Rodney Davis

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Green).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, it is a great debate to have. The problem we have here in this country, all 16-year-olds are still legally minors. They can't be tried as adults in the court of law unless, under special circumstances, of heinous crimes. They can't join the military. They won't even be eligible for the draft that took so many of our young men to Southeast Asia, where many never came home, the last time the voting age was lowered. In some States, 16-year-olds can't even drive their car alone. They can't take out a loan. They can't take out a mortgage. They can't open a credit card. And they can't even run for the offices that we would be asking them to be allowed to vote for. This is an amendment that has political reasons behind it. It is the reason that I believe the Democrats are pushing it. It is because they believe they will be able to increase the number of Democrat votes that are put forth in the next election. This institution should not be used for that. This bill is political enough. This bill, as a whole, is nothing more than a charade to make permanent the Democratic majority that just came into existence just a few months ago. That is why I believe H.R. 1 is a bill that should be voted against. Please vote ``no'' on H.R. 1, and please vote ``no'' on this amendment for the reasons that I put forth. Again, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts and my colleague from New York for being here and participating in this process. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I am not opposed to what this amendment does, although I would point out, once again, this is another unfunded mandate. This is another cost that the CBO has already said, from what they can score, this bill is going to cost taxpayers $2.8 billion with a potential for billions more for what they couldn't even offer a congressional budget score for. So I have some issues with that, although I appreciate the direction my colleague is going with this. I think providing voter registration materials at schools is something that is probably being done now. I would hope that local county clerks--I know mine are--are already doing that. But I am not opposed to that language. However, I disagree with my colleague from Texas that H.R. 1 is a bill by the people and for the people. Frankly, I believe every single American who is eligible to vote should have their vote counted and they should have their vote protected. We all, as Americans--Republicans and Democrats--want every vote to count. We want to make sure everyone can get registered to vote. At a time in our country when registration turnout is exceedingly high compared to previous generations, we are doing that. Make no mistake about it. This bill is not by the people. H.R. 1 is not for the people. H.R. 1 is for the Members of Congress who sit in this institution who are going to eventually get tax dollars to pay for their own campaign ads. That is why this bill is a bad bill. I appreciate the amendment that my colleague is offering, but by no means is H.R. 1 going to ensure that we have the protection to ensure that every eligible American voter has their vote counted and protected. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Texas (Mr. Green). Again, I agree with what Chairperson Lofgren said about the excitement of students in high schools being able to understand what it means to be able to register to vote and participate in the political process. That is why I visit high schools throughout my district on a regular basis each time we are back from Washington, off this floor and in our districts for our district work period. I am going to, again, extend the olive branch of bipartisanship to ensure that I am not going to oppose this amendment. I want this amendment to pass through, but I will note to many of my colleagues on the floor, Madam Chairman, we just had two Republican amendments offered, and not one passed. The olive branch of bipartisanship has to work both ways. I am, again, reaching out, and I will continue to do so throughout the day, but it is not without frustration that that olive branch has not yet been returned. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I have a couple of questions. One question, in particular, is: If the gentleman from Arizona, Chairman Grijalva, has this information, I would like to know. This is already the process that we follow in my home State of Illinois. Are there any States that don't allow this already that the gentleman is aware of?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

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 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, once again, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I am not going to oppose this amendment, and it has been great debating with the other side tonight. I look forward to a livelier debate tomorrow. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a list of groups such as the Hispanic Leadership Fund, The LIBRE Initiative, Americans for Tax Reform, Coalition to Reduce Spending, the National Right to Life, Heritage Action for America, and the Chamber of Commerce and several letters in opposition to H.R. 1, obviously, or I don't think I would be entering them into the Record. The following organizations oppose H.R. 1:

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Well, I would be remiss to not thank my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for being a cosponsor of this amendment. We have had some lively discussions back and forth. My apologies. I thank the gentleman for his efforts on this amendment, too. I am ready to close, but congratulations once again to Ms. Slotkin. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I know our time together tonight is winding down. This, I think, is the last amendment we are going to debate tonight. I thank Ms. Slotkin for her amendment and thank her for her service to our country. It is a pleasure to be able to serve in this great institution with the gentlewoman. As I said, I am not going to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. Congratulations. I certainly wish this would be part of something that could go into law, because this bill is not going to go into law. I certainly look forward to working with her to address these issues as we move forward. Congratulations, and I thank the gentlewoman again for her service here now. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition, although I am going to do the right thing and not oppose this amendment.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am having a lot of fun down here, but I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, for the sake of innocent lives, I urge the Speaker to immediately schedule this important bill.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.