Warren Davidson

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the work of the committee for doing the work of the American people. Prior to coming to Congress, as a small-business owner and small- business leader, I was feeling the pain of the Dodd-Frank Act, wondering whether anyone in Washington, D.C., was listening. Now that I have had the opportunity to serve just this 1 year now in Congress, I have gone around the district. I have gone around and talked to businessowners, to farmers, and to community bankers who have been suffering under this law. One of the things that hasn't been talked about is how the Dodd-Frank Act has harmed the SEC, how it has deprived people of due process. All but the wealthiest Americans are trapped in a system where the SEC has quasi-judicial hearings using administrative law judges. They have a 90 percent win rate because they have all the keys. They can block discretion, they can block discovery, and they can limit the facts and limit the debate. So one of the good things that the Dodd-Frank reform--known as the CHOICE Act--accomplishes is ending this process so that people do have the right to due process in our courts. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 10 and to end the abuses of the previous era.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 50 in order to emphasize my support of term limits under H.J. Res. 6.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Huizenga for the work on this with Patrick McHenry and the folks on the other side of the aisle. It is nice to come here and see something that is truly collaborative and underway that helps businesses. Prior to coming to Congress last year, I spent the past 16 years growing manufacturing companies in Ohio, so I know firsthand how difficult it is to acquire capital to start and operate and grow small businesses. Businesses that overcome the challenges are faced with numerous regulatory roadblocks that further hinder their growth. Many of those have come at the hands of regulatory frame works like Dodd- Frank. But this bipartisan measure that we are talking about today has the opportunity to help the challenges with capital acquisition that government has created and continues to create. Currently, the Investment Company Act of 1940 requires any qualified venture fund over 100 to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The real burden of these regulations hits small companies in middle America like Ohio's Eighth District where, unlike major cities, particularly on the coast, we do not have as many options for raising capital. Not every company seeks to become the next billion-dollar blockbuster, but some of them do. All these companies offer great jobs and give many people the dignity of work, but they can also provide great returns. So we are crowding out investment opportunities, and we are crowding out job opportunities. This is why I am pleased to support H.R. 1219, the Supporting America's Innovators Act of 2017, which simply increases the cap to allow up to 250 investors to be exempt from registration for qualified venture capital funds, allowing America's small businesses the flexibility to operate and grow their companies, hire employees, and innovate. Last year, this Congress passed legislation similar to H.R. 1219 on a bipartisan vote of 388-9. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1219 and, perhaps, increase its margin of victory.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address this body, and I rise today to talk about H.R. 1469, the Welfare BRAC Act. Before going into the specifics of the bill, I would like to talk for a little bit about how we have arrived at a point of needing such a fundamental restructuring of our Nation's antipoverty programs. In 2015, the Federal Government spent $843 billion on welfare programs, means-tested welfare programs. By some estimates, we have spent more than $22 trillion on antipoverty programs over the past 50 years. Today, we have some 92 antipoverty programs run by the Federal Government, all supposedly with the same goal: to alleviate poverty. This chart to my left highlights those programs. If you look: 5, cash aid; 25, education and training; 2, for energy; 17, for food aid, and on goes the list. So how did we come here? Well, as Ronald Reagan said: ``Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.'' Why is that true? Well, it is true because touching some of these programs is very polarizing. So when you touch them, they all have a constituency. And the reality is, if the 15th food aid program worked well, then the 16th wouldn't be launched. So if you want to address a new problem, well, then you launch the 17th food aid program. What doesn't happen over the time is finding a way to get those programs to work together to be a coherent whole. So the solution, really in a lot of ways, is bipartisan. The Brookings Institution is rarely an ally to conservatives, and the Heritage Foundation is rarely an ally to the left. Yet they would both agree that employment, healthy marriages, and education alleviate poverty. In fact, many of our programs, when we look at these listed, seek to address those needs. There are 92 programs. Maslow, in the hierarchy of needs, just addressed 5, and we have 92. I think about the young social worker who wants to help someone who comes into the office and perhaps each of these programs has a 4-inch binder--a 4-inch thick binder, 92 of them. That is a pretty big bookshelf. What if she only had to know 20 programs? What if there were only 20 binders? What if there were only 5? What if there were 10? I don't know whether the right number is a dozen or 20, but I don't think it is 92. So what is the solution? Well, I have a bipartisan solution that looks back to the history. So in the Cold War, we had a very large Army, and, as we scaled down, it was very politically sensitive to try to deal with the problems of scaling down. Each base, each installation, had its own constituency, and so we created BRAC, the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. And the goal there was to have a quantitative set of objectives and to have a commission that was bipartisan that gave Congress a straight up- or-down vote. That worked, by and large, and we were able to scale down the military in a way that let the military focus on its mission. So what I propose with H.R. 1469, the Welfare Benefit Realignment Commission, is a four-Republican, four-Democrat commission, totally neutral. It also does not seek to take away a dime of spending in it. It seeks to reduce the number of programs so that the result is more focused. When Lyndon Johnson launched his war on poverty, he said that the goal was to not just treat the symptoms but to find a cure and, if possible, to prevent poverty all together. So perhaps if we had a more focused effort, perhaps if we all focused on the cause, instead of the programs, we could see results. Some of these programs are clearly more effective than others at helping people get out of poverty, yet the reality is, Americans have seen roughly the same percentage of their fellow Americans in poverty for the entire war on poverty. So if we look at these programs under the same three goals-- employment, marriage, and education--perhaps we can find things that are effective that lift people out, really, at the end of the day, giving as many people as possible the dignity of work and a path to escape poverty into a better future. In fact, this path is very compatible with the Better Way agenda that we have laid out for poverty for the years. It is not focused on dollars. It is focused on efficiency. Later in the year, we are seeking to provide off ramps so that you don't find a trap in the ``Better Way.'' You don't find a trap--if you get a raise, you lose your housing, or if you take that next job, or you get married, you lose your education benefits, things that would provide an on-ramp and an off-ramp for this system. So that is part of the agenda for the year for the House. I think this is very compatible with it. I am seeking cosponsors. I am seeking support for this bill, and it truly is with a spirit of embracing the common American value of providing a safety net for their fellow Americans, but they want it to be effective. So this is not about the cause. The cause is good, and fewer programs lets it be more focused and, hopefully, get a good result. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about Welfare BRAC, an opportunity to reorganize our 92 social safety net programs. Mr. Speaker, I call attention to the 92 programs that, over time, since the Great Society, our country has launched. I call attention to Ronald Reagan's prescient quote about the near eternity of government programs. It is very hard to take a program away once it is launched, and this plan acts on The Brookings Institution's data, which has rarely been accused of being on the right side of the political ideology. It says that if we do three things, we will eliminate 80 percent of poverty: graduate high school, work full-time at any wage, and have no kids outside of marriage. This program that I am proposing in this bill, H.R. 1469, the Welfare Benefit Reform and Alignment Commission, would nominate four Republicans and four Democrats. They would have 1 year to work together until September 30, 2018, to prioritize not taking any money away, but taking the 92 programs and making them fewer. So if you think about the social worker out in the country trying to help somebody who is in a social safety net, each of these programs may have a 4-inch binder. I don't think we need 92. Maybe it is 6; maybe it is 12. It is not 92. I encourage my colleagues to support this and work together to make this a more efficient program so we can help meet their needs.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. ``. . . to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; ``To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; ``To establish post offices and post roads; . . .''

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and pay tribute to Ohio State Representative Jim Buchy. Representative Jim Buchy will retire from the State House at the end of the year. In fact, this week will likely mark the last time on the floor for Jim Buchy as a representative, having served for more than 20 years in that role. I am thankful to know Jim. I respect him tremendously because he has been characterized more by his deeds than by his words. He is a strong Christian, a solid conservative, and an articulate Republican. He has championed the cause of freedom with great ideals, but a genuine passion to represent the people in his district and their common values in public service. He is a good man. Jim lives in Greenville, Ohio. He has raised a beautiful family, built and exited a very successful business, served the community--in his church, on the board of education, with 4-H, economic development, and in many ways. He has been a genuine leader in the Ohio pro-life movement. He is passionate about improving education with local control. He has spent his career promoting traditional, value-based education and important programs like FFA and 4-H. Jim Buchy's role in the legislature will be missed, but he will live on through his reputation and the great example he set. Thank you for your service, Jim, and thanks for living your faith boldly, for loving your community dearly, and for giving so much of yourself in service to make sure the next generation is better off than they would have been without your leadership and service. God bless you.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).

Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk that would ensure the integrity of H.R. 6392, the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act of 2016.

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

Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Today's bill spells out the criteria the Financial Stability Oversight Council, FSOC, must use in determining institutions of systemic risk. My amendment will prevent the Federal Reserve and the Treasury from blindly implementing new regulations proposed by an international entity, whether coming from the Basel Commission or from the unelected bureaucrats on the Financial Stability Board. When Congress begins to apply international standards, we need to make certain that executive agencies don't overreach by simply ratifying every decision that is made internationally. Recently, the Treasury and the Fed have been found to have made determinations that mirror the standards issued by the Financial Stability Board but without sufficient review--simply rubberstamping them. They have gone along with the decisions that have been made by international unelected bureaucrats and, in the process, have harmed our regional and community banks and Americans' access to credit. Similar concerns have been raised by U.S. insurance companies. That is why Mr. Luetkemeyer is also sponsoring legislation to make sure that these one-size-fits-all regulations are not used to supersede our State-based insurance regulations here in the United States. H.R. 6392 will provide the necessary relief and transparency that is needed in these systemic risk designations. I am proud to offer this amendment to clarify that our Federal agencies cannot use the loophole of international recommendations to expand their powers and subject our community and local banks to even more burdensome regulations. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to address this body. It is an honor to be here tonight, but it is a sad time to be here talking on this topic. Mr. Speaker, as the newest guy here, I am still figuring out a lot of things. So maybe for anybody who is thinking about this from home, this IRS scandal has been going on since 2010. The first evidence of targeting was 6 years ago. A lot of people say: Why are you guys still looking into this? Why has it taken so long to get to this? Congress has looked into it since 2013. It has been here for a long time. And what we see here is an act of frustration, of frustration with a system that our own body is having a hard time working. A lot of us would like to see this go through the Judiciary Committee, go through a different standard process, but that process has continued to stall, delay, and not happen. I think we owe it to the people who sent us here to do what we said we would do, which is to support and defend our Constitution. If this body can be ignored, if we can have people come and give inaccurate testimony, if we can have subpoenas ignored, if we can have evidence destroyed, then, as George Will wrote, we risk being completely irrelevant. This is the dilemma: this isn't just the IRS that has done this. This is the email scandal from the State Department. I remember the shock of the CNN anchor saying ``the BlackBerrys are destroyed.'' Fact check that. You just can't believe that these kind of things are going on. I serve on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee where orders to report data breaches have occurred over and over, and inaccurate testimony is given. Subpoenas are being ignored by Attorneys General for evidence involving cases that are intended to stifle scientific research. When Congress is acting, the word is on the street: You can ignore these requests. You don't have to respond to subpoenas. You can destroy evidence, and you can always give inaccurate testimony. Nothing is going to happen. So it is time we do take action. I hope we consider a course that keeps our IRS Commissioner accountable and also sets an example that, when Congress takes action, it should be taken seriously.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to be here with my colleagues. It is a different way to support and defend the Constitution than I ever expected to have. I began my service here much like, well, everyone else. We all start the same way. We swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And that was the first time that I swore it, or any of us here tonight. In 1988, at the climax of the cold war, I enlisted in the infantry. I was honored to serve in Germany after Ronald Reagan had uttered the famous words, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' I was honored to be there at a time when many people in the world worried that Ronald Reagan, with his intense rhetoric, would somehow cause world war III, that maybe he was pushing too far, too hard, or asking too much. I was honored to be there when East Germans tore down their own wall. Word had gotten past the Iron Curtain and penetrated the lies they had been told, and they knew what we had here. They tore down their own wall, and, for once, the oppressor did not stop them. I was honored that Thanksgiving to meet East Berliners who could not believe what they were seeing. They were seeing stores with goods on the shelves, open at night. They asked: Is it like this everywhere? I thought they were talking about how big Berlin was, but they were just in shock because they had not experienced what we had. And what did we have? We had the birth of plenty. We had the world's best markets--and still do--for goods, for services, for capital, for intellectual property, for innovation. We are the world's land of opportunity, and they were hungry for it. Ronald Reagan, much earlier in his career, had a famous speech: ``A time for choosing.'' I would encourage everyone one who has not watched it, to watch it, and everyone who has not watched it in a while, to watch it again. Reagan said--back then, famous words--``Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.'' Sadly, that is more true today than perhaps at any time since he uttered those words then. No one knows the divide between freedom and oppression better than servicemen and -women. They fight our Nation's wars. They risk their lives to defend our Constitution. Sadly, the threat to our Constitution is not just from foreign enemies. Sometimes, sadly, it is right here in the Halls of Congress. In my short 3 months here, I have seen attempted infringements on the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. That is hard to believe. Just this past summer, we had Members of Congress obstructing the people's work here, staging a sit-in on the House floor to subvert our Second Amendment with a radical gun control agenda. It is an agenda that seeks to deprive us of the very rights our Founding Fathers sought to preserve with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Anyone could do a plain reading of the Constitution and see that the right to bear arms is named right there, to be applied at the individual level. The rest of the Bill of Rights is certainly talking about rights at the individual level, and the Second Amendment is no exception. Justice Scalia wrote it in the Heller decision, ``Nowhere else in the Constitution does a `right' attributed to the people refer to anything other than an individual right.'' ``The people'' refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. We start, therefore, with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. You see, for more than 100 years, the 14th Amendment has been used to link the rest of the Bill of Rights to the State. Somehow, the same folks that are onboard with applying the First Amendment to States, whether it is free speech, voting rights, or freedom of religion, in some cases, they are reluctant to let the same be true for the Second Amendment. When they want a uniform view of things that aren't even addressed in our Constitution, like marriage, they are not willing to apply the same logic to our Constitution with something that is very plainly stated: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I take that right very seriously. Those of us who served in the military know all too well what a society looks like when freedoms are squashed. We have seen these places and met the people who have lived under tyranny. Our Founding Fathers knew the battle between freedom and tyranny too well, many sacrificing their lives in the struggle to establish this Nation. It is not an accident that they enshrine that right to keep and bear arms squarely right after the right to speech and freedoms of religion. It is so essential to stave off oppressors that we cannot be truly free without it. After these men sacrificed life and limb, let us not besmirch their legacy by subjecting it to an agenda which would seek to attack away this freedom one firearm or one freedom at a time. The threats are real. It is hard to imagine. It is not just rhetoric. Those words, ``freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,'' sound like political rhetoric, but it is just so real and we have to take it very seriously. It is an honor to be here to talk about it.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you, Mr. King. It is an honor to be able to talk about Phyllis Schlafly. Though I never personally met her, like many of the heroes of our country, all Americans benefit from the service that she rendered to our country, and in particular to the Republican Party. She is the person, perhaps more than anyone, who made sure that the Republican Party is the party of life, that really is out there to this day on the side of science showing when life begins and showing what is happening at every stage of life. I am more optimistic than ever about what is happening to show this fact, but a voice there that just knew the truth and was unashamed in speaking for it, unashamed in helping our party coalesce around a core set of beliefs, and those core beliefs are the same ones that our Founders had. So when people look back and think that, you know, hey, the Founders were this era of giants, it is neat to have lived in an era when we have some of our own. Phyllis Schlafly was one of them. She certainly set the stage for Ronald Reagan's speech, ``A Time for Choosing,'' because of her activities in the 1964 campaign and because of ``A Time for Choosing'' and Reagan's success in that, success as Governor, and really shaping our modern party for the era that has been a conservative movement for a long time. That set the stage for Justice Scalia. So an eventful year, a sad year to see her pass and Justice Scalia pass in the same year, but also, you know, an era when we can look forward to future success and an era when we can see what the true meaning of womanhood is all about. She was a champion for women in a way she may never get credit for. So I am honored for her service to our country, for her defense of her faith and my faith, and for her contributions to make this the kind of country that really inspires so many around the world to see it as the land of opportunity. So thank you.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Congress, in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, has the power to raise and regulate armies. That relates to the Selective Service System. We have decided to use the Selective Service System to register men for the draft for many years now. During the course of this year, there has been discussion here in Washington about requiring women to register for the draft. Many families back home aren't aware of this, and especially many young women aren't aware of this, Mr. Chairman. I am asking that no funds from this appropriation be used for the Selective Service System to modify the current requirements. The purpose of that would be to let Congress do our job--to go back home and talk to our families and talk to our young women, listen to them, and come back here. If we are going to modify the Selective Service System, we do that with purpose and intent and we do that here in Congress. We don't let the administration or yet another executive agency decide something of their own accord or yet let the courts reach in. We should be clear in our intent to the courts that we don't need them or want them to come in and decide the rule. It is ripe for that unless we act. In Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981, the Supreme Court upheld that the Selective Service registration for men was, in fact, constitutional and not discriminatory, primarily because it was to register for combat. At that time, Congress had made it clear that women were not permitted to be in certain combat roles. Since 2013, that has no longer been the case, so it is ripe for the courts to reach in as well. As Congress, we really need to act. My intent by asking that none of these funds be used by the Selective Service System to modify the current rule is that it would give us time to talk with our families, talk with young women, and then take a more considered action. It does not prevent anything that is being discussed in the Armed Services Committee or in our military, women being in any type of role. It doesn't take a position on any of that. It doesn't take a position on the future of the Selective Service. It just says let's not change it right now, and let's make sure that Congress takes action on it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from New York rightly pointed out, the Selective Service is under review right now in terms of what we shall do with it. It is in the right place. It is here in Congress. We should be doing that and not trusting the administration or the Selective Service System to come up with its own decrees. That is the concern, that there has been too much of that during the past 7-plus years and that families aren't looking for yet another edict to be decreed from Washington, D.C., and to catch them off guard. As Members of Congress, we don't need to go back home and have families and young women ask us: Where were you on this? This does give us a chance to say here is where we are. This bill, frankly, buys us time to do a more considered action. Why complicate things in the midst of further consideration by trusting the administration, which has not proven to be trustworthy on issuing rules and edicts, to stay the course with us? In fact, it is likely to not do that. The hope here is that we take the considered action that we will, and we should do that with the advice and consent of the well-informed public back home. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, and honored guests, it is a pretty good welcome. I thank you all. My new colleagues, surely you know how surreal this moment is. Not all of you had the same experience of a special election. It is a little different. But you have all been here and have been given the trust of your districts to come represent them and serve here, so I am sure you understand how surreal it is having already been here. I am really honored today to have a lot of folks with me. We all know that politics is a team sport. I have no greater teammate than my wife, Lisa. Our family was able to join us. Our daughter, Rachel, and my son, Zach, have been able to come on the floor. They took a fast route to the floor here. My sister, Robin, her husband, Larry, and close to 100 other friends and family were able to come here. So having run campaigns, you all know that it takes maybe a battalion-sized element to put a whole campaign together. So in some way, they are representative of all the hard work that goes on to win a campaign. I could not have been here without them. So I thank you all. To really have come from the background, just enlisting in the Army, going to West Point, serving in some great units, and growing small manufacturing companies, doing all these things that we heard about, it is pretty, pretty nice. I have been focused on raising a family and growing kids. Frankly, in October, I was not planning to run for Congress. To come from filing 10 minutes before the deadline, jumping into a very competitive race, I understand that not a ton of you guys wanted the Speaker's job, and you got drafted. But about 15 other Republicans wanted the district Representative job, so it was very competitive. I am really thankful to have won the race and been able to come here. It is really an honor to be able to stand here and talk with you, my new colleagues. I look forward to getting to know every one of you on both sides of the aisle. I hope you will take the chance to get to know me. You can probably appreciate drinking from a firehose. I think I had about 2 or 3 hours now, maybe 4 hours, from my first meetings, whereas I think a lot of you had a couple of months, from November to January. I really hope to get to know you all. The Founders intended us to have a strong Congress, and especially with the Presidential race the way it is, Congress truly has an opportunity to show real leadership and to be able to have the chance to be here and do the incredibly consequential work, face the challenge, and perhaps be part of solving some great things is an incredible honor. So let's get around to it.