Rodney Davis

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ellyn Bullock, a lawyer from Champaign, Illinois, who specializes in adoption. She has been nominated to be an Angels in Adoption honoree by the 2019 Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute. Since 1999, Ellyn has finalized the adoptions of more than 1,800 children. More than half were in the Illinois foster care system and ultimately found permanent homes. She has won the Catholic Charities Friend of Adoption award and has been recognized multiple times by associations for her advocacy of family values and adoptions outside the office. Ellyn and her husband, David, are proud parents of three children: Kyle, Imy, and Charlie. They adopted Kyle and Imy and have acted as guardians of another child. A stable and permanent family is perhaps the most important thing in a child's developing life. Every day, we rely on people like Ellyn to unite families and improve lives. I applaud Ellyn for all of her hard work and for her fighting for families in the 13th District of Illinois.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Edwardsville High School's baseball team on their Class 4A State championship. Edwardsville played Saint Charles North for the title last week, going into extra innings before the Tigers won it all 3-2, claiming their third State championship in school history and their first since 1998. With a 37 win and 5 loss season record, Edwardsville came to the championship game ready to win. At the bottom of the seventh inning, Saint Charles had a 2-1 lead with the bases loaded and no outs. Thanks to a double play, the Tigers tied the game 2-2 and sent the game into extra innings. In the top of the eighth inning, the Tigers stole second base and later laid down a bunt, which led to a close play at the plate, allowing the Tigers to score the winning run. When the Tigers took the field that morning, Coach Tim Funkhouser had 699 career wins. After the game, he came home with number 700 and a State championship. What a way to hit 700 wins in your career. I congratulate Coach Funkhouser and the entire Edwardsville Tiger baseball team on a fantastic season and a well-deserved win. Recognizing Adoption Lawyer Ellyn Bullock

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit. For months, we have heard about the interference in our elections and the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this report right here. But nothing in this bill that we are debating today and voting on today before this body now addresses the concerns that have been raised in this report. Mr. Speaker, nothing in the bill we are debating today addresses the concerns of foreign interference raised in the special counsel's report that I am holding right now. What we know is that Russia attempted to interfere in our 2016 election through a misinformation campaign, email hacking, and by exploring vulnerabilities of registration databases. This is gravely concerning to every Republican and Democrat in this institution. But what does the Federal Government telling States that they must replace their safe, new, and auditable machines have to do with addressing these concerns? What does a hand recount mandate have to do with these concerns? What does recycled paper have to do with these concerns? The tremendous costs associated with these Federal mandates only serve to draw resources away from the real vulnerabilities our States face. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have also represented that Republicans have done nothing to address foreign interference in our elections, and that, Mr. Speaker, is simply not true. In 2017, this country's election infrastructure was designated as critical infrastructure, thereby allowing the Department of Homeland Security to immediately begin offering voluntary assistance to State and local election officials in the form of cybersecurity advisers, assessments, threat detection and prevention tools, information sharing, and incident response. Additionally, the 115th Congress, last Congress, a Republican- controlled Congress, appropriated $380 million to States prior to the 2018 midterms to bolster election security and $26 million to DHS to add additional staff and carry out their assessment efforts, allowing for unprecedented cooperation between DHS and all 50 States and 1,400 localities in 2018. Earlier this year, $33 million was appropriated to DHS to continue these assistance efforts, and earlier this week, the Republicans, my fellow Republicans, Mr. Walker and Mr. Loudermilk, on the House Administration Committee, introduced our own Election Security Assistance Act. So don't tell me we are not taking this seriously. While so much of the focus has been on foreign interference today, we must not forget that we had a Member not seated this Congress following evidence that political operatives illegally harvested unsealed and only partially filled-out ballots. This practice is legal in many States, but as we have seen, it is ripe for fraud and abuse. Republicans have offered multiple amendments to prohibit this practice in H.R. 1 and, now, the SAFE Act, each failing on a party-line vote. If we can't agree that this fraudulent practice should be banned, let us at least agree that foreign nationals should not be harvesting the ballots of American citizens. Right now, a Russian operative could walk freely around States like California, for example, collecting and turning in absentee ballots, completely altering the outcome of an election. But my colleagues have shown no interest in addressing this huge vulnerability simply because it serves their interest only in certain States. This practice invites a constitutional crisis. America, Mr. Speaker, is watching this vote right now. My amendment today would require the chief election official of each State to disclose to the Election Assistance Commission the identity of any known foreign national who has physically handled ballots, machines, or has had unmonitored access to the storage facilities or tabulation centers used to support elections, or even unmonitored access to election-related information or communication technology. This takes an additional step in rooting out foreign interference and lets the process of legislating about election security finally begin. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. Vote to protect our elections from interference from foreign countries like Russia, China, and all others. Vote to preserve the integrity of our ballot, and vote to restore the American people's trust in our institutions. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I am in its current form.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate with 84 votes and could be sent to the President's desk immediately for his signature.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I agree with my distinguished colleague from California that we do need to have the ability for the Department of Homeland Security and our intelligence officials to notify our State and local election officials if they see nefarious activity, but right now under the bill we are debating today, that would not be the case, because in many cases, DHS won't talk to local election officials or State election officials because they don't have security clearances. Our bill, pushed by the Republicans on the House Administration Committee, would allow the communication to take place. You know, we hear a lot of talk about patriotism coming up on the Fourth of July. I believe we are all patriots in this institution, but I believe, also, we have to govern together. We were working on a bipartisan solution to election security, and all of the sudden, we were told no more negotiations. That is not how I thought this institution worked. I thought we could work together. Well, I do want to respond to a couple of comments that my colleague from California made. She may have mentioned H.R. 1. H.R. 1 was the Democrats' attempt to address not only too much money in politics, they said; they also wanted to address election security. Clearly, what H.R. 1 did was do nothing to affect the money that is coming into politics, and it is not doing enough to ensure that our elections are not impacted by foreign entities with nefarious intentions. Our bill today that we hoped could have been debated but was voted down on a party-line vote in the House Administration Committee earlier this week, just a few days ago, we hoped we could have come up with that, that is a bipartisan solution that would have worked. What works, our last speaker said, was this. Clearly, that is not what works. What works isn't voting for a bill like H.R. 1 that votes to put the first ever corporate money directly into every Member of Congress' campaign accounts. What works, clearly, is not taxpayer money to fix that problem when there are not enough corporate malfeasance funds. That is not what the American people wanted. And what would have worked would have been the last administration, the Obama administration, listening to their intelligence agencies and doing something about nefarious activities before the 2016 election, not the day after, when Democrats decided to take this issue on. And then all I ever hear is they are going to blame Mitch McConnell. Well, I had no idea, before 2016, that the Obama administration ceded Presidential authority to the Senate majority leader. I had no idea that happened. Everything is Mitch McConnell's fault, right? He is the one who told the intelligence agencies to stand down. Are you kidding me? And now we hear we should have done something. You are darn right we should have done something. You are darn right the Obama administration should have done something. You are darn right they should have done it when they first heard about it before the 2016 election, and now here we are to fix it. And today's bill is clearly not a fix. We have got some issues, and it is really interesting to see my colleagues from California come up and not want to address a practice like ballot harvesting that is illegal in the State of North Carolina, where a Republican who did it is likely to go to jail for it, but the same process is legal in the State of California--disastrous. You want to talk about trying to determine the outcome of elections? We have put forth amendment after amendment to address ballot harvesting, with complete party-line votes against making sure the process that is illegal in North Carolina that a Republican operative will likely go to jail for is completely legal in States like California. And you want to talk about determining the outcome of an election? Come on. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I really respect my colleague from North Carolina, and I do want to correct him a little bit. I am from Illinois, not Ohio. I would never mistake the gentleman from North Carolina as being from someplace like South Carolina. But the gentleman from North Carolina is a good friend. Look, we all have disagreements on this House floor, but that doesn't mean we are disagreeable when it comes to having good friendships, and I thank him for his courtesies and thank him for his friendship. The State of North Carolina is a great example of why we need to do better, why we ought to go back to the drawing board. Let's take this bill off the floor. Let's get back to bipartisan negotiations, because in States like North Carolina and States like Illinois where local election officials have bought machines, they bought machines, maybe they have current optical scan machines, but the requirement in this bill, as the Oklahoma secretary of state said, the requirement of this bill to have recycled paper through ballots, many of the already purchased optical scan machines that would be required for every local and State election official to purchase after the year 2022 may not be able to read the ballots on recycled paper. So you are going to have to reinvest hard-earned tax dollars where many local communities in our great States have already invested in updating their election security with the most secure election equipment that they felt was going to protect them. Washington should not be telling our local officials what to buy, especially when there are provisions in this bill that make equipment that would fit those guidelines illegal to use or are inoperable even if they have purchased it. We have got to do better. We all want to protect this great Nation. We all want free and fair elections so that every vote is counted and protected. Let's do it together. Let's do it right. Let's make sure we address some DHS concerns. Let's put a cybersecurity assistance unit together like we have tried to do. Let's outlaw ballot harvesting, because I know we have got bipartisan support in working together on that issue, especially with my good friend from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield. I look forward to working with him on this. I know he and I both have concerns about this process, and I thank him for his willingness to sit down and talk. We can do better. The bill on the floor today is not better. Let's do it. Let's work together. Pull this bill off the floor. We have got a lot of other issues to debate today. 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, well, clearly the timekeeper is wrong. I obviously thought I had more, but I am not able to debate that today. I will go ahead and close. I do want to thank my colleague from California and also the members of the House Administration Committee, where we have an opportunity to come together, but this bill is just simply another partisan bill by the majority aimed at federally mandating election standards, like mandating that States exclusively use paper ballots, effectively banning any type of digital recording device that would have even a verified paper backup. The committee even had one hearing on this issue with Commissioners from the EAC--remember, that agency that one speaker earlier said was getting a pittance of dollars, small amounts of dollars over the last few years. Only in this institution is $380 million given by the Republican majority here in the House in the last Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States, only in this institution is $380 million a little bit. A lot of that money still hasn't even been spent by our local election officials. So here we are today debating a bill that is going to basically commit 1.3 billion taxpayer dollars toward so-called election security. We still have not addressed the problem that if DHS, if our same intelligence officials who told the Obama administration that there was foreign interference in our 2016 elections and the Obama administration did nothing about it--because, why? Because of Mitch McConnell. It is Mitch McConnell's fault. Seriously, come on. Get real here. We are legislators. We are an equal branch of government. There is absolutely no way any administration cedes authority to anybody in this legislative institution. The Obama administration failed to address the problem of election interference in 2016, and here we are today trying to make sure that we fix it. This attempt to fix it is a partisan attempt at ensuring that our elections authorities and our States and our local election officials have a top-down, federally mandated approach that is going to potentially cost them millions of taxpayer dollars that they have already inserted into their own budgets over the last few years. Our local officials have told us they want flexibility. Cybersecurity concerns are where they have invested much of the $380 million that we put forth in the last Congress. Let's make sure we spend the money that we have already appropriated; let's make sure we take a commonsense approach; and let's give our election officials, Republicans and Democrats from throughout this great Nation, the ability to address the concerns they know are weakest in their own system. Let's not have some bureaucrat out here in a concrete building determining what is going to work best in the State of Texas, in the State of Illinois, in the State of California, or anywhere else. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, look, I respect and agree with my good friend from Illinois (Mr. Casten), my colleague. We want to protect our home State. We saw intrusion into our Illinois State Board of Elections voter registration system. It is something that had to be addressed. I am happy to report, after talking with the State Board of Election officials, they have been given resources already appropriated by a Republican majority Congress, Republicans in the Senate, and President Trump last year to effectively ensure that that information is not vulnerable again. What we are debating here today is a bill that will put more unfunded and underfunded mandates on States like Illinois. That is not what our local election officials in my district asked for. The reason Illinois was able to protect itself and ensure that it didn't happen again in the extremely high, historic turnout of the 2018 midterm election was because they were given the flexibility to spend the HAVA funds that Republicans in Congress ensured that the State of Illinois had, leading to a Democratic majority in the midterm elections. No one is questioning the safety and security of our midterm elections. No one has told me that any foreign entity hacked into any institution, voter registration system, or machines. Maybe DHS hasn't called me, even though I think I have a security clearance, so they could. But they can't call our local election officials, under this bill, if it happens again because they don't have security clearance. That is why our bill is a better choice. The one that is on the floor today does not address the concerns of States like mine, and it certainly does not address the concerns of States like California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), my fellow House Administration Committee Republican and one of my good friends here in Congress.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield the gentleman from Alabama an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), our Republican Policy Committee chair.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz), another good friend of mine from the great State of Florida.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I certainly hope my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) changes his mind and wants more Republican governments, but I don't think that is going to happen, even today, on the House floor. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Madam Speaker, I agree with my good friend from Maryland. We as Republicans and Democrats need to do the patriotic thing and make sure that our elections are protected. And I do agree that the Russians tried to interfere in our election process with misinformation campaigns. But I also want to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if their concentration on election security happened the day after the 2016 election, why in the world didn't the administration who was in the White House at the time when the intelligence analysts were talking about how other foreign entities, including Russia, were wanting to interfere in our elections, why didn't they do something about it? Why are we here today? Why didn't it happen before the 2016 election, when our intelligence analysts said nefarious activity was moving against the United States of America? They did nothing. The Obama administration did nothing. They let it go. Now we are here watching the new Democrat majority that was elected in 2018, after explosive turnout in our midterm elections, their first bill, H.R. 1, that every member of the Democratic majority cosponsored and supported, that is the solution? The solution is to add millions of taxpayer dollars and then the first ever corporate dollars into their own congressional campaign accounts? No one has ever said that is the solution to too much money in politics or to election security. Not one time have I had a constituent say that to me. Now, we have got to come together and do what is right. We have yet to address any of the issues that were laid out in the Mueller report. This bill we are debating today does not address any of them. This is a discussion about what happened in 2016 without a discussion of what is needed in our States and local election authorities. That is what is wrong with this bill, too. It is hypocrisy at its greatest. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in the 2016 election, we saw a very real threat to our Nation when Russia interfered in our elections by using a misinformation campaign through social media and attacking voter registration databases. While this interference from Russia is unacceptable, I feel it is necessary to point out that there is no evidence that any voting machines were hacked in the 2016 or even in the 2018 elections. However, this does not mean that there isn't a need for election and cybersecurity improvements for State election systems. On this point, I know my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including the distinguished chairperson of our Committee on House Administration, we all agree that no one--and I mean, no one--should interfere with our elections. Every Americans' vote should be counted and protected. Last Congress $380 million were appropriated to States to upgrade their election security. Also, election infrastructure was designated as critical infrastructure in response to the U.S. Intelligence Community's reports that the Russian Government attacked. This allowed the Department of Homeland Security to begin providing additional cybersecurity assistance to State and local election officials. Work has been done to help States improve their election security, and more work must be done. This is why our committee Republicans, all of us on the House Administration Committee, introduced H.R. 3412, the Election Security Assistance Act, to assist States in their election security strengthening efforts. This realistic legislation provides $380 million in Federal grants to States to update their aging and at-risk election infrastructure, while also requiring State and local officials to have some skin in the game. We require a 25 percent match to ensure that they understand they are getting the best equipment that is going to protect their voters' rights to have their votes counted and protected. In addition, our bill is the only bill that creates the first ever Election Cyber Assistance Unit, aimed at connecting our State and local election officials with leading election administration and cybersecurity experts from across the country. Our bill also empowers State officials by providing security clearances to our election officials to better facilitate the sharing of information and requiring the Department of Homeland Security to notify State election officials of cyberattacks and any foreign threats within the State. It is common sense that if there is an attempt to hack a State election, the State election official should be notified, but they are currently not able to let a State know if it has been attacked. If DHS is the one that sees this attack from a foreign country, they can't notify State election officials because, in many cases, they don't have security clearance. Our bill clears this up. Those State officials deserve the right to know who is trying to attack their elections in each State in this great Nation. My good friend, Congresswoman Torres, stated at the Rules Committee hearing on Monday night that she doesn't trust her State election officials in California to have security clearances. Personally, I don't feel that way, and I think other Members of Congress may agree with me. State officials should know if there is a threat to their election system, and DHS should be the one telling them. To sum up the Election Security Assistance Act, our solution provides much-needed election security improvements and reinforcements for local election officials, without overstepping the States' authority to determine and maintain their own elections. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the bill we are voting on today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so the House may consider election security legislation that actually has a chance at becoming law. As I explained last night during debate of H.R. 2722 at the Rules Committee, there is no place for partisanship when it comes to securing our elections. H.R. 2722, the SAFE Act, is simply another partisan bill by the majority aimed at federally mandating election standards; like mandating that States exclusively use paper ballots, effectively banning any type of direct recording electronic voting machines which have been proven safe and efficient. Madam Speaker, keep this in mind; that if this legislation passes, if one of our local election officials had just worked to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars purchasing new, digital electronic machines with a paper backup, those machines and that investment of their hard- earned tax dollars would be obsolete in the year 2022, 3 years from now. That is not right. Mandating the exclusive use of paper ballots will create longer lines at polling places, and can be lost, destroyed, or manipulated far easier than electronic voting machines with a paper trail backup. I want to highlight the fact that there is no evidence of voting machines being hacked in 2016, 2018, or ever. So why are we forcing States to get rid of what they have deemed as safe technology? We should work together to safeguard technology. Safeguard technology not abandon it. We don't know in this institution what technology is going to look like when it comes to voting machines in the next five to 10 years. Why are we requiring a certain type of ballot process that is only going to be processed by five companies that maybe produce it today? That is not what we should be doing here in Washington. Additionally, the SAFE Act federally mandates han recounts, which will result in drawn-out elections that will become unnecessarily expensive. The majority's bill also contains irresponsible funding commitments. The funding of elections is the primary responsibility of our States. Democrats are committing $1.3 billion over 10 years, with zero funding match requirements from States. Congress has a responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Funds should be given based on need, not a guess of what might be needed a decade down the road. I want the record to be clear. Many of the provisions in the SAFE Act are inconsistent with what we have heard from experts in election administration. But the majority is ignoring their requests. As my colleagues across the aisle know, I believe there are areas on election security where Republicans and Democrats can find and have found common ground. There is a role for Congress in election security, which is why, me and my fellow members on the House Administration Committee, introduced H.R. 3412, the Election Security Assistance Act. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee, Mark Walker and Barry Loudermilk, for joining me in this effort, and the others who have cosponsored it since its introduction. This realistic legislation provides $380 million in Federal grants to States to update their aging and at-risk election infrastructure, while requiring a 25 percent match from States. If it is good for transportation projects; if it is good for DHS projects, DOJ projects, USDA projects, why don't we have locals and States have some skin in the game? In addition, our bill creates the first-ever Election Cyber Assistance Unit. It is aimed at connecting State and local election officials with leading election administration and cybersecurity experts from across the Nation. Our bill empowers State officials by providing security clearances to election officials to better facilitate the sharing of information and requiring the Department of Homeland Security to notify State election officials of cyberattacks and any foreign threats within the State. Keep in mind, the majority bill does not address this. If DHS hacked a local election official's election system, if they saw a hack in, let's say, central Nevada, DHS would not be able to notify your local election official because he or she may not have security clearance. The majority bill doesn't address this. Our bill does. To sum it up, our solution provides much-needed election security improvements and reinforcements for local election officials without overstepping the State's authority to maintain their elections. The Election Security Assistance Act, our bill, is the only proposal being discussed today that has a realistic chance of becoming law. If the previous question is defeated, it will be the first step in putting forth election security legislation that has a chance of helping States improve their security ahead of the 2020 election. I thank Ranking Member Cole for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of this important issue.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I am always glad to be here with my good friend from the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin). And he was right in committee during the markup of this bill that was posted late last week, and we marked it up earlier this week after the rules notice was already posted. It just shows you how rushed this process is. The gentleman erroneously, and I know, because I had made a quick joke about it afterwards, mentioned we ought to have a mandated republican government or something like that. I said, ``You know what? That is one mandate I can be for in our State and local authorities,'' but I knew what he was talking about. He knows what he is talking about when it comes to what we all have the same interest in doing, and that is protecting our election security. My colleague mentioned about standing together. Well, we were trying to stand together, Madam Speaker. We were working in a bipartisan way to put together a bipartisan election security bill, and the Democrat majority walked away. They forced this vote. These are areas that we can come together and find common ground. I have been asked, what did the Republicans do when we were in the majority? Well, we not only did $300 million in election security upgrades and cybersecurity protections, we did $380 million. And what was great was we were working over the last 2 years with DHS officials and our local election officials to ensure that 2018 did not suffer the same consequences as 2016. And it worked, even in an extensively high midterm turnout. Then they said, well, what else did you do over the 2 years? Well, you know what we did? We waited for the $35-million Mueller report to come out and tell us what else we could do. Now we are here today. We are here today to ensure that we put together an election security bill, not one that the Democrats want, not one that is going to be a top-down approach. It is not what our local secretaries of state want, it is not what our local election officials want, and they are on the ground. Let's listen to them, but let's make sure that we don't take away our ability to address cybersecurity concerns.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. It has been mentioned that the Russians used social media to strike at our election process in this country. That is true. This bill does nothing to address that problem. The majority's bill does absolutely nothing to address this problem. That is something that we still need to take care of in Congress. Let's not confuse the issue, and let's not listen to the 30,000-foot rhetoric that somehow one party over the other is more defensive or wants to be more offensive against nefarious actors. We are all Americans. We are all elected to serve this great country and this great institution. None of us, Republicans or Democrats, want anyone to attack this country, let alone attack our election process, but the answer to making sure that our elections are safe are in our bill, the previous question. We are the ones who ensure that DHS can talk to local election officials. Their bill does not do that. We are the ones that make sure that we create a cybersecurity unit and the ability to address ongoing threats. Their bill does not do that. That is why I would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Let's come back to the table. Let's get something done.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague and ranking member, Mr. Fortenberry, for yielding, and I thank Chairman Bishop for including my amendment in the en bloc amendments. Agriculture research plays a critical role in the future of our food supply. In our last spending bill, we helped secure a 5 percent increase in funding for the USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture. That program had seen increased funding because of bipartisan support on the House Agriculture Committee from many of the members, including my good friend and fellow cochair of the Ag Research Caucus, Jimmy Panetta of California, who fondly likes to remind us all that he represents the Salad Bowl of America. This year, I led a bipartisan letter signed by 111 of my colleagues advocating for robust funding for USDA NIFA's Agriculture and Food Research Initiative in the 2020 appropriations and I am extremely excited that the House appropriators increased funding by $45 million over fiscal year 2019 levels to $460 million for NIFA and AFRI. I am proud to see such bipartisan support for ag research, because ensuring research is necessary and vital.