Warren Davidson

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding. Madam Speaker, our bodies should unite to stop the violent cartels and drug lords who have taken advantage of the humanitarian national security crisis on our southern border. Border security is national security, and we need to be doing everything we can to secure our southern border. For years, our senior Border Patrol officials have made modest requests for tactical barriers. The President's request prioritizes the top 10 of 17 priority areas that Border Patrol wants to secure. The men and women patrolling our borders put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe from terrorism, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, gunrunning, money laundering, and all sorts of dangerous crimes. They routinely encounter some of the most dangerous criminals and traffickers anywhere in the world. They seize drugs that would have otherwise made it onto Ohio streets where we are dealing with the tragedy of this opioid crisis that has killed far too many of our friends and neighbors. They have also arrested illegal aliens who were charged and convicted of crimes, including sexual assault, kidnapping, and homicide. A significant percentage of women and girls entering the country illegally are raped. We should be giving our personnel on the border the resources they need to get the job done. Nevertheless, millions of Americans want to participate in this great cause. They have contributed private funds and would like to give directly to our government. That is why I introduced the Buy a Brick, Build the Wall Act, which would allow the Treasury Department to help fund this wall and make sure the resources go to the cause that so many people support. We need to unite and secure our border.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the hard work and great success of the House Financial Services Committee these the past 2 years in the 115th Congress. Under the leadership of Chairman Jeb Hensarling, the Financial Services Committee became the most productive committee in Congress. Over 44 bills signed into law originated from our committee, including S. 2155. It began as the Financial CHOICE Act, Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers, and Entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, the whole bill hasn't made it into law, but the core of that bill was dealing with the unintended consequences and, frankly, whether they were intended or not, the harmful consequences of Dodd- Frank. Under Dodd-Frank, we found that the biggest banks got bigger and the smallest banks became fewer. We found that banks were not too-big-to- fail, but some of them became too-small-to-succeed under the burden of Dodd-Frank's regulatory framework. So much so that even Barney Frank, whose name is part of the Dodd-Frank Act, came to support the reforms for community banking. I am very proud to have participated in regulatory relief that helped thousands of community financial institutions help lend to their communities. It is making a difference today as we watch the impact in our economy. Indeed, it is, in some measure, fitting that the title began with ``Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers, and Entrepreneurs,'' because that is what is happening in this amazing economy. There is more good news that is happening in our economy than is probably going to get covered anywhere. Some of it is out there for the C-SPAN viewer to find. You might not see in the news that we have the strongest sanctions that have been imposed on Russia since it has been Russia. Post-Soviet Union, we have never had a stronger posture toward Russia than we do today. The Financial Services Committee helps implement those because the Department of the Treasury has an Office of Foreign Asset Control. As part of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee and as part of the Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee, we look at how to choke off these sources of funds, whether it is Russian oligarchs, Iranian bad actors, North Koreans, or others. Frankly, I believe we only have tapped the surface on the potential that sanctions have. Indeed, we may be able to apply sanctions to our trade policy and, very targeted, deal with bad actors, like those who are dumping steel, rather than just putting a uniform tariff out there. We can be precise. Instead of maximizing collateral damage, we can minimize it. But that shows that there is plenty of work left to do. What we are here to say is that there are plenty of great things that did, in fact, happen. With respect to trade, one of the things the Financial Services Committee got to do was take a bipartisan delegation trip to China. We talked with folks in Japan, in Hong Kong, in China, and in South Korea about the importance of trade, not just in a way that draws in our Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, but with all of our trade policy. The reality is that we were able to send a message to the people in China, to the leadership of China--their Vice President down to their leadership in the trade negotiations--that with respect to China, there is no separation between Congress and President Trump, and with respect to China, there is no separation between Republicans and Democrats on trade. Our hope is that we can continue to trade, and we can continue to prosper together. As a former Army Ranger, I never thought I would go to China under friendly terms and conditions. I am quite thankful that we were able to do that. I hope that we can continue that peace and prosperity together. But the days of the American people being taken advantage of, whether it is by China or any other Nation, I hope has long passed. Clearly, today, that is the trend. Not only has the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, FIRRMA, passed, and that gives us this review, but we have an administration that is aggressively implementing a policy that puts that into effect. There are plenty of things that did pass our House that haven't yet made it into law. A staggering number is 115. While 44 bills were signed into law, 115 passed our committee and haven't yet been taken up across the building in the Senate. Unfortunately, and often despite overwhelmingly bipartisan support in the House, many of these bills have yet to receive the same attention in the Senate. One example of this is a bill I introduced, the Market Data Protection Act. This passed the House of Representatives unanimously, and it is yet to receive a vote in the Senate. This deals with the protection of government-controlled data by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In fact, our EDGAR database was hacked. We are simply asking that the SEC do the same thing and certify to Congress in the same way they would expect a publicly traded company to certify to them, that they have dealt with the risk and they now have a secure network. Just earlier tonight, we passed yet another extension of the Flood Act. This bill has been passed by our committee for a year and a half. It has been over a year since it passed the House with very modest reforms. One of the sticking points seems to be that the Senate can't live with rebuilding someone's home three times after it has flooding. We will rebuild it not once, not twice, but a third time, and then after that, we are saying, you know, maybe you should move. But that is too much to ask, apparently, for the Senate. We can't even get a vote on it. It is time for the Senate to act. Another is JOBS 3.0. This is a bill that provides new 21st century framework for capital formation. You think capital formation, that sounds like Wall Street, that sounds like a big, Republican, stereotypical talking point bill. It passed with more than 400 votes in this body, incredibly bipartisan, very modest reforms, commonsense, for early stage capital formation, and it hasn't yet been voted on in the Senate. There is still time in this Congress, and I sure hope they can deliver on it. There are a lot of things that we haven't been able to get to. In spite of being the most productive committee in Congress, there are still things that have been left undone. My hope is that we can continue to collaborate in a very bipartisan way as we experience a transition. As sad as I am to be headed to the minority as a member of the majority party today, I am very sad that Chairman Hensarling is leaving Congress. This week, we were able to see his retirement ceremony where a portrait was unveiled. But the most important thing that happened there is, frankly, I think everyone in that room was inspired. I think one of the most unfortunate things about Congress is the way it is perceived by the American people. There are more truly good men and women who serve in this body, in both parties, than I would have ever believed before I got here, and one of the very best is Jeb Hensarling. I am thankful to count him as my chairman, as a mentor, and as a friend. I look forward to seeing how God continues to bless this great man and how God continues to bless this body and our great Nation. It is now time for deeds, not words.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Douglas Laux of Coldwater, Ohio. After attending Indiana University, Doug served for 7 years with the Central Intelligence Agency as an operations officer. Unknown to his family and friends, Doug operated undercover in Afghanistan and Syria, fighting America's global war on terror. Working in Afghanistan, Doug quietly penetrated the ranks of al-Qaida and the Taliban, where he was able to infiltrate and eliminate one of the largest IED manufacturers in the world. Doug left the CIA in 2013 and now lives quietly in Coldwater, Ohio, his hometown. While Doug does not seek recognition for his past service, his actions struck a major blow to the enemies of our country, and they deserve commendation. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in recognizing the bravery of Mr. Laux and to wish him continued success as a private citizen.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of Maci Grace Eickman. Maci Grace was born October 1, 2015 with a rare genetic disease, Mucopolysaccharidosis type I (MPS I). While I never had the opportunity to meet Maci Grace, I know through her parents and those who knew her that she touched many lives in the two years she was here on Earth. Maci Grace is the daughter of Joshua and Elizabeth Eickman. As a parent, I join them in mourning. Through innocence Marci Grace fought her disease with strength, which stands as an inspiration today. We must continue to search for a cure to help the one in 100,000 children born with this rare disease. Mr. Speaker, there is no foot so small that it cannot leave an imprint on this world. I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in extending our deepest condolences to Maci's family and friends during this difficult time. Parents should never have to bury their children.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress 2 years ago, I spent 15 years building manufacturing companies. I have been personally on the receiving end of bad trade policy and bad trade practices. So, in 2016, when President--then candidate, now President--Trump talked about making America great again by dealing with bad trade deals and bad trade practices, frankly, he energized me and many other people in my industry, in the manufacturing sector, and, indeed, all across the country because America has lived with bad consequences of bad trade deals. In fact, America has built its history on trade. Truly, economic liberty is as much a part of America's history as religious liberty and other forms of liberty. We were the world's largest trading country. We are a great trading power in every way you can measure it. We do have trade deficits with some countries, but we have to pay attention to the right metrics. So when we talk about bad trade practices and bad trade policies, we talk about, to use an analogy, watching basketball. Think how the sport would change if there were no fouls called and no one could shoot free throws. These are the kinds of things that happened with the WTO. Eventually, after, sometimes, years of filing a complaint, the WTO will adjudicate a subsidy practice by China on steel, for example, and then they will say: Hey, you have to stop. Well, the moment a complaint is filed, the Chinese company just dumps faster because they know that it is going to be turned off. The trouble is there is no consequence for this bad conduct. So what I had hoped we would be doing is we would be using our great relationships around the world to unite our allies, our best trading partners, frankly, people who are also the victims of these bad trade practices and bad trade policies, to take action against those bad practices so that we can define what is a foul and what is the effective free throw. What are the consequences? I believe that the President's goals are being poorly served by some of his advisers and I hope that the President will change course, because what we are doing has resulted in failure in every type of war studied, from Sun Tzu through World War II, through more modern wars. When you multiply your enemies, you are not winning, and we are doing that with the practices that some of the administration is implementing, things that implement uniform tariffs, things that distort the very definition of a national security issue to call German luxury autos a national security issue. We have tools in the kit bag that could be very effective, tools like sanctions. When we engage in warfare, when we engage with enemies of our country that are strategic enemies, we have sanctions in place against Russia, sanctions in place against Iran, and sanctions in place against North Korea. The beauty of sanctions is they can be targeted not just as a country or a sector; they can be targeted to companies and even individuals. We can use these things to restrict the flow, and we can define what is illicit finance. We can use these tools that the world uses already against bad actors and, frankly, some of the worst actors in the world to unite our allies and to define a better way for trade going forward. So we shouldn't confuse this with a critique of the objective. The objective is, indeed, noble and necessary. Past trade practices, past Presidential policies have left America on the short end. True, as Milton Friedman said: If countries want to subsidize the cost of a good, let them. They are just lowering the cost for our consumers. But we can't simply be a nation of consumers. We need people to put capital at risk in America to thrive, and for our great industries, whether it is agriculture or manufacturing or technology, for the intellectual property to flourish here. We have the best markets for goods, services, intellectual property, capital, and we need to make sure that we defend that. I applaud President Trump for being passionate about putting America first in these practices, but I do believe that we need to look at the tactics that have been employed by many who have advised him and say, ``Is this multiplying our enemies?'' And, in fact, it is. I hope we can move forward in a better way and we can serve this great country by restoring trade to its right and proper place as a vibrant part of our economy. Exports drive our economy, but imports can benefit our economy. Trade is exactly that. Trade is something of value for both parties. Both profit when trade is there. A zero-sum understanding is not the right way to look at trade. We benefit and so do others; and it is okay that they benefit, because then they are able to buy more from us in trade. The practices that are in place today give us a chance to assess the progress, and I think it is vital that we do that. It is vital that we keep this economy doing the great things that it has under President Trump's leadership, under congressional leadership. We were told that the new normal was a 1.5 percent growth rate, that we couldn't grow at the high rate. With regulatory relief and tax reform, our economy is growing higher than 3 percent, and we certainly don't want to do anything that would derail that momentum. I am encouraged by Mr. Hill's dialogue tonight, and I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak. I know we have other colleagues who would like to as well.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hill. I want to agree with the importance of bringing allies to the table to address those practices. There are four, and there are several others that we would probably agree on. In a way, I think the thing that our President respects about China is they put China first. They have used all the resources of their nation really since 1989, since Deng Xiaoping transformed China's economy to a more market-oriented economy. They are not a market-oriented economy. That was one of the things they committed to do as part of joining the World Trade Organization. They are a command-driven economy in many respects. They have made great progress since 1989 to being market oriented. Frankly, since 2008, they have gone the other way in some of their practices. If you look at the revolutionary idea, though, the idea that lives can be changed by trade and capitalism, China under Deng Xiaoping, at the peak, they were using communism with Communist principles, and he introduced to them communism with Chinese principles, which was essentially capitalism as long as we can stay in charge. It is a corrupt, subsidized form of capitalism, but at its peak, it was lifting 1 million Chinese people a month out of dollar-a-day poverty. Trade was a key part of this, inflows of foreign direct investment to reach this massive market. Today General Motors sells more cars in China than they sell in the United States of America. This is a better path than the one I expected. When I graduated from high school in 1988, Mr. Gorbachev had not torn down the Berlin Wall. By the end of 1989 when I was there, unfortunately bad things had happened in Tiananmen Square in China, but, thankfully, great things happened at the Berlin Wall. I was fortunate to be able to see people there. I met a man who was from East Germany in his first hours of freedom who said: Is it like this everywhere? We were in the Ku'damm district--kind of like Times Square is in New York--in Berlin. I thought he meant how big the city was. But what he really meant was the stores were open at night, and there is fresh milk, as he said. He was astonished that regular people, even foreigners, could go in, and the shelves had stock. This is the idea of economic liberty. This has produced abundance wherever it has been tried. Where the other ideas, the redistribution that Mao tried every version of Marxist Communist ideology that he could think of, and they all failed. They produced scarcity, poverty, and depravity. By engaging in the world, China transformed their economy. That is something to respect. I think the President admires the way that they put China first. But the reality is in putting China first, they have engaged all the resources of the country to where in 2014 we saw that President Obama had to take action against hackers. In fact, they were indicted. But did President Obama cut off all relations and trade with China? He did not. He engaged in diplomacy with China. I think it is great that we engage with Russia. Perhaps even Russia will see a market-oriented economy. They started out that way in the 1990s. But they also proved that deficits do matter. This is something that the whole West wrestles with, and it is another thing that we could unite in agreeing with. I hope we can also get to ways we can unite here, because, as Mr. LaHood mentioned, the Global Trade Accountability Act is not an adversarial bill. It doesn't even go retroactive to the actions that have occurred in the past. It does get Congress engaged. It gets Congress engaged because the same benefits of cooperation, the same benefits of multiplying our allies instead of multiplying our enemies, could happen here in Congress where we multiply the people working on the problem. We want to join our President in taking action against bad actors and in making our trade policy better than it has been even with the Canadians--they have bad trade practices that we can improve. Even with the Europeans; they have bad trade practices that we can improve upon. Great friends work through problems and I feel like that is the reality that we have with our friends. Here in Congress, the President has great friends. I would consider the three of us some of his great friends, not adversaries, in the goal we are concerned, I think, about the means of getting to that, and the Global Trade Accountability Act would simply say that Congress works with the President who leads the negotiations similar to the REINS Act. Where Congress can come alongside and say we do it, what would that mean? Well, that would mean that the President is more engaged. But it's really the President's advisors. Men like Peter Navarro, instead of refusing to come talk to Ways and Means, would engage with our chairman, would engage with our committee dealing with trade, and would, in fact, develop a plan instead of criticize their own failure to plan after the fact. How do we know this? This is an example. We have a uniform tariff policy that probably never should have been implemented, that has got a chance for exclusions. We have over 20,000 companies that want exclusions right now. Commerce is doing them not sector by sector, but company by company; not commodity by commodity, but company by company. There are only six people working on this massive task. Were there to be required engagement, I believe there would have been a better plan in that collaborative approach, and perhaps a different course of action. I look forward to seeing other ways that you all might think that we could collaborate and make the great cause of making our trade agreements better and more productive.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I think we have made great progress towards that end in uniting on trying to take a difference course of action. Just recently, we passed updated export controls and CFIUS regulation to try to give more tools to the kit bag. Who is going to execute this? The executive branch. But the legislative branch passed the law, the House, the Senate. We are working to get the final package to agree on language--not just against China, but anybody who would steal our intellectual property, anybody who would take targeted action to harm our economy or put their citizens in a position to do that harm--and also try to strike the balance. Here is the thing. We can have perfect security for America's intellectual property by exporting zero of it, but we can't do that. What we have to do is find a balance that says: We want you to innovate in the United States of America; we want the ideas to continue to originate here; we want the capital to be invested here to create those great ideas; but we do want to have some concern. You mentioned the Clinton administration. One of the first actions Bill Clinton took as President was to move release authority for sensitive information from the Department of Defense into the Department of Commerce. And what happened? Swiftly, Hughes worked with China to be able to help send them launch vehicles off of one rocket. One rocket went up into the air, multiple low-Earth orbit satellites went around, precisely positioned in orbit around the Earth. The down side is that is the exact same technology that can be used to send warheads to multiple cities after one launch vehicle penetrates U.S. airspace. This is dangerous technology in the wrong hands. So we have to find a way to review those things and keep America safe, but we also have to find a way to have the ideas and the intellectual property initiate here. We can't shut down all these in the name of national security. We certainly don't want to shut down the production of luxury automobiles. But we might want to restrict the trade there. China is actually targeting our entrepreneurs. We have some of the best education in the world, and the world comes here to become well- educated. Over 50 percent of our graduate and postgraduate students are not native-born Americans. We allow, frankly, most of the world to come here to get educated. Unfortunately, we don't retain enough of that talent. So we send many of those people out of here with those skills that can be put to work in our marketplace. But in the process, Chinese capital sometimes and, frankly, other foreign nationals are getting into venture capital. They are on our campuses. They are recruiting our talented people. They also are looking to buy our innovative ideas for dual use, but sometimes only to advance their own technology. The challenge today is that China has had this mixed blend of aggressive behavior towards us. They have also seen the benefits of trade. They have seen the benefits of the flow of goods, services, capital, and, in some cases, people, and they have brought those to bear to benefit their own economy. Today, nearly a third of initial public offerings are taking place in China. This is a challenge. And I would say we are better off finding a way to compete in the marketplace than as I thought I would as a soldier, which I never thought I would go to China without body armor and a rucksack full of ammo and night vision goggles and whatnot. I would rather trade with them. I hope we can stay on friendly terms with them. I hope we can get on friendly terms with Russia, when it is possible. As much as it depends on us, we should live at peace with everyone. But we do have to trade. We do have to enforce the rules. We do need law and order. We have made many of these commitments, including commitments in the WTO. We should insist that China live up to their obligation and become a market-oriented economy.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, prior to being here, I worked in the manufacturing sector. I worked in metal stamping. One of the challenges, as Mr. Hill highlighted, is the tariffs are only on the commodity. Frankly, they are blunt force. They are all steel, all aluminum. The reality is some grades of steel, some grades of aluminum are commodity. Beverage cans, for example, are a commodity. We make it in the U.S.; they make it in Canada. Everywhere they consume lots of beverages, there is a significant ability to produce this grade of aluminum. So the idea that we would target that isn't necessarily changing our market, but where it is, there are things like the grades of rod that your tire manufacturers are or a similar rod for welding wire. Welding wire is highly automated. So we have got domestic welding wire manufacturers who already weren't the lowest cost provider. China, India, South Korea all heavily subsidize their welding wire manufacturers. Having domestic welding wire manufacturers probably is a national security issue. We want the base rod to be made in the U.S. Some of those grades aren't. But soon, if we don't get exclusions to our domestic welding wire manufacturers, we won't have the manufacturer of welding wire either. Meanwhile, their cost for the steel has gone up by 25 percent or more because of the tariffs and they are losing market share. They don't have a year or 2 to wait for the exclusions review. They are losing business now. And the size they are could kill their companies. Some of these companies are big enough to just shift production offshore, as we have seen other people do, but some of the smaller companies don't have that option. They will live or die on whether or not they can get a government-mandated exclusion to a government- created problem that restricts their ability to buy the aluminum. So we either have to put tariffs on the secondary goods--so you can see where this goes--and then they will put tariffs on the secondary goods, or we have to find a way where we say it is a national security issue for us to get this capability in the U.S. We want that capability, but we have to go about it the other way. I believe passionately that it is the sanctions. As you alluded to your own articles in the sixties, you have to take sanctions action. When you talk about how you deal with transshipments, we already deal with transshipments for national security purposes. And it is targeted. The sanctions protocol offers a path forward. I hope we can engage on that. I hope we can pass the Global Trade Accountability Act to provide a check, and I hope that more of our colleagues will engage in this sort of discussion. I hope colleagues across the aisle can engage in it, not necessarily to be an attack on our President or our policies, but as a gateway to support economic liberty that has indeed made America the land of opportunity.

Mr. DAVIDSON

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

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, today, I offer an amendment that is very straightforward. It simply takes an already existing reporting requirement within the section 702 program and adds an additional layer of congressional oversight. This will ensure that the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee have insight into how the intelligence community enforces its own internal guidelines for handling sensitive data. Currently, the attorney general provides these committees with semiannual reports about incidents of intelligence community noncompliance with the targeting, minimization, and querying procedures within the 702 program. These are important features that ensure the collection and use of data is solely for targeting dangerous terrorists and does not threaten the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. However, this report is lacking because it does not describe what, if any, disciplinary actions are taken by agencies in response to noncompliance. My amendment would simply require that this report include information about disciplinary action. For example, was a violation simply flagged for agency records? Or was someone given additional training, disciplinary suspension, termination, or, perhaps, even prosecution? My amendment intends to provide Congress with a high-level look at how agencies address the incidents they are already reporting on. The privacy safeguards contained in the section 702 program are critical for protecting the constitutional rights of everyday Americans, and, indeed, the high functioning capability of this important program for national security. Congress has the responsibility to make sure agencies are taking steps to mitigate abuse and enforce statutes, guidelines, and court orders relevant to this powerful surveillance tool. This is a commonsense amendment that I have drafted in coordination with the House Intelligence Committee, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I think the thing I would emphasize is that it is important for us to understand: A) we should preserve the 702 program; and B) there are some incremental reforms that could make the program high functioning, and also give the American people peace of mind that their Fourth Amendment rights are protected. It is also important for the intelligence community to know that the programs they have are working, and it can send an important message that there are disciplinary actions for those who don't follow the guidelines. This will give Congress insight into how well that system is functioning and what disciplinary actions, if any, are taken. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I will applaud former Speaker Pelosi for her consistency. She seems to have uniformly supported the executive branch ignoring subpoenas and perhaps destroying evidence in failing to comply with the rule of the House, with a subpoena being issued by the House, with the important precedent of the Constitution. So this really isn't about the Russia investigation or about the specifics of this case. So, frankly, I find it appalling that Attorney General Sessions would ignore these activities in the Department of Justice. The reality is this is a question of, Shall the executive branch comply with a subpoena from the legislative branch? We don't know what the contents are because they are redacted and they are being withheld. This has gone on for a long time. And if we are to keep our Republic, the principle has to be resolved to where the legislative branch, being coequal, very much shall have access to this information--and not just a privileged few, not just a few who keep it withheld from the rest of the body, but the whole body. Since last year, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has investigated potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by the Department of Justice and our intelligence community. Previously, our colleague, Mr. Schiff, was a strong supporter for FISA reform and proposed numerous bills. So that is where our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not consistent. FISA has been abused. We have seen one of the most blatant examples of that with the activities and things that have already been made public, which has led to this line of inquiry. Americans should be concerned that the Federal Government may abuse its capacity to gather foreign intelligence by spying on our fellow Americans. Without serious reforms to FISA, the Fourth Amendment will exist as nothing more than a distant memory or a notation with an asterisk ``except in these cases.'' This resolution insists that the Department of Justice fully comply with requests, including subpoenas, of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Judiciary Committees relating to potential violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Unless we support and defend our Constitution, we will not keep our Republic, we will further embolden and empower the executive branch, and we will weaken our country. This bill will help reform FISA and help defend our Constitution.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for working together on this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 4311, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act. It addresses the intersection of national security, intellectual property, and property rights. We have a responsibility to protect the people of the United States of America from threats abroad, and we also have a responsibility to protect the system that has truly made the United States the world's land of opportunity. We have had free flow of goods, services, capital, ideas, and, indeed, people because we have a high functioning rule of law here in America. How can the entrepreneur living the American Dream truly thrive in the spirit of enterprise when competing against a foreign state? But that is the very state that he is up against a lot of times in trade as an entrepreneur seeks to grow a corporation backed by a foreign government. This legislation addresses many of these types of concerns--countries acting as companies that pose threats to our national security--and this legislation has been done in a bipartisan, constructive manner, and I appreciate the input and efforts from Members of both sides of the aisle as well as those in the administration and the private sector who have helped make this meaningful legislation what it is today.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairwoman Brooks for putting this Special Order together and taking time to call attention to some good news. Good news is out there. It is hard to find sometimes on the news, but tax reform, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is all about good news. What is astonishing is the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was already having an impact even before it became law. The hope of the cuts that were to come were causing our economy to grow at nearly double the rate that it was under the previous administration. And now we have seen deeds, not just words. We have seen actions transform the idea of tax cuts into enacted tax cuts, things that have transformed the expectation of 1\1/2\ percent growth, the path that had our economy stagnating, take-home pay stagnating, and no hope for the growth that our parents once knew to be part of the American future. Today, we are seeing 3 percent growth. We may even see more than 4 percent growth in this quarter. The experts said this wasn't going to happen and, instead, what we have seen is the power of ideas, the power of those ideas becoming law, and now we are seeing that show up in our economy. What does that mean for families in Ohio? Hardworking families are getting more home take-home pay. They are creating more opportunities. The ability to change jobs and find a better-paying one with better benefits is out there because everyone I am talking to is hiring. This is great news for Ohio, a State that just a short time ago was reeling from over 400,000 jobs lost, a fleeting economy, and a State savings account that was raided to just 89 cents left in Ohio's treasury. Today, Ohio's manufacturers are hiring. In fact, nearly every company that I have met with is hiring, and their problem is they can't hire fast enough. They are looking for more good workers, and this is creating better opportunities for hardworking Ohioans and better opportunities for American companies. Because we didn't just cut taxes, we reformed taxes, and we made changes that make it so companies are investing in Ohio, in America again, and this is creating these jobs. Places like Staub Manufacturing Solutions have seen an uptick in sales, employment, and optimism. They have grown their team from 23 to 37 employees over the last year, and they recently expanded by acquiring a new building. Hartzler Propeller in Troy, Ohio, is experiencing the same optimism and continues to grow and invest in the future of their employees and their investment in Ohio. How does this happen? The framework has to be right. It is not more government or less government; it is the right kind of government. It is the kind of government that has made America the world's land of opportunity. America has always attracted the best goods, services, capital, ideas, and people that flow freely and flourish here in America because we have the certainty of a good regulatory framework, not an excessive, burdensome regulatory framework. We have seen that burden lifted, and we have seen it complemented by strong tax reform, important tax cuts, and we have seen the result is more jobs, more than a million created in the 6 months since this bill became law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a constructive policy for jobs, for prosperity, and for a promising economic future for everyone in America.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Staff Sergeant Michael ``Mick'' DeHart for the selfless actions and bravery he showed on April 10, 1969, during the Vietnam war. While conducting a routine reconnaissance operation, Staff Sergeant DeHart and his platoon were ambushed by a numerically superior force. Throughout the firefight, Staff Sergeant DeHart moved through the enemy fire to provide cover for injured soldiers, distribute supplies, and coordinate a counterattack. As dusk approached, Sergeant DeHart, at significant personal risk, moved to an exposed position, fired on machine-gun positions and approaching enemy soldiers, halting their advance. He also aided in the successful exfiltration of his unit. For his heroism in combat, Staff Sergeant DeHart recently had one of his two Silver Stars upgraded to a Distinguished Service Cross. Thank you, Sergeant DeHart, for your heroism, courage, and service to our great country.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this historic bipartisan legislation. This progrowth bill is thanks to all the hardworking members of the House Financial Services Committee, and I am proud to have contributed to this meaningful reform. S. 2155 will reduce regulatory burdens hindering Main Street by providing job creators with resources they need to grow their businesses and, frankly, their banks. Under Dodd-Frank, big banks have gotten bigger and small banks have become fewer. Our economy is not well served when small banks are handicapped. As a former manufacturer, I understand the toll excessive regulatory burdens can have on small businesses. That is why I am a proud supporter of this legislation, and I look forward to seeing this bill signed on the President's desk.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss digital currency, particularly initial coin offerings. These innovations have outpaced regulators and the courts. Now, regulators and courts are beginning to weigh in. Meeting with agency officials and industry leaders makes one thing clear: Making the markets work in the United States of America requires legislative certainty. Failure for Congress to act produces uncertainty, and that will drive capital and innovation offshore. Our task is to answer questions like: How are these tokens traded? Are they securities or commodities? Who is the proper regulator? How do we prevent fraud? These are just some of the questions that need answers. Congress needs to act by passing legislation that creates certainty and turns the United States into a market maker. I intend to lead this legislation for initial coin offerings to clarify the role of regulators, protect consumers, address national security concerns, and facilitate a pro-growth environment for businesses to raise capital here in America.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, the Consolidated Audit Trail stands as the largest financial database in the world and ranks second in size only to the NSA's database. The value of the sensitive information housed within this database includes Social Security numbers, broker numbers, account numbers. In fact, it is comparable to nine times the wealth that is in Fort Knox-- far more sensitive than the Equifax data, whose breach affects 143 million Americans. Despite the enormity of wealth within this database, the unfortunate reality is that its cybersecurity is not yet adequate. The Government Accountability Office report found the SEC's systems ``at unnecessary risk of compromise.'' The CAT operator recently delayed the issuing of technical specifications, which means that industry will have just 1 month to transmit all of this market data. Mr. Speaker, I introduced the Market Data Protection Act, which passed this House with unanimous support, to guarantee the private information of hundreds of millions of Americans transmits securely and without risk. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to send this bill to the President's desk.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of Ohio constituents who have suffered reduced access to the banking system due to the loss of community financial institutions in Ohio's Eighth District. Like many things in Dodd-Frank that were intended to do good and protect consumers, the Volcker rule is doing the exact opposite. The Volcker rule was designed to protect depositors from having their deposits placed at risk through proprietary trading. It was not designed to discourage other forms of capital from flowing into our banking system, from increasing competition, or from lowering prices for a broad swath of customers. This pragmatic, bipartisan compromise on Volcker is a great step forward in enabling community banks to reach their compliance costs and allow them to deploy more capital in the communities that serve. My hope is we can move forward and pursue more commonsense solutions like this, especially to help underserved communities where we have seen local banking services dry up. I encourage support for this bill.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+ Improvement Act. I greatly appreciate my colleague, Representative MacArthur, for this bill and for our chairman for moving it through our committee, and, frankly, my colleagues from across the aisle who came together to recognize the need for this bill. As has already been stated, this has broad implications for small capital companies. I spent the past 15 years, prior to coming to Congress, growing small manufacturing companies, and I can greatly appreciate the challenge of raising capital. This is another means of doing that, but I want to highlight another area that it might be suitable. With approximately $4 billion of capital raised worldwide in 2017, it is fair to say that initial coin offerings are just another great way for startups to raise capital and grow their businesses. ICOs in Regulation A+ could work great together, and with Mr. MacArthur's bill, they can work even better. An example of this harmonization is the investor-based Reg. A+ allows investors of any wealth to participate. This Democratic process is a pillar for ICOs in terms of the premise behind distributed ledger technology. Another provision is anti-money laundering. Reg. A+ requires the validation of investors, as well as background checks on the principles of offering companies. This goes hand in hand with improving the credibility of ICO business practices and reducing the risk of loss. Compliance with Reg. A+ would mean a disclosure memorandum, not just a white paper. Reg. A+ provides ICO entrepreneurs and their startups with a viable path to compliance with SEC security regulation. So it is important that we have guardrails established in this explosive new industry, while not hampering the ability to grow the business. I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 4296 and for the bipartisan work of our committee, the work our chairman has helped lead; and I am encouraged that this bill will establish clear guardrails for operational risk capital requirements and improve U.S. capital framework as a whole. This legislation is another example of ensuring regulators work in the best interest of the U.S. economy rather than abiding by international standards that hold American businesses back rather than move them forward. In fact, the very premise of this legislation reminds me of a song. I remember when Bill Clinton was running, he had a song about: ``Don't stop thinking about tomorrow. Yesterday is gone; yesterday is gone.'' It is all about the future. Well, this piece of legislation that is in place today, established by the Basel Committee in 2006, is thinking about tomorrow, is thinking about yesterday. What happened in the past is constraining what could happen in the future. So banks are reserving against past losses in an era that holds them from being able to adopt the business plans that maybe even under new leadership, new board members, and a whole new set of governance requirements that will get the company moving forward at a better growth rate. This is better for not just the company, not just the executives or the board members, but the consumers that would be served by this market. Take, for instance, historic losses being reserved against. That capital is sitting there not actively employed in the market. Even the Basel Committee saw how ridiculous this rule is; so they updated their guidance, in 2016, to include historical loss experience as a relevant indicator instead of as the sole factor. It is time that we move forward in the best interests of our country and make rules that help American businesses instead of hold them back. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. We are losing nearly one community bank a day, and that is having a devastating impact on local businesses and communities. I urge all of our colleagues to support H.R. 4771.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act. This bill is another example of the rollback of burdensome regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act, which Barney Frank himself says missed the mark, particularly with respect to small banks. I appreciate the Member opposed calling attention to Democrats who have worked across the aisle to benefit community banks. In fact, 11 of them support this bill in our committee, and I appreciate them for doing that. I appreciate the cosponsors who are Democrats, who worked across the aisle with my colleague, Mrs. Love, to pass this good bill through our committee, and I look forward to seeing more colleagues pass this in a bipartisan way across the floor of the House today. How about giving small institutions a chance to start taking back some of their market share? Instead of too big to fail, what Dodd-Frank has done is made things so that small banks are too small to succeed. These exemptions that are in this bill make it easier for small bank holding companies to raise capital, to issue debt. Under the current capital requirements, small businesses just can't compete with the larger banks, and the large banks have celebrated this in their own statements, celebrating the effect of Dodd-Frank in protecting their market share and helping them grow it. Under current capital requirements, that is what we have seen: bigger banks getting bigger, and smaller banks getting fewer. We need to give community banks the ability to breathe from the regulatory burden that has been shoved down their throats. And if you want to make big banks smaller, you can try to regulate them more, but we have demonstrated that is their competitive advantage. Frankly, all benchmarks are easier to audit. Just picking a number here in D.C. is easier to audit, and this is a compromise to what would be a good solution to look at systemic risk.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 1153, the Mortgage Choice Act. This bill is another example of a rollback of the burdensome regulations of Dodd-Frank and, many would say, unintended consequences. The 113th Congress, as Mr. Huizenga reported out--apparently, the Member opposed feels that her colleagues were confused in the 113th Congress when they unanimously supported this very same procedure, this same change to Dodd-Frank. Apparently, all of President Obama's supporters were also confused into forgetting to make the big investments they have made as a reaction to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that was recently enacted. So confusion must be rampant, but let me clarify what this does. It doesn't do the things that the Member opposed accuses it of doing. Frankly, the market prevails here, not price controls from Washington, D.C., nor a substitute that would say a nonaffiliated company could offer the exact same product that the one-stop shop is barred from offering. So rather than have a simple procedure where a borrower could work with one lending institution, they are forced to this array that resembles the healthcare industry, where, instead of getting one bill from one visit, you show up to do a mortgage and you get a bill from five or six different entities, and it makes it more confusing. The market lets people shop and say, ``Hey, maybe I could get this product from someone else,'' but, unfortunately, without this change, it blocks hardworking families from working with one relationship to close on their mortgage. It adds one more piece in the web of documentation required, and it adds one more thing to negotiate in the relationship that is necessary to close on a mortgage. The QM rule should not stand for ``quitting mortgages.'' It should stand for ``qualified mortgages.'' The application of this has resulted in small and community banks quitting the mortgage market for certain types of loans, and this is hurting the families that the Member opposed says she seeks to help. I urge all of my colleagues to unite and support this rational, limited modification that lets the market work the way the market can work for the hardworking families of America.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my excitement that this body has taken a strong pro-life stance and, likewise, that this country is becoming increasingly pro-life. This is not surprising since it is a view that is plainly obvious that we are not talking about a clump of cells but a baby human. Advances in science and medicine make this more clear all the time. In addition to our votes this week to save babies with the necessary medical care when they are born alive following an abortion, tomorrow my office will be welcoming and hosting pro-life leaders and friends from Ohio's Eighth District traveling to Washington, D.C., to participate in this year's March for Life. I am proud to participate tomorrow in the march where we will seek to get out the message that love saves lives. Since Roe v. Wade, nearly 60 million babies with all their potential have had their lives tragically cut short. I look forward to the day when love and sound science finally put an end to abortion.