Rodney Davis

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I don't know if I have had a chance to formally meet Mr. Kim. I welcome him and thank him for being here to participate in the process. Mr. Speaker, I guess I would like to have some details on what percentage of ballots that are used in the United States right now are not printed in the U.S. The issue I have is not with United-States-made printing materials, it is with the sheer fact that we are having a top-down approach once again. I mean, there is always going to be extenuating circumstances. Some of our territories may raise the cost of importing paper to be able to now live up to the paper ballot marking whatever requirements that are in this 700-page bill. We can work together on these provisions, but we also might want to work together as this bill fails in the Senate. Mr. Chair, if this is something Mr. Kim wants to work on together, I am willing to work on it with him, but let's have some room in there for some exceptions. I mean, let's say it is almost election day, you have got wildfires roaring all over California and there is a paper shortage in the country. We can't stop the election, so maybe we need some exceptions. We can't stop the election, maybe we need an exception. So let's work together, let's do something like that so that nobody loses a chance to be able to cast their vote on election day, to have their vote counted, and even just as importantly, to have their vote protected. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I have got to oppose this, because there are no exceptions in here, but I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work together after this is done. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let the Record show that I liked the amendment first. I liked it before the chairperson. Listen, it is a great amendment, and I look forward to voting for it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this is a great amendment. I commend Mrs. Trahan because it is vitally important that we protect the families of our Nation's military. It is very important we remember those who sacrifice everything to serve us, and we should ensure that they are able to weigh in to whomever represents them in government. I am going to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, again, an olive branch to the other side of the aisle. I appreciate the gentlewoman's willingness to legislate. It is great to work with her, and I will be supporting this amendment. Since I see the chair up, in case she says something I have to rebut, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although, once again, I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am highly concerned with the redistricting provisions in this bill now. It seems that now, as part of the bill, that one State is going to be exempted out. At what point, then, do we not question why everyone doesn't have the same ability to opt out of provisions of this bill, just like the State of Iowa has done in an amendment that was accepted. The sheer fact that if Iowa's independent redistricting commission is better and, thus, we shouldn't have to apply the same standards as the other 49 States in this great Nation, then why don't we use Iowa's independent redistricting commission standards for everyone? Why don't we make the whole bill about Iowa? I mean, I have been talking about federalism and States having to follow top-down Federal mandates, in most cases, that are going to be unfunded or nebulously funded because we really don't know how they are going to get those funds to our States and localities. But the sheer fact that we are debating a bill that has a provision about independent redistricting that could have been very, very bipartisan, now we have exempted one State out, it basically tells all of us that is a better commission. I hope that when we come back, after this bill passes the House, unfortunately for many of my colleagues who are going to vote for it on the other side of the aisle, I hope we can come together and have the debate on whether Iowa's commission is better than what was proposed in this bill. You cannot have a 700-page bill that talks about how gloriously good for the people it is, for all of the provisions that are this top-down approach, and then, all of a sudden, you exempt one State out of what could have been one of the most bipartisan provisions, and that is independent redistricting. If you are serious about governing, the majority ought to offer an amendment, ought to offer a change, to make Iowa's independent commission the language of this bill. Make it work in States, even where they have independent commissions. I would sure like it to work in Illinois. Maybe California would want to use Iowa's commission because clearly it is better than what you have in the bill, or we wouldn't have had to take an amendment on it. Well, I think I got my point across. I say to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), your amendment is a good amendment. I apologize I had to use this time to address an issue that is very frustrating, but the gentlewoman is talking about redistricting. I appreciate what she has done. I welcome her to the floor of the House, and I look forward to working with her. Again, my offer to the gentlewoman is the same as others. When this bill fails in the Senate, let's come together on some provisions. I will continue to throw the bipartisan olive branch out toward that side of the aisle, and I look forward to working with the gentlewoman. Congratulations. I won't oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. It is great to see her, and I thank her for putting this amendment forward. I have a problem with the underlying provisions of the bill. I actually support redistricting reforms. I am from Illinois. I am a Republican. We are not going to have a single say in how the Democrats in the supermajority Illinois House and the supermajority Illinois Senate, and our newly elected Democratic Governor, we are not going to have a say in how these maps are drawn. I certainly hope we can get an independent redistricting commission because, since this bill is not going to pass the Senate, it is not going to become law. I certainly hope that we could come together and work on some independent redistricting issues. Mr. Chair, I will, again, not oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am going to be bipartisan once again. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment. I just want to take the time to welcome our new colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and I would like the gentleman to give my utmost thanks to his dad, who we stood on this floor, with these same microphones, and I was able to work in a bipartisan way with him to pass the EACH Act that allowed for a religious exemption from the individual mandates of ObamaCare, of the Affordable Care Act. That is now law, and that is a sign of bipartisanship that I hope to be able to continue while we work together. Give him my best. The Christian Scientists that are in my district at Principia College, one of the largest Christian Science institutions in the Nation, are very thankful that they are not now being penalized by the Tax Code for a religious exemption from seeking medical care from doctors and medical professionals. So my thanks to the gentleman's father, and I thank the gentleman for being here. Mr. Chair, I am not going to oppose this amendment. I will reserve just in case somebody wants to come up and talk about something else and I can rebut them, but I am ready to close if the gentleman is. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am going to rise in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, again, I have a problem with the underlying bill and the FEC issue. It is not that hard to be bipartisan when we send bulk mail in the House. It may take a little longer. It may be a little more difficult. But, you know what, bipartisanship works. There is a reason for it here. Frankly, if the FEC isn't working, if the FEC is such an agency that has zero credibility in the mind of the majority right now, then why in the world are we spending time marking up a 700-page, mammoth bill in the House Administration Committee when we ought to just reauthorize the FEC? I certainly hope that our committee can work toward making that happen. And that is something that has not been done that we should be able to get bipartisanship on. I look forward to working with Chairperson Lofgren when that day comes over the next 2 years. Mr. Chair, I am going to oppose the amendment because of the underlying language regarding the FEC. I commend Mr. Phillips for being here to legislate. I welcome the gentleman to Congress, and I look forward to working with him and appreciate his opportunity to be a part of the process. I thank the gentleman for letting me be a part of it with him. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, the language of the amendment is pretty innocuous. The problem I have is the portion of the bill that it is amending, the sheer fact that, in this now almost 700- page, mammoth bill that anyone thinks it is a good idea to weaponize the FEC by making it partisan. It is the furthest thing from where we should be as an institution. This amendment is going to do nothing to address this partisan FEC that the bill establishes. The biggest threat to our elections is actually partisanship, and a partisan FEC will undermine the neutrality that voters expect of an agency that oversees Federal elections, especially when the billions upon billions upon billions of new dollars come in from the programs that are created in this bill. A partisan FEC is going to give enhanced powers to the chairman to make decisions on behalf of the commission that have been reserved for years for the full commission. I fully expect a lower standard of protection of free speech to be embraced by a partisan FEC. As a former chairman of our own Franking Commission here in the House of Representatives, I think bipartisan agencies can work together, bipartisan commissions can work together. Heck, we are not even allowed to send a bulk mail piece out of this institution without Republicans and Democrats signing off on it. If we can't send bulk mail out without it being bipartisan, why in the world would we want to make the FEC partisan? Do the Democrats really want the Trump administration to have a partisan FEC? I don't want any party to have a partisan FEC. I want it to remain an institution where it takes bipartisanship to get results. I would urge my good friend, Mr. Phillips, if he hasn't, to sit down with some of the FEC commissioners and talk to them about their opinion of why the FEC is bipartisan, and I would urge the gentleman to work with them. This bill is not going to pass. The amendment, likely, will get ruled by the chairman to be a part of this bill. The bill is not going to become law. It is going to go die in the Senate. But I would urge the gentleman to work with the FEC, talk with them on the reason why, why it is bipartisan. We don't want our Ethics Committee here in the House to have a partisan edge. We don't want our Franking Commission to have a partisan edge. Why in the world do we want the FEC to have a partisan edge? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, once again, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I think every American who is eligible to vote deserves to have the right to vote, to have their vote counted, and to have their vote be protected. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the author of this bill. He and I have had some spirited discussions over the last day and a half, but I appreciate his willingness to want to address issues. I just don't think this bill is the answer. To respond to the author of the bill, there is a big difference between offering best practices to our State and local officials about how best to run their elections, there is a big difference between best practices and suggestions versus mandates, and that is clearly what H.R. 1 is. It is going to be a mandate. It is so nebulous. We get answers one day that change the next. There is zero bipartisanship. We haven't been included. All of a sudden, we get a new shell game: Move over; we are going to fund it by doing this and put corporate money now into congressional campaigns, which is illegal now, but I guess it is a solution for getting money out of politics to the majority. I don't understand this. This has got to be one of the most discombobulated processes that I have ever been a part of. I can't help myself to think there is no way that every Democrat who cosponsored this bill on day one thinking they were going to talk about election reform had any idea of so many of the terrible, terrible provisions for taxpayers that are in this bill. Again, Mr. Chairman, if you vote for this bill, you are putting corporate cash into congressional campaigns. There is no way the billions upon billions of promises that are made to congressional candidates and incumbents are going to be able to be fulfilled with this new, nebulous corporate malfeasance fund that we haven't even had scored by the CBO. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money are going to fund a revamp of how public money goes into congressional campaigns. This is the worst of the worst of the worst of what the D.C. swamp is all about. I am going to lightly oppose this amendment because I really respect Ms. Houlahan and her efforts. I just have a big problem with the bill, as I think you can tell. Mr. Chairman, I will give Ms. Houlahan, likely, the last word. I reserve my right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is great to have you in the chair again tonight. I rise to oppose this amendment; although, again, I want to compliment my new colleague, Ms. Houlahan, for coming down here and being a participant in the legislative process. It has been great to get to know the gentlewoman and work with her, and I look forward to working together on a bipartisan basis as we move forward during this term. I have got to oppose this amendment because I have opposed others that are just like it. We want every American to be able to cast their vote, to be registered to vote, and to be able to have their vote counted and their vote protected. My issue is with a top-down approach from the Federal Government versus the State and local governments. This amendment, though well-intentioned, just, again, infringes on our State and local officials' ability to determine how best to run their elections. Additionally, this mandate increases the cost of all election offices, as it is tasked to recruit, train, and deploy additional poll workers, where we already know we have a shortage. I would love to work with my colleague, Ms. Houlahan, moving forward to address many issues involving election reform. Unfortunately, I just don't think H.R. 1 is the answer, and I don't think it is going to be passed into law, so there are going to be opportunities for us to work together. Again, my bipartisan olive branch is reaching out, once again, to the gentlewoman's side, and I certainly hope we can do so. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Real quick, I was not referring to the amendment. It was the bill itself.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the clarification. I appreciate that. I am still opposed to the amendment because, unfortunately, these incentivization programs that are code word incentivized are part of H.R. 1, and instead I think they are going to be gamed by many of the same people who are gaming the system right now. Many of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle said they want to get money out of politics, and we are talking about putting more in. The amendment here is just a small part of a big problem of what this bill is about. Mr. Meuser talked about how bad this bill is going to be about getting money back into politics. If the goal is to take money out of politics, then H.R. 1 clearly is not the answer. This amendment, while great intentions to my colleague from Hawaii trying to do what we can, I would love to sit down with the gentleman in a bipartisan way to talk about how we can make campaign finance reforms work. But the clear fact is we have been shown zero consideration as Republicans over here to try and work out solutions in this bill. We weren't asked to even be considered to help write provisions in this bill. No one was even called, none of us, no one on our side. As a matter of fact, I guess we didn't know the special interest groups who helped write this bill and who were touted in the press conference when this bill was announced. We got zero Republican amendments passed during our markup in only one committee, which left 40 percent of the bill out from being marked up. That is not the regular order that the Democrats promised when you took the majority. That is what we get. Today, the olive branch has been extended numerous times. I have accepted Democrat amendments, and do you know what? Not a single Republican amendment has passed, even one during the last round of votes that all it did was give a sense of Congress that we like free speech. Seriously? You have got to be kidding me. You couldn't even accept that amendment? How partisan can this new Democrat majority be? This is why this bill is terrible. It is the biggest terrible bill I have ever seen in my time here in Congress. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for participating in the process, and I would like to ask the gentleman a question about the amendment. I know you have been here before. We haven't had the chance to really meet, but congratulations. I look forward to working with you. Is this just raising the limit that political parties can give from $5,000 to $10,000?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), my good friend, one of our newest Members, and a great guy.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.