Warren Davidson

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commemorate the 100th anniversary of the American Classical League (ACL). The ACL is dedicated to supporting and teaching Greek and Latin languages, literatures, and cultures. Since 1919, the ACL has grown from a gathering of several Classical advocates to a national community of almost 2,500 educators, teaching grades PreK through college. The organization now offers opportunities for discovery for all ages, boasting more than 44,000 students grades 6-12 worldwide. Additionally, the ACL's program ``Excellence Through Classics'' is celebrating 30 years of service of teachers of the youngest scholars. The ACL has illustrated that the value of Latin and Greek all- encompassing cultural education programs in today's society cannot be understated. It continues to enrich the lives of students through imparting an understanding of the foundational aspects of ancient classical civilizations. This education is a priceless gift that lends itself to having a well-rounded education and gives supports to other core subjects by improving English language and literacy skills such as reading, writing and vocabulary development. I am amazed by the work the American Classical League does and wish them well as they continue to build bridges from our past into our future for the next 100 years.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank this body for the opportunity to recognize our alma mater and our Association of Graduates at the United States Military Academy at West Point. As Mr. Shimkus was highlighting, I didn't come the easy way. As a friend of mine likes to say, sometimes God will bring you the easiest way you will go. For me, my journey to West Point started in my high school guidance counselor's classroom in September of senior year. Most people realize that is kind of a late start for the path that it takes to go to one of our Nation's service academies. And then she asked me what I wanted to do, And I said: Well, I want to be an Army ranger. She said: Well, you know, you are pretty smart. You should go to college. You should consider college, at least. I said: Well, you know, I thought about going to West Point. Then I could be in the Army and go to college. She looked at me like she felt sorry for me. She said: Well, baby, that is not going to happen. That wasn't mean; it was realistic. I had not done the work that it would take to get there. She walked me through who normally gets in: The salutatorians, the valedictorians, the people with the high GPAs while being captain of sports, Eagle Scouts, and what not. I recognized some of my classmates who had been on that path, and I recognized that that is not the path that I had been on. No one in my family on my dad's side had gone to college. So she told me: You should work on some other plans. So I did them. I enlisted in the Army. And when I got to the Army, thankfully, some of Brett Guthrie's classmates, 1987 graduates Larry Bradley and Terry Finley, were platoon leaders. Larry Bradley ended up being my platoon leader for a composite platoon that got training by the 10th Special Forces Group down in Bad Tolz, Germany. And it was there, during that platoon, that I learned that the Berlin Wall had come down, that it wasn't part of the training, it wasn't just a jazzy intro to a speech. Some noncommissioned officers stepped up and said: Write this day down. It is going to be one of the most famous days in history, 9 November 1989. We thought: Bold intro. But from that, I had a chance to do something unbelievable that was the culmination not just of graduates of the United States Military Academy, but the culmination of people who had fought to win that war. So many of them West Point graduates, like Eisenhower, like Bradley, like Patton, who helped liberate a people in that continent. But I got to see the culmination of that as the wall came down not because Mr. Gorbachev tore it down or Mr. Reagan tore it down, but because the East German people found out what was on the other side of it, and they tore their own wall down. And they found out that the fruits of our ideology had produced shockingly different results than what their ideology had produced. It is shocking today to think that we might relive some of those bad choices that led to poverty and scarcity on the other side of the wall while our ideas led to abundance and flourishing, not perfectly, but far superior. From there, I went to the prep school, and I met classmates like Ranger Bill Lynn. His first unit deployment led him to jump into Panama, and he had a combat jump there. I met classmates at the prep school who didn't make it to West Point. Indeed, one of my 1995 classmates is currently the commandant of the United States Military Academy Preparatory School. It is a great path, but I also met people who had not been in the Army. I met people who had come there to increase the diversity objectives of the Military Academy, who needed a little more strength on their academics or maybe who needed to balance the academics with the athletics that they were going to be able to participate in. That was about half the class. I learned about a special club at West Point shortly after I came called the Two-Percent Club, and I met my wife. The Two-Percent Club, for those who don't know, are those who start with a girlfriend and graduate with the same girlfriend and end up marrying that girl. I am thankful today that I am married to my Lisa. People would talk about Lisa this, and Lisa that, but I would always refer to my Lisa, the girl who chose to marry me. We experienced cadet life in a different way. We have all these memories of things like the cadet in the red sash stepping up to the line, but not on the line or over the line. We remember things like Beast Barracks in Buckner, Boodlers runs, spinning the spurs. We remember the honor code and the character that was so prominently featured there, that, ``A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do.'' We remember how hard it was to live with the consequences for people who made those bad decisions, who you knew to be good people, who came to be separated because it was taken very seriously there. We saw in the cadet parades that we talked about on the parade fields The Long Gray Line for the ceremonies where they would lay a wreath for Founders Day at the statue of Colonel Sylvanus Thayer. You would see men and women in uniform, but you would see senior citizens at the front of the line. The oldest graduate would lay the wreath--often in a wheelchair, feebly mustering every ounce of strength necessary sometimes to move from that chair to lay that wreath with pride at the statue in front of the sup's house. We remember the million-dollar view at Trophy Point, and we remember the quarter-million-dollar education one nickel at a time as we studied. We remember friends and classmates who helped us through the hard times. We remember the knowledge like duty, honor, country, or Schofield's Definition of Discipline. We remember the seriousness with which nearly every one of us took the opportunity to be prepared, should the case arise that we would lead our Nation's young men and women in combat, that we would be ready to face the challenge. Many of my classmates did that. I served 5 years in great units, the Old Guard, the 101st Airborne Division, and the 75th Ranger Regiment. I left Active Duty, which shocked many of my classmates, and I found a great sense of purpose, that to give a lifetime of service to the Nation didn't always mean in uniform. But you still look in awe at the sacrifice that so many have made who continued on in Active Duty, especially those who gave the last full measure to keep our Nation free and to bring honor to The Long Gray Line. Today, as I look at young men and women and have the privilege of calling them and congratulating them on all of the work that it takes to do it--generally, the right way--the advanced knowledge and the preparation--the more common way--the disciplined path that started earlier in life, I am encouraged because there are so many talented young men and women who still want to put on our Nation's uniform to make sure that our Nation is made and kept free with an all- volunteer force committed to serve our country. I look at The Long Gray Line today, a line that is a very tight-knit alumni organization where friends could be distant for years, even decades, and, in a moment, connect as if you just finished playing spades with one another after hours, ditching the late-lights penalties. I look forward to those times. I cherish those memories. And I am so thankful to the West Point Association of Graduates, which has set a great example of how to bond classmates together to serve the cause and interest of our great alma mater so that this Long Gray Line may continue to flourish always.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chairwoman, all too often in Washington, we mistake activity for progress, and in many cases we apply that misguided framework onto the States. There are few better examples of this than Washington's dabbling in our election laws over the last 2 or 3 decades. The National Voter Registration Act, our last big partisan bill, aimed at increasing turnout, did not actually achieve that aim. It increased voter registration, but as the Congressional Research Service has said: Its effect on turnout remains unclear. Its cost and mandates on the States, however, were very clear. That is exactly what I am talking about in terms of mistaking activity for progress. The centerpiece of division A's voting section is automatic registration. According to my colleagues on the other side, it covers all sorts of problems: updating the voter rolls, lack of participation, et cetera. No excuse vote by mail, same-day registration can be important, but is the automatic voter registration section that is hoped for the driver of participation? This is an aggressive mandate in a bill full of aggressive mandates. Fifteen States and Washington, D.C., have automatic registration. Only five States do it at every welfare and government agency. Three States require registrants to decline by postcard. This bill would more or less include all three of these provisions. This bill would also require the automatic preregistration of 16- year-olds. If it went into law, it would amount to, at the very least, a top three most aggressive automatic registration program all across the country, but the bill says that if you are in a State where you have already got an automatic registration program on the books, you don't have to comply with all the mandates in the bill. My amendment would do the same thing, but for outcomes instead of for registration. The outcome that this bill looks for is turnout. States that have seen massive increases in turnout should get rewarded, and that is what this amendment does. It lets States who have achieved increased turnout be rewarded by exemption from the mandates in this bill to continue the success that they have been able to achieve with their own programs. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chairwoman, the amendment that I have offered is in keeping with the spirit of the bill. States are balancing the right of everyone to have access to the polls. Automatic voter registration has allowed so much access to the polls, that it has created challenges for States to be able to comply, even with people who are only supposed to vote legally. They have access to voter registration through Motor Voter and other ways when they are not even residents of the United States, and it puts burdens on States to comply with that. This would be a one-size-fits-all mandate from the Federal Government that may be needed in some States where access has been challenging and where voter turnout has been low, but in States that have had high voter turnout, that do have effective regimes where you have not just access, but you have participation at levels that have increased by 5 percent or more, to continue on the path of success that they have had without disruption from Federal mandates that would potentially do that. The Brennan Center says: Automatic voter registration is gaining momentum across the country. Currently, 15 States and D.C. have approved the policy, meaning that over a third of Americans live in a jurisdiction that has either passed or implemented automatic voter registration. This policy is winning at the State level and overall push for turnout is also winning. My amendment is complementary to this bill's enterprise and it would do nothing to undermine the pushes that are already going on at the State level. It was Madison who said that States are: . . . best acquainted with the situation of their people. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chairwoman, I want to quote from a speech delivered by a former SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, chair: Certain mandates, which invoke the Securities and Exchange Commission's mandatory disclosure powers, seem more directed at exerting societal pressure on companies to change behavior, rather than to disclose financial information that primarily informs investment decisions. That is not to say that the goals of such mandates are not laudable. Indeed, most are. Seeking to improve safety in mines for workers or to end horrible human rights atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are compelling objectives, which, as a citizen, I wholeheartedly share. But, as Chair of the SEC, I must question, as a policy matter, using the Federal securities laws and the SEC's powers of mandatory disclosure to accomplish these goals. Those are the words of Mary Jo White, President Obama's SEC Chair. She understood what this body understood when it adopted the rider in the appropriations bill my amendment seeks to protect. The SEC cannot and should not be used as a tool for social engineering. The disclosure laws cannot be used as a method to compel noneconomic behaviors. The SEC has known this since the 1970s, when it received hundreds of different petitions to add dozens of different disclosure requirements. It stated at the time, ``The Commission's experience over the years in proposing and framing disclosure requirements has not led it to question the basic decision of the Congress that, insofar as investing is concerned, the primary interest of investors is economic. After all, the principal if not the only reason, why people invest their money in securities is to obtain a return. A variety of other motives are probably present in the investment decisions of numerous investors; but the only common thread is the hope for a satisfactory return, and it is to this that a disclosure scheme intended to be useful to all must be primarily addressed.'' Madam Chair, we don't know what each individual investor wants, disclosure requirements have proven very costly, and I urge my colleagues to support the position of the Obama SEC Chair and the SEC since the 1970s, which my amendment seeks to preserve. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chairwoman, companies are already going ahead and disclosing political donations. 196 of the Fortune 500 companies have disclosure policies in place, up from 174 in 2015. More companies are deciding this is the right way to approach their political giving. But I don't have anything to say against their voluntary decision. I do think it is a mistake to force compliance through disclosure laws at a time when public markets are less attractive than ever for going public. Capital formation in the United States of America could easily be improved and has, in fact, suffered by a heavyhanded regulatory approach. Corporations are not treated differently than individuals are. There is nothing that compels an individual to disclose every single dollar they donate and to whom. This would go in the other way. If you decide to go public in the United States, you are treated differently under the law than a private company or a private individual. The reality is, under the law, you should be treated the same way. In some cases, you are allowed to give a donation privately, and in other cases, you are not. Corporations have to comply with that law. The Federal Election Commission administers that law, not the Securities and Exchange Commission. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. I wonder, Madam Chairwoman, whether folks opposed to my amendment would be in favor of requiring every single person and corporation to disclose every dollar that they give. That is essentially what you are saying here: We want to treat publicly traded companies differently than we want to treat every other company and every other individual. And we realize that the FEC isn't competent or qualified to do that job, so we want to add another agency to do this. President Obama's own Chair of the SEC stated: When disclosure gets too complicated or strays from its core purposes, it can lead to information overload, a phenomenon in which ever-increasing amounts of disclosure make it difficult for investors to focus on the information that is material and most relevant to the decisionmaking of investors in the financial markets. As has been stated, the fiduciary responsibility of the directors of the company, of the shareholders, and of the people making investments is a common denominator. There may be disparate political views in these days--there surely are--and unpopular positions may be at odds with the fiduciary responsibilities of companies. This should have been debated in a Financial Services Committee--one of the other flaws of this path that we are on today--subrogating all of the authority of the other committees with only a handful of the amount of participation. Lastly, I would say that a majority of Democrats actually voted for the appropriations bill with the riders that are at the heart of the opposition's objection to my amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chairwoman, my amendment would uphold an appropriations policy rider included in the FY 2019 appropriations package that this body, on a bipartisan basis, just voted on last month. That provision prevents the IRS from the collection of donor information for 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations. In 2013, when the IRS attempted to issue rules that would clamp down on these organizations, there was bipartisan pushback from groups as disparate as the ACLU and Tea Party Patriots. The IRS has a poor track record on the handling of donor information of these organizations. The 2013 IRS scandal of targeting conservative groups is the perfect example of this. The IRS asked groups excruciatingly detailed questions, even as far as for the details of the prayer meetings of pro-life organizations. Government agencies investigating the intimate details of an organization's efforts to participate in issue advocacy creates an unconstitutional chilling effect on free speech. The IRS is a tax collection agency, not an arbiter of the fitness of an organization's political viewpoint. My amendment is about the fundamental First Amendment rights for citizens and groups to participate in public discourse. Finally, H.R. 1's needless removal of a bipartisan policy rider does not make sense in the context of this bill's inclusion of the DISCLOSE Act. I oppose the First Amendment privacy issues raised by the DISCLOSE Act provisions, like the ACLU opposes the DISCLOSE Act, but duplicative collection of information, especially through a scandal-ridden agency like the IRS, which has scandalously overstepped its bounds and authority and jurisdiction, highlight what this amendment is all about. It is inappropriate for the IRS to collect this sort of information. It is my hope that we can maintain the well-considered appropriations rider already included in the package passed just last month. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chair, may I inquire of the amount of time remaining.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chairwoman, even the scandal-ridden, 2013-era IRS that targeted conservative groups, overstepping its jurisdiction by trying to shape the speech and conduct of organizations rather than collect their taxes, withdrew the rulemaking process at the heart of what is sought in this H.R. 1 bill. It is a chilling effect. As we talk about one of our rights, access to the ballot box at the Federal level, and we consider that, I think it is important to remember the founding principles that led to the creation of this country, and they are enshrined in the Federalist Papers. I include in the Record a copy of Federalist Paper No. 59, wherein Madison makes the case that Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution is about the Federal Government's right to defend itself. It is not about Congress being the prime driver of elections. congress gets to regulate elections Federalist No. 59: It is absolute not the first province of the federal government. This is what Hamilton said in Federalist 59: They have submitted the regulation of elections for the federal government, in the first instance, to the local administrations; which, in ordinary cases, and when no improper views prevail, may be both more convenient and more satisfactory; but they have reserved to the national authority a right to interpose, whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety. Article 1 section 4 is about the federal government's right to defend itself. It is not about Congress being the prime driver of elections.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. As we look at this, we have the Federal Election Commission. We have bodies of law that require disclosure, and we have organizations that sometimes violate those disclosure laws, and those companies are prosecuted when they do that. Here, we want to take and add the IRS responsibility of shaping that disclosure, and only for these types of groups and these types of donations. It is intended to have a chilling effect on the speech, and that is at the core of the objection for groups that don't agree on much. Between the ACLU and the NRA they don't often agree, but they agree that H.R. 1 is bad, and this goes to the heart of their objection. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chairwoman, in Alabama v. the NAACP, the courts upheld the right to protect the privacy of donor information. The right to privacy is fundamental to our Bill of Rights, and it is threatened. It has a chilling effect, as has been enumerated from any number of groups. My colleagues know this. Just recently, social welfare groups, as defined by 501(c)(4), engaged in social welfare to support infanticide, a bill that could not get a vote to cloture in the Senate. It would require the IRS, instead of the body of jurisdiction, the Election Commission, to deal with donors. The IRS should be narrowly focused on collecting tax revenue, not on elections law, and we have seen abuses of their already-limited jurisdiction. This is the right thing to do. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I ask for everyone who can find a way to see through the distortion of information that is being presented here to support our Bill of Rights, protect the right to privacy, and vote for this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for allowing me time, as I do support H.J. Res. 37. Fundamentally, it is about Article I and the authority of Congress as addressed in Federalist Paper No. 69. As the President said, great powers don't fight endless wars. I would add nor do they fight or participate in undeclared wars. The United States is not participating in the Yemen war in the sense that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have characterized. In fact, I personally asked Secretary Mattis on two occasions to help draft authorization against Iranian proxies. This is, at best, a half measure in that it stops any active participation in undeclared unauthorized combat. But it also fails to advance the policy of our country, which is to treat Iran as the threat it is, not just to the United States of America, but to its neighbors and our allies in the region.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office is supposed to help Congress evaluate the fiscal costs and benefits of legislation. Given the weight these scores have on the ability of Members of Congress to make policy decisions, it should be a top priority that the CBO standards are of the highest possible quality. CBO should improve and could improve the accuracy of its projections by adopting a transparent process that would allow independent experts to provide technical contributions and verify their conclusions, as is the standard for all academic journals. That is why I have introduced the CBO Show Your Work Act, which would require the CBO to publish online all nonproprietary data, models, and processes utilized in the analysis and scoring of legislation. CBO is the internal accountant for every Member of Congress. Therefore, Members of Congress, and the public they serve, should have access to the data, models, and processes that create the numbers we rely on.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, since LBJ launched the War on Poverty, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has remained persistently static. As reform efforts in Congress continue to falter, American's poverty reduction efforts continue to fall short of their objectives. We need a different approach to help millions of Americans escape poverty. Today, I am introducing the People Centered Assistance Reform Effort Act, or the People CARE Act. This legislation creates a bipartisan commission in order to empower caseworkers to treat each person holistically, rather than simply administer programs; realign the 90- plus, often duplicative, poverty programs; remove benefit cliffs; and more. It encourages employment, marriage, and education, activities identified by the Brookings Institution and others as effective means to end poverty. The commission cannot launch new programs, nor directly cut spending. Upon receiving the commission's recommendation, Congress would have to vote to approve or disapprove. People CARE offers a path for progress in the War on Poverty. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor the People CARE Act.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, international trade is essential to America's economy and to American leadership. Today, I introduce the Global Trade Accountability Act, which seeks to establish this principle. As a private-sector manufacturing business owner, I experienced the harmful effects of bad trade practices firsthand. On trade, as with many other issues, Congress needs to work with President Trump to restore power to the American people. This bill does that by ensuring that the President has flexibility to change tariffs as needed in negotiations, but if the President wants the tariff to continue beyond 90 days, Congress would need to vote approving that action. President Trump's commitment to put America first in trade is commendable in fulfilling his promise to American workers; however, the President should not be in this fight alone. Congress needs to join the fight to ensure these efforts are effectively moved forward for the entire country. The Constitution clearly gives the legislative branch the responsibility to regulate commerce and lay taxes and duties with foreign nations, yet Congress has surrendered this Article I authority. Mr. Speaker, it is time to restore it.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. ``No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. ``The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. ``The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States. ``The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. ``Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.''

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Smith for yielding. Today I affirm that pro-life is also pro-science. Advances in science, especially ultrasound technology in medicine, make this clear, not just to parents, but to anyone who will see the live baby human growing inside a mother's womb; that we are talking not about a clump of cells as some like to refer to them, but indeed a baby human. As a result, the country is becoming increasingly pro-life. Every single life has purpose and dignity. As Pope John Paul, II, stated: Human life has dignity not because of the work people do, but because it is imprinted with God's image. This week, I am proud to welcome pro-life leaders and friends from Ohio's Eighth District traveling to Washington, D.C., for the March for Life. Today, we look forward to the day when Americans will contritely turn away from abortion, perhaps as vigorously as they have rejected the abhorrent etiology that led to the three-fifth compromise. Knowing women who have experienced abortion, I also hope that everyone will show kindness and mercy to those who wrestle with the enduring trauma with repentance. May God have mercy on them and on all of us.