Rodney Davis

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember John Curtin of Taylorville. John was my neighbor, a farmer, and active community member, who was our longtime county board chair, and he passed away on March 10 of 2021. John began farming in Christian County in 1957. He served 12 years as the cattle superintendent at the Illinois State Fair and president of the Illinois Angus Association. In 1984, he was designated master farmer by Prairie Farmer. John was a dedicated servant and leader to his community. And as I mentioned, he served on the county board as chair, but he was on the board for 40 years. The Taylorville Chamber of Commerce awarded him with a lifetime achievement award in recognition of his community service. John was a fellow parishioner within the Holy Trinity Catholic parish as part of St. Mary's in Stonington, in Taylorville, and his legacy will be remembered forever. My prayers are with his brothers, six children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. Honoring Todd Hanneken

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Illinois State Trooper, Todd Hanneken, of Decatur, Illinois, who lost his life on March 25. Todd fulfilled his lifelong dream of becoming a state trooper. He was a 20-year veteran of the Illinois State Police and always went above and beyond the call of duty. In 2018, Todd was awarded the Illinois State Police Medal of Honor for heroic actions he took to rescue a man out of a burning car, ultimately saving that man's life. For so many, Todd was more than a state trooper. He was a husband, father, son, brother, and beloved friend. Those that knew Todd will remember him for his kindness and compassion. Todd cared deeply about his community, always wanting to help others in need. A tragic accident took Todd's life, and my prayers are with his friends and family, both at home and with the State Police, and particularly his wife, Shelley; and sons, Ben and Nick. Todd was a hero in every sense of the word and will truly be missed.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the retirement of a true servant of the House, Joe Novotny. A familiar voice that we all know so well, Joe served Congress for 29 years at both the committee and the institutional level, becoming a recognizable and reliable part of the House legislative process as the Reading Clerk. Joe's career started as a House Page and led him to positions on the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on Education and Labor. In 2010, Joe joined the Clerk's organization as Reading Clerk, where this Chamber has enjoyed his voice and diligence for over a decade. When asking the many teams who work with him how they would describe Joe, the word that came up repeatedly was ``teammate.'' As a dedicated public servant with nearly three decades of experience and knowledge, Joe's attention to detail, mentorship, humor, and kindness made him an asset and a friend to every team he has been a part of. From his restaurant recommendations to stories about seeing his favorite bands play live on weekends, Joe will not only be missed by his colleagues in Legislative Operations, but by all of us who know him as part of this Chamber. I would like to wish Joe well in his retirement and celebrate his commitment to serving this body so ably for so many years. Congratulations, Joe.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Vincent Speranza, a 101st Airborne Division paratrooper, a Battle of the Bulge legend, and now a frequent flyer out of the Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport in Springfield, Illinois. Mr. Speranza is 95 years old and usually flies out of Abraham Lincoln on his way to travel the world or to jump out of airplanes like last year with the U.S. Army's Golden Knights. Just a few weeks ago, I had the honor of being on the same flight as he was. TSA Officers Martin Derhake and Deanna Victor love Mr. Speranza and know he will always have a new story to brighten their day and lift their spirits. Mr. Speranza grew up in Staten Island but now lives in Sherman, Illinois. He became a paratrooper after basic training and joined the 101st just prior to the Battle of the Bulge, where his actions have cemented his legacy to this day. Mr. Speranza filled up his Army helmet with beer from a tap in Bastogne for his friend who was wounded. Later, Airborne Beer was born because of Speranza's efforts. Madam Speaker, I urge you to look this story up if you haven't already. I thank Mr. Speranza for his service to our country, for the way his presence brightens everyone's day, and for helping his fellow troops find a beer during the Battle of the Bulge. Cheers to many more years, my friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed. Amendments En Bloc No. 4 Offered by Ms. Lofgren of California.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, before I reserve, can I make a parliamentary inquiry? When a mask falls down unintentionally from a speaker, what is the rule?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Is this being enforced equally on the majority and minority?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. So I should ask the second-rate parliamentarian off the floor?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the en bloc. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), a good friend and a problem solver.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a summary of letters submitted yesterday by the Institute for Free Speech and others opposing H.R. 1. Institute for Free Speech, March 3, 2021. Re H.R. 1 Would Greatly Harm Free Speech. Dear Representative: The Institute for Free Speech strongly opposes H.R. 1, the Orwellian For the People Act. More appropriately known as the For the Politicians Act, this radical bill would, in fact, greatly harm the ability of the people to freely speak, publish, organize into groups, and petition their elected representatives in pursuit of a better government. In particular, H.R. 1 would impose onerous and unworkable standards on the ability of Americans and groups of Americans to discuss the policy issues of the day with elected officials and the public. Certain sections of the bill would violate the privacy of advocacy groups and their supporters, limit political speech on the internet, and compel speakers to recite lengthy government-mandated messages identifying some of their supporters by name in their communications. Importantly, these restrictions would reach far beyond campaign speech to regulate discussion of legislative issues and public affairs. For advocacy groups, unions, and trade associations, several of the limits proposed in H.R. 1 would operate as a total ban on speech If signed into law, all of these provisions would be interpreted and enforced by a newly partisan Federal Election Commission. Under H.R. 1, the Commission would be radically transformed from its historic and deliberately bipartisan structure to one under partisan control of the president. As nine former members of the Federal Election Commission with a combined 60 plus years of service warned in a recent letter to Congress, the likely impact would be to shrink public confidence in the impartial enforcement of campaign finance laws, weaponize these regulations for partisan gain, and silence much political speech through new rules on groups that speak about public affairs H.R. 1 would also force Americans to pay for speech they oppose. This new financing system is a riverboat gamble on an untested--and costly--scheme that would have many unforeseen effects. Existing research has proven that similar schemes elsewhere have failed to achieve proponents' stated goals. Instead, the program will likely incentivize--and subsidize-- candidates with hateful messages, create new avenues for corruption, increase polarization, give government greater control over campaigns, waste tax dollars, and fail markedly at improving the quality of governance or the diversity of those who are elected to higher office At its core, H.R. 1 would greatly increase the already high legal and administrative compliance costs, liability risk, and costs to donor and associational privacy for civic groups that speak about policy issues. Organizations will be further deterred from speaking or will have to divert additional resources away from their advocacy activities to pay for compliance staff and lawyers. Some groups will not be able to afford these costs or will violate the law unwittingly. The effect will be less speech by Americans and organizations, allowing politicians to act with less accountability to public opinion and criticism. Few bills are more antithetical to the text of and principles underlying the First Amendment than H.R. 1. The numerous, overlapping, and interrelated provisions in this legislation combine to impose and tighten severe government controls on speech about campaigns, judicial nominees, and policy issues in truly shocking ways. Any American lacking expertise in campaign finance law would have little to no hope of understanding this bill or the voluminous restrictions it proposes on political speech and association. The sad result will be a political discourse dominated by Washington, DC insiders. Far from being For the People, H.R. 1 is truly For the Politicians. The best way to give the American people a voice and to safeguard democracy is to protect and enhance the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. While the Institute takes no position on the myriad provisions in H.R. 1 that deal with election administration, voting rights, and redistricting, the portions of H.R. 1 that trample on free speech are sufficient to warrant our firm opposition to this measure. For the above reasons, the Institute for Free Speech strongly opposes passage of H.R. 1. Sincerely, David Keating, President.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Naples, Florida, (Mr. Donalds), my good friend, who represents many of my former constituents from Illinois who have left Illinois because of overtaxation.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), another great friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), a mediocre friend, not a great friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon), another mediocre friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who can take you on a tour of the best Philly cheesesteak places in the world.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), my good friend and best- dressed member of our conference.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, over the last couple of days, I have spoken a lot about my opposition to this bill's creation of a public fund filled with dollars from corporate fines to directly fund the campaign coffers of every Member of this institution and candidates. And my Democrat colleagues have continued to say this isn't public funding or corporate donations because it is corporate fines. So what is the truth? I think my chart here tells the story. So we have corporate fines. That is corporate dollars, something that we, as Members of Congress in our campaigns, cannot accept right now. Those corporate dollars that pay these corporate fines that we set the levels of in this institution, they then go to the U.S. Government in this new--that H.R. 1 creates--the Freedom From Influence Fund. It is really a laundering machine. So they launder that corporate money that we cannot accept right now into the Treasury and it comes out clean as public money. It is money that used to be used for things like the Crime Victims Fund. Instead, this new laundered money, this taxpayer money--because it is public, it is under the control of us-- then goes out exponentially to all of us, to our campaigns to pay for attack ads, fundraisers, mailers, phone calls, whatever you want. But either way, it is government spending--government sending corporate dollars directly to us. This is, and should be, prohibited, but H.R. 1 changes that and it puts more money into politics and not less. How about the Crime Victims Fund or victims of domestic violence get these dollars? Let's make sure that we address programs that deal with sexual assault, child abuse, and other crimes. This money will not go into the Crime Victims Fund because it is going to all of us. All 50 State attorneys general have told us that this vital Crime Victims Fund is nearly depleted. But instead of plussing it up, here we are today, funding our own campaigns with a ``yes'' vote. Madam Speaker, this bill isn't for the people. It is for the politicians. This is why I am offering a motion to recommit so that we can put forward a bill that works for the American people. Madam Speaker, if we adopt this motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on House Administration to consider an amendment to remove all public financing from this legislation. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, it is one reason I am opposed to H.R. 1, and giving Democrats another chance to join me, stopping this charade, stopping enriching themselves in their own campaign. This is one last chance before you do it again. Madam Speaker, another reason I oppose H.R. 1 is because the election mandates on States in this bill go against what our Founding Fathers intended and essentially nationalizes our election system. If signed into law, H.R. 1 would be the greatest expansion of the Federal Government's role in our elections than we have ever seen. By moving these decisions to D.C., we are further removing people from the laws that govern their elections. People should have more say in how their elections are run, not less. Our goal is to always ensure all eligible voters are able to vote and all lawful votes are counted. That is not what H.R. 1 does. And the only witness who has run an election before said during the single House Administration hearing held on this bill that H.R. 1 will undermine many of the election laws States have put into place to make it easier for people to vote and improve their election process for their voters. One-size-fits-all mandates from Washington will not fix the problems we have seen in elections across the country. They will just cause more chaos and confusion. These issues need to be solved at the local and State level. Instead of dictating to States, we should be working with them and localities to address these issues. And I stand ready and willing to work with my Democrat colleagues to do just that, but I will not vote for a Federal takeover of elections and I will not vote to use the Federal Government to put more money into my campaign. It is bad policy and it is bad for the American people. Madam Speaker, I urge support for the motion to recommit at the appropriate time, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I would like to request a meeting with the Parliamentarian. I personally witnessed one of my Democratic colleagues immediately remove his mask and was never told to put it back on from the Chair at the time. So all we ask for is consistency. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. I urge support for the motion to recommit. I urge my Democratic colleagues: Don't vote to put money into your own campaigns. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.