Geoff Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out the louder one yells and the more one says it, as I told my children when they were little, doesn't make it true or correct. I think that we need to get down to the facts in this matter. Saying that paying back an overpayment is a tax increase is dissembling at best. It is the return of money that was not entitled by a particular individual. Democrats were for this before they were against it. To say it's a tax increase is simply wrong. Democrats created this mess. Democrats made the IRS, of all organizations, the arbiter of health care. I mean I think we need to get down to the truth here and not make the mistake of--since we're incurring issues of values and honor and faith here, Isaiah the prophet made the comment that beware of those who call good ``evil'' and evil ``good'' or sweet ``sour'' or sour ``sweet.'' There is a consequence that comes with that, and the American people are entitled to the truth. Democrats increase taxes. Democrats increase costs. Democrats increase complexity of government. My friends on the other side of the aisle, frankly, misrepresented the facts of this bill at best or are completely ignorant of the process they set in motion unilaterally. Indeed, to call this a tax increase reminds me of the health care debate last year when we were told we just had to read the bill to find out what was in it. I don't think you read the bill under any circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011. I want to read some correspondence from the middle class families in my district who think this is the right thing to do, who believe that people aren't entitled to something that they earned under law and that people who get paid something don't believe it should be paid back. My citizens and my constituents: Greg from Independence, Kentucky, wrote: ``We don't need this new 1099 requirement for small business. Get out of the way so we can prosper.'' That means creating taxpayers, not raising taxes. Eric from Cynthiana told me: ``Small businesses are already being crushed by overreaching government mandates and undue burdens. I'm personally sick of this foolishness.'' Joann from DeMossville wrote in to tell me how she would personally be affected. She stated: ``My husband is a sole proprietorship, and I currently complete and submit 1099s for his subcontractors. So, if we spend $600 at Home Depot, I now need to send them a 1099? Sounds like a good use of my time and IRS resources.'' Tom in Burlington may have summed up the requirement the best when he simply called it ``a nightmare for business.'' Mr. Speaker, we need small businesses to focus on what they do best-- to innovate, grow and hire. This reporting requirement needs to be removed now. It's burdensome, and it's going to drive up costs and cost us jobs. If allowed to go into effect, it will slow job growth and will lead to higher prices for consumers. Let our job creators create jobs and focus on that. I urge support for H.R. 4.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on January 12, 2011, Private First Class Zachary Salmon died from his injuries after sustaining small arms fire in Kunar Province, Afghanistan. Salmon enlisted in the Army in March 2010 and was assigned to the 32nd Cavalry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. A devoted family member and father, Salmon grew up in Harrison, Ohio. He was a 2008 graduate of Pigeon Forge High School in Tennessee and most recently lived in Hebron, Kentucky before joining the Army. His awards and decorations include the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Medal, the Army Service Ribbon and the Combat Action Badge. He leaves behind his three-year-old son Noah; his mother, Sonya Christian and stepfather, who live in Hebron; his father, Steven Salmon, of Hamilton, OH; a brother, Steven Salmon of Hamilton; and two sisters, Kelsi Salmon and Katrin Maurer. Pfc. Salmon, who served as a cavalry scout, joined the Army because he wanted to better himself and to make his son proud. By giving his life for the freedom of others, we are reminded of the great price at which our freedom is preserved. We are all deeply indebted to the service and sacrifice of Private First Class Zachary Salmon, and our thoughts and prayers are extended to his family and friends as we celebrate his life and accomplishments.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to my constituent Erica Lynn Crump of Walton, Kentucky who passed away suddenly on December 28, 2010. Erica worked as a clerk for the I.R.S. and was a member of Erlanger Baptist Church. Not only did she serve others through her work and church; she also gave back as a dedicated and passionate volunteer for the Republican Party, the Republican Women's Club, numerous campaigns and other conservative political causes. She considered volunteerism her niche in life. She loved the responsibility it gave her, the opportunity to learn and make a difference--and she loved the people with whom she worked. More importantly, Erica was a mother. She cared for and unconditionally loved her daughter Grace. Her commitment to her daughter, family, friends and community will be greatly missed. Erica's example is inspiring to all those who serve others. Today, as we celebrate the life and accomplishments of this exceptional individual, my thoughts and prayers are with Erica's family and especially her daughter Grace. I share in their sadness, and pray that God's peace will comfort them in their time of need.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 72. It instructs the Committee on Ways and Means, as well as nine other committees, to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from Federal Government agencies and to focus on their impact on the Nation's economy. In listening to the stories I hear tonight from both sides, one thing that I would like to say for the record is that oftentimes our discussion about regulations gets caught up in unnecessary emotion and ideology. One point that I would like to make is that so much of what we address are process issues. When we increase complexity--and I'm speaking as an engineer, not as a Member of Congress--we can reduce effectiveness. I am not opposed to regulation, but I am a strong supporter of sensible regulation, of honestly looking at the secondary and tertiary effects of regulations that either come from poor legislation that was too broadly written or from compromises so great, so elastic that the bills were thrown over the wall to agencies that may or may not act within the intent of Congress and are not working closely with those who are regulated. I think it is of constitutional importance for our body to make sure that we work together with those who are regulated and with those who are the executive agencies that we oversee to ensure that there is a high-quality outcome and that our communities are not unreasonably burdened with the objective that is defined. Much of that context has gotten lost from the original intent of many of the agencies that have come into being over time. I will tell you that the motivation for me, after my professional career prior to Congress, that the motivation for me in addressing this issue of regulations doesn't come from feeling that standards are wrong, but that so many regulations impede or prevent actual job growth and innovation. The question that I'd asked time and again over the period of the last Congress, particularly last year, was: Where are the jobs? With this growth of a regulatory state, what we do not understand are those impacts on business owners, who need predictability in order to hire people. We can have fine sounding language about the intent of legislation, which might sound okay here in the Chamber, but as we know from the health care bill and others, many Members didn't read the bill, didn't understand the secondary effects that would come from implementing policy, and left regulators with a near impossible task. And many of the rules that have begun to come out on this are nearly impossible to implement effectively and in a cost-effective manner. I would say that any reforms in government should be bipartisan. This should be one of those--first for the institution and second for the people we represent to create jobs. We can remove a great deal of that unpredictability and give certainty rather than create an adversarial relationship between the executive branch and the people who create the jobs and who pay the taxes, and I am speaking specifically to our small business owners. This resolution is necessary because the ever-expanding regulatory code is far too complex and burdensome. Regulations are the off-budget hidden cost of government impeding Americans' ability to create jobs. The Small Business Administration estimates the annual cost of Federal regulations in the United States exceeded $1.75 trillion in 2008, almost double the amount of all individual income taxes collected last year. Both sides agree all the time on the ability to refine regulations. I would say that the Government Reform Act was only used one time in its existence since 1995 to stop a regulation that was going to be considered unnecessary or too costly. There is a program through the Small Business Administration to address regulations and their costs over time. In coming out with their top 10 regulations for review in that time, the only thing that has been done out of thousands and thousands of regulations that have been reviewed or pushed for reform was to simply remove a withholding of payment to architects and construction companies doing government contracts. That's not affecting the core of this, which is our tax- paying base--the ability to create the jobs that generate the taxpayers that fund the government. At a time when our economy is struggling to recover, we can't afford to have anything other than a sensible and competitive regulatory code. It must be the mission of this Congress and our government to improve the competitiveness of the United States and the global economy and thus create jobs. The resolution we consider tonight represents an important first step in the process by learning to develop eyes to see the roots of the problem and the impositions on businesses. Again, this is not anti- regulation. It is asking the question: Why are we accepting a regulation? What are the impacts of it going to be? It is allowing those who are being regulated to be part of this discussion, and more than comments from the Federal Register that are very rarely heeded by the agency community. It is important for us to reform the code and to reform the process of how we view that code so that there is transparency and accountability and a check and balance that the American people have, not only on us but on the executive branch as well. We've just entered our 21st straight month of at least 9 percent unemployment or more. As Americans across the country continue to look for work, Members of Congress have a responsibility to ask ourselves: Are we adequately addressing job creation by removing the barriers to growth and creating conditions that encourage businesses to hire? In industrial engineering language, we would call that asking the questions: Is this a non-value-adding regulation? Does it add value to safety in a true and tangible form? For example, half of all the regulations in OSHA have nothing do with actual safety. They have to do with paperwork compliance standards that could shut a business down. This is not a statement against the importance of industrial safety. It's simply asking the question so as to remove excesses and remove extraneous overhead. The agencies will be more efficient, and we will be much more effective in creating jobs in the private sector. For the past 2 years, the answer to one question is simply that we have not been adequately addressing job creation by removing these barriers to growth and encouraging businesses to hire. From the failed stimulus package to the misguided attempt at health care reform to financial regulatory reform, American businesses have been hit with an explosion of new taxes and regulations. They increase the cost of doing business, and therefore make it more difficult for businesses to hire. For small businesses that have less than 20 employees, the regulatory burden amounts to an average of $10,585 per employee per year. These small firms have been responsible for 64 percent of the net new hires over the last 15 years and could play a role in lowering our unemployment rate if the regulatory burden on them were reduced and brought into a scale of context for their size versus a very large business. Excessive regulations can also have a direct impact on American families, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet, by increasing the cost of food, medicine, doctor visits, and utility bills for basic services such as electricity, water, and sewer rates. I am encouraged that President Obama has recognized the potential negative economic effects of regulations and rules in both his State of the Union address and in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that followed an editorial about a bill that I introduced last year called the REINS Act. This is not a partisan issue. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have contributed to the massive growth of government and to expanding the volume and complexity of the regulatory state. However, I am concerned that the President's recent rhetoric on regulation may be just that--rhetoric. Despite these comments, the administration has used the regulatory process, not the Congress, to advance elements of its agenda that cannot be passed in the Congress. After Speaker Pelosi forced the job-killing cap-and-trade bill through the House of Representatives, the legislation was stopped in a democratically controlled Senate. In December of 2009, however, the Environmental Protection Agency took matters into its own hands, without the express approval of the Congress, to begin moving to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This raises serious questions of our ability to control and provide oversight of the executive branch on behalf of the constituents we represent. These regulations would have disastrous consequences for a weak economy. They would result in higher energy costs, which, in turn, will result in increased utility rates for struggling families and for the small businesses and manufacturers that employ millions of Americans. Any time a regulation or rule enacted by an executive branch agency can have this kind of impact and broad-reaching implications on our economy, it should be subject to the review of the Congress to be accountable to our citizens and not a faceless bureaucrat in an agency. This was the idea behind H.R. 10, the REINS Act, legislation that I introduced to provide greater accountability and transparency in the rulemaking process. On all rules that have a direct economic impact of over $100 million, the REINS Act would require an up-or-down, stand- alone vote by both the House and the Senate and require that they be signed by the President before they can be enforced on the American public. While the REINS Act reforms the process of how these regulations are approved going forward, the resolution we are debating tonight addresses those rules already on the books or those that have been proposed. President Obama has also ordered his agencies to review rules and proposals that may be hindering job creation or economic growth. However, H. Res. 72 is superior to the President's review in several important ways. First, the resolution before us would ask the House committees to review regulations rather than the agencies that created them and enforce them. The fox should not guard the henhouse. Before even beginning the review required by the President's Executive order, the EPA announced that it was confident that the review process would not result in the repeal or alteration of a single current or pending rule. That is not internal oversight, and it goes against the clear, express will of the American people and their elected Representatives and Senators. In fact, when House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa called on business and trade associations to identify regulations that burden their businesses, EPA rules were cited more than any other Federal agency. By passing this resolution, we will begin a regulatory review that is both objective and analyzes costs and benefits in real numbers. Before being elected to Congress, I ran a small manufacturing consulting business. What we did for a living was process improvement and flow management. In other words, we took inventory of a manufacturing facility's processes. We understood the flow. We sought to decrease complexity, remove processes that didn't add value, and increase the overall throughput and efficiency of the facility, thus protecting the existing jobs and creating more jobs in return. That's exactly what H. Res. 72 asks the House committees to do with the Federal regulatory process. Removing and altering outdated, costly or ineffective rules will streamline our regulatory code and make our economy more competitive and inviting to investment and job creation. Even saving a small percentage of the $1.75 trillion that is currently spent on regulatory compliance each year by job creators would free up capital which can be reinvested into our economy to create jobs. Please join me in supporting this resolution so that we can begin the process of reforming the Federal code and get our economy moving and hiring again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished fellow member of the Ways and Means committee, the gentleman from California, Chairman Herger.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, returning to the subject of regulations and its impact on the creation of jobs and the need to create jobs to create taxpayers, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), a distinguished new member of the Ways and Means committee.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes now to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I find some degree of irony in the gentleman's comments that anybody saying that we need to do away with regulation was stupid, because the President of the United States stood in this Chamber last month and was citing specific regulations that were redundant or were inappropriate. The resolution that we have been debating tonight is a critical step toward restoring our economy and getting Americans back to work. I would like to point some context out on this. I think we have 100 percent agreement in the Chamber tonight that we want clean water and we want clean air. I'm the father of an asthmatic child, two asthmatic children, I might add, who has been up all night and made the trips to the ER and understands this. But there's a significant difference between the context of application there and dealing with some of the changes and the moving standards in the regulatory community that have huge economic impact on our communities. I would like to cite three brief examples of different contexts of regulations that need to be modernized or changed, or have lost their context. Again, we are not talking about an anti-regulation issue here. The fact is that regulations have never been aggressively attacked. What happens is we layer another regulation on top of an existing regulation. We increase the complexity of that. We create new organizations that do the same thing, costing more money, creating uncertainty. And I think we have common ground on the need for that reform. But let me give you the first example. Clean air is a great concern to me. I grew up around the steel and the mining industries as a small boy on the other side of the tracks and got to see the bad things that were done. When the EPA came into being, there were some good starts. Ironically, the real efforts of true environmental remediation began in the States. Operation Scarlet in Pennsylvania began changing the way the land was treated. Much of that was copied by the Federal Government and changed our community demonstrably. But those days are long gone, those good old days, and the complexity and the intrusiveness of the bureaucracy is even different to a greater degree. The Marathon oil refinery that's in Catlettsburg, Kentucky, spent tens of millions of dollars in full compliance with existing regulations. Long-term capital investments were made to deal with sulfur, nitrous oxide, and mercury, other chemicals that were in potential emissions, both in water and in the air. And then, after these huge, multiyear capital investments, the ball was moved again. It has crippled the ability of that specific facility to grow and to create jobs. That is what I'm talking about, context and predictability. Having overseen long-term capital investment plans in the manufacturing industry, when you have to take 10 years, you cannot afford to have that lack of predictability. This is what we are talking about. At a closer level to home, we talk about veterans a lot here, we talk about prescription drug problems, drug addiction issues. That's something I care very much about. Growing up in a dysfunctional household and seeing the worst of substance abuse or substance addiction in family members, I can say, as somebody who has volunteered for over 30 years to help people escape from these kinds of things, that regulation in fact is helping to create a worse problem. We work very closely with the Veterans Administration. As a former Army Ranger myself, I care very much about our veterans coming home. And the one thing I would say here, Mr. Speaker, is that we do have a prescription drug diversion problem with older veterans in certain parts of the country. I was approached by a group of doctors from the Veterans Administration who shared with me that they had been banned by the Veterans Administration general counsel from using the drug registries that are in the State of Indiana and the State of Kentucky, as well as all other States in the Union that have these registries, from simply checking to make sure that the patients weren't seeing a civilian doctor in another State or a civilian doctor in Kentucky and going to the VA to get a double or triple dosage of the same pain medications like Oxycodone and selling it on the street or abusing it themselves to a degree. The doctor said to me, ``I'm not interested in criminal prosecution. I don't want to kill my patients. I want to make sure they receive the best health care.'' With a stroke of a pen, the general counsel of the VA has added to the complexity of this problem. I spoke to the head of National Drug Control Policy at the White House personally about this, and he said his hands are tied and, ``We are looking into that.'' All of this impacts jobs ultimately. Finally, I will give a context of the small business owner who gets trapped in this before fully closing. We have lots of great innovative small business owners who go out and they see an opportunity, and they take the risk, usually with their life savings, which may not be much. We only had a few thousand dollars when we started our business that became successful and supported a number of families for many years before I came to Congress. My friend, Nick Bell, who started Braxton's Cleaners, was an entrepreneur that wanted to take a chance and build a dream with that. His customer service is outstanding, and people flock to him for the responsiveness, the creativity, the initiative, the kindness of his people. He implemented home delivery and suddenly wanted to set up satellites. So many people were coming to him for business, he realized he needed to put another dry cleaning machine in place. One would think that, to support more customers, we could do that. He suddenly found out, as he bumped up against the Division of Water and the Environmental Protection Agency for the first time, that he had to do a soil sampling under the pad, the concrete pad of his building, before putting that second machine in. What he didn't know along the way was that an arbitrary decision was made in another Federal agency that dry cleaning fluid was put on a list of carcinogens. As one oncologist told me, you would probably have to drink about 80 gallons of this product daily to create the chemical pH in your body to cause cancer in the first place. But that's beside the point. Here is the context of why we have to forcibly address regulations, and I will point this out. Mr. Bell suddenly found out that one teaspoon of water under 14 bore holes under the pad was discovered. In that teaspoon of water were several parts per million of dry cleaning fluid. Guess what. They said, ``Well, you're going to have to remediate this.'' Mr. Bell said, ``I can't afford to do that.'' The response from the compassionate Federal agency that cares about jobs was, ``If you don't remediate it, you are going to shut it down.'' That made him an activist. He was going to have that business shut down, every family working there, over one teaspoon of water, and he had to spend effectively his life savings of $60,000 to clean up one teaspoon of water, and it took him years to recover. Those are the stories. I appreciate all the comments about caring about workers. I care about those. My grandfather was a mine inspector after he retired. I care about those issues. And I think that it's incorrect to try to create this demonization of those of us who just ask the question, why is that there? We have regulations that not only impede jobs, but regulations that make it so complex. And I will speak with authority as an engineer on this. The more complicated you make something, the more likely you will have errors. Thus, many of the things that have been cited tonight as reasons we need more regulations are because we have got so many that it can become arbitrary overnight. I agree with the gentleman that we need to address these issues, but we need to do them in a manner that is devoid of emotion and with a technical focus on what the numbers actually say. And, regarding regulations, let's measure the right things, because we don't do that. What worked in 1960 is not necessarily applicable with the technology and the tools today. Reviewing all current and proposed rules is the first step. We should do it, because successful businesses, successful schools, any successful institution, even, I guarantee you, the champion Green Bay Packers, review their playbook on a regular basis throughout the season to make sure that they were adaptive and agile for that great game we saw last week. Reviewing it is a necessary step for us, and it's one that by reviewing this will not hinder economic growth; it will help it. It will free people to achieve, to fulfill the spirit of regulations and help enhance prosperity for all Americans. On behalf of the Ways and Means Committee, we are eager to do our part in this task. The next step will be to change the way that major rules take effect in the first place. We need more accountability up here. That is nonpartisan. And the last administration, I am sure that the gentleman and I could find plenty of opportunity to point out regulations that were against the will of Congress that were being implemented regardless of who was in the majority here. For the sake of our Constitution and the people who sent us here, we should embrace that. To provide greater transparency and accountability to this process, I look forward to the House moving forward with the REINS Act, which will be a complement to H. Res. 72. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution as the critical first step of opening the eyes of the Congress, opening the eyes of the American people to the impact of these regulations honestly, and to alleviate job creators from not the burdens of legitimate safety standards, of legitimate standards to benefit our communities, but those non-value-adding overheads that are imposed upon us that prevent the hiring and create unpredictability. Let's move forward. Let's take the burden off our families from these excessive and unnecessary regulations, and create jobs and put America back to work.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, the Democrats' health care law has only been in place for 10 months. Yet the problems and negative effects are already painfully clear and well documented. The American people stood against it when it was forced through Congress last year, and they took out their frustrations on this bill at the ballot box, in November, with a mandate to repeal it. This government takeover of our health care system will not improve access to health care or lower costs for families and small businesses. It is just not in the math if we use the same math that is used by the rest of the country. Since this law was passed, premiums have increased again, putting more families in the difficult position of choosing between keeping their health insurance, paying their heating bills, or putting food on their tables. In addition to failing to achieve any key goals of health care reform, this law imposes new taxes, penalties, fees, and paperwork burdens on small businesses that drive our economy. The National Federation of Independent Business has found the employer mandate alone will cost 1.6 million jobs, with about half of those lost by small businesses. Face it. ObamaCare massively increases taxes. It massively cuts senior benefits. It creates over 100 new agencies, commissions, and boards, and that will massively increase costs. Over 100 new agencies mean more Federal employees, more tax dollars required, more complications in access to health care, and it brings the IRS into your private health care decisions for the first time--without addressing the key drivers of health care costs. Adding more taxes and regulations on job creators will only serve to prolong the economic problems and high unemployment rates we are experiencing. This is too big of a burden for our economy to wait. We need to start over by repealing this bad law now and by beginning the process of producing commonsense reforms and fiscally responsible solutions. We can reform health care in a way that improves quality, reduces costs, and increases access, all without burdening our economy or increasing the debt that will be owed by our children and grandchildren. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I look forward to following through on our promise to replace the current law with proposals that actually accomplish these goals of reforming Washington, bringing private market reforms, reducing costs, and dealing with defensive medicine through real debate, real hearings, real markups, and bipartisan input. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this repeal.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize and pay tribute to Major Mark O'Neill, United States Army, on the occasion of his departure from the Army's House Liaison Office and his new assignment as a student at the Army's Command and General Staff College. My staff and I have had the great pleasure of working with Mark over the past year he has served with the Congress. It has been an honor to work with this combat veteran and citizen-soldier. Major O'Neill has had a varied and distinguished military career. Upon graduation from Villanova University in May of 1998, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the United States Army. After completing the Infantry Officer Basic Course and Ranger School at Ft. Benning, Georgia, he was assigned to the elite 82nd Airborne Division as an airborne infantry platoon leader. In March of 2000, he led his thirty-nine-man platoon in a joint exercise in Oman with the Omani army. During his time with the 82nd, Mark, a paratrooper to the core, participated in fifteen airborne operations. In December of 2000, he transferred to the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) where he served as a platoon leader and regimental personnel officer. With the Old Guard, then First Lieutenant O'Neill conducted dozens of military funerals and state ceremonies. The same dedication with which he accorded respect to grieving families and friends during funerals at Arlington National Cemetery was in evidence on September 11, 2001, when Mark led his platoon in the initial response to the attack on the Pentagon. Major O'Neill left active duty in May of 2003, joining the Cintas Corporation as a Service/Sales Manager, but in February of 2006 he was recalled from the Ready Reserve to serve as an embedded trainer with the fledgling Afghan National Army. As an advisor to an Afghan National Army (ANA) infantry company, Mark trained the company leadership on both tactical and logistical tasks and accompanied them on over twenty combat patrols. On more than one occasion, he experienced combat firsthand. He was cited for bravery in October of 2006 for organizing the defense of his ANA company and repelling a Taliban ambush. In June of 2007, Mark joined the Army National Guard and was assigned to the National Guard Bureau's Directorate of Domestic Operations. From February 2010 to present, he served as the National Guard's legislative liaison with the Department of the Army's House Liaison Division. During his assignment to the Army House Liaison Office, Major O'Neill developed outstanding rapport with Members of Congress and their staffs--both personal and committee. Whether escorting congressional delegations to visit soldiers and families at Army installations, soldiers in the theater of operations or Wounded Warriors at Walter Reed, Mark has been a strong advocate for soldiers and a superb representative of Army values. I ask that my colleagues please join me in recognizing the outstanding accomplishments of Major Mark O'Neill in serving the United States Army and the Nation.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Jennifer Crase, a mathematics teacher at South Oldham Middle School in the Fourth Congressional District of Kentucky. Ms. Crase has been an educator for more than thirteen years and has taught eighth grade mathematics in Crestwood, Kentucky for 6 years. In June 2010, Ms. Crase was nominated by President Barack Obama as a Presidential Awardee for the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. In addition to being an outstanding teacher, she has worked at the State level to develop a standards-based report card for all Kentucky middle schools. Ms. Crase serves as a team leader, mentor, presenter and mathematics lead teacher for her school. Ms. Crase is a strong mentor and a reliable friend to her colleagues. She encourages collaboration and sets high goals for all students. Today, as we celebrate the accomplishments of this exceptional Kentuckian, it is my hope that others are encouraged by her hard work and determination. Madam Speaker, please join me in commending Jennifer Crase for her time and devotion in helping the youth of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the United States of America.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, December 22, 2010, I was absent for one vote. Had I been present I would have voted on rollcall No. 664--``no''--Motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 847, James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, today we debate legislation to prevent taxes from increasing on all taxpayers as our economy struggles to recover. We know without any doubt that virtually all Americans will be forced to send more of their hard-earned dollars to Washington on January 1, 2011, if we fail to act. Although this legislation is not perfect in my estimation, the package does provide a measure of certainty and predictability that will allow broader debate in the coming Congress without immediately damaging our fragile economy. This package will prevent devastating tax increases from falling on the backs of hardworking Americans, small businesses, and job-creating investments. This imperfect legislation represents the best agreement that can be reached by Republicans and Democrats determined to avoid the shock to our economy that would come from increasing taxes on the American people and many of our job creators. A vote against this agreement, which would prevent the largest tax increase in history, is really a vote for a $3.8 trillion job-killing tax increase. Regardless of what side of the aisle the opposition comes from, they're willing to accept the proposition that taxes will increase for all Americans. They may hope to gain political points, but I am not willing to let perfect stand in the way of good when it comes to matters that negatively impact the paychecks of Kentuckians. Earlier this week, this package earned the bipartisan support of more than 80 Senators. If we fail today, middle class families will see roughly $100 per week taken out of their paychecks. Increasing taxes now will cause more pain for families with tight budgets, force small businesses to cut more employees, and further slow economic growth throughout the Nation. Critics of extending the tax cuts for Americans have suggested that the cost will add to the deficit in coming years. While taxing is a functioning of government, the Federal Government is not entitled to any specific amount of revenue from the American people. What is the ``cost'' of letting Americans and job creators keep their own money? Because of budgetary gimmicks in Washington, many Members of Congress have lost sight of the fact that the money Congress spends comes from the American people, is owned by the American people, and the debt we accrue falls on their shoulders. Instead of following the budgetary common sense possessed by most Americans, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have routinely spent well beyond their means. Now, many of my colleagues are looking to the pockets of the American people to foot the bill rather than making tough choices to cut spending in Washington. If less tax revenue is coming into the Treasury, Congress has an obligation to spend less. Democratic leadership in the House refuses to accept that proposition. Rather than take steps to solve excessive congressional spending, Democrats in Congress have had one response to the problem of our mounting debt: send more money. Americans have lost faith in the ability of their Federal Government to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and self-control. Why would they trust those who claim the tax increases are the answer to our fiscal problems? With the tax record of this Congress, increasing taxes is tantamount to entrusting your teenager with a credit card. This past November, voters sent a clear message, a restraining order on Washington: stop the political games with our economy, restore fiscal sanity to Washington, and create certainty and stability in our markets. American families and small businesses can't afford for Congress to play chicken with their hard-earned tax dollars rather than renewing the expiring tax cuts. Therefore, if Congress chooses to ignore the demands of the people, dragging the debate into the next year, the result will be more money taken out of American families' paychecks, impeded job creation, and more partisan political bickering. Were I drafting this legislation, I would repeal the AMT, permanently abolish the estate tax, make the tax reductions permanent for all Americans, and insist that the unemployment compensation be offset by commonsense spending reductions. However, President Obama has made it clear that he won't sign an extension of current tax relief without the unemployment provisions or that makes the 2001 and 2003 tax relief permanent. Congress must develop and adopt a workout plan to eliminate the deficit just like any business or family in financial trouble. Congress must learn from the mistakes epitomized by Washington's ``bailout'' culture and support policies to increase American competitiveness and improve the economic climate for entrepreneurs and small businesses. The road to prosperity allows you to take more home to your family and enjoy the economic freedom that historically has been a hallmark of American culture.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor a great American story, and patriot, Command Sergeant Major Rocky Shapla of Murray, Kentucky. CSM Shapla his lived the American Dream, arriving in the U.S. from Yugoslavia at the age of 15. With nothing but the shirt on his back he would rise up to become a CSM in the United States Army . . . because of his leadership and drive. He has fought in wars, just like all of our forefathers who wear the name Patriot . . . because of their service to country. With over 41 years in the service, his resume is an outstanding one to say the least. Rocky has been recovering from injuries sustained in Iraq. He loves the Army, and he loves this country. As he put it, ``only in America can you come here without nothing, rise up to become a CSM in the United States Army, and have dinner at the White House with the President. Its time for this Kentucky Thoroughbred to come back home to that blue grass that he so loves, Kentucky and his family. I ask that this tribute penned in his honor by Albert Caswell be placed in the Record. This Land Is My Land This land is my land . . . This land is our land . . . All in this Country Tis of Thee so grand . . . Are but born, such fine son's . . . such son's of liberty who stand . . . But, some sons come from far across the seas . . . To but live the American Dream . . . So many of our future great Americans, new daughters and sons . . . Who but new lives have begun . . . All in their fine pursuit, of most precious freedom . . . Who raise their hands and take that oath . . . With tears in eyes, as all in their hearts as this means the most . . . The ones who do it the right way . . . But, with their own fine lives, are but willing to pay! As they assimilate, into this great melting pot . . . as its for them we pray . . . The ones who will so proudly, wear that uniform . . . As in their fine hearts, their love of country beats ever on . . . Willing to face death, giving up all until none lies left . . . as they march on . . . Living the American Dream, raising a fine family . . . daring to dream! Rising up through the ranks, into a Command Sergeant Major . . . As to him, Rocky we give such thanks . . . From one war to the next, Rocky's fine life for us has so been pledged! Melding into, one of America's most finest sons! Yes land is your land, is our land . . . Training and leading, all of our most courageous daughters and sons . . . Succeeding, for Rocky was a man on a mission! Coming to this new world, with but his great dreams and visions unfurled . . . A man who fell in love three times . . . With his Country, his Wife . . . and the United States Army . . . double time! And his children, and Kentucky make five! To live a great life, all in that old Kentucky Clay . . . This great land of Lincoln, Ali, and most beloved Henry his dreams were made . . . Doing it, doing the Right Way . . . the American Way . . . Only in America, can one travel across the seas, and a Command Sergeant Major rise up to be . . . And raise a fine family, and live the dream . . . a shake the President's hand it seems! For hearts of courage full, and fine patriots . . . who live by that golden rule . . . Coming across the shores, with hearts of dreams so very full . . . This Land is my land, this land is our Land . . . may live the American Dream so true!

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a real American Hero, from my great state of Kentucky, Cpl Trampus Miller. A member of A Co. 1-21 INF ``Gators'' of the 25th INF DIV., The United States Army. On July 8th 2008, Cpl Miller was almost lost when a 900 lb bomb exploded in Nasar Wa Salam Iraq, killing his Brother In Arms Cpl ``Doc'' McMillian. Cpl Miller from Campton lost his leg and almost his life. But in a few short years he has already begun to his amazing most courageous life and recovery. He lives by a code of Strength In Honor! Strength In Honor Strength In Honor . . . . Men of might . . . . Those brave hearts, who evil must fight! Who but, with their most courageous hearts . . . . so bring the light! Kentucky born, men like Trampus with hearts so worn . . . . so very bright! Who all through the darkness of war, must somehow endure and win that fight! Yes, Trampus . . . . oh how your fine heart so sounds, this night . . . . For you live by such a fine code! Of Strength In Honor, so! As over the generations, such men as you have so carried that load! And bought and paid for, all of our Freedom's so! Men who come back without arms and legs! Who now so lie in such soft quiet graves . . . . Who all for God and Country, so gave! For it was all in that moment! That moment Trampus, as when you awoke . . . . And found what this war had so invoked! While, close to death . . . . your fine heart so spoke! Spoke of Faith and Courage, which now all of us so bless! With but, your Strength In Honor . . . . yes! As we watch you rebuild, as all of our hearts you so nourish still . . . . As you fight The Good Fight, and will not be discouraged with but your iron will! As you Teach Us, as you Reach So Us, as you So Beseech Us! With all of your fine worth . . . . Showing us all, how Strength In Honor in your fine life comes first! And if I had a son, I would but pray he could be like you this one! Who lives and dies, with tears in eyes . . . . By such a fine code, of Strength In Honor . . . . all in hearts which lie! Kentucky Strong, may you Trampus live long! As we watch your life's song . . . . Of Strength In Honor!

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, small businesses are playing defense against an overreaching Federal Government. It is impeding the economic recovery and not fostering the predictability needed to create jobs. This vote today comes down to job creation versus worsening our troubles. Before you cast your vote today on H.R. 4853, ask yourself, all of my colleagues, WWJCD: What would the job creators do?

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, what would the job creators do? During this time of great economic uncertainty, this is the number one question that we must ask ourselves when bills are brought to the House floor. There is always lots of talk about fairness. Well, their idea of fairness towards job creators means a lot of people will not have jobs. I would like to remind my colleagues that under the current tax policy, before the subprime mortgage meltdown that resulted largely with not dealing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we had 54 months of consecutive economic growth. What would the job creators do if this were enacted? I wonder if perhaps my colleagues shouldn't get a bracelet with the initials WWJCD, ``What would the job creators do?'' before plunging off the cliff with some of these policies. It is not a question that we have to ponder about for long. The answer is simple for anyone who has owned a business and is faced with increasing costs imposed upon them by an intrusive Federal Government. As a former small business owner, let me walk you through the tough decisions this bill would force on millions of job creators with ObamaCare and all of the other burdens on top of this current tax increase. They would have to cut back or eliminate on benefits. They would be switching employees to part-time; at the end of the year, raises and bonuses would be replaced, in all likelihood, by pay cuts; layoffs or moving more companies to places that have friendlier tax and regulatory burdens. These are serious and real decisions that will face our job creators on January 1 as a direct result of this bill raising taxes on millions of job creators. If there was one resounding message in the election, it was that the American people were putting a restraining order on the increasing burdens this Congress and this administration have placed on the American people. At a time when our economy is trying to recover, why would we raise taxes on anyone? Why would even partially want to impede our Nation's path to economic recovery? Under the current tax policy, we had growth. If we move into this direction, we will see a repeat of the failures of the Roosevelt administration in 1937 causing a gross double-dip in our economy, and it will hurt every American. This past Tuesday, President Obama hosted a summit at the White House where appointed Members of Congress were asked to work in a bipartisan fashion to devise a solution to the pending tax hikes. And what does the majority do here? Simply try to once again force something down our throats without real discourse. House Democrats chose to ignore the call for bipartisanship, just as they have ignored the will of the American people on issue after issue after issue and are forcing a vote that will produce significant job-killing results for small business owners faced with the uncertainty over looming tax hikes. Uncertainty over an ominous $3.8 trillion tax increase is one of the most severe plagues we could put on economic recovery. As a result, private sector money that would be invested will continue to sit on the sidelines.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the career of Mr. Joe Gross and to congratulate him on his retirement from St. Elizabeth Healthcare after an outstanding 25 years serving our community. Joe's contributions to the St. Elizabeth Healthcare system and the northern Kentucky health care community have been significant. Thanks in large part to his leadership, St. Elizabeth's has emerged as a robust hospital system in our region that has introduced many new and innovative approaches to health care to our area. St. Elizabeth Edgewood has been named one of America's 50 Best Hospitals by HealthGrades for 4 consecutive years, one of the nation's 100 Top Hospitals by Thomson Reuters for 5 years, the first hospital in the tri-State to be awarded Magnet status by the American Nurses Credentialing Center, ANCC, for excellence in nursing care. Joe has also been recognized personally through a number of awards and honors, including Healthcare Manager of the Year in Cincinnati and the Healthcare Hero Lifetime Achievement Award by the Cincinnati Business Courier, the Distinguished Service Award from the Kentucky Hospital Association, and the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce's Walter R. Dunlevy/Frontiersman Award. In addition to his responsibilities with St. Elizabeth, Joe has been actively involved in the community over the years, including as a chairman of the Northern Kentucky United Way campaign and in working with area colleges to provide scholarships and learning opportunities for students in nursing and other allied health professions. In sum, Joe has made a difference in the lives of northern Kentuckians. He and his team have worked to improve access to quality health care to all in Northern Kentucky. I have enjoyed working with Joe closely on health policy and I have come to count him as a friend. I thank Joe for his service to our community and wish him the very best in his next adventure. I ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Mr. Joe Gross' accomplishments and contributions and wishing him many more years of health and happiness.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Thank you, Judge. It's good to be with you tonight working in common cause on this issue. So many of us have seen not simply in the last 2 years or the last 4 years, but a growth of government really over the last 50 years that is unprecedented, and it's increasing every year in size. The intent behind the Congressional Review Act in 1996 was absolutely solid. But when it went into law, one of the challenges that happened was that law didn't really have the teeth in it to force accountability of the agency community with the Congress. And I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the things that led up to our introduction of the REINS Act, H.R. 3765, the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act. And it's a long name to really give the analogy of pulling back on this unbridled growth or race to increase the size of the government. The only time that the Congressional Review Act has been effectively used to block the implementation of a regulation was the ergonomics rule from the Clinton administration's Department of Labor that was going to be implemented in early 2001, and it was struck down by the incoming Congress and then signed into law by President Bush as one of his earliest legislative actions in 2001. Since that time of the Republican administration and a subsequent Democrat administration, we have seen an explosion of regulations. We can name virtually any agency in the Federal Government that on account of two reasons--one, a lack of congressional oversight and enforcement, where an agency can literally go out and move independent of the clear intent of Congress because of some of the nebulous language that's allowed to go into bills to get compromises to get it passed; and the second thing that happens in that, as well, is that these regulations get promulgated as a means of an administration in the executive branch to, in effect, subvert what the desire of the Congress is. We saw it in immigration policy. We've seen it in environmental policy, and we've seen it in aspects of defense policy. No Child Left Behind is filled with unfunded mandates that are placed upon local school systems. And the cumulative sum of this is a huge amount of the economy. Compliance with regulation comes with a cost. There's a scoring system of rules, and what we chose to focus on was major rules, which I will get to in a minute, but a major rule is one that has a cumulative economic effect of $100 million a year. That is an awful lot of money. But when we look at a country of over 300 million people, we can get there very, very quickly. Let me give you a personal example. For people who might be watching this broadcast tonight, I ask you this question: Has your sewer bill gone up or your water bill gone up in the last 5 years? The majority of communities in this country have seen a great increase due to a mandate, an unfunded mandate, from the Environmental Protection Agency for storm water compliance. Is environmental stewardship relevant? Absolutely. But here is the bigger question. I'll go to northern Kentucky, and this became the genesis of the REINS Act. We had just at the peak, the tipping point of economic growth, about 5 years ago, a consent decree was negotiated in a draconian fashion where we dictated to the water district in northern Kentucky for the three counties where I live, in Boone, Kenton, and Campbell Counties. That consent decree to mandate a change in storm water runoff and how that was going to be handled in our cities in those three counties of our 24 counties was an $800 million unfunded mandate on three counties in Kentucky. It overnight doubled everybody's water and sewer bills. The sewer bills were the first thing that came. The second thing that we saw, though, because we are one of the more prosperous parts of the State in terms of having a sustainable tax base and manufacturing industry, as painful and unpleasant as it was, if it were, in fact, the correct thing to do, there was a means to cope with that. But I have towns in my district, particularly in the rural areas and some of the poorer areas, areas where folks do not have the tax base, smaller cities that have a diminishing and aging population that are heavily centered on retirees where the cost of storm water compliance is actually more than the city budget, and there is absolutely no relief at all or context to be applied in these regulations. I was very concerned about this and had spoken out on it, and a constituent came and talked to me. And he just asked this question. He said, How come you all can't vote on these regulations? And we went to work. We went back and looked at the original intent of the Congressional Review Act. And the more that our legislative staff and I studied that, what we began to see was it takes an action of the House and the Senate overwhelmingly to repeal that regulation. I thought about this from my time in manufacturing and operations, learning how to build things. If we can create something the equivalent of a stoplight that will simply stop the process, that becomes the basis of this, and that was the genesis of what became the REINS Act. There was no way for accountability to be given to the American people. When it's a faceless executive in an agency, when it's a department, a subdepartment within an agency that issues a regulation, comments are rarely carried out. As you noted earlier, we very rarely actually see those regulations briefed. It just comes in a thick congressional register of thousands of pages. And here is the thing that came to mind when we looked at that idea of how to deal with this from a voting perspective. What my friend shared opened our eyes to do an amendment to the Congressional Review Act that would change the nature of it from Congress has the option to. As you know, our good friends in the Senate are somewhat slower than we are in being able to get things done. There are more abilities to throw a stumbling block in place. We decided just to take that same idea; let's create a mandated process that, in fact, will force these regulations to be vetted so the American people have somebody to hold accountable. If the head of the EPA, for example, a regional director of the EPA came into my district in August and made a statement to the effect of, If we have to put you all out of business and you have to move to other parts of the country that have a policy that we think is more acceptable, then so be it; but there's no ability for them to, in effect, strike back at the ballot box, to express another opinion. And these are not people that disagree with the EPA as an agency or any other agency for that matter. It's a question of constitutional authority, and it should be vested here. The power of the purse is in the House of Representatives, and the financial impact of these regulations should be in the House as well. And this is what we propose with REINS--to rein in the government when a regulation of this magnitude is proposed. What would happen is that at the end of the comment period, instead of being enforced unilaterally upon the American people or being in endless court or remediation fights, what would happen, very simply, is those bills or those regulations would come back here to Capitol Hill. We would have a stand-alone, up-or-down vote, a no-excuses vote where Members of Congress of all 435 districts would have to vote and be accountable back to their citizens for the decision they took. If we're going to have an $800 million increase in water and sewer bills, they would vote. If we're going to increase the unfunded mandates on our schools, there would be Members of Congress and of the Senate who would have had to take that vote. I think it would have a restraining factor, knowing that people had an out, that there was accountability. This extends into so many areas with EPA rules and the multiple rules that you mentioned with health care and with the new financial regulations, I could go on ad nauseam, and the sum of this economically is devastating to our country and it moves us away from looking at ways to be more efficient. I say put the stop in place. This bill will do that. The REINS Act, H.R. 3765, makes us all accountable to our citizens. The benefits of this are twofold. The first benefit is that this is nonpartisan. In the Bush administration, as some of us have talked about, we noticed regulations that were being brought about and implemented that were against the better interest of our economy, of our communities in many parts of the country. There wasn't an open and public debate to be able to address that. The thing that this would do is it would push power back to the legislature where it needs to be, stop the unbridled growth of the executive branch so voters would always have a say. The second thing it would do, and we saw this with the health care bill, 2,700 pages, much of it nebulous language that was given to us midnight Friday before a Sunday vote on that bill, there was no way to fully vet the consequences of that. I believe what the REINS Act would do is take those rules and it would lead to more streamlined and crisp language and eloquent legislative language stated, and avoid the ability of any outstanding agency to subvert the will of Congress. I appreciate being part of this discussion tonight.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I would agree wholeheartedly with you. In fact, we can extend that almost into every area of small business. For those who have experience in manufacturing and in any number of business areas or construction that deal with the use of various chemicals, resins and compounds, there is a compliance requirement called Material Safety Data Sheets, MSDS compliance, which requires a very large amount of documentation in a business. We look at Portland cements, which are very large businesses that have these burdens placed upon them that are very high, but it's even in very small businesses. In working with many manufacturing companies in my time before coming to Congress, in the 12 years before my coming to Congress, after I had left the Service, I saw that these regulations created an undue hidden tax on America's ability to compete. It's not the idea of being antiregulation. I think standards can be very good and very helpful, but it's the point at which that compliance is mandated and the context of that. A case in point, I think, that I saw that typified this more than anything else was the case with my dry cleaners that I had used for years before I ended up running for office. It's called Braxton's Cleaners. It was started by a couple of entrepreneurs who wanted to build this business. They built it. It grew. They had very high quality customer service. Like all of us who have started small businesses, we've encountered the issue of how to deal with all of the hidden costs that come with just running any kind of small business. Well, they hit a point where they were doing so much business--they were starting some satellite operations--that the owner decided that he would install another dry cleaning machine. He suddenly found out that, by wanting to do that, he had an EPA mandate through the State environmental cabinet of the Commonwealth of Kentucky that he had to have boreholes drilled through his floor to see if dry cleaning fluid in any capacity had gotten into the groundwater. The standard that had been levied by the Environmental Protection Agency--and this is going back to actually 1999--for the amount of particulate matter of dry cleaning fluid--and essentially you and I could drink it. It would be awful stuff and probably make us sick, but it's not going to kill us--has been listed with many other chemicals as a possible carcinogen. You would have to pump this into somebody's body to create a real health issue, but it was so few parts per million that it was actually a higher standard than drinking water is in our county, which is maintained at a very high standard. When this was found--and they found one teaspoon of water under the concrete pad at Braxton's Cleaners in Burlington, Kentucky--the inspector said, Well, you're going to have to remediate this. His response was, Well, I don't have the money to do that. Then the inspector said, You don't understand. We're going to shut you down if you don't do this. So he spent over $50,000, in effect, to tear up the floor and to clean up one teaspoon of water. The context issue here is that this is not Dow Chemical pumping out millions and millions of gallons of highly toxic chemicals. This is the local dry cleaner. I've had friends who were auto mechanics, running small garages, who built businesses, and who were successful entrepreneurs--taxpayers--creating jobs and growing. They've run into the same kinds of issues that lose context when they're complying and seeking to fulfill the intent of the law. Before I yield back, I'll mention one other. I see the egregious example of regulatory intrusion. The purpose, for example, of the Transportation Security Administration is to provide security for the traveling public. That's the premise. I sat in here on October 31, 2001, as a candidate for Congress, during the anthrax scare, and I watched Norman Mineta--former Clinton administration Secretary of Transportation, who stayed over into the Bush administration--pleading as the father of two airline pilots not to implement the processes the way the TSA was going to. He said it would create an onerous cost, that it would create an excessive economic burden on the airline industry and that it wouldn't materially change the outcome of security. He advocated the use of a much more principle-based and systemic method used by the Israelis, which involves questioning and which gets the bags before they ever go into the airport. Now we find a situation where I believe, personally, we're getting into some Fourth Amendment grounds, not as an attorney because I'm not one, but by questioning the need for these intrusive searches of everybody within the traveling public when, in fact, threats have already penetrated a secure area. The bigger question when I see the nun here and when I saw the video of the----

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. With that visual, keep in mind I've spent the last 26 years of my life traveling in and out of the Middle East in various capacities--serving there in the military and being in and out of the region, traveling on business, and now as a Member of Congress. I've had a chance to watch a system that is virtually flawless, and it's based on a series of questions that is not intrusive. It's a free society. They've maintained their civil liberties with a dramatically higher threat to terrorism. Yet what we have done, if we look at this, is create the bureaucratization of security. We're not going to deal with the root cause issues; we're going to treat the symptoms. Nobody will ever take down an airplane with a box cutter or a pocketknife the way the hijackers did on 9/11. Now that citizens who are flying know, there have been multiple instances in flight where people have had erratic behavior, mainly trying to get to the lavatory, and they were tackled by passengers out of concern for this. Americans will fight back. The situation has changed, and in effect, we're fighting the last battle; we're fighting the last terrorist attack as opposed to something like the Israeli system, which really incurs virtually no cost and manages to keep a very robust flying public that's very safe, and it all begins with asking questions. People bring up the argument, Oh, well, you can't do that because that's profiling. I would disagree with the misuse and misunderstanding of that term related to the cost. We are driving people away from traveling right now because of these intrusions. It's creating a huge burden on the flying public, and it's entirely unnecessary because it's checking innocent people, and 99 percent of our capacity is devoted to checking people for a threat that any trained security inspector would know is not even there. That's a poor use of assets. I'll go back to the Israeli system. I was traveling out of Israel, alone, with a backpack, 17 years ago, on a short trip that I had had to make into Jerusalem. At the time, because of what I did and because of where I had been in the military, I had had lots of stamps from countries all over that area--some areas which weren't particularly friendly to Israel. I was asked questions--a blue-eyed, Caucasian male, from the United States, who spoke with an Ohio Valley accent. They began asking me a series of questions. They looked at the passport stamps and moved me over and said, We'd like you to talk to this person over here. The other 200-plus people who were going on that L-1011 Delta flight, in fact, were moved right on through. I was asked questions for over an hour and a half. There was no cost to those other people. The airline was able to do what they did, and they were able to very quickly verify that I was, A, no threat and a legitimate customer. That system works, and it works today, and it's almost impossible for somebody to fool that system. The other thing that's important is we don't need these billions of dollars spent on these scanners that are being overused. Again, it comes down to situation awareness. We can address this issue with a lower cost by stepping back and applying what you and Congressman Westmoreland have been talking about tonight, which is just bringing some common sense to this. What is the problem we really want to solve? Give us the most flexibility and the most options to deal with this after the fact. Again, before regulations like this should be implemented, I believe we need to have a vote of Congress. Let the will of the people be made known in this rather than just simply giving away another set of our liberties without asking that question when, in fact, it comes at a significant cost. I think if our taxpayers who don't travel regularly understood the amount of money that we spend on hardware, which can still be penetrated by some type of a serious threat that was just outside that set of assumptions in TSA, we'd be in a different world. This doesn't impugn the motivation of the folks in the Transportation Security Agency. I know there is an ongoing argument below the senior management levels of what works and what doesn't work, and it is by those who have lived in that world. They've lived in a high-threat environment and have been able to thrive. I believe we can do that; but again, let's come back to these constitutional underpinnings that regulations and rules that are going to govern the lives, the comings and goings and the commerce of all Americans should be decided here in House of Representatives, over in the Senate, and then signed by the President and not brought into being on the unilateral decision of one individual.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. There are so many stories that we can think of, and it comes back to this issue of having context. A very successful entrepreneur who actually started working in a coal mine at the age of 15, who is a very successful industry executive, made a comment to me when I first got elected to Congress that he wished that no person could run a Federal agency or serve in the House or the Senate unless they created one job so that they would know what it was like to deal with the consequences of regulations. We come back and qualify this. The overall intent of the founding of some of these agencies was a very good thing, but let's step away from the EPA for a moment--we'll come back there in just a second--but move over to education. We have some outstanding schools, blue ribbon schools in our region, and their increases in performance are not due to the mandates inside of the No Child Left Behind bill. In fact, I brought the Secretary of Education from the Bush administration, Dr. Margaret Spellings, to Kentucky in 2008. It took almost 9 months to get her there. Because I wanted her to be able to see as an educator--I'm the husband of a teacher and the father of a current school teacher--that the real key to success in education is not a regulatory mandate; it's again coming back to that context on the front lines. In this case, I took her to two schools, one urban school and one rural school that had gone through dramatic turnarounds and that were both near the top of their state in their performance. And in each case it was a Back to the Future story. Reestablishing parental visitation, empowering teachers to bring families that might have some challenges literally into the community. Packing food backpacks for the weekend to make sure that kids in tough circumstances--having been a kid in a tough circumstance growing up, I appreciate what teachers did for me at the time. And then we get down to the numbers. If we look at the impact of some of these regulations, when you have got an adequate performing or exceptionally well performing school system and then impose on that a mandate that requires a huge amount of paperwork and consumes hours of time, it detracts from the classroom. And then the promises under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, which--the intent of the law is good but the implementation is awful because the promise of 40 percent funding on an unfunded mandate in already strapped school systems, and the best--the average funding in Kentucky runs between 11 and 13 percent of that 40 percent. So again, it's a tax by regulation that's imposed on local communities on an issue frankly I think should be controlled by the States and local communities. I'll give you another case in our district of a very successful young man from Lewis County, Kentucky. He ran in the current wave of activism of people wanting to make a difference. To get elected county judge executive of Lewis County, Kentucky. They are in tough economic times. His name is Tom Massie. He was a stellar student at Lewis County High School. He went to MIT. Got a graduate degree. He invented some remarkable robotics technologies. Was very successful in business, and came back home to invest in his county--not monetarily but to make a difference and turn it around. Energy is an issue not only in Texas and Kentucky. We're energy- producing states. We help to run--in effect our States are part of the engine of this Nation to help lay that foundation in the base of the economy. Tom Massie came up with a brilliant idea that didn't involve coal or oil or nuclear power--all of which we should use and let the market work in this area--but he came up with an idea that would leverage the resources available in Lewis County because it has one of the longest stretches of the Ohio River of any county in Kentucky. We also have a lot of hills. You might call them mountains in Texas where you live. We call them hills and hollers where we're from. And this MIT-trained engineer had a brilliant idea. And he took the equivalent of a dual-faced pump--and he had seen some examples done in other parts of the world--that would create a system of two lakes, and we have the Ohio River flowing in the front of this, one of the largest rivers in the country. And all it would take is channeling water, pumping it up to a lake on the top of the hill and creating in effect a self-replenishing hydroelectric generating system that would meet the hydroelectric needs for a good part of that multicounty area in addition to the current base. It would create jobs. It would provide low-cost utilities so working families and the elderly and the poor would have access to electricity. It would be cheap. It would be an incentive for businesses to grow and for manufacturing to come into these areas because we wouldn't just do it there, we would do it all through the river basins of our Nation. He found something out in his first impact with the regulatory framework that was done out of context. This brilliant idea that would have saved jobs and created jobs in Lewis County, Kentucky. He found out if they take water out of the Ohio River--which I must say is not one of the more pristine rivers of the country in terms of all of its accumulated detritus coming from the Allegheny and Monongahela, coming down from Pittsburgh to Cairo, Illinois--the water, it would be considered dirty by our standards. But if he takes water out of the river if they have overflow from rain and wants to put it back in, the whole project was killed on one basis: That any water put back into the river had to be cleaner than drinking water under the current EPA standards. This affects the energy industry. Coal produces almost 60 percent of power in this country. One of the issues is with stream mitigation and slurry runoff, which is a problem, but the operators of the coal mine who want to comply--and most do; they want to do the right thing. They also create jobs, and they create jobs that have an impact not simply in West Virginia, Kentucky, southern Ohio, in my part of the world. They also support jobs and manufacturing in New York and New Jersey and Pennsylvania because that electricity goes by wire to other parts of the country. That basically creates the same standpoint. If an operator wants to clean part of the creek, the standard actually is for water that's cleaner than the water that already exists with the wildlife population that already might be there. It creates kind of an impossible situation--a double bind for anybody who wants to do business. My request is, let's step back. Regulations like that need to be brought into context. And the place to do that is here. And I just appreciate you investing the time to make this difference, to bring this issue before the American people because it's a question of the-- the one saying I heard over and over through our election is we want to take back America. What's the taking back? Really what we're talking about is restoring a constitutional balance that will allow and assure that the elected representatives and senators of the people will ultimately be accountable for any decisions made by the executive branch. I appreciate a chance to participate in this debate and thank you for advocating so fiercely on this issue.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, November 18, 2010, I was unable to participate in all of the day's votes due to a family emergency. Had I been present I would have voted: On rollcall No. 576-- ``no''--on ordering the previous question--H. Res. 1722, providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1722, the Telework Enforcement Act; on rollcall No. 577--``no''--on agreeing to the resolution--H. Res. 1722, providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1722, the Telework Enhancement Act; on rollcall No. 578--``no''--H.R. 1722, Telework Improvements Act; On rollcall No. 579--``no''--H.R. 6419, Emergency Unemployment Compensation Continuation Act; on rollcall No. 580--``yes''--S. 3774, to extend the deadline for Social Services Block Grant expenditures of supplemental funds appropriated following disasters occurring in 2008.