Geoff Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this motion is a distraction. It misses the point of this legislation entirely. We are here today to restore accountability for the regulations with the biggest impact on our economy. Good, bad or ugly--and our regulatory code includes all three-- Congress should be accountable for regulations that cost the American people $100 million or more annually. The REINS Act simply says that Congress must vote on these regulations, these major rules, before they can be enforced on the American people. Essentially, this motion to recommit repeats part of an exclusion already attempted in the McCarthy amendment that the House just voted down. It's purely a political motion. The REINS Act has been the subject of two hearings and a markup in the Judiciary Committee and was subject to an additional markup in the Rules Committee. Today, we have had a robust debate on the bill and seven amendments, five of which were offered by colleagues in the minority. Congress has a bipartisan bad habit writing vague legislation that sounds nice, but leaves the dirty work to unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies. This practice has allowed the Congress to claim credit for popular aspects of laws, and blame regulatory agencies for increased costs or the otherwise negative effects of the regulations. Agencies are also starting to bypass Congress by writing regulations that stretch the bounds of their delegated authorities. The administration has declared an intent to pursue their agenda by pushing items they could not get through Congress through regulatory actions instead. Indeed, laws they could not pass in Democratic supermajorities in the last Congress are now being attempted, against the will of the Congress, to be implemented by regulation. What we have proposed in the REINS Act is very simple: Congress should at the very least be accountable for regulations with $100 million of annual economic impact or more. These rules are classified by the administration as major rules. The REINS Act is not anti-regulation, and it is not pro-regulation. What we're saying is let's have a transparent and accountable process for implementing new regulations. According to a recent Gallup Poll, small business owners cited complying with government regulation as the biggest problem facing them today. Public Notice did a poll recently that found that a majority of Americans believe Congress should approve regulations before they can be enforced. Our economy is struggling to recover, and more than 13 million Americans are still out of work. Congress needs to do a much better job of creating a pro-growth environment that increases our competitiveness and rewards entrepreneurship and ingenuity. Everyone agrees that regulations can have a significant and detrimental impact on jobs and our economy. Even President Obama described regulations that stifle innovation and have a chilling effect on growth and jobs in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal earlier this year. The REINS Act lays down a marker to say that Congress should be directly accountable for the most expensive regulations that could stifle innovation and have a chilling effect on growth and jobs. In the words of the great Speaker from Cincinnati, Ohio, Nicholas Longworth, I ask all of my colleagues to strike a blow for liberty, to vote for accountability. I oppose the motion to recommit. Vote against the motion to recommit. Support the REINS Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the upcoming 67th anniversary of the Battle of Colmar Pocket. The Battle of the Colmar Pocket was fought between January 22 and February 9, 1945, to liberate the last major French city occupied by the German Army. The ferocious preliminary fighting which formed the Colmar Pocket began after the arrival of U.S. 7th Army and 1st French Army forces at Strasbourg, north of Colmar, on November 23rd and Mulhouse, south of Colmar on November 25th, 1944. These Armies, under command of the 6th Army Group under Lieutenant General Jacob L. Devers, had fought their way through the Vosges Mountains to reach these cities beginning in mid-September, and were the first military force in history to successfully do so. The 1st French Army, commanded by General Jean de Lattre de Tassigny, had the mission to clear the Pocket and liberate Colmar, destroying the German forces in the Pocket or driving their remainder across the Rhine. Initially, the 36th Infantry Division, under Major General John Dahlquist, arrived at Selestat on December 4, 1944, fixing the northern shoulder of the Pocket. Under French command, the 36th Infantry Division fought its way south to the vicinity of Kaysersberg, Ostheim, Mittelwihr, and Bennwihr, in frigid winter weather, where the division fought off fanatical German counterattacks launched in support of the German Ardennes Offensive, the Battle of the Bulge. In mid-December this stalwart division was withdrawn from the Colmar sector to rest and refurbish after its long, debilitating campaign through the Vosges. For the fighting to collapse the Pocket, two 36th Infantry Division soldiers received the Medal of Honor, Sergeant Ellis R. Weicht and T/ SGT Bernard P. Bell. Major General Iron Mike O'Daniel's 3rd Infantry Division then under acting Division Commander Brigadier General Robert N. Young, which had also fought its way as part of 7th Army through the Vosges Mountains to Strasbourg, was attached to II Corps of the 1st French Army under Major General Aime de Goislard de Monsabert, and in mid-December continued the fight to collapse the northern section of the Pocket, seizing Kaysersberg, Sigolsheim, Mittelwihr, and Bennwihr and the dominating high ground of Hill 355 above Sigolsheim and Hill 216 outside Bennwihr in the final two weeks of December 1944. For their intrepid and gallant actions in the fighting between December 15 and January 21, 1945, the following 3td Infantry Division soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor: 1LT Charles P. Murray, Jr.; 1LT Eli Whitely; LTC Keith L. Ware; T/SGT Gus Kefurt; and T/SGT Russell Dunham. As this difficult fighting was taking place, other 1st French Army units were pressing remaining German units in the Vosges Mountains at the westernmost extent of the Pocket, as well as in the south near Mulhouse. The tough fighting and harsh winter weather had greatly worn down the French, and it was determined further U.S. reinforcement was needed to enable our valiant allies to finally collapse the Pocket. The first to arrive were the soldiers of Major General Norman D. Cota's 28th Infantry Division, which had fought hard in the Bulge. They arrived on January 19th, taking over the 3rd Infantry Division's sector in the Kaysersberg valley. On January 22nd, the 3rd Infantry Division, now under MG O'Daniel, with attached 254th Infantry Regiment of the 63rd Infantry Division and reinforced by a combat command of the 5th French Armored Division, launched the II Corps main effort to breach enemy defenses protecting the Colmar Canal and to isolate Colmar from the Rhine River by seizing the bridge at Neuf-Brisach. January 22nd found then Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd B. Ramsey from Somerset, Kentucky, in command of the 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry. He had commanded the battalion since taking command in the Anzio beach head in February 1944, and had commanded it for Operation Dragoon, the invasion of Southern France, the Southern France campaign, and through the Vosges. Leading his battalion across the ill River, through minefields against dug-in enemy machine gun positions south of the village of Guemar in a night attack, Ramsey showed outstanding leadership and gallantry which led to the award of the Silver Star. Despite being wounded by enemy shell fragments, he ensured his battalion continued advancing in the face of stubborn resistance, breaking through the enemy positions and enabling the rest of the division to drive south. Ramsey would continue his sterling combat service and go on to achieve the rank of Major General, and commanded the AMERICAL Division in Vietnam from 1969 until 1970. He was severely injured in a helicopter crash in Vietnam and eventually was forced to retire for medical reasons in 1974. MG Ramsey is a proud son of Kentucky, and a member of the University of Kentucky Hall of Fame. The 3rd Infantry Division's dogged attack and imaginative scheme of maneuver enabled it to reach and cross the Colmar Canal the night of January 29-30 after a week of very heavy fighting. This combat included a serious incident at the bridge across 111 at the Maison Rouge where the failure of the bridge resulted in isolated battalions of the 30th and 15th Infantry Regiments defending unsupported against severe enemy armored counterattacks. For actions during January 22nd through the 26th, two Medals of Honor would be awarded to 3rd Infantry Division soldiers, PFC Jose F. Valdez and 2LT Audie L. Murphy. The XXI Corps, commanded by Major General Frank W. Milburn, took command of the 3rd Infantry Division, the 28th Infantry Division, the 75th Infantry Division commanded by Major General Roy E. Porter, the 5th French Armored Division, and the 12th Armored Division commanded by Major General Roderick C. Allen at the end of January and continued the attack which succeeded in the 3rd Infantry Division's seizure of NeufBrisach. The 75th Infantry Division attacked and protected the 3rd Infantry Division's west flank. The 28th Infantry Division launched its attack from the Kaysersberg valley and cleared the suburbs of Colmar, enabling units of the French 5th Armored Division to enter the city on February 2nd. Immediately thereafter, the 12th Armored Division was committed for a drive south and on February 5th, met French elements advancing north at Rouffach. French forces completed the cleansing of the Pocket and destruction of the enemy's final bridge across the Rhine at Chalampe on 9 February 9th, 1945. For this final phase of the fight, one more Medal of Honor was awarded to the 3rd Infantry Division's T/5 Forrest E. Peden. The Battle of the Colmar Pocket, overshadowed by the Battle of the Bulge to the north, saw some of the bitterest fighting of the war and resulted in the award of the Presidential Unit Citation to the entire 3rd Infantry Division with its attachments, as well as the award of the fourragere of the Croix de Guerre embroidered Colmar. The 109th Infantry Regiment of the 28th Infantry Division was also awarded the fourragere. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in congratulating and thanking the surviving veterans of the Battle of the Colmar Pocket on the upcoming 67th anniversary of this battle which liberated Colmar and cleared the Germans from southern Alsace. I especially would like to express my thanks and admiration to Major General Ramsey for his outstanding combat leadership at Colmar and throughout his illustrious military career.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Thank you, Judge Carter. I appreciate your holding this tonight and your flexibility in allowing me some time to share as we've talked about before at times on the floor various aspects of the growth of the regulatory State. The issue is not being against regulation or for regulation. The issue is having transparency and accountability. We've seen in this administration and the last administration, the administration before that, an ever-increasing reach in agencies where they're stretching the law, whether it's the Clean Air Act of 1972 that's being stretched to proportions far beyond the original intent of Congress or issues related to the Clean Water Act that stretch beyond the bounds of science, to unfunded mandates in No Child Left Behind from the last administration. We can think of a wide variety of these issues. For me, I think the American public wakes up when it hits them in the pocketbook, when it hits you and me in the pocketbook. In our case, you probably experienced the same thing in Texas. The year that I was sworn into Congress, a consent decree was forced upon our local community for nearly a billion dollars in storm water compliance that was not only beyond the needs of the community, it was beyond the economic capability of the community to comply. That was based on a rule issued by an interpretation of a law that had been passed 8 years before in a different Congress, in a different political climate. And again, our citizens, the citizens of the Fourth District of Kentucky, citizens of districts across the United States, had no recourse but to comply with this. One of my constituents walked in as we wrestled with different aspects of not limiting regulation but providing accountability, providing the opportunity for the voters, our citizens, to be able to hold the government accountable for what it does, walked in and said to me, ``Jeff, why can't you guys vote on this?'' And we had a revelation in a different way to come back and address the issue of regulatory transparency. Standardization is important, but it needs to be at a place that the American people agree with and support and is practicable from the standpoint of cost. And the economic cost is often not incurred in this. We have towns across the United States, across the Ohio Valley whose compliance cost with just that regulation alone is more than what the budgets of the communities are on an annual basis. It's unreasonable, and there is no recourse. So we went back and we researched and found a portion in the Congressional Review Act of 1995 that we suggested changing. And to the shock of many of my constituents, only one regulation has ever been repealed in the history of the Congress. That was the Clinton-era ergonomics rule that had the House, the Senate, and a President who would sign that. So you have to get, in effect, a majority in the House, a supermajority in the Senate, and then have a Chief Executive who is willing to change that or to prevent that regulation from going into effect. What we wanted to do was something a little bit different. It's done in industry; it's done in business. In effect, it's done in virtually all competitive sports, where, if something gets out of bounds or out of expectation, the game stops. In production, on the assembly line, when the red light comes on, the line stops, and people have to take an extra look at what the issue is. In this case, what we wanted to do was have a simple process to restore transparency and congressional accountability of what the executive branch does, which was the genesis of the REINS Act. It's really a very simple thing. The REINS Act stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny. It's H.R. 10 in this Congress. The number on the chart up there was from the last Congress, H.R. 3765. Basically, what it does is it requires Congress to approve all new major rules so that ``major rule'' is defined as one that has $100 million or more in cumulative economic impact across our country. What our bill will do is really very simple. Once a rule comes to the end of its 60-day comment period, it would have to come back up to Capitol Hill for a stand-alone, up-or-down vote under a joint resolution in the House, in the Senate, and then be signed by the President of the United States. It's making the point that for any major rule, a rule that reaches into the pocketbooks of all hardworking, taxpaying Americans, they have a right to be able to hold their elected Representatives and Senators accountable for the position that they take on that direct economic impact. For me, I think it's fine. There are times that America will stand up and say, Yes, we agree with this, and this is the right thing to do. There are other times, particularly in hard economic times like today, when the last thing that we want to do is increase that regulatory burden, that out-of-pocket cost on America's citizens. To give you an idea of this, the cost in 2009 alone for the compliance of regulation on our economy was $1.75 trillion. If some significant portion of that regulatory process were streamlined, that would be creating jobs and, ultimately, more taxpayers.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I think the gentleman has a great point. In fact, it comes down, I think, to about $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States of America for the cost of regulatory compliance. To your point, why it's so critical now is that we've seen agencies in the last administration and in this administration that have gone into overreach. Most importantly, what we saw happen in the last Congress was a Democratic supermajority in the House, in the Senate, with a liberal Democratic President, who was out to keep his campaign promises. I can respect that. The American people spoke in that election, but they also spoke in the election that followed last year in that they did not agree with the overreach, be it legislative or on the regulatory side; and they made a change, certainly, in this body. The administration proceeded at that point to attempt to enact cap- and-trade rules--an energy tax on every American--by regulation. When the Congress in a Democratic supermajority could not pass those bills in order to send them to the President's desk, they were intent on doing it by executive order. It's the same thing that we see happening potentially with the card check-forced unionization bill. It could not pass in the last Congress, so we see attempts to move that by regulation. There are issues with unfunded mandates on our schools. We're even seeing an extension of that inside the Department of Education, which further hamstrings already strapped local school districts. It could not get through the United States Congress, so we're seeing attempts to do that by regulation. What the REINS Act would simply do is say, Stop, Mr. President. Stop, Cabinet Secretary. You have to have the advice and the consent of the representatives of the American people before you're going to move for something that's going to hit us that hard. We have 197 cosponsors on the bill so far. Two hearings were held on this in the Judiciary Committee. It was passed out of the Judiciary Committee 2 weeks ago. We had a markup in the Rules Committee to go over some technical pieces inside of the bill regarding the timelines on vote triggers. It passed out of the Rules Committee; and we're looking for a vote here, hopefully in the very near future, to see it passed and sent over to the United States Senate. I appreciate what the gentleman from Texas is doing to champion this move to not only awaken the American people to the huge economic impact of overregulation, but to present a wide variety of legislative fixes that you and many of our colleagues have authored to stem this tide of overreach of the government and to allow our economy to stand up in energy, in manufacturing, and agriculture. With that, I thank you.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize America Recycles Day, an annual national awareness event, the mission of which is to promote the social, environmental, and economic benefits of recycling and buying recycled products. Today, I would like to highlight the automotive recycling industry, which plays a large role in preserving our natural resources and reducing demand for scarce landfill space. During the recycling process, over 80 percent of the entire vehicle by weight is reused, remanufactured or recycled. The recycling of these vehicles saves an estimated 85 million barrels of oil that would have been used in the manufacturing of new or replacement parts. Automotive recycling businesses employ over 108,000 people around the country. The majority of these businesses are small, family owned and operated. The Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA) is an international trade association which has represented an industry dedicated to the efficient removal and reuse of automotive parts, and the safe disposal of inoperable motor vehicles. Our Nation owes much to the 4,500 automotive recycling facilities represented by the ARA, that help to recycle over 11 million retired vehicles every year. ARA has instituted its own program that certifies that automotive recycling facilities meet specified business, environmental, safety, licensing and regulatory standards. Mr. Speaker, please join me, on America Recycles Day, in commending the automotive recyclers for all they do to protect and promote our environment.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Woodfill Elementary School, a 2011 National Blue Ribbon award winning educational institution in the Fourth Congressional District of Kentucky. The Blue Ribbon Schools Program honors public and private institutions whose students achieve academic excellence or have made profound advancement in closing the gaps of achievement, especially among disadvantaged and minority students. To be named a Blue Ribbon School is to join an elite group. Of over one hundred thirty thousand schools in the United States, just over 6,000 have received this honor since its creation by the Department of Labor in 1982. Today, as we celebrate the accomplishment of this exceptional Kentucky institution, it is my hope that Woodfill Elementary School's leading example of hard work and growth encourage schools across the nation to strive for the same level of excellence. Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending the students, teachers, and administration of Woodfill Elementary School for their devotion to the success of the youth of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the United States of America.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining with my colleague Mr. Doggett of Texas, among others, to introduce the Standard Data and Technology Advancement Act, or the ``Standard DATA Act.'' This legislation will establish consistent requirements for the electronic content and format of data used in the administration of key human services programs authorized by the Social Security Act. Human services programs serve overlapping populations and should, from an information technology standpoint, operate consistently within and across programs. By beginning the process of data standardization and the use of common reporting mechanisms, this bill will help achieve three goals: better prevent and identify fraud and abuse; increase the efficiency of administrative resources to serve eligible beneficiaries; and produce program savings for U.S. taxpayers. The private sector is far ahead of the public sector in its ability to use data efficiently to detect patterns of misuse, such as when credit cards are lost or stolen, and streamline backend data processing to reduce manual workloads. The public sector needs to review and implement these same sorts of best practices to better improve the operation of public benefit programs. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, I called a March 11, 2011 hearing on the use of data matching to improve customer service, increase program integrity, and achieve taxpayer savings. We received testimony in support of consistent data standards that are non- proprietary and promote the interoperability of data across various information technology platforms, including the range of State legacy systems. The hearing confirmed that not only are programs within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction in silos, but so are the accompanying data. Applying the provisions of the Standard DATA Act across multiple programs will advance the longer-term goal of allowing data both within and across all Federal assistance programs to operate more efficiently--first by establishing standard elements for individual items of information, and second by defining, in predictable ways, how those elements relate to one another. These standardization activities will promote transparency, flexibility, and consistency across various information technology platforms established by Federal and State agencies. This bill continues the efforts begun in the bipartisan, bicameral Child and Family Services Extension and Enhancement Act of 2011, which was our first effort at requiring a human services program to implement standard data elements and reporting. President Obama signed that bill into law on September 30, 2011. Improved data standards will help increase the efficiency of data exchanges to use and reuse data within and across programs. That will allow States to automate the exchange of claimant data on work and benefit receipt, reducing delays and minimizing improper payments. It will also help to automate application forms by pre-populating them with reliable and verified data, which can reduce the manual burden on staff and allow them more time to engage beneficiaries, all while reducing error. That's good for program beneficiaries and taxpayers at the same time. I thank my colleagues for co-sponsoring this important legislation, starting with Mr. Doggett, the Ranking Member on the Human Resources Subcommittee, as well as Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Herger, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Price of Georgia, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Berg, Mrs. Black, and Mr. Reed. I also want to thank Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Issa and the Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform Subcommittee Chairman Lankford for co- sponsoring this bill, as well as for their support and leadership on the larger effort to improve data reporting transparency. I invite all Members to join us in supporting this important legislation designed to improve the integrity of the benefit programs millions of Americans access today, and ensure that taxpayer funds are properly spent.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I want to thank Chairman Camp and Chairman Brady for their leadership in moving the three pending free trade agreements that are long overdue for our consideration. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of all three pending trade agreements. Passing the Colombian agreement would not only create jobs in the U.S. but would signal our dedication to a faithful and strategic ally. During my service in the U.S. Army, I ran Army flight operations with the Multinational Force and Observers-Sinai while serving jointly with the Colombian military. That was over 25 years ago. In watching the changes that have taken place, Colombian troops are still serving in peacekeeping roles, and they're serving internationally now in counterinsurgency and counternarcotic roles around the globe. In 20 years Colombia has gone through an incredible economic, social, and democratic transformation. They are a robust democracy with strong ties to the United States in a region that includes increasingly anti- American governments, especially Venezuela. Let's strengthen these ties and eliminate any concern about America's reliability as a partner by ratifying the Colombian trade agreement. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Colombia free trade agreement for the job creation potential it brings to our struggling economy and especially to improve our national security in the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank both Chairman Camp and Chairman Brady for their leadership on the pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. All three countries have seen incredible transformation take place over the last generation, especially Panama and Colombia. In the last 25 years, they have revolutionized their economies. They've revolutionized socially, and their democracies are robust. I rise in support of the pending trade agreement with Panama and encourage my colleagues to support passage of this important agreement. It's critical, not just to our economy but also for our national security. Passage of this agreement will mark renewed U.S. engagement with the region, while countering anti-Americanism and China's increasing economic prominence in South America. Additionally, the U.S. is the largest user of the Panama Canal and works closely with the Panamanian government to ensure the safety of the canal itself and to enhance regional, maritime, and port security. For this critical asset alone and maintaining that relationship, it would be essential to passing this agreement. I'd like to comment on one other aspect of security that's been enhanced in all three trade agreements, and that's the security of intellectual property rights. These agreements, all three of them, Korea, Panama, and Colombia, make significant improvements to IPR protections for U.S. companies. In all categories of intellectual property rights, U.S. companies will be treated no less favorably than companies in the partner countries. That's a great step forward. The agreements establish tough penalties for piracy and counterfeiting. They include state-of-the-art protection for U.S. trademarks. The agreements include enhanced protection for copyrighted work and, ultimately, the agreements include stronger protections for patent and trade secrets. As we look at the changing demographics of the world and the face of relationships, it is important that we turn our eyes to the south and to the east, strengthening our ties with Latin America and with South America, strengthening our ties with Asian democracies and republics through the Korean Free Trade Agreement. What we're doing with Panama, Colombia, and Korea is critical to our future, to our children's future. I strongly urge passage of the Panama Free Trade Agreement. It's a great step forward. It's a great step in our alliance.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Thank you, Chairman Brady. I appreciate you organizing a Special Order tonight dealing with these critical free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. I am encouraged that the President sent the agreement to the Hill earlier here today, and we are here to lend support to the President for these agreements and to encourage him to implement them as soon as they pass the House and Senate. Passage of these trade agreements is long overdue and critical not just for our national economy, but also for our national security. Through the Colombian agreement, we signal our dedication with a strategic and faithful ally. During my service in the U.S. Army, I ran U.S. Army aviation operations for the multinational force and observers in the Sinai, providing direct support and serving jointly with the Colombian military in the Middle East. In fact, they continue to serve in that same role. They are also serving in Haiti, Sierra Leone, and training militaries and police in counternarcotics and counterinsurgency measures across the globe. U.S. leadership in our hemisphere is under threat from competitors, and the administration's inattention to Latin America is a real challenge that we are facing now. But the Colombia agreement signals our reengagement, which is critical to both our economic and our security future. U.S. exporters' share of Colombian imports fell 17 percent between 2001 and 2009, while Chinese exporter shares nearly tripled. The trade agreement with Colombia will advance our national security interests by providing Colombians with alternatives to the drug trade. Colombia is a robust democracy with strong ties to the United States in a region that includes several increasingly anti-American governments, especially Venezuela. We must strengthen these ties and pacify any concerns about America's reliability as a partner by ratifying this trade agreement. Similarly, implementing the Panama trade agreement will further mark our reengagement with the region, while countering anti-Americanism and China's increasing economic prominence. The U.S. is the largest user of the Panama Canal and works closely with the Panamanian Government to ensure the safety of the canal itself. Panama is currently expanding the canal to double its capacity by allowing more and larger ships to transit. This expansion will increase the imports and exports to and from the United States while creating the need for further cooperation between our two countries to enhance regional maritime and port security. South Korea also serves as a critical U.S. ally, both diplomatically and militarily. Our alliance with the Republic of Korea has grown even closer since the March 2010 sinking of a South Korean naval vessel by a North Korean submarine. Currently, the U.S. maintains about 28,000 troops in the Republic of Korea, and our militaries regularly conduct joint exercises. Our geostrategic relationship with South Korea is important not only to counteract the threat from North Korea, but also in dealing with China's military ambitions and security in the Pacific Rim. With elections for South Korea's National Assembly and Presidency scheduled for 2012, it's critical to strengthen this vital relationship. Ratifying the South Korea trade agreement will demonstrate our commitment to this important partner and help to act as a counterweight to Chinese influence. Furthermore, entering into an FTA with South Korea will help reorient the alliance between our great nations to adapt to the changes on the Korean Peninsula and in East Asia. Continuing to delay ratification of the trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea could seriously harm American credibility, economic advantages for our country's exporters, and our position of global leadership. I urge the President to implement the agreements immediately after they clear Congress for the betterment of our national economic health and our military and diplomatic partnerships. Thank you again, Chairman Brady, for holding this important discussion tonight on the House floor.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

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

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

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2883) to amend part B of title IV of the Social Security Act to extend the child and family services program through fiscal year 2016, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in 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 today in support of H.R. 2883, the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, a bill that continues a tradition of bipartisanship in crafting child welfare legislation. The bill we're considering today reauthorizes two important child welfare programs, incorporating a series of improvements developed during hearings held by the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources over the past few months. In addition to continuing and making improvements to two major child welfare programs, this bill also renews authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to approve child welfare waivers during the next 3 years. Past waivers have allowed States to test new and better ways of helping children at risk of abuse and neglect. Earlier this year, the House unanimously passed legislation renewing this authority, but the Senate has not followed suit. This bill, which our colleagues in the Senate also support and which was favorably reported by the Senate Finance Committee yesterday, will allow innovation to continue and may yield information to improve child welfare programs in the future. The bill will also establish a process to create needed data standards in child welfare programs. This language is a first step towards improving collaboration between social service programs. We have often heard in hearings that States and programs within States have difficulty coordinating services because of difficulty sharing data, and that this lack of coordination increases costs and decreases effectiveness. This bill directs the Secretary of HHS to work with the States to establish national data standards so that all State child welfare programs are speaking the same language. To show the wide support for this bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert letters of support into the Record from the following organizations: The National Conference of State Legislatures; the American Public Human Services Association; the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators; the American Institute of CPAs; the American Humane Association; the North American Council on Adoptable Children; Voice for Adoption; the Association on American Indian Affairs; the National Indian Child Welfare Association; Youth Villages; First Focus Campaign for Children; Zero to Three (The National Center for Infants, Toddlers and Families); the National Foster Care Coalition; the Child Welfare League of America; the Children's Defense Fund; the Center for the Study of Social Policy; and the Public Children Services Association of Ohio. National Foster Care Coalition, Washington, DC, September 13, 2011. Hon. Max Baucus, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington,

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

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

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2943) to extend the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families and related programs through December 31, 2011.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in 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 today in support of H.R. 2943, legislation to temporarily extend the authorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and related programs. Since it replaced the New Deal-era welfare program in 1996, TANF has been successful at cutting welfare dependents by 57 percent through the end of last year. Even more importantly, by promoting work among single parents, who are the most common welfare recipients, it helped significantly reduce child poverty in female-headed families over time. Even at today's elevated unemployment rates, TANF continues to promote more work and earnings and less poverty. But despite this general progress, TANF can and should be strengthened to do more, especially to help more low-income families work and support themselves in the years ahead. Unfortunately, too many parents are exempted from work requirements today for a variety of reasons we learned at a recent hearing held by the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, which I am privileged to chair. But given the current administration's support for only a straight 1- year extension of current law, which is a view shared by the other body, there are limited prospects for making needed changes to TANF before the program expires at the end of this month. That's the reason for the short-term extension before us today. This 3-month extension will provide an opportunity for Congress, including the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, to review TANF alongside other entitlement programs this fall. Important questions need to be asked, including what is the proper funding level for these programs and how can they best be focused on engaging low- income parents in work and other productive activities so more can support themselves in the long run. Another thing this additional time will let us do is to take action to close what some call the ``strip club loophole.'' This refers to an outright abuse of taxpayer trust permitted under current law when adults on welfare spend taxpayer funds on liquor, gambling, tattoos, or even visits to strip clubs. As recent exposes have revealed, too many welfare recipients access taxpayer funds at cash machines in casinos, liquor stores, strip clubs, and even on cruise ships. Some States have already taken action to close this loophole by blocking access to welfare EBT cards at such establishments. There is bipartisan legislation to require all States to do that, and doing so is something of particular interest to our colleague, Senator Coburn. I share his commitment to getting this done this fall and urge all my colleagues to support action that we will take to close this loophole. The legislation before us is designed to provide time for a closer review of and action on these sorts of issues. Importantly, it does not add to our deficit since it simply continues current TANF funding for 3 months. I note that TANF is a fixed block grant, which is not adjusted for inflation. I wish we were debating legislation today that extended and actually improved TANF programs so that they work better; but given the impediments before us, the bill before the House today offers the best chance that we will be able to do that in the near future, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion that this legislation should be amended to revive the TANF Supplemental Grants program. TANF supplemental grants expired in June 2011 in accordance with legislation Democrats crafted last year that President Obama signed into law. These payments have now expired and are not payable under current law. Extending them would mean spending more money to revive the program, which is beyond the scope of what we're doing today in maintaining only current TANF programs. Since TANF supplemental grants were first paid, about $4 billion in extra TANF programs have been paid out only to a minority of States. At some point, we have to ask when such supplemental spending should come to an end. The last Congress, which, again, was led by Democratic majorities, said the end should come this past June. I respect that judgment. The committee is obviously aware of Mr. Doggett's bill to extend these payments yet again, but we don't know how he would pay for that since the bill he introduced includes no pay-for. That would mean increasing our current historic deficits even more. All States received a share of $5 billion in special welfare funds in the 2009 stimulus bill. That was on top of almost $17 billion in TANF block grant payments all States receive each year, including those that previously collected supplemental grants. The States that collected supplemental grants received about $913 million of that $5 billion in one-time funds, or the equivalent of almost three years of supplemental grant payments. I appreciate the gentleman's argument for extending these payments by reviving the now-ended Supplemental Grants program. The legislation before us does not do that, since it simply extends current law programs. But I know he and I will continue to have fruitful discussions and work together about this and other TANF funding and related issues, and I appreciate his continued input and effort. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2943 simply is a short-term continuation of Welfare to Work programs that have successfully cut welfare dependence and promoted work. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to work with us to design a long-term reauthorization bill that fixes flaws in the system, fixes broken processes and allows agencies to communicate in a more holistic way as we address this to eliminate waste of taxpayer dollars and ultimately to design a long-term reauthorization bill that further promotes work and independence from welfare. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.