Warren Davidson

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I thank this body for still continuing the tradition of this opportunity to speak and have our voices heard, even though we are in the minority. We don't control the floor, we can't put our bills on the agenda to have a debate, and often we can't even get an amendment considered on the bills. The Rules Committee strips out anything that would materially change a bill. Sadly, that has been a bipartisan approach to governing in this body. That is not a functioning legislature when those kinds of things happen. Why is that important? Every Member needs to have their voice heard, and they should be heard on the bill. They should be heard when this body wants to change our constitutional protections fundamentally. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The majority doesn't seek to amend the Constitution, but they seek to nullify that constitutional guarantee with subterfuge. They say that this is a background check bill. Well, every commercial firearm transaction today already requires a background check. It doesn't matter whether you do it at a gun store, at a gun show, or at any other forum, if you buy a firearm from a commercial seller of firearms, a Federal firearm license holder, you have to do a background check. You can't do it, Mr. Speaker. Now, what does this do? It basically says, Mr. Speaker, that if you want to even loan a gun to a family member to go on a hunting trip, then you have to get a background check. Someone would be criminalized for doing that. You can't have private transfers. Essentially, the government says you can't be trusted to sell a firearm to anybody. You have to go to a licensed agent of the Federal Government. How do they guarantee that? They guarantee that by creating a registry. Why should we be concerned about that? Well, that is the path toward seizing it. It doesn't guarantee that the Government will do it, but let me tell you about the Supreme Court and what is going on right now, Mr. Speaker. Under the Fourth Amendment, there is a clause that has been interpreted by Court opinions to allow seizures for community care-- warrantless seizures of property. This goes with civil asset forfeiture and all kinds of abuses of warrantless surveillance and the Fourth Amendment. If we do not stand up and defend the Second Amendment today, it will be just as abused as the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of privacy is today. We have to oppose this bill. The people of the United States of America are constitutionally guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, and this body shall not infringe it, and it shall not be infringed without a constitutional amendment, and that is not what is on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to oppose H.R. 8 and any such effort to deny the American citizens the protections our Constitution guarantees.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, the Justice in Policing Act was crafted in response to George Floyd's murder. Almost no one believes that that was justifiable. Partisans have snatched this moment of unity to further divide our Nation. How have they done that? Look at this debate. Speaker after speaker has hurled insults falsely claiming that no Republican supports reform. Now, it is true that we don't support this reform, but the majority has refused to even consider amendments or alternatives to this partisan bill. An essential component of any justice in policing bill would correct current injustices. I only have time to mention one: warrantless surveillance of American citizens is wrong. Get a warrant. Last year, conservatives and progressives united around this point, and the Speaker blocked debate or amendment to FISA reauthorization. Now the same tactics are being employed. Every single Member of Congress is here to represent American citizens, and denying us amendments denies all Americans a voice. Don't politicize something that can heal and unite us. Vote ``no'' on this bill. Insist on regular order.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, the so-called Equality Act is not about tolerance. It seeks to impose the will of this body on the American people in violation of the Constitution. It establishes a woke heresy code, seeking to eliminate distinctions between male and female at every level. It cancels women's and girls' sports, requiring that biological males compete for their records, championships, and scholarships. It nullifies the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Rather than preserve the constitutionally protected freedom to disagree, disguised as equality, it compels participation on your terms for abortions, weddings, and all of religious, vocational, and civic life. It pursues what Hillary Clinton said in 2016: You will just have to change your doctrine. Let me assure you, that will not happen. Colleagues, we must defend freedom and defeat this bill.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize a valued, longtime resident in the Eighth District of Ohio, Daniel French. This year, Dan achieves an impressive milestone of 50 years of service at French Oil Mill Machinery Company in Piqua. This manufacturing company has been a staple in Miami County for 121 years. It was founded by Dan's grandfather. From being a machine tool operator to eventually president, chairman, and CEO, for half a century, Dan's efforts have improved the lives of employees, colleagues, neighbors, and fellow Ohioans. The enterprise has experienced great success under Dan's stewardship. Every expansion and hiring campaign has blessed the City of Piqua with jobs and commercial investment. His business expertise is renowned by his peers, who have benefited from his service in various industry organizations, including the Ohio Manufacturers' Association. Professional accolades aside, countless Piqua and Miami County nonprofits and community groups have been recipients of Dan's time, leadership, and philanthropic support. Further, a grateful nation thanks Colonel French for his 28 years of combined honorable service in the United States Air Force and Air Force Reserve-including service in Vietnam. Southwest Ohio is a better place thanks to people like Dan French, his wife Margaret, and their family. Congratulations on an impressive 50 years of service at French Oil Mill Machinery Company.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I can't say it better than the Vice President said it himself. Vice President Mike Pence said, ``Last week, I did not yield to pressure to exert power beyond my constitutional authority to determine the outcome of the election, and I will not now yield to efforts in the House of Representatives to play political games at a time so serious in the life of our Nation.'' Mr. Speaker, I include this letter in the Record. The Vice President, Washington, DC, January 12, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: Every American was shocked and saddened by the attack on our Nation's Capitol last week, and I am grateful for the leadership that you and other congressional leaders provided in reconvening Congress to complete the people's business on the very same day. It was a moment that demonstrated to the American people the unity that is still possible in Congress when it is needed most. But now, with just eight days left in the President's term, you and the Democratic Caucus are demanding that the Cabinet and I invoke the 25th Amendment. I do not believe that such a course of action is in the best interest of our Nation or consistent with our Constitution. Last week, I did not yield to pressure to exert power beyond my constitutional authority to determine the outcome of the election, and I will not now yield to efforts in the House of Representatives to play political games at a time so serious in the life of our Nation. As you know full well, the 25th Amendment was designed to address Presidential incapacity or disability. Just a few months ago, when you introduced legislation to create a 25th Amendment Commission, you said, ``[a] President's fitness for office must be determined by science and facts.'' You said then that we must be ``[v]ery respectful of not making a judgment on the basis of a comment or behavior that we don't like, but based on a medical decision.'' Madam Speaker, you were right. Under our Constitution, the 25th Amendment is not a means of punishment or usurpation. Invoking the 25th Amendment in such a manner would set a terrible precedent. After the horrific events of this last week, our Administration's energy is directed to ensuring an orderly transition. The Bible says that ``for everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven . . . a time to heal . . . and a time to build up.'' That time is now. In the midst of a global pandemic, economic hardship for millions of Americans, and the tragic events of January 6th, now is the time for us to come together, now is the time to heal. I urge you and every member of Congress to avoid actions that would further divide and inflame the passions of the moment. Work with us to lower the temperature and unite our country as we prepare to inaugurate President-elect Joe Biden as the next President of the United States. I pledge to you that I will continue to do my part to work in good faith with the incoming administration to ensure an orderly transition of power. So help me God. Sincerely, Michael R. Pence, Vice President of the United States.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Vice President for his excellent leadership, for his professionalism, and, frankly, for his faithfulness to our Constitution. Not only would it be an abuse of the 25th Amendment for Mike Pence to invoke it to make a political statement, it is clearly not our role in Congress to do what we are doing here tonight or what is proposed to be done by the majority. Speaker Pelosi claims that President Trump incited the mob that attacked the Capitol at a rally. As Mr. McClintock spoke earlier, he read the President's statement. He encouraged people to come peaceably and patriotically. The Washington Post is reporting something that I would hope that our chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would know about. The FBI report warned of war at the Capitol the day before the attack on our Capitol. I am curious how someone proposes that the President incited the mob at a rally the day before the rally. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article. [From The Washington Post, Jan. 12, 2021] FBI Report Warned of `War' at Capitol, Contradicting Claims There Was No Indication of Looming Violence (By Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky) A day before rioters stormed Congress, an FBI office in Virginia issued an explicit warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and ``war,'' according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post that contradicts a senior official's declaration the bureau had no intelligence indicating anyone at last week's demonstrations in support of President Trump planned to do harm. A situational information report approved for release the day before the U.S. Capitol riot painted a dire portrait of dangerous plans, including individuals sharing a map of the complex's tunnels, and possible rally points for would-be conspirators to meet in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and South Carolina and head in groups to Washington. ``As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information indicating calls for violence in response to `unlawful lockdowns' to begin on 6 January 2021 in Washington, D.C.,'' the document says. ``An online thread discussed specific calls for violence to include stating `Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.'' BLM is probably a reference to the Black Lives Matter movement for racial justice. Pantifa is a derogatory term for antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement whose adherents sometimes engage in violent clashes with right-wing extremists. Yet even with that information in hand, the report's unidentified author expressed concern that the FBI might be encroaching on free-speech rights. The warning is the starkest evidence yet of the sizable intelligence failure that preceded the mayhem, which claimed the lives of five people, although one law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid disciplinary action, said the failure was not one of intelligence but of acting on the intelligence. At the FBI office in Norfolk, the report was written within 45 minutes of receiving the information, officials said, and shared with counterparts in Washington. The head of the FBI's Washington Field Office, Steven D'Antuono, told reporters on Friday that the agency did not have intelligence suggesting the pro-Trump rally would be anything more than a lawful demonstration. During a news conference Tuesday, held after The Post's initial publication of this report, he said the alarming Jan. 5 intelligence document was shared ``with all our law enforcement partners'' through the joint terrorism task force, which includes the U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Park Police, D.C. police, and other federal and local agencies. He suggested there was not a great deal for law enforcement to do with the information because the FBI at that time did not know who made the comments. ``That was a thread on a message board that was not attributable to an individual person,'' D'Antuono said Tuesday. D'Antuono did not say what, if anything, the FBI or other agencies did differently as a result of that information. Nor did he explain why he told reporters on Friday that there had been no such intelligence. Steven Sund, who resigned as Capitol Police chief, said in an interview Tuesday that he never received nor was made aware of the FBI's field bulletin, insisting he and others would have taken the warning seriously had it been shared. ``I did not have that information, nor was that information taken into consideration in our security planning,'' Sund said. Since the riot, agents and prosecutors have been intent on tracking down and arresting the most violent participants in the mob, in part because there is already significant online discussion of new potential clashes for Sunday and again on Jan. 20, when President-elect Joe Biden is set to take the oath of office. Michael R. Sherwin, the acting U.S. attorney for D.C., said there would be a strike force of prosecutors looking to file charges of seditious conspiracy where the evidence merited it. The Jan. 5 FBI report notes that the information represents the view of the FBI's Norfolk office, is not to be shared outside law enforcement circles, that it is not ``finally evaluated intelligence,'' and that agencies receiving it ``are requested not to take action based on this raw reporting without prior coordination with the FBI.'' Multiple law enforcement officials have said privately in recent days that the level of violence exhibited at the Capitol has led to difficult discussions within the FBI and other agencies about race, terrorism and whether investigators failed to register the degree of danger because the overwhelming majority of the participants at the rally were White conservatives fiercely loyal to Trump. ``Individuals/Organizations named in this [situational information report] have been identified as participating in activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,'' the document says. ``Their inclusion here is not intended to associate the protected activity with criminality or a threat to national security, or to infer that such protected activity itself violates federal law. ``However,'' it continues, ``based on known intelligence and/or specific historical observations, it is possible the protected activity could invite a violent reaction towards the subject individual or others in retaliation or with the goal of stopping the protected activity from occurring in the first instance. In the event no violent reaction occurs, FBI policy and federal law dictates that no further record be made of the protected activity.'' The document notes that one online comment advised, ``if Antifa or BLM get violent, leave them dead in the street,'' while another said they need ``people on standby to provide supplies, including water and medical, to the front lines. The individual also discussed the need to evacuate noncombatants and wounded to medical care.'' On Jan. 6, a large, angry crowd of people who had attended a rally nearby marched to the Capitol, smashing windows and breaking doors to get inside. One woman in the mob was shot and killed by Capitol Police; officials said three other in the crowd had medical emergencies and died. A Capitol Police officer died after suffering injuries. The FBI said in a statement that its ``standard practice is to not comment on specific intelligence products,'' but added that FBI field offices ``routinely share information with their local law enforcement partners to assist in protecting the communities they serve.'' For weeks leading up to the event, FBI officials discounted any suggestion that the activities of Trump supporters upset about the scheduled certification of Biden's election win could be a security threat on a scale with the racial-justice demonstrations that followed the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May. While the nation's capital is one of the most heavily guarded cities on the planet, local and federal law enforcement agencies sought to take a low-key approach to last week's event, publicly and privately expressing concerns that they did not want to repeat last year's ugly clashes between protesters and police. Some law enforcement officials took the view that protesters who support Trump are generally known for over- the-top rhetoric but not much violence, and therefore the event did not pose a particularly serious risk, according to people familiar with the security discussions leading up to Jan. 6. Even so, there were warning signs, though none as stark as the one from the FBI's Norfolk office. FBI agents had in the weeks before the Trump rally visited suspected far-right extremists, hoping to glean whether they had violent intentions, said a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the law enforcement activity. It was not immediately clear who was visited or if the FBI was specifically tracking anyone who would later be charged criminally. These visits were first reported Sunday by NBC News. In addition, in the days leading up to the demonstrations, some Capitol Hill staffers were told by supervisors to not come in to work that day, if possible, because it seemed the danger level would be higher than many previous protests, according to a person familiar with the warning who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter. Capitol Police did not take the kind of extra precautions, such as frozen zones and hardened barriers, that are typically used for major events near the Capitol. Federal agents are on high alert as the inauguration nears, with authorities bracing for possible violence not just in Washington but also nationwide, officials said. The FBI recently issued a different memo saying that ``armed protests'' were being planned ``at all 50 state capitols'' and in D.C. in the run-up to the inauguration, according to an official familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive law enforcement matter. The memo--first reported by ABC News and later confirmed by The Post--is a raw intelligence product, compiling information gathered by the bureau and several other government agencies, the official familiar with the matter said. Some of it is unverified, and the threat probably will differ significantly from place to place, the official said. But the information it highlights to law enforcement is nonetheless troubling--including that there was data suggesting people might storm government offices or stage an uprising were Trump to be removed from office, the official said. In a statement, the FBI declined to comment specifically on the memo about state capitols but said: ``Our efforts are focused on identifying, investigating, and disrupting individuals that are inciting violence and engaging in criminal activity. As we do in normal course of business, we are gathering information to identify any potential threats and are sharing that information with our partners. ``The FBI respects The rights of individuals to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights,'' it said. ``Our focus is not on peaceful protesters, but on those threatening their safety and the safety of other citizens with violence and destruction of property.''

Mr. DAVIDSON. Others are reporting a timeline that has the breach out of sync as well, but that highlights the importance. There is far too little that we know about this attack on our Capitol. Here is what we do know. No one has defended this attack on our Capitol. On the contrary, we are missing--willfully missing, in my opinion--a moment of extreme unity in our Nation, just like what was willfully done earlier this year. At a time of great political and partisan division, even seething anger, one thing all Americans seem to agree on is that these attacks were wrong. The President condemned them. He discouraged violence, not just on January 6 but on other days throughout the year as he talked about law and order and as he talked about something that we finally seem to agree on, that there is a clear distinction between the Constitution's First Amendment protection of the right to assemble peaceably and riots, criminal, unlawful riots. There is a distinction between rioters and protesters. Frankly, it took us months to agree on that as a body in Congress, but the people of the United States of America agreed to it. They understood it. I encourage my colleagues across the political spectrum, the Members of Congress gathered here together today and tomorrow, to stand united and move forward with the agreement our country had, that this was wrong.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this objection.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, every one of us swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Mr. DAVIDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support our First Amendment. I want to support the ability of people to assemble peaceably, but I also want to address the mobs that we have seen in our streets and, fundamentally, to defend our police. What is it that the mob wants? It is hard to answer. There is a disparate set of views. Some have called them anarchists. They don't really have anarchy in mind; they just don't agree on which leftwing ideology they want to support. But they also are obeying their leaders. They are doing what their leaders have sent them to do. One of our House colleagues, in June of 2018, said: ``You get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them, and you tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere.'' Isn't that exactly what the mob is doing? Little old ladies trying to have a meal on a sidewalk here in our Nation's Capital have people shouting at them--mob intimidation. And it gets much worse, as my colleague, Mrs. Wagner, just highlighted. Nine police officers shot just in St. Louis alone. We all saw the horrific attacks in Los Angeles over the weekend--unprovoked, unjustified, unjustifiable, indefensible, yet people defend them and are reluctant to condemn them. This is what the mob is doing. This is not the First Amendment. This is not the right of the people to assemble peaceably. And our law enforcement protect that right. They defend freedom. They protect and defend our communities. They do it heroically with bravery every day and, so often, thanklessly. We are right to give them thanks. They put their lives in harm's way. And they call out their colleagues when they can when they break the trust of their departments. We do need to reform some laws. We do need to hold some individuals accountable, but the idea that we can lay at the feet of all police these charges that are made is abhorrent. So we need to defend our police. We need to defend our First Amendment freedoms to assemble peaceably, and we need to reject the cries of the mobs.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the formation of the Sound Money Caucus. Together, we will study and highlight the impact of monetary and fiscal policy on the United States dollar as a store of value and a means of exchange. As you can see, the supply of dollars has gone up dramatically, really since the gold standard ended in 1971. It is a gradual slope. But if you see since the recession, it has been aggressive. And then, obviously, here, this year, it has been nearly vertical. The value of the dollar is critical. That is the store of value for all Americans. I am pleased to be joined by Co-Chairman Andy Barr, and Members like Brady, Budd, and Zeldin. We look forward to working with everyone to highlight the importance of sound money.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, as the majority leader well knows better than most of us in the room, for a bill to become law, the President of the United States must sign it, and he has made clear that he is not going to sign this product. So, it is a complete waste of everyone's time to send over a bill that has no chance to become law. Rather than make this bill better, rather than make this bill something that could become law, we are going to run out the clock on more broken process. Why are we going to do that? We are going to do that because the people who are working to preserve the broken status quo of warrantless spying on American citizens want to keep that status quo in place. So, rather than allow real reform, we have had a process that bypassed the Judiciary Committee. When Chairman Nadler realized he didn't have the votes to move his own product through the committee, he pulled the whole committee process. In a committee process, amendments would be able to be offered, and because they knew the amendments would be offered in accordance with the rules of the House and would be adopted if they were given a chance to vote, they had to pull it. So, they didn't run it through the committee. The people who are represented by all 435 of us in this body had no chance to have their voices heard in a regular process. Leadership jammed through this broken bill to try to put some window dressing of reform on it. Some of them are important; they are better than the status quo. But they are just modest reforms. That is why they had so much support from the people who want to preserve it. Then, when there was a real reform, you saw that drop off. Then, when there was the Lofgren-Davidson amendment that really would reform it and stop warrantless spying on Americans' internet browser data, when it was spying on Americans, they stopped it--not a single vote on an amendment in the people's House of the United States of America to preserve and protect the freedoms guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment. Yes, we must make our Nation secure. But we must do it constitutionally in full compliance with the Bill of Rights. No one is exempt, Article I, Article II, or Article III.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. This bill is a Band-Aid, and it doesn't even cover the wound. It is better than no bandage, but it won't stop the bleeding in our economy, and it won't stop this virus. In light of COVID-19 and the reaction to it, Congress urgently needs to lead by example and get into full session safely, but fully functional, laser focused, 24/7, in full compliance with the House rules for debate, amendment, and voting. Every one of us has a duty to balance and consider public health and our economy, but every single one of us swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution, to defend freedom and represent our constituents. It is time to support and defend it. It is time for us to occupy this House and man our duty station and win.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I don't think anyone is happy about the present situation. But the free market did not close the economy. The governments chose that response to an exceptional risk to public health. The various governments that make up our country need to make sure that individuals, families, and businesses affected by their unprecedented decisions remain solvent and that as many people as possible remain employed. Like any war, the enemy votes, too, but the sooner we can get lower risk Americans back to work, the safer most people will feel. In our response, we must always defend our values and the way of life that makes America the world's land of opportunity. God bless you all.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise to caution my colleagues about this false dilemma of security versus freedom and about supporting and defending our Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic by abridging the rights and freedoms protected by our Constitution. I want to applaud, frankly, the behind-the-scenes folks on the committees who worked hard to make this bill better than the status quo. Many of my colleagues will look at this, and, frankly, that has been the argument by the ranking member and the chairman that this bill really isn't that good of a bill, that it is really not what we should do, but it is better than the status quo. Too often that is what happens here. I think that might leave people with the false perception that we couldn't do better. But the reality is there is bipartisan agreement and bicameral agreement on the Safeguarding Americans' Private Records Act. The bill that the committee was going to move forward with was pulled. The committee process didn't take place because there was a bipartisan coalition of conservatives and progressives who had a plan to amend the bill. It may, in fact, have been a completely different bill. We also didn't take it through committee. We also didn't allow any amendments, so numerous good amendments weren't even able to be considered, amendments like the confess your transgressions amendment that would say that, of all these agencies that report, the Director of National Intelligence would say: What has been done to discipline people who access these records in violation of statute? My colleague, Mr. Biggs, highlighted the real problem. There is one standard for everyday Americans and a different one for the powerful and connected. Our Justice Department needs to hold someone accountable. Whether it is in my district, in a Republican district, or one of my colleagues' districts, in a Democratic district, we get the same question: When is someone going to jail? We need to know that the law is being followed, that Lady Justice does have a blindfold on, and that there is one standard. This falls far short of that, and it is not the standard that should be used against American citizens; therefore, it is not the standard that should be used to secure our country.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 5003, the Fair Debt Collection Practices for Servicemembers Act, sponsored by Representative Dean, which passed the House unanimously. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill and was glad to vote for it. As a former Army infantry officer, I have seen debt collectors harass servicemembers. This is made worse by collectors who contact servicemembers' superiors. The U.S. military does not owe these debts; they are the debt of the servicemember. So why should debt collectors be in contact with someone who does not owe the debt? From a readiness perspective, our commanding officers and noncommissioned officers should be focused on training our soldiers to fight and win our Nation's wars, not on keeping track of who owes what money to what debt collector. Just as debt collectors cannot humiliate civilians by calling their bosses, neither should they be allowed to use such practices on our fighting men and women. I am glad to see that we can all agree that collection companies should abide by the same rules and restrictions for enlisted servicemembers as they do when collecting debts from private citizens. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Senate to take up this bill immediately.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank my colleagues who have taken the time tonight to speak in defense of life. Next week, a beautiful, peaceful protest will take place here in Washington, D.C., the March for Life, in which not tens but hundreds of thousands of Americans will gather, including many from the Eighth District of Ohio. When I have looked across that vast crowd in the past on the National Mall, I have been filled with hope for our future because the faces in that crowd are overwhelmingly young people. The younger generations are increasingly pro-life. They feel the effects of more than 60 million elective abortions carried out in America since 1973. These 60 million lives had so much potential. They could have been someone's spouse, brother, sister. They would have been mothers and fathers in their own right, but their lives were snuffed out by abortion. We should, of course, have compassion for the women whose babies' lives have ended through abortion. Too often, they lacked support, been pressured or deceived into a fateful choice to end their baby's life. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to honor and encourage women like Mya, the mother of Ohio State running back J.K. Dobbins, who chose life courageously. Next week is different. We celebrate a different vision, a hopeful, optimistic vision. The youth will rise up, and by the grace of God, I will be there with them to say: It is time to end the abortion culture in America and defend the right to life.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today one last time to ask the House to drop these charges against our duly elected President, if, for no other reason, because the process that they have used has been the exact partisan process that was just condemned on the floor by people who were the first to call for impeaching the President, the Speaker of this body. This is a 2.5-year endeavor, in spite of it being only a few months after the call to Ukraine that is supposedly the abuse of power that the President engaged in. As for the other charge, they say that it was obstruction of justice, but the House didn't even bother to enforce its own subpoenas. The impeachment process boldly broke with that of Presidents Nixon and Clinton. The urgency was so great that the House declined to enforce its subpoenas and relied on shaky evidence, trying to move swiftly so they didn't lose the momentum. Now, when they realize they haven't made the case--not just that it will be needed in the Senate, but for the American people, first and foremost--they want to strong-arm the Senate into adopting the same unfair partisan course charted here in the House. Fortunately, it doesn't work like that. Voters deserve better from our House of Representatives, but it is not the House's prerogative to dictate the rules of the Senate. This partisan impeachment should be dropped today. This political charade is a waste of taxpayer dollars. It is unfair to the President of the United States or anyone else to be treated beneath the law. Certainly no one is above the law, but the President of the United States is certainly not beneath the law. Rather than give in to our worst partisan inclinations, Congress should strive to work together on real policies that will benefit all of the American people.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. It is an honor to stand in support of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. Trade is a vital part of our economy. It has made America the world's land of opportunity. We have been a vital part of the world's economy. Certainty is needed in trade right now. This deal certainly isn't perfect, but far too often here in Congress we let perfect become the enemy of good. Frankly, we have a choice between no NAFTA, NAFTA, or an improved NAFTA, so it is not a hard multiple choice test. It is an improvement, and I look forward to continuing to work to advance the cause of capitalism and free trade in the United States of America. Opportunities are going to make things better for Ohio's Eighth District, from manufacturing to agriculture, to financial services, and I thank everyone who has had a hand in making this come to fruition.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I have heard numerous colleagues say they didn't run for Congress to impeach the President. Well, maybe not originally, but, unfortunately, from the moment proceedings began, after the fourth vote to launch an impeachment inquiry, today's vote was inevitable. Many of them campaigned on it. I love this country with a soldier's passion. I came here to defend freedom, not to deny due process to anyone. I came here to solve problems and change the broken status quo, not to distract or disrupt those, like President Donald Trump, who deliver on promises to put America back on the path of peace and prosperity that has made and kept our country free. For months now, Americans have heard speculation about the President's motives in Ukraine. Despite months of effort, dozens of hearings, and countless documents, Americans have not seen proof that the President committed a high crime or a misdemeanor. We have a republic, if we can keep it. This is a disgraceful and dishonest process. It is a discredit to this body and to our Nation. Madam Speaker, I urge the House to drop these divisive Articles of Impeachment and get to work for the American people.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, first, let me say Republicans unanimously voted to support the Waters-McHenry bipartisan deal to strengthen the Export-Import Bank and combat Chinese aggression, but we will not support this partisan bill. This is yet another do-nothing amendment offered by the Democrats so they can send out a press release claiming they care about national security or, in this case, the opioid crisis. In fact, it is a poison pill meant to counter an amendment that will be offered shortly. ``Amend and pretend'' is going to be a running theme during this debate. Like another measure offered today by Mrs. Torres, Mr. McAdams' amendment would simply require Ex-Im users to self-certify that they are not breaking the law by violating opioid trafficking sanctions. This way, Democrats can claim that they don't like opioids. See how it works? They push this bill. It means nothing. Criminals, of course, are going to say: No. Who, me? I wouldn't violate the law. The real opioid measure that we have before us today is being offered by me shortly. Mr. McAdams' amendment would actually prevent Ex-Im assistance from going to foreign governments that significantly contribute to opioid trafficking if those governments fail to cooperate with U.S. antinarcotics efforts. That is a serious amendment. It prevents taxpayer-backed financing from going to governments that help to poison taxpayers. It is logical. Unfortunately, my opioid trafficking amendment was so logical that Democrats opposed it in committee and have pledged to oppose it here on the floor shortly. Again, this McAdams amendment is about a press release for Democrats, so amend and pretend it is today with the McAdams amendment. I want to be clear that I do not oppose the amendment, but I am opposed and disappointed that my Democratic colleagues have offered another amendment that is another stunt provision for this dead-end bill. We had a bipartisan path forward, and Democrats are wasting floor time with this bill that will never be enacted to law. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.