Rodney Davis

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment. I think we should work together to ensure that all those who have disabilities have access to be able to cast their vote, and I know my home State of Illinois is doing yeoman's work, our local county clerks are doing yeoman's work to ensure that all those who need reasonable accommodations get them. So I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for offering it. Before I reserve, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, again, thank you to my colleague from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). I support this amendment, and I am going to ensure that we have no opposition over here. But I do have a problem with the bill, and I appreciate the author of the bill being here. If I had that much time dedicated to authoring a 571-page bill with the help of outside special interest groups that were commended at the opening press conference, I would be here to defend it, too. But there are so many problems, so many unanswered questions. The sheer fact that the shell game of corporate fines is supposed to fund upwards of billions of dollars to congressional campaigns--my district alone would have been eligible for $6 million-plus just by using the last campaign. Multiply that times 435 and add some extra candidates in there, like the neo-Nazi candidate who would be eligible for this funding who ran against Democrat Dan Lipinski. These are issues that we don't have questions answered because the CBO hasn't scored. CBO has already said $2 billion-plus for sure, possibly another $1 billion to the taxpayers under this fund, but how much is going to be raised from this corporate malfeasance? And until this day, until this week, I had no idea that the Democratic majority is okay with putting more corporate money into their own campaign coffers. Corporate dollars are not allowed in our campaigns now, as you know, Madam Chair, but we are going to use corporate fines at a level we don't know what it amounts to? We are going to use those to fill campaign coffers of Members of Congress? Seriously? That is why the bill needs to go back to committee. I would love to work with the author. I am one of the most bipartisan Members of Congress, according to The Lugar Center, but I never got a call. I would love to help write this bill. We tried to make that bill better. This is another olive branch to the other side on an amendment. I am going to continue to show bipartisanship that has yet to be reciprocated from the author and from the committee. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin's interest in redistricting and gerrymandering. Coming from the State of Illinois, I like the independent redistricting provisions of H.R. 1. I have some concerns as to why one State's redistricting plan is now part of the bill when it was supposed to be a nationwide approach, but we will get to that later. Gerrymandering is a process like in my home State of Illinois that can poison the political process. We have Democrat supermajorities in the House of Representatives in Illinois. We have Democrat majorities in the Illinois State Senate, supermajorities. We have a Democrat Governor. I certainly hope we get redistricting reform by the time 2021 rolls around. But this amendment is about gerrymandering. This amendment is about the census, and my biggest concern goes back to, again, this bill was not even marked up in the Oversight and Reform Committee. This issue was not even brought up during a single hearing that the Oversight and Reform Committee held on H.R. 1. This amendment also could upend a foundational principle of the census. Since 1790, the census has been counting people at their usual residences on census day. I guess, when Charles Manson was alive out in the 21st District of California, he got counted at the maximum security Federal prison. All alternatively housed populations are actually counted the same way, or are supposed to be. Who is to say that somebody who lives at Charles Manson's old home, a relative, doesn't write him down on the census form, too. I have some concerns about double counting that this amendment does not address. But prisoners have been counted at their prison, college students have been counted at their dorms. I remember in 1990, I filled out a little census form in Mills Hall at Millikin University in Decatur, Illinois, to be counted as part of the census. I didn't check with my mom to see if she counted me at home too. Military servicemembers are counted at their U.S. station base. Counting one population differently than other similarly situated populations only serves to decrease the accuracy of the census. The census count is actually about apportionment that State legislatures use to draw new lines, or independent commissions use to draw new congressional lines, State legislative lines. Hopefully, they don't gerrymander. This is not about redistricting. The Census Bureau works with States to provide detailed data about prison populations that would allow the States to redistrict however the State chooses. That is why I am opposed to your amendment. I do respect you being here to participate in the process. I certainly wish that we could have sat down and maybe worked out a better amendment that would have addressed all of our concerns, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Why would the gentleman criticize one of the greatest bands of the nineties?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairwoman, I stand here to say that my colleague from Wisconsin, I know he did not mean to offend the many thousands, upon thousands of Nickelback fans in his district in Wisconsin. I will stand here to save you from doing that and having to face the political consequences at the ballot box. Madam Chair, I enjoyed debating back and forth and it is always good to have some good humor on the floor of the House. And, yes, I actually do have a Nickelback song on my running playlist that I listen to on a regular basis. I was ridiculed for that when I posted my playlist one time, and I know some in this Chamber--even up at the dais--are still laughing about that. But this amendment is a bad amendment. I wish we could have worked together on it. I hope we can work together on any gerrymandering in this Nation together as we know it, and I look forward to working with the gentleman in the future. I do have to recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment because it does not address the underlying issues with gerrymandering, and the underlying issues that I have with this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleagues across the aisle that there is a role for the Federal Government to play in election infrastructure, campaign finance disclosure, ballot access transparency, and election security. However, H.R. 1 was developed to serve the special interests of Democrats and the outside organizations that support the Democratic Party and will not accomplish its alleged goal of being for the people. The greatest threat to our Nation's election system is partisanship, and that is what we are seeing right here in H.R. 1. It misuses taxpayer dollars, takes power away from States to administer their own elections, and threatens to limit Americans' constitutional rights. H.R. 1 proposes all groups limit free speech and imposes vague standards that disadvantage citizens who wish to advocate on behalf of any public policy issue. Every American has a right to support causes they believe in, and that is exactly why the American Civil Liberties Union echoes my concerns. The ACLU said that there are provisions that unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations. When groups that have traditionally supported the Democratic Party cannot support H.R. 1, it underscores why election reform legislation should not be developed in a partisan manner. H.R. 1 overreaches our Constitution by taking power away from States that decide how their election should be administered, States that know their residents' election needs much better than a Federal bureaucracy does. Congress should be partnering with States to support them in increasing voter registration instead of forcing a federally mandated one-size-fits-all approach that will be costly and ineffective. This bill also fails to include safeguards, while implementing new voter registration and voting practices. I cannot stress enough that Congress should absolutely be in favor of increasing access to the polls, but we do that by adding the necessary checks and balances to ensure these votes and that access are protected. We should allow States to maintain their own voter rolls in order to process voters in a timely manner on election day, avoid unfunded mandates, and manage voter lists to avoid voting irregularities. A few voting irregularities can change the outcome of a single election, especially when you live in a competitive district like I do. Every single vote makes a difference between winning and losing. If we pass new voter registration practices in H.R. 1 without creating safeguards to prevent voting irregularities in these practices, we risk taking away the choice of the American people. Simply, another way, H.R. 1 is taking away the voice of each American voter. If we want to increase our election security, Congress should support States choosing their own methods and machines. Multiple points of entry are more secure than one system. Federalizing election security, as this legislation does, will not protect voters. When H.R. 1 was introduced, it was referred to 10 committees in the House. This bill, which is now over 600 pages, will now have gone from introduction to general debate on the floor of the House with only half of those 10 committees holding a single hearing, and only one of those committees holding a markup. The Democrats promised greater transparency in the majority, but we are not seeing that in their first major piece of legislation. We just received the CBO score for H.R. 1, which egregiously underestimates H.R. 1's cost to the taxpayers by conveniently leaving out many of the legislation's most expensive provisions. H.R. 1's campaign match provision is what is being left out. CBO said they needed more time to develop a more comprehensive score. That was ignored. Though my Democratic colleagues may have changed where exactly the bucket is, they are still using H.R. 1 to put more money into politicians' campaigns. H.R. 1 is creating public subsidies through the 6-to-1 government match program on small dollar campaign contributions of up to $200. For every $200, the Federal Government, the taxpayers, will now pay $1,200 to a politician, to Members of Congress' campaigns. While my colleagues across the aisle now say this will be of no cost to the taxpayer--as of a new gimmick that they developed yesterday--I would like to point out that every single House Democrat signed on to cosponsor this legislation before any changes were made to this provision. Make no mistake, the new majority wants to put your hard-earned tax dollars into their own campaigns. While they may have changed the route to get there, that is their fundamental goal with this obvious sham campaign finance reform. They say they want to get money out of politics, but they are using this bill, H.R. 1, to funnel more in. Provisions like this do not belong in any campaign or finance election reforms. Election reforms should be bipartisan, not serving the interests of partisan politicians. As we move forward with the debate today, I hope my colleagues across the aisle will thoughtfully reconsider their eager support of a bill that will harm the American voter and taxpayer and not simply vote, as we have seen throughout this not-open process, along partisan lines. Every American's vote should be counted and protected. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and that is not nearly enough to talk about all the bad provisions in this bill once again. There are so many provisions in this bill that many of my colleagues graciously came down to the floor to talk about them. As a matter of fact, I have with me a file of letters from groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the ACLU, the National Right to Life, and all others that have been outspoken in their opposition to this behemoth partisan piece of legislation. Let me remind everybody once again: we Republicans--there are only three of us on the House Administration Committee--were not consulted at all by anyone who wrote this bill, nor by any of the groups who were pointed out at the press conference announcing this piece of legislation that they helped to write this bill. Make no bones about it, this shell game, this nebulous freedom from influence or whatever fund you want to call it, the CBO estimates they don't even have enough information on it. They are estimating the taxpayers will be on the hook for at least $1 billion, and that goes in addition to the over $2 billion that the rest of the bill is going to cost the taxpayers of this country. Now, it is interesting, I just read a tweet--I never met the gentleman, Dan McLaughlin, but it is a pretty good explanation of what I think this bill is. His tweet says: ``Professional politicians do unethical things that they've written the rules to allow.'' This bill has written the rules to allow Members of Congress to enrich their own campaign coffers that will eventually be on the backs of government and the taxpayers. This is not why we should be here. I am for the American voter. I support that every eligible voter have easier ways to register to vote and get easier access to the polls. What I am not for is for Washington, D.C., taking over elections and enriching the campaign coffers of the people who sit in this room. I know what difficult elections look like. It is the worst of partisan politics, and it is personal to me. I know what it looks like when people take well-intentioned laws and use them to their political advantage. I don't want that to happen, and I believe H.R. 1 will allow that to happen. We have had disagreements. I respect the fact that my colleagues have come here to debate this bill, but this is the furthest thing from a bipartisan bill. I can't say it enough how opposed to this bill I am. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend and colleague from North Carolina's assertion that we have to be cognizant of what is happening in rural America and how, maybe a top- down approach from Washington may not be the best approach when we might not have public transportation opportunities in many of the rural areas that he and I both serve. But, as Mr. Butterfield is a member of the House Administration Committee, I would have hoped that this amendment would have been offered during the committee markup, the markup, the only markup that was held on this 622-page bill. We offered 28 amendments on the Republican side and not a single one was accepted. These are the types of amendments I would have loved to have seen have bipartisan support in the committee process because I am from a rural area. I understand it is sometimes difficult for people in rural areas to vote. But we have got to leave it up to the States and localities to be able to determine where these polling places are going to go, especially in the rural areas. We have a hard enough time having somebody here in Washington figure out where everybody is going to be in an office every 2 years. Can you imagine somebody in a concrete building out here in Washington, D.C., determining where a polling place should or should not be in a town that I represent in central Illinois? That is my problem with this bill; it is a top-down approach that takes away the ability for locals to really truly get polling places in areas that are accessible for every voter to be able to cast their vote. Mr. Chairman, I want every single American to be able to vote. Every vote, every single vote in every American vote deserves to be counted and protected. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), my colleague, good friend, and member on the House Administration Committee.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am very privileged to stand here with somebody who grew up in the same rural county as I did, in Christian County, Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, before I reserve, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the most courageous Member of Congress that I know, the man who bleeds tiger blood.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this has been a long debate. I am enjoying the discussion, enjoying the debate. This is why we all came here to Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here and follow my colleague on the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin). Obviously, as you will hear over the next 1 minute and 50 seconds, we disagree. This bill was rushed. This bill does not live up to the promises that the Democratic majority said they were going to do when they ran the House and how open, how bipartisan, and how transparent they were supposed to be. H.R. 1 means this is the Democrat majority's priority. This bill was introduced on January 3, and at a press conference introducing this bill, many different outside, special interest groups were noted for having helped craft this piece of legislation. It was 571 pages. It has turned into 622 pages. It has turned into 72 amendments that were ruled in order. Now, let's take a step back. Ten committees of this House had jurisdiction within this bill. One committee, the smallest committee in the House of Representatives, the House Administration Committee is the only one to mark this bill up. That is not regular order. That is not an open process. And, frankly, it is a process that the American people should demand be much different. We Republicans were not consulted during the drafting of this piece of legislation. We Republicans during the only markup that lasted 5 hours, offered 28 amendments that would have made this bill better, and not a single one was passed. All failed on a party-line vote. That is not bipartisanship. That is not openness. That is not a process that is inclusive, and, frankly, the American people should be very petrified what this bill will do. It is not a bill that responds to people, as my colleague, Mr. Raskin, just mentioned. This is a bill that is going to cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars, creating a mandatory program that is going to line the campaign coffers of every single Member of Congress with government money. That is not what the American taxpayers are wanting. That is not what this institution should be doing. We want every single person in this country to be able to cast their vote and make sure that they have the right to do it, the ability to do it, and to ensure that that vote is protected. This bill does nothing to make sure that happens.