Rodney Davis

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Graves for yielding and for leading the charge on this committee and the fight against this partisan bill. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we stand before you today debating a partisan surface transportation bill which includes $1 trillion worth of airdropped provisions, many of which do not even fall under the jurisdiction of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In years past, surface reauthorization has been a very bipartisan affair. This is because we knew then, as we know now, that a partisan bill will lead to failure. Over the past year, in every conversation I have had with transportation stakeholders, the resounding message was: Please, pass a long-term bill and avoid an extension. Unfortunately, the process that has played out ever since the Democrats introduced their surface transportation bill has pointed to only one conclusion: We are being set up for an extension. This is unacceptable, as an extension doesn't provide the clarity and certainty a long-term reauthorization provides to our States and to our local communities. Mr. Speaker, today, you are going to hear from Democrats that they couldn't negotiate with us because our party wouldn't engage on climate issues. Let's be clear: This isn't a case of Republicans rejecting outreach from Democrats. I have had conversations with the chairman months ago, expressing my willingness to work on every issue. So instead of saying that Republicans wouldn't engage on climate issues, let's get it straight, as it was Democrats who wouldn't engage with Republicans. Now, I know, just like every other bill that comes through this House, obviously, a partisan reauthorization bill clearly is President Trump's fault. President Trump wanted to do infrastructure. Well, now is our chance. Instead of actually following the partisan processes that the majority criticizes that the White House does, they implement their own partisan process. And when you talk about climate, the United States of America is the only country that has actually reached our emission standards in the Paris climate accord. We are doing our job as America, but let's stop sacrificing our roads and our crumbling bridges to the Green New Deal activists who don't want to talk about what America has done successfully to attack climate change already. Let's stop with the climate change issue, where $2 of every $5 of this bill goes to Green New Deal priorities. Let's start talking about roads and bridges, how to solidify our highway trust fund, how to make sure that we have a long-term approach to a stable and less-volatile highway trust fund. If we are going to have another infrastructure week, unfortunately, this infrastructure week is going to turn out just like the ones before: It is going to be a failure. Because of this partisan bill, we are going to come up to the September 30 deadline for this current bill. Instead of moving forward in a bipartisan way, this infrastructure week is going to turn out like the rest of them. Let's go back to the drawing board. Let's negotiate a bipartisan bill. It is the only chance we have to avoid costly extensions.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, Members' personal information on these roundtables has already been viewed publicly; Members being dropped from platforms because of poor connections; Members being unable to participate in web-based events due to poor internet connections in rural areas. And the list goes on. I mention these examples not to say that all virtual proceedings cannot or should not be authorized, but I share these issues as further proof that the ``crawl, walk, run'' approach is necessary to make sure that virtual proceedings are done successfully. In closing, I would like to reiterate what I shared at the Rules Committee hearing yesterday. I want to encourage all of us to take a step back. I want to make sure that we don't have a precedent set that will create a brand-new process. We are not here simply debating an outdated rule, Madam Speaker. We are here debating what kind of institution we want the people's House to be and the example that we want to set for the American people and the rest of the world. If we vote to adopt H. Res. 965, we are setting a new precedent that will forever change the processes that are used in the House of Representatives. It opens a Pandora's box, and it provides constitutional risks. And in times of crisis, Americans should trust their leaders. Vote ``no'' on H. Res. 965.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to the underlying legislation, H. Res. 965. The process that led to this debate is unacceptable. After a previous failed attempt to bring a similar rules-change package to the floor last month, I was hopeful that the work of the bipartisan task force to reopen the House would result in a genuine willingness toward bipartisan solutions. I was optimistic that our Democratic majority would partner with us to help this body adapt to the coronavirus pandemic. We Republicans on that task force offered a realistic framework to make responsible, measured, and thorough reforms to get the whole House working again. That plan was dismissed out of hand by the Democratic majority, with no alternative. It was not until Wednesday morning, just two days ago, with the release of H. Res. 965, that we saw any semblance of a plan, and in no way was it a product of bipartisanship or greater Member input. The majority's unwillingness to work in a collaborative way was reinforced yesterday at the Rules Committee hearing when not one commonsense amendment offered by the minority was accepted. Commonsense amendments like: Requiring the technology used by the House to be certified by the CAO; rejected. Requiring technical support during virtual committee activity; rejected. Allowing the entire House of Representatives to weigh in on the type of remote voting this body follows; rejected. Not only is this resolution completely partisan, it is being rushed to the floor while there is still an unacceptable amount of unanswered questions, both on the specifics of the processes authorized in the rules changes and the technology to support it. I know that this morning, at 6 a.m., we were provided a copy of the regulations that the Rules Committee plans on issuing. Is that the same type of consultation that we can expect for the remote hearing changes that are left to one Member of the majority to decide? The House is on the receiving end of 1.6 billion unauthorized scans on our network per month. After broadcasting to the world that Members are going to now be able to cast their vote or operate in this institution remotely, I don't know about you, Madam Speaker, but I expect those to increase. What further reduces my confidence in these sweeping changes that will not have their stated effect is the feedback from virtual committee roundtables that have already been attempted by every committee. There have been instances of the majority staff kicking participants off video conferences because they had not RSVP'd. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a list of the concerns that our ranking members have provided me on the House Administration Committee. [From Committee on House Administration Ranking Member Rodney Davis] Republican Ranking Members Express Significant Concerns With Democrats Proposal To Allow for Virtual Committee Proceedings Virtual Committee Proceedings inhibit the ability of Members to fully participate Remote platforms give the majority, typically in the hands of a junior technical staffer not even co-located with the Chairman, the ability to control who can speak or even be heard by other participants. Other potential inhibitors could include a member's lack of familiarity with the platform, lack of training, inadequate resources (i.e., hardware, software, reception and connectivity especially in rural areas), and user errors like inadvertently pressing the mute button. Virtual proceedings create an inability of Members to be able to effectively interact and have conversations in person with each other and with staff. Members won't have the same opportunity to interact with each other in real-time that they do with in person hearings. This puts the minority at a distinct disadvantage because the majority controls the content and the schedule. Minority strategy is always a last- minute engagement and often is still forming as the hearing begins. Remote proceedings depend on the reliability various technology elements. If anyone fails, members can't fully participate. Pre and post hearing engagement with witnesses, other members, staff, and press will be lost. A lot of work is done immediately before or after hearings in terms of connecting with people. All of that time, connection, relationship building will be gone. Every Ranking Member who responded to a recent survey expressed some level of concern over their members ability to fully participate. Virtual Committee Proceedings Raise Many Parliamentary Issues Many rules aren't self-executing, and members may have limited time to raise objections. Once the time has passed, the opportunity is lost. For example, a point of order regarding the germaneness of an amendment must be made when the amendment is offered. After reading the amendment is dispensed with, the opportunity to object is lost. The Majority already has demonstrated a great capacity to ignore points of order, parliamentary inquiries, and privileged motions. Since they will be controlling the technology, how will Minority members ever get a chance to even raise these procedural points? It is unclear if current technologies have the capability to have a clearly visible timer which will create challenges enforcing time limits in a clear and transparent way. Issues will arise without parliamentarians and counsels in the room to advise on amendments, motions, objections, and points of order. Virtual Committee Proceedings Increase the Risk of the Politicization of Official Committee Business Traditionally, there is a clear separation between official business and campaign work. This is particularly the case immediately before the general election, when the House generally takes about a month off to go campaign. This creates an important break between official hearings and legislative activity. With remote proceedings, there's less reasons the majority couldn't respond to some less than positive polling results by marking up newly introduced legislation that could make an impact in key districts leading up to an election. Virtual Committee Proceedings Jeopardize the Integrity of Proceedings and Raise Major Cybersecurity Concerns Requiring Members to be present to vote ensure Members are fully and transparently voting on their own volition. There is no question of technological/cybersecurity problems interfering with Members votes and there is no question as to whether the vote was cast by the Member or by a third party. Remote proceedings do not guarantee the same level of transparency and accountability. Experiences of Committees with Unofficial Virtual Committee Meetings so far Lend Credence to these Concerns. Over 80 percent of Committees who responded to a survey responded that their committee had held unofficial committee meetings virtually over the past couple of months. Those meetings experienced numerous issues including: People getting dropped or unable to unmute themselves in a timely manner. Majority staff kicking people off if their numbers were not RSVP'd. This could be a concern in the future if Members or staff call in from an unrecognizable or un-RSVP'd phone number. Members personal information almost released publicly due to platforms displaying the phone numbers of people on the call. A Member who couldn't participate because of inadequate internet connection. Unauthorized individuals accessing a meeting. One committee attempted to hold a roundtable and experienced such significant technical glitches that called into question whether the bipartisan roundtable could even occur. It took some participants up to 30 minutes to join the Cisco Webex video chat while others could join with only with audio or never participate at all. Once connected, many participants could not tell who was speaking or even controlling the video or microphone settings. A third-party moderator was unaware until the end of the call that typed questions were being submitted by users throughout the conference for speakers to answer. For another committee, the technical issues have been so bad that Member participation in recent calls has steadily declined with less than 30 percent of the Committee's members participating in the most recent virtual meeting. Safeguards Must be Adopted to Ensure Minority Rights and Security of any Official Committee Proceeding Held Virtually There needs to be a backup method of communication, independent of the primary platform, so that members can contact the Chair directly in the event the platform fails. There must be clear rules and conditions developed in a bi- partisan way on control of audio/visual with respect to rights of minority. An independent IT operator should be mandatory for any remote proceedings. Video feeds should be equally accessible by both parties to ensure that no one can censor or edit official proceedings after the fact. Members should not be forced to participate in committee activity over a technology platform when they are capable and willing to attend in person. Committees should always allow Members to participate by simply showing up to a hearing room in one of the House Office buildings. All other House Rules should remain in effect. If committees are unable to guarantee procedural safeguards in the rules, they should not be permitted to use technology to deny Members procedural protections. Technology should permit staff work. Committee staff engage in a lot of real-time work during hearings and markups. The technology should facilitate some ability for committee staff to continue to assist Members in ``real-time.'' There needs to be additional information on the security of the platform to be used and assurances that each Member has the connectivity needed to support the meetings.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. One can only assume, Mr. Speaker, that this is only for political gain. That is only one of the egregious provisions. The bottom line is, election day is less than 6 months away. States don't have enough time to implement these egregious election rules. Last week, I received a letter from over 800 professors telling me to vote for this bill. A little research showed that 400 of them are donors to Democrats. This is why this bill is politically motivated. It is a takeover of the elections at the national level. We need to vote ``no'' on this.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. House Democrats are once again taking advantage of a national emergency to push their own political agenda. We shouldn't be surprised, as we have seen them push their wish list at every turn. We saw their attempts to federalize elections in H.R. 1; we saw it during the last coronavirus relief package negotiation; and we are seeing it again now. They are using the HEROES Act to nationalize election policy, not to help Americans vote, but to serve their own interests on election day. This entire package would cost taxpayers $3 trillion, and at least $23 million of that would be going toward their federal elections takeover. Congress has already given $1.25 billion to States since 2018, $400 million alone to help States prepare for their elections amid this pandemic. What the Democrats are proposing is outrageous. They are also requiring all States to adopt ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting, in the way House Democrats are trying to use it, is when any individual can pick up any voter's ballot for any reason and deliver it to the polling place, completely unchecked. They don't have to provide their name. They don't have to show their ID. They don't have to be a resident of the State. They don't have to be an American citizen. Why would we force States to allow for people who aren't even eligible to vote to then handle their voters' ballots? This practice is so wrought with fraud that I released a report this week, before consideration of this bill, to highlight how ballot harvesting is being misused. It is a summary of 18 months of work by the House Administration Republicans on this issue. We found that this practice is one of the greatest threats to our ballot integrity. In addition to this bill jeopardizing ballot integrity, it would also jeopardize people's health. How will ballot harvesting follow social distancing practices? Not to mention, allowing political operatives to pick up ballots is not necessary when mail ballots may have prepaid postage. Why does a ballot broker need to go door to door to pick up a ballot when you can mail it in for free?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Brady and Chairman Neal. I really appreciate the opportunity to come here to once again remind our colleagues that, if there is one thing that we ought to do right in this institution, it is to help Americans recover from a disaster that they didn't ask for. We did that by coming together for the CARES Act. The PPP program in Illinois, alone, has made 69,893 loans to our Main Street businesses, worth almost $16 billion. But I want to tell you about one person who still has a need: Lindy McDonald of Myler Automotive Repair in Champaign, Illinois. She kept all of her employees. She is keeping her business going even though customers are down. She is still in the queue to get funded by what we do today. Vote ``yes'' for this legislation, and I thank you for the bipartisanship.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, I want all of my colleagues to make sure that before we leave this floor today, after, hopefully, passing this piece of legislation, that we thank every staff member who works for the House, who makes sure that this House is clean, and who makes sure that this House operates. They are here sitting there in the well, and they are here in our hallways. They are doing the jobs that allow us to do our job. On behalf of everyone here, I thank them for what they do every single day. It is important. The first vote that I took on this House floor--one of the first--was for Superstorm Sandy relief. My good friend, Mr. Van Drew, sitting next to me here, I am sure had more of a frontline view as a State senator in New Jersey at the time as to what kind of impact that disaster assistance had on the ground to those Americans who were hurting. I went back and took criticism from many in the media and some in my own party, and I said one thing. I said: If there is one job that we as Congress should do and do well, it is to help Americans recover from a disaster that they didn't ask for. We are in the midst of the worst economic disaster that we have seen in my lifetime. Mr. Speaker, 3\1/2\ weeks ago, we were in an economy with economic growth and historic low sustained unemployment that we all promised the American people we would deliver together. In less than 3\1/2\ weeks, this economic disaster has hit many industries. I can say, as I flew out this morning from St. Louis to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, there were two Members of Congress on the plane out of the total of four passengers. If you don't think that industry is on the brink of collapse, I urge you to use it right now, and you will see. But it is our Main Street businesses and our Main Street companies that line the streets of every rural community that I represent and line the streets of this great country that are hurting the most. It is their economic disaster. They are being told that they are not able to operate. We need to do better. We need to pass this bill and give them the revenue, the opportunity, and the cash flow to get through this so we can get through this as Americans. Students: You get a chance to defer your loan payments. What is great is, when these businesses recover, they now have the opportunity to tax-free help you pay your student debt. This is what happens when we work together, and these are the things that will happen when we pass this bill. It is not about social media today. It is about helping the American people. Let's do it.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. As my friend said, if we defeat the previous question, we will offer H.R. 6177. Leader McCarthy's bill, H.R. 6177, is simple. It requires Members of Congress to disclose unpaid tax liabilities and garnishments in their annual financial disclosure reports. As we approach tax season, where, under a penalty of fine or prison, we expect every American to file their taxes, those same hardworking Americans deserve to know whether their Representatives are doing the same. And, like the American public, if a Member of this body fails to meet their tax obligations, my bill requires their pay be placed into escrow until their tax obligation is met. This is responsible governing that informs the public and holds all of us accountable. The House should advance this legislation today. This bill falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration, and, as ranking member, I am prepared to work with the Chief Administrative Officer to execute this legislation. Also, as ranking member of the committee, I have seen legislation run through this committee that tried to use the tax dollars of hardworking Americans to fund their own congressional campaigns. Every member of the majority in this room, in this Chamber, cosponsored that bill when it was introduced. This 6-to-1 small dollar match of campaign dollars would have created a mandatory donation from the American taxpayer to each congressional candidate, meaning, for every $200 donated to a campaign, the Federal Government--the taxpayers--would give $1,200 to that Member of Congress' campaign. Imagine if every Member of Congress--not counting all the candidates in each congressional race, just the current 435 Members--received just $1 million in matched funds from the Federal Government, from the taxpayers. That is close to half a billion dollars going just to the campaigns, the political coffers of Members of Congress. If it is the position of the majority party to force Americans to support politicians with their tax dollars and raise the taxes of hardworking families, we should at least let those same Americans know which of us in this body are even paying their own taxes.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), another member of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I can't add anything to what my good friend Robert ``Frank'' Woodall said, so I am going to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, at this point, while he meanders up to the microphone, I would like to say this is our last speaker, but another valued member of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, somebody whom not only the committee is going to miss when he leaves this institution after this term, but this institution is going to miss him. I yield as much time as he would like to consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Timmons), our freshman Member on our side of the aisle on the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my good friend and another member of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 756, the Moving Our Democracy and Congressional Operations Towards Modernization Resolution. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan resolution is an important one that I believe will improve the day-to-day operations of the House. I first want to thank Chairman Kilmer and Vice Chair Graves for their impressive leadership of the Select Committee on Modernization. I also want to give a special moment of silence in honor of Vice Chair Graves' son, who was in a bad accident on a bicycle. If Members could bear with me to honor Mr. Graves and have a moment of silence to pray for his son's recovery. Mr. Speaker, the tone that has been set at the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress has been a refreshing reminder that there is still a way to work in a truly bipartisan manner, respecting differing opinions across the aisle. Six Members of Congress from each party came together to work toward a common goal: to make this institution better. Americans deserve an efficient and effective legislature. A modernized Congress will increase our ability to respond to the needs of communities; save taxpayer dollars; erase layers of bureaucracy; further professionalize the institution; and revitalize a transparent, understandable, and efficient legislative process. H. Res. 756 is a package of 29 bipartisan recommendations from the select committee's findings on ways to improve Congress. These recommendations will increase public accessibility, modernize the information technology that offices use, streamline human resources, improve training offerings, enhance the ways we can communicate with our constituents, and create more transparency and access to public documents, among other necessary advancements. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud member of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, and as the ranking member at the Committee on House Administration, I look forward to working toward implementing these vital recommendations. While the passage of H. Res. 756 is crucial for improving how the House operates, I know the work is not done. I look forward to being a part of moving additional pieces of legislation the select committee puts forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 87.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Teresa Haley, who was honored as the Activist of the Year at the NAACP Image Awards last week. Teresa is the president of her local NAACP branch in Springfield, Illinois, as well as the first female president of the NAACP Illinois State Conference. She has worked tirelessly to advocate for the Black community in Springfield and issues critical to NAACP members nationwide. I have had the pleasure of working closely with Teresa in an effort to bring national recognition to the 1908 race riot site in Springfield by declaring the site a national monument. Ultimately, the riots that occurred at that site played an integral role in the formation of the NAACP in 1909, just a year after the race riots in Springfield. I am proud to recognize Teresa's fearless leadership, and I look forward to continuing to work with her to bring this national recognition to Springfield, Illinois. Madam Speaker, I congratulate Teresa on this prestigious honor. I am very proud of her.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Reverend Otis Livingston, a decorated veteran and lifelong resident of Decatur, Illinois, who passed away a few weeks ago at the age of 90. With the exception of his military service, Otis spent his entire life in Decatur. He graduated from Decatur Public Schools and spent 33 years working as a lead operator at A.E. Staley's. During the Korean war, Otis served as a combat medic in the 15th Medical Division and the 1st Cavalry Division. For his bravery, Otis was awarded a Bronze Star and a medal from the President of South Korea. Otis was strong in his faith and dedicated himself to serving God and his neighbors. He served in numerous church and community positions, including chaplain for the Macon County Jail. It was in this role that he and his wife were inspired by the need to minister to the incarcerated. They founded Reach Prison Ministry, which has served central Illinois communities for decades. Otis was a very well-loved part of the Decatur community for years. He was a true example of public service, and he led others to faith by his faith. I know the impact he has left on Decatur, and I know that he will be truly missed. Honoring Craig Lindvahl

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Craig Lindvahl, a native of my hometown of Taylorville, who passed away earlier this year after a 4-year battle with pancreatic cancer. Craig was an award-winning educator, filmmaker, composer, and author. He was a teacher in the Teutopolis School District for 34 years. He followed his parents, Ron and Ann, who taught me in the Taylorville schools. My prayers go out to both of them. Craig started the Creating Entrepreneurial Opportunities program in Effingham, a yearlong course for high school students designed to utilize partnerships that provide an overview of business development and processes. Today, over 200 schools offer the program that Craig created for their students. Craig was dedicated to his students. He served on the Illinois State Board of Education, and, in 2015, Craig was honored as the Effingham County Citizen of the Year. He also won an Emmy Award. As many know, Craig's mantra for himself was: ``Who will be better because of what I do today?'' I think it is safe to say that everyone who knew Craig is better for it. He impacted so many throughout his life, and he will not be forgotten.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I support this wonderful piece of legislation. It is talking about leadership. You can't get much better leadership than Chairwoman Maloney. This is an issue she has been tenacious on. It is one I am proud to work with the majority party on. At a time when America doesn't think we are a bipartisan institution, I hope today is one of those instances where they can turn on C-SPAN, or maybe it will get reported in the 24-hour news cycle, but we are going to come together to do something that is great, not just for America but America's history. Madam Speaker, since I have some time left, we are talking about women, strong women who have been a part of this institution. She doesn't know I am doing this because she is sitting right next to me, but we are going to see the retirement of an institution here in this House. Come April 1, my House Administration minority staff is going to lose our institution, our institutional knowledge, Ms. Mary Sue Englund. Mary Sue has worked for government for 31 years, 27 years here in the House. Working with the likes of Bill Thomas makes me look easy, I think. I don't know all the rest of them before I got here, but the chairpersons of the committee before I got here, I know Mary Sue, when I met her, she was working for then-Chair Candace Miller, and she worked for Chairman Gregg Harper. For her to stay on and work with us in the minority, I am honored. It is people like Mary Sue who make this institution great. It is people like Mary Sue who are going to be missed. And it is people like Mary Sue who I enjoy embarrassing today because I didn't tell her I was going to do this. Madam Speaker, if the folks in the gallery would rise today to give Mary Sue the sendoff that she deserves. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Clearly, I will not use that all, but you want to talk about empowered women? I am joined here in this House today by three young ladies who are the daughters of somebody I used to work with when I was a staffer. Ray Fitzgerald died too soon, in 2009. Ray, a former staffer, went back home to Naperville, Illinois. When his youngest daughter, Lucy, was 1, he succumbed to a deadly stomach cancer. Those three girls, along with their mom, Kristin, are fighting the fight to eradicate stomach cancer and working with us each and every day. I am proud to see that we are going to have a museum that is going to recognize the people like Mary Sue and the Fitzgeralds--Kristin, Nora, Maggie, and Lucy. We have to make sure that we continue this fight. Even after today's bipartisanship is shown, we have to make sure that we stand together in a bipartisan way, because if we don't, then we don't have the ability to get a brighter future for Nora, Maggie, and Lucy Fitzgerald, along with their mom, Kristin. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, please, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), my good friend, classmate, a leader on women's issues, and somebody I knew before we both got elected to this institution.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon), who is a fighter for her whole territory.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, speaking of women leaders in this institution, it is bittersweet because she is not coming back after this year, but I stand here and yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), who is my good friend and my classmate from the 2012 and 2013 cycle.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.