Rodney Davis

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

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 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. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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, again, let the Record show I was for the amendment once again before the chairperson. I should get kudos. Listen, this is a good amendment. I congratulate the gentlewoman on her election, being a Member of Congress, and helping to legislate and participate. I also want to use a few seconds to really highlight the work of our intelligence officials in the administration and our Department of Homeland Security, especially Secretary Nielsen and her team, working with our local officials in Illinois before the last election to ensure that there was no nefarious activity that could have come about in our home State. Our home State election officials got a lot of accolades from the Department of Homeland Security, and I think the Department of Homeland Security and their team, especially Secretary Nielsen, deserve the accolades, also. So, with that, I am ready to close. I congratulate Ms. Spanberger. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am going to support this amendment. Mr. Chair, it is great to work with Ms. Spanberger, and I thank her for her service as an intelligence officer for our great Nation. This is an issue that she knows better than me and she knows better than most of us here in this institution. I look forward to supporting this amendment, and I welcome the gentlewoman to the U.S. House of Representatives and look forward to working with her. Mr. Chair, I would love to work with the gentlewoman on issues like this when this bill does not pass the Senate and is signed into law and we can work together in a bipartisan way. I will continue to show bipartisanship. I congratulate and welcome the gentlewoman. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 claim the time in opposition, although, once again, I am not opposed to the amendment.

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, 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. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it. I think this is a darn good amendment.

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 thank the gentleman from New Jersey. Look, I am all for increasing American manufacturing, I am all for building new paper plants, but I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to remember they are probably going to burn more fossil fuels. You know, if we are going to have to cut down more trees, maybe we will get some bipartisanship when it comes to deforestation, which could help cut down on forest fires that may cause the problems that would need the exceptions that we talked about earlier. So I certainly hope this fits into the New Green Deal provisions that are going to be voted on in the Senate. There is a lot of talk about paper in this bill. And in this bill, actually the paper keeps growing. It is upwards of 700 pages now. Mr. Chair, I just got a very important piece of paper with the new CBO score, so I assume we are going to be talking about that soon.

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am all for more paper production. Those paper plants that exist in my district, you know, they use recycled materials, too. I am more than happy to have more trees be deforested out of areas that are caught up in wildfires on an annual basis. If we could have the paper that is going to work, if the other side is okay with burning more fossil fuels to make this happen, hey, maybe we won't need those exceptions I talked about, maybe we will have enough American manufacturing and paper jobs. Some of the best paying jobs in my district are at the paper mills. Mr. Chair, I am certainly looking forward to working with the gentleman when this bill fails. Especially after seeing some of the preliminary numbers out of this new CBO score. I don't know how many cosponsors of this bill are going to actually be able to cast a vote for it, but I will reserve judgment until I see the board tomorrow. Mr. Chair, I am ready to close, but since I have the right to close, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I will reclaim my time, but let the Record show it is not a process, it is illegal in the State, my colleague's home State. I am not against this process happening because it happens in my home State right now. The problem we have is we don't want somebody who is eligible to cast a ballot, who got that vote-by-mail ballot, and they decided on election day to fill it out. We want them to be able to go to their polling place and not have to wait in line, and we want them to be able to turn it in. The problem we have on our side of the aisle is it is ballot harvesting. It is the process in North Carolina where a Republican is likely going to jail, if convicted. But that same process that will likely send that person to jail, if convicted, is legal in California. We have a problem with somebody besides that voter taking absentee ballots unwatched, not a bipartisan effort, not any control mechanisms, bringing it to the polling place or to the county clerk on election day or after election day. Those are issues that we are concerned about in the bill. I don't oppose this amendment because, again, it is already the process we follow in my home State. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chairman, again, I don't oppose the process. It is already in existence in my home State to ensure that every eligible American voter has their vote counted and protected. There are legitimate concerns about the ballot harvesting process; otherwise somebody might not have to face a trial in North Carolina. I certainly appreciate the author coming to the floor to, once again, talk about the bill and some of the changes that were made since it was introduced on January 3, the first day of Congress, cosponsored by every Member of the other side of the aisle, a 571-page bill. I certainly hope everybody had a chance to take a look at that bill before signing their name on the dotted line, because the provision that the author put in place, if he would have reached out to any of the three Republicans on the House Administration Committee, we would have gladly discussed some of our priorities, but there was no olive branch of bipartisanship whatsoever. The sheer fact that somehow the bill has been changed to now create this fine that is going to be corporate malfeasance dollars, it is never going to be able to get the amount of money in that candidates are going to expect when running for Congress. Candidates, even like the neo-Nazi who ran against my good friend Dan Lipinski in the last race, will now be eligible for this corporate malfeasance money. Everybody on that side of the aisle knows, when candidates for Congress, including Members of Congress on the other side of the aisle, aren't going to get what they expect into their campaigns from this corporate malfeasance fund--which is corporate dollars that we weren't supposed to be able to take as Members of Congress in our campaigns anyway but now somehow it is a good idea to do--you know what is going to happen? They are going to say, ``I don't have the money in my campaign to run a race,'' and they are going to ask the taxpayers to bail it out. Everybody on that side of the aisle knows that is going to happen, and the shell game they are playing right now is very frustrating. The CBO couldn't even score this new provision. We don't even know how much this is going to cost beyond the possible $3-plus billion. This is a bill designed to keep a Democratic majority in this Congress so that we don't have a chance to preside over these hearings anymore. That is not the way to run elections. That is not what our Constitution wants. That is not what anybody should support. Madam Chair, again, I am not opposed to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 28.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, it is great to have many conversations with you today. This is what is great about the institution: Our forefathers set up a legislative branch to debate, to cast votes, and then to legislate. We won't always agree on every issue. There are times we will vehemently disagree with each other. But, Madam Chair, after the debate is over, we all move on and look forward to working with each other. Madam Chair, today, I rise in support of amendment 28 because Members of Congress, all of us in the legislative branch, are, appropriately, held to stringent ethical standards that are designed to prevent financial or material gain for actions taken while we are legislating in this institution. We should ensure all branches of government are held to high ethical standards, too. This commonsense amendment would require the Judicial Conference of the United States to implement a judicial code that is at least as stringent as the requirements placed on Members of Congress. This amendment would be a step in the right direction for providing transparency in government, which the American people expect and deserve. Again, I gave the olive branch to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the last two amendments, and I certainly hope that that olive branch can be returned on this Republican amendment, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Georgia for debating this amendment with me. There are a lot of what I believe are constitutional issues with H.R. 1, legislative overreach that defies the equal branches of government. This one does not. All we are simply doing with this amendment is asking the Judicial Conference of the United States to implement a judicial code up and down the judicial spectrum. Maybe it will actually help ensure that, as judges go through the confirmation process in the Senate for whatever level of Federal judgeship he or she may be nominated, it might help us understand who these judges are. This is a very commonsense amendment. We are not saying Congress is going to legislate judicial conduct. We are just saying that we are the lawmakers. Why don't we ask the Judicial Conference to do it for the judges, just like our standards are set by Congress and the executive branch standards should be set by the executive branch. These are small things that make a big difference in a big bill. Again, I have extended the olive branch of bipartisanship this entire day, yesterday, and I would certainly hope that that would be extended back to us because we have yet, in this entire process of H.R. 1--being a 622-page bill yesterday and added pages upon pages yesterday and today--not one single Republican amendment has been accepted. Not one. Maybe this is it. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise this time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I was a strong supporter of the First Step Act, and I continue to support criminal justice reform efforts. As a matter of fact, just last week, a former czar in the Obama administration, Van Jones, said that, ``The conservative movement in this country, unfortunately,'' from his point of view, ``. . . is now the leader on this issue of reform,'' talking about criminal justice reform. We need to make sure that we don't have petty drug users spending more time in Federal prison than Jared the Subway guy who was a pedophile, but we have to review this amendment very carefully. We still haven't figured out the processes and procedures of an amendment that passed, part of H.R. 1 that is in the underlying bill that would allow felons to vote without any determination of whether that felon may be like Jared the Subway guy. Who is to say he doesn't live near a polling place where his polling place is a school? How in the world can we move forward on getting voter registration materials to felons without understanding who is eligible to go to the exact polling place they are supposed to vote at or not? I don't want pedophiles, sex offenders, going into a polling place in many rural areas that the only place they have is a school with children. The provision in the bill needs to be changed, needs to be vetted very carefully. We need to have some certainty here. I certainly do not support this amendment because I still am not sure that a felon who is not allowed around children won't be forced to cast his or her vote around children. That is why this bill needs to be put back into our committees of jurisdiction, where almost 40 percent of the jurisdiction was never marked up in the first place. This is a rush. I don't blame my colleagues who are here today. I think Chairperson Lofgren and the members of the House Administration Committee have done an excellent job putting a bill that is terrible forward, but the only reason we are here on the floor this week is because Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership team are forcing this issue. The American people and the American taxpayers aren't going to stand for the provisions that are in this bill. I don't know why we are rushing it, and I certainly wish there was more bipartisanship. I certainly wish there was clarification on whether or not a former convicted felon who is a sex offender is going to be allowed in a polling place that happens to be a school, where they can't go into or can't get within a certain amount of yardage to, outside of election day. Madam Chair, I can't support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I certainly wish that the underlying piece of legislation actually addressed our concerns, which is why I would urge both sides of the aisle to send this back to committee to ensure that, while it doesn't specifically say that State laws can't be followed when it comes to allowing sex offenders into polling places, it also doesn't prevent it. That is the problem with this top-down overreach. There is nothing in this bill, H.R. 1, that would prevent a sex offender from walking in and demanding his or her right to vote while surrounded by children that he or she is not allowed around because of a previous conviction or a sex offender registration status. I appreciate my colleague from Wisconsin's work on the First Step Act, also; and I also have to offer a correction. The First Step Act was actually to get nonviolent offenders out of our prisons, petty drug users who have been put away because maybe they didn't have the information that the assistant U.S. attorney wanted and then, all of a sudden, they are ratcheted into a long jail sentence because of mandatory minimums. These are the issues that have bipartisanship. By no means does the First Step Act, or any act of criminal justice reform that I support or that anybody else I know would support, want murderers out of prison. That is not the case. If that is the case, we have some more questions about this amendment and we have some more questions about this bill. We want to make sure those jail cells are reserved for the people who are the most hardened criminals. We have got to work together on criminal justice reform to take the next step in the First Step Act. We need to make it better, but it is all for nonviolent offenders. I have some serious concerns when sex offenders get out of prison or maybe they don't even go to prison for that long, like Jared, the Subway guy, because he may have had a lot of money, may have had the ability to hire a good lawyer; but so many petty drug offenders who are going to be the beneficiary of the First Step Act didn't. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.