sergeant Carnes was a brave soldier, dedicated husband, loving son, who was taken from us all too quickly fighting for a cause that he truly believed in. I honor his bravery. I honor his legacy. My thoughts and prayers are with his friends and family during this solemn time. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting to rise and honor this young man who laid down his life for the defense of our Nation on Constitution Day. As I stand here tonight, we talk about the Constitution as one of the great cornerstones of the form of government that we have as a free people. Yet, its preservation will not occur unless there are young men and women like Nick Carnes to come forward in every generation to answer that call, to be willing, as he said, to place himself in harm's way to preserve the ideals that he believed in. As we look tonight, I am reminded of the words of Jesus in John 15:13, who declared, ``No one has greater love than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.'' To you, Nick, I say thank you. Thank you for the example of your life. To his comrades in Alpha Battery who are here in this country now and also back in the theater, I say thank you for carrying on the mission. Thank you for honoring the flag, the highest ideals of service and what we represent as Americans. Four special people in his life also need to be thanked, because as much of our country does not know, serving in the military is a family business that only 1 percent of our population responds to. To Terri, I bear condolences for you, as I shared with you at the funeral home on behalf of a grateful Nation. Despite political differences that fly in the air, the backbone of our freedom is founded in sacrifices like your family has made, and I thank you for lending us Nick for a time. To Wray Jean and Gove, Nick's mom and dad, I say thank you for your son's service and for the example of his character. To his father-in-law Alan, thank you for your example and work. Raising a young leader who impacted our community, his duty and honor to country represent the best and greatest aspects of our national character. His sacrifice is not in vain

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 819, I was unavoidably detained dealing with a serious health issue with my ill mother who is being prepared for movement to a long-term care facility; had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, on Monday, July 23, 2007, I was absent from the House to attend the State of Northern Kentucky address. Had I been present I would have voted: On Rollcall No. 687--``yes''--H.R. 404, Federal Customer Service Enhancement Act. On Rollcall No. 688--``yes''--H. Res. 553, Mourning the passing of former First Lady Lady Bird Johnson, and celebrating her life and contributions to the people of the United States. On Rollcall No. 689--``yes''--H. Res. 519--Honoring the life and accomplishments of renowned artist Tom Lea on the 100th anniversary of his birth. On Rollcall No. 690--``no''--Previous Question on H. Res. 558 (Rule for H.R. 3074).

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the academic achievements of two schools in Kentucky's Fourth District. Boyd County Middle School in Ashland and North Oldham Middle School in Goshen were recently recognized by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform as ``Schools to Watch.'' The National Forum selected 59 schools nationwide to receive this prestigious honor. Schools were chosen based on three criteria: academic excellence, responsiveness to the needs and interests of young adolescents, and commitment to helping all students achieve at a high level. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with educators from these schools during their visit to Washington, DC. I was impressed by the commitment of these educators. And though they face innumerable challenges in their classrooms, they are dedicated to providing each student with the highest quality education possible. I am proud to know that these exceptional teachers are educating future generations of Kentuckians. I applaud their hard work and thank them for their leadership, enthusiasm, and dedication.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would restrict funds allocated in this bill from being used to pay a bonus or other performance-based cash award to any employee of the Social Security Administration or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services who is a presidential employee or a member of the Senior Executive Service. Neither agency would ever survive as a private business trying to make a profit based upon their constituent service abilities which are often inefficient and inept. The premise is simple. Bonus pay is for exemplary work. It is my opinion that the American people are not getting exemplary work from the SSA and the CMS. Therefore, the management of the agency, as in the private sector, should not be eligible for bonus pay and should be accountable for their performance. In March of 2006, my office received a call from a concerned constituent who was having a problem with the withholding of Medicare part D premiums from his Social Security check. After an intensive investigation by my staff, we discovered that this was a widespread problem that affected hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries who have changed their prescription drug benefit plans. After enrolling in a Medicare prescription drug plan during early enrollment and arranging for his premium to be deducted from his Social Security check, my constituent determined that his initial choice of a plan didn't fit his medical needs. He then decided to change his plan and his payment method, opting this time for direct payment instead of deduction from his Social Security check. However, when he received his check, he realized that his premium for his initial selection was still being withheld. He attempted to address these problems himself with both CMS and SSA. He worked with them for 3 months without success. After contacting my office, my constituent liaison had more than a dozen exchanges with CMS and SSA over the next 6 months. Repeatedly, he was told by one agency that it was the other agency's fault. Several times he was told that the problem had been resolved and it would be reflected in the next Social Security check but never was. By this time our constituent had to live within an enormously reduced Social Security check for 9 months. My office had actively engaged on his behalf for 6 months, and my constituent is frustrated and angry. CMS and SSA say it is not their problem, and my constituent's hard-earned money is unaccounted for. If the Social Security Administration was able to stop paying the plan provider by April of 2006, which is still an outrageously long period of time, then surely they would have been able to stop the withholding of the plan premium for my constituent 10 months after the fact. Mr. Chairman, this is not only unacceptable; it is outrageous. For the millions of seniors in Kentucky and across the country that live on a fixed income or who are struggling to make ends meet, unnecessarily withholding these funds can create serious cash-flow problems. It is inappropriate to reward management of these organizations for taking money away from our seniors. In the roll-out of a program as large as Medicare part D, there are bound to be bumps in the road. That is completely understandable. However, that it should take 11 months to resolve an issue like this is incomprehensible. This story represents only one of the most egregious examples. The problem is not one of individual case managers in the departments but rather a systemic inefficiency and cultural problem, bureaucratic attitudes that involve shifting blame as opposed to working actively to take responsibility for problems in their departments and then solving them. It often requires multiple inquiries and sometimes several months to even get a status update on a case. Getting to the root of the issue and fixing a problem can take upwards of a year. This is simply unacceptable. The amendment I wanted to offer would have conditioned the payment of bonuses based on reports to Congress by both agencies detailing how they are addressing these issues. Unfortunately, the Parliamentarian has informed me that such an amendment would constitute changing existing law in an appropriations bill and be subject to a point of order. Therefore, I am offering only a straight prohibition against the payment of bonuses for the coming fiscal year. I think this is something that both sides of the aisle can agree on. It is my sincere hope that the chairmen and ranking members of the Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce Committees will work with both agencies and with me to improve the service delivered to our constituents. If you are going to receive performance-based bonuses, then I think your performance needs to be exceptional. When we are causing seniors frustration and unnecessary problems with their hard-earned money, I don't view that as a satisfactory performance, let alone performance that should be rewarded with a taxpayer-funded bonus. In conclusion, if you believe that the performance of CMS and SSA exceeds your expectations, then you should oppose this amendment. However, if you believe, as I do, that both agencies are performing well below expectations in meeting the needs of our senior citizens, then I urge you to support my amendment to prohibit bonus pay for those responsible for running these agencies in the coming fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I appreciate the distinguished chairman's comments and perspective on this. The one thing that I would share is I think we're dealing with some cultural challenges in the customer service responsiveness of many of the agencies. Oftentimes in this Chamber, we highlight the poor performance of private corporations in their management, but having worked in helping businesses turn around and reform their practices, one of the things that I've noticed, especially in corporations that are successful in transforming their culture, the executives, the management leadership at those corporations, take personal responsibility and have a significant personal stake in the performance of every level of their department. I think this requires across-the-board change. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to honor the life of Sergeant First Class William ``Bill'' Zapfe. Sergeant Zapfe was serving with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division as a combat engineer when he was tragically killed by an improvised explosive device last month. Sergeant Zapfe was a dedicated soldier on his third tour in Iraq. Bill grew up in Park Hills and Dry Ridge, Kentucky, and joined the military shortly after graduating from high school. He came from a family of dedicated public servants. His late father, Joseph, was a State trooper, and his two brothers, Joseph and Edward, have also both dutifully served our Nation. He is remembered by his family as a loving and devoted husband and father. Bill Zapfe is a true patriot who died fighting for a cause he believed in. Bill leaves behind his mother, Jeanne; his loving wife, Evelyn; and his three children, Anastasia, Cameron, and Spencer. Today, as we honor the life of Sergeant Zapfe, our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this difficult time. We thank Sergeant Zapfe for his service and for answering the call to protect our great Nation.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, for part of Thursday, June 28, 2007, I was absent from the House for a family medical emergency. Had I been present I would have voted: On rollcall No. 584--``no''--Cardoza Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 585--``no''--DeFazio Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 586--``no''--Price (GA) Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 587--``no''--Davis (VA) Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 588--``aye''--Garrett Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 589--``aye''--Souder Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 590--``no''--Flake Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 591--``no''--Flake Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 592--``no''--Flake Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 593--``no''--Flake Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 594--``no''--Flake Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 595--``no''--Campbell Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 596--``no''--Emanuel Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 597--``no''--Campbell Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 598--``aye''--Wicker Amendment to H.R. 2643. Amendment Offered by Mr. Pence

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, I was absent from the House for a familial medical emergency. Had I been present I would have voted: On rollcall No. 564--``yes''--Brown-Waite Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 565--``no''--Campbell (CA) Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 566--``no''--Campbell (CA) Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 567--``no''--Flake Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 568--``no''--Flake Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 569--``no''--Flake Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 570--``yes''--Jordan (OH) Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 571--``yes''--Price (GA) Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 572--``yes''--Musgrave Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 573--``no''--Inslee Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 574--``no''--Udall (CO) Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 575--``no''--Lamborn Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 576--``yes''--Cannon (UT) Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 577--``no''--Re-Vote on Udall (CO) Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 578--``yes''--Motion to Recommit on H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 579--``no''--Final Passage of H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 580--``no''--Ordering the Previous Question. On rollcall No. 581--``no''--Matsui Amendment to H. Res. 517. On rollcall No. 582--``no''--H. Res. 517. On rollcall No. 583--``yes''--H.R. 1830, To extend the authorities for the Andean Trade Preference Act.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, I was absent from the House for a familial medical emergency. Had I been present I would have voted: On rollcall No. 551--``aye''--King (IA) Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 552--``aye''--Peterson (PA) Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 553--``aye''--Conaway Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 554--``aye''--Bishop (UT) Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 555--``aye''--Barton Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 556--``no''--Bernice Johnson Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 557--``aye''--Dent Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 558--``aye''--Pearce Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 559--``no''--Hensarling Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 560--``no''--Hensarling Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 561--``no''--Hensarling Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 562--``no''--Hensarling Amendment to H.R. 2643. On rollcall No. 563--``no''--Andrews Amendment to H.R. 2643.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 25, 2007, I was absent from the House for a familial medical emergency. Had I been present I would have voted: On rollcall No. 548--``yes''--H. Res. 189--Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a ``Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day'' should be established. On rollcall No. 549--``yes''--H.R. 2546--To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Asheville, North Carolina, as the ``Charles George Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.''

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to restore funding that directly impacts the emergency response capabilities of rural and small community first responders. The Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program, or CEDAP, is a critical resource for equipping first responders in rural and small communities around the country, especially in America's heartland. For each of the last 3 fiscal years, Congress has wisely provided $50 million for CEDAP. CEDAP is designed to help first responders in small and rural communities to purchase much-needed equipment. This year's bill would cut that funding by 60 percent, but increases other grant programs by over $2.6 billion. It would cut from $50 million in last year's CEDAP funding to only $20 million this year. It's also worth noting that the House-passed bill for fiscal year 2007 would have provided $75 million, a 50 percent increase to assist our small cities and rural communities. My amendment will restore funding for this vital program to $50 million. To offset this funding increase, my amendment would take $5 million from each of six other very large grant programs, totaling a $2.6 billion increase in grant security spending overall, each of which will still receive a massive increase over last year, even if my amendment is adopted. By only approving $20 million in this year's bill, we risk severely impacting the capabilities for emergency response in our small and rural communities. In addition, CEDAP is a program with a proven track record of accountability and success. While the committee responsibly proposed increasing State and local grant programs by hundreds of millions of dollars and anticipates this will benefit some of these same communities, that result is no means a guarantee. CEDAP is designed to guarantee that our small communities receive needed first responder equipment. And I believe it's our mandate from Congress to assure that small communities are protected. The committee report says it expects overall increased funding to benefit the CEDAP communities, but that is not guaranteed in statute. We must not cut this critical funding. If my amendment is adopted, the House will affirm its commitment to safety and prosperity of our rural communities, without severely burdening any other program. Each of the programs selected as a part of this offset would still receive a massive increase over last year's enacted amount if my amendment is adopted. The House should maintain level funding for CEDAP to ensure that communities continue to benefit from this direct assistance program. The proposed cut I believe is a terrible message for the new Congress to send to rural and small communities who benefit directly from this program despite the soundness of the underlying overall bill. With funding at the $50 million level, the Department issued approximately 1,800 CEDAP grants in fiscal year 2006 to small town and rural community police departments, fire departments, EMS units, sheriff departments, cities, towns, counties, universities and others. If this $20 million number stands for fiscal year 2008, this Congress will likely be cutting these rural and small town grants from roughly 1,800 to 720. This is the wrong direction for this Congress and for this important homeland security program, just as the fiscal year 2007 application process is under way. The committee increased funding for urban grants by $50 million for a total of $800 million. Certainly we can maintain CEDAP for rural communities at a level of $50 million, instead of cutting it 60 percent. In this year's bill, funding for a majority of programs is hugely increased, including important urban programs. I mentioned before $2.6 billion of critical grant increases while cutting this one by 60 percent. My amendment would only reduce these programs by $5 million. While the increases are important, the committee has unreasonably targeted the CEDAP account for a 60 percent cut, while finding hundreds of millions of dollars in new spending. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I respect greatly the work of the chairman and the ranking member to craft I think a very strong bill overall. We face problems in protecting our rural communities. I believe the three of us all have many rural communities that face challenges. Working in another committee, we've faced challenges in protecting rural housing grants for affordable housing programs to make sure they're not subsumed by the large urban areas in the States. And I'd ask the gentleman if he would consider in this conference process finding a way to segment or protect, if not in the form directly of the CEDAP dollars, but to make sure that a mechanism is considered to protect our rural communities and small towns to have access to this needed equipment.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, I thank the chairman for their work on this and the commitment to work on this problem. The real issue is not the superficial presenting question itself in the form that it takes, but ensuring that our small towns, our rural communities have access to these funds in some kind of a manner that can be protected. For example, in my district along the Ohio Valley, in fact many districts, small towns sit aside critical infrastructure, locks, dams, chemical plants, other areas that could be vulnerable to threats, and they are the only means of response. And by having this access, it will protect them. With that commitment, I thank both the ranking member and the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, during the 109th Congress, Republicans enacted historic earmarking reforms that allowed Members to challenge and debate wasteful earmarks contained in spending bills on the House floor. This was a good step towards increased accountability and transparency in the earmarking process. Last fall, Democrats campaigned on a pledge to make this the most ethical Congress in history. But, as they headed into their first appropriations season, we're confronted with the reality of their reforms. It seems that instead of increasing sunshine on how Congress is spending the American people's money, they prefer to create massive secret funds for earmarks that will be inserted into the bill after the votes have been taken on legislation. And what is perhaps most egregious is the fact that they won't even let these earmarks, which are paid for with the American people's hard- earned tax dollars, be debated in the people's House. This is not the most ethical Congress in history. This is a sham.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I think it's somewhat ironic. Listening to the words of the gentlewoman from Florida reminds me of a comment that Machiavelli made centuries ago. He said: ``For this is the tragedy of man-- circumstances change, but he does not.'' It's fascinating that the Democrats ran on a platform of wanting to bring about the most ethical Congress ever, but, frankly, I have to say it's a sham based upon this approach to earmark reform. This is not earmark reform. In fact, the reason we were here last night, contrary to the comments from the other speakers, was to protect the American people and to protect their right to accountability for every dollar that is spent in this Chamber. Let's look for a moment on the structure of accountability before talking about the validity of earmarks. Last night, when we asked about the ability to debate specific spending bills, we were told, oh, this is in the guise of transparency, but, of course, you won't be able to vote on the individual earmarks. You can only vote after those have been dropped in after the conference report. I would have to say this is a most surprising thing. In fact, we were told, with tremendous sincerity on the part of the gentleman from Wisconsin, that, in fact, this would be a wonderful way to protect the people's rights to transparency, and, frankly, wall us completely out of the process. How is that? Well, I would be able to object to egregious spending. We have seen that in a number of areas through the years on both sides of the aisle. But how would we object to that from my office in Kentucky? I would be able to write a letter to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. In fact, the staff members would make the decision on whether that was a legitimate earmark or not. I have great respect for the staffs that work at all the committees in our offices and the House. But I would like to remind the gentleman from Wisconsin, the Members from the other side of the aisle, that last November, in the election that they claim the American people chose to have a new direction, I didn't see the name of any staff member from Capitol Hill on a Federal ballot anywhere in the United States. The people who were elected to uphold and defend the Constitution, who were to make sure that the people's money was spent wisely, were not staff members. The staff members were accountable to elected officials. Ultimately, the elected officials have to make those decisions because we are the ones that were accountable to the people. What will the public know about these earmarks? All they see of them is at the last minute when we get into a position of simply voting up or down on a conference report where we will not have that ability to debate or to discuss those bills. In fact, let me be clear about this. I don't think earmarks in and of themselves can be bad. They can be very good, but they should all be subject to public debate here in this Chamber on this floor or in this committee where they can be voted on up or down by a majority of Members clearly making a decision and being accountable for those decisions. There are many good earmarks: investing in public works, creating jobs that can lay a foundation for future growth. The root of this practice is based on the idea there are many funding priorities very specific and unique to districts or regions of the country that should be decided by our elected officials, not some faceless bureaucrat in Washington, not some person hidden in a cubicle or an office away from the light of scrutiny and accountability. To say this is bringing an ethical posture to Congress, I beg to differ with that. In fact, I believe what it would do is increase the likelihood of malfeasance on the part of taxpayers' dollars by taking away the direct accountability with Members of Congress. In the Fourth District, I don't want a faceless bureaucrat to make those decisions. In fact, I am proud of every earmark that I have secured for the Fourth District of Kentucky. I want the people to know that this is how we believe, working with our local leaders, that taxpayer dollars should be reinvested in our communities, how their dollars should be spent that they can see that firsthand and see that return. However, the process would be significantly improved if every earmark were defined in the bill, their sponsors named and that we have the ability to challenge those and let each Member defend the merits on return and investment to the American taxpayer on each one of them.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Before I speak, I would like to just share one thing. The gentleman who was just speaking reminds me again of the comment that Machiavelli made that the tragedy of man is that circumstances change, but he does not. And in all of this rhetoric, I would remind the gentleman we were actually debating a Homeland Security bill, I haven't heard one person answer our reasoned arguments to ask them to defend the appropriations chairmen or the Speaker's approach to earmarks by taking them off the floor and out of committee and removing them from debate and accountability. I happened to be in the meetings last year where the Republican conference was at work to move to improve the accountability. Certainly, I believe in complete transparency of records, and we have heard nobody defend the chairman's position on this. I have heard no Democrat get up and defend the chairman's position on earmarks at all. They want to use ad hominem arguments, talk about yesterday. I think the gentleman is right: what happened yesterday, in fact, is history. So far, to make this the most ethical House in history, I would think that openness and transparency would improve accountability, and not simply contribute to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We talk a lot about that, but I think that a lot has been created inadvertently from the other side. The issue is not whether earmarks themselves, it's not whether earmarks themselves are good or bad. It's simply having a mechanism for accountability for the American people so that they can see that. One perfect example is a large project of national and regional significance that's in my district that affects 71 congressional districts. We worked together in a bipartisan manner through the 109th Congress to secure all of the funding necessary to the lead-up to the construction of the Brent Spence bridge on I-75 that connects Northern Kentucky and Cincinnati. This was not a Republican or Democrat project, it was an American project where many, many Members, ranging from south Florida, all the way to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, up into the Northeast saw their districts, their industries, their jobs affected by that meaningful investment in infrastructure that would benefit the Nation as a whole. We wanted that accountability. We debated it in public. We talked about it repeatedly. We made the case not only to one another in the House, but to the American people, that there would be a return on investment. And I think, at the end of the day, that's the real key. Projects like that are not bridges to nowhere. Projects like that in the full disclosure of the light of day show a proper stewardship of the tax resources of the American people that are given to us to spend. But to take it away and not answer the fundamental question, to say that these are tactics to stall for pork, I would respectfully disagree with the comments that have been made, because nobody has defended the fundamental question that accountability, in fact, has been taken away and removed. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, stated on March 17, 2006 that ``before Members vote on the bill, there should be an appropriate time for people to be able to read it, that it be a matter of public record. And if there's an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there.'' Unfortunately, moving to a concept of omnibus bills or dropping them in at the conference where there's not that room for debate or discussion, I think it creates opportunities that, I won't go so far as to suggest that there's an issue with integrity, but more importantly, as a businessman, as somebody who was a consultant helping companies to maximize their investments, their productivity, to keep their jobs and to grow, there's a greater risk of redundancy. There's a greater risk of waste. There's a greater risk of less efficient ways to go about solving the problem in a particular region. The benefit of debate and the benefit of dialogue is to give us a synergy that, at the end of the day, will give us results that will benefit the American people. And I think that we've been trusted with the people's money. This legislation, today, the structure and the reason that we have been put into a position where we have to exercise process to force this debate, is no different than what happened a month ago when a germaneness rule, where the minority had the opportunity to offer alternative opinions that had been in place since 1822; folks who stated that they were respecters of the institution moved to strike that rule, and we were simply informed an hour before it was going to go into effect, and we exercised our rights through procedure to remove all unanimous consent and to move to a place where this had to be brought into the light of day because of the opportunities that were given for Members before. At the end of the day, that was wisely repealed that there could be some degree of comity and debate. In this same vein now, I think it's important that, rather than returning to the politics of yesteryear, of a bygone era, I think what we need to do is move forward in a spirit of openness. We live in an information world that's interconnected and open and gives access. Let's give the people access to all the earmarks. Give it to them early. Let Members on both sides of the aisle stand by their projects, justify them to the American people.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. And with that, at the end of the day, what we come up with is not a majority or minority solution, not a Democrat or Republican or liberal or conservative solution. We come up with an American solution that optimizes the resources that we are entrusted with by the American people.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work and dedication of a great leader and great educator from northern Kentucky, Dr. Fred Bassett. Since 1996, Dr. Bassett has served as superintendent of the Beechwood School District in Fort Mitchell, Kentucky. Working as a parole and probation officer early in his career, Fred wondered how he could make a difference in the lives of young people before they got off track. He decided that the answer was in education, and he dedicated his life and his future to investing in children and future generations of this community. Rising through the ranks in the Beechwood School District, Fred served as a teacher, assistant principal and principal before being named to his current position of superintendent. His success is the fruit of his character, his commitment and his vision. Fred helped make Beechwood School District an institution known statewide as a leader in academics and as a perennial powerhouse in high school football. I am proud of the success he has had in helping our students excel both in and out of the classroom. I thank him for his service and wish him the best of his luck in his new career at the University of Cincinnati. Fred Bassett's leadership has planted the seeds of success in thousands of children which will bear fruit for our community, our commonwealth and our country in the decades ahead.