Rodney Davis

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend Mr. Bost for those heartfelt words. I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), another good friend of Vicki.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman LaHood for those great words. I didn't know she was one of the folks who started the Lincoln Series. That is great. That is a great program, and it makes me see the influence of Vicki Dixon even more. A lot of great people have gone through that program, and now I know why it is a great program--because of people like Vicki. Another good friend of Vicki Dixon--well, there is Vicki talking. I just knocked it down. She is like: Shush, stop saying so many nice thing about me. Another good friend of Vicki is her colleague from the State of Washington. You and your wife were very close to Vicki. I know, after her passing, we exchanged phone calls to try to find out what happened. Mr. Newhouse, what is your wife's name again?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I do. Tell Joan I said hi. And it is now in the Congressional Record that I acted like I didn't know her name. In all seriousness, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) to tell the American people about our friend Vicki.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the gentleman to feel free to stick around if any other thoughts on Vicki's life come to mind to make sure we let the world know. Mr. Speaker, I do want to share a note I got from people who were very close to Vicki, and this epitomizes the influence Vicki had on so many here. I think this note speaks for so many people. It says: ``I am still devastated, just like everyone who knew her. Wow.'' You can look around this city, you can look around this Capitol, and you can see what Vicki Dixon meant. It didn't matter if you were a Republican or a Democrat. She worked for both administrations. This is the person who was able to help navigate people in the right direction to get things done. Vicki is the perfect example of a career public servant who did not work for the public attention but for the sake of our country. Vicki loved the United States of America. Through Vicki's kindness and professionalism, she won the hearts of many, from the highest positions here in Washington to the humblest positions here in Washington. I hope that when we all leave, we can say the same thing, that our best friends just weren't those who walked into the best offices in this complex, but that our best friends were those who made sure the lights worked in these offices, that our friends were those who make Washington work for all of us just like Vicki Dixon did. One of my favorite memories of Vicki is actually getting to meet her. It was with my great friend, my former boss, former chief of staff Craig Roberts. He introduced me to her. Then I got reintroduced to Vicki by my former colleague, my mentor, and my friend and former boss, Congressman Shimkus. That brings up a great memory that I have of Vicki and Leader Michel, sitting right behind home plate. I could tell that the game was going well because Vicki was very much smiles when I would chase a passed ball back to the backstop. If the game wasn't going well, she probably wouldn't look at me while I was going back, making another error maybe, possibly, and, yes, historically. But I can remember Vicki sitting there with Leader Michel in a Cubs jersey. I am from Illinois. I am not a Cubs fan, and neither was John Shimkus. He was a much more rabid fan of the Cardinals than many. Vicki Dixon was the only one that could wear a Cubs jersey around Congressman John Shimkus because she was Vicki Dixon. From 1989 until her retirement in 2016, Vicki served Secretaries of the Interior, as I mentioned earlier, under both Republicans and Democrats. That is where I got a chance to see what she meant to people. The constituents I used to work for when I worked for Congressman John Shimkus got VIP tours of the monuments because Vicki Dixon realized that when constituents come to Washington, they want to see their Nation's Capital. She did everything she could to make that happen, so much so that when I became a Member of Congress, she continued to help us allow our constituents to see the monuments under her direction at the Department of the Interior. I remember a good friend of hers that used to work with her at the Department of the Interior under President Bush. I have exchanged texts with Lori Yates, my good friend, over the last few weeks upon Vicki's passing. Lori, Vicki knew you were a great friend, too. She knew that that friendship mattered. And understand that Vicki is in a better place. Vicki is with her friends and those she loved the most in a place where there is no pain. But in a place like Washington, D.C., she will be missed. Vicki worked for the Office of the Secretary and the Bureau of Land Management as an expert in external affairs. Before Interior, she worked for Congressman Dan Crane. She also worked for Veterans Affairs Secretary Ed Derwinski. As my colleagues mentioned, Vicki is a native of Shelbyville, Illinois. Vicki attended Lake Land College in Mattoon. I can remember one day my wife and I were driving around our hometown of Taylorville, and we just so happened to drive by Vicki's mom's house because Vicki's mom, Peggy, lived in my hometown for some time. And who do I see standing out in the driveway of her mom's house in Taylorville, Illinois, but Vicki Dixon? Of course, Vicki flagged us down, and we stopped. I got to know her mom even after that meeting. I know her mother, Peggy, is devastated by her loss. Vicki moved from D.C. to Naples, where she again quickly made new friends. But on January 8, it is one of those days where you exchange phone calls with colleagues and friends, and you hate to have that discussion, but just so everybody knows, Vicki passed peacefully in her sleep unexpectedly in Naples. I can't tell you how devastated we all are to know that Vicki is not going to be able to enjoy that house, that time that she wanted to enjoy in Naples. But Vicki lived one of the fullest lives I think we could ever wish for. Vicki's mom, Peggy, and her family are devastated, and we know that. I hope you know that our prayers are with them all. I would urge anyone watching tonight to say a quick prayer for Vicki's mom and Vicki's family. But Vicki is resting in peace. Vicki is again in a place experiencing no pain, and I believe there is a God that allows her to be able to experience that peace with those she loved the most. Vicki, we know you are resting in peace, but D.C. is not resting with you right now. D.C. is honoring you tonight. There is not a person that I think deserves more than Victoria Sands Dixon to be honored by an institution that she loved so much. God bless Vicki and her memory and those who knew her, and let's all use Vicki as an example. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, you can tell it must be NFL playoffs, as I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), my good friend and our Super Bowl champion from the Oakland Raiders.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, defending democracy $7.2 million at a time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), a member of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill, which was originally about NASA and went through the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, has seen more than 700 pages of election law tacked onto it just late last night. If it were to become law, it would give up to $7.2 million of public funding to the campaigns of each one of my colleagues, all of us. This is not about voting rights. This is about power and control. Mr. Speaker, $7.2 million is more money than most Americans can even dream of having. Yet, here we are considering another Democrat bill that takes public funding and, instead of giving it to the American people, puts it in the campaign coffers of Members of Congress. Members who vote for this bill are voting to line their own campaign coffers, all while falsely telling the American people that we have a voting rights crisis in this country and that we must pass this bill because the era of Jim Crow 2.0 is upon us. It is the definition of corruption. Thankfully, the American people don't seem to be buying the Democrats' rhetoric. According to polling, more Americans, including Independents, believe voting laws are too lax and insecure than those who believe voting laws are too restrictive. No matter how many times the President and other Democrats get up in front of the American people and try to manufacture a voting rights crisis in this country by using rhetoric like Jim Crow 2.0 or now comparing Republicans to Democrat-elected segregationist Bull Connor, as President Biden suggested this week in Georgia, there is still no evidence of widespread voter suppression. In our hearings in the House Administration Committee over the last 3 years, no one has ever produced a single voter who was eligible to vote but wasn't able to. In fact, 2020 saw the highest voter turnout in 120 years, and, according to Pew, 94 percent of Americans say it is easy to vote. Misrepresenting and, in some cases, flat-out lying about the laws States have passed to increase voter confidence in our elections is also part of the Democrats' playbook to manufacture a voting rights crisis. In fact, President Biden has earned four Pinocchios for his false claims about Georgia's voting laws. The laws these States are passing to bolster voter confidence make it easier to vote than ever before while protecting the integrity of our elections. Georgia's new ``voter suppression law'' has more days of early, in- person voting than New York, and Texas' ``voter suppression law'' ends pandemic exceptions like universal drive-thru voting and 24-hour voting. Neither existed in Texas before 2020. Neither widely exists even in blue States. I think most of us can agree that nothing good can come from 24-hour, drive-thru voting. The bill we are considering today is not about increasing voting rights for the American people, and this is not a compromise. This bill still contains the worst provisions of H.R. 1. It still publicly funds Members' campaigns; nationalizes and centralizes our election system; makes Merrick Garland the election czar; puts unelected bureaucrats in charge of States' voting laws, instead of the American people; destroys the First Amendment; weakens States' ability to maintain accurate voter rolls; prevents States from implementing strict voter ID laws, despite the majority of Americans supporting voter ID laws; and the list goes on and on. As terrible as those provisions are, nothing screams this bill isn't for the American people more than the fact that it gives every one of us, every Member of Congress and their own campaigns, up to $7.2 million in public funding. The old saying is: Follow the money. I think that is incredibly relevant here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), my good friend and the ranking member on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), the founder of the Election Integrity Caucus and my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Committee on House Administration Republicans' ``Elections Clause'' report. House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC, August 12, 2021. Rep. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member Report--The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional Authority Over Elections Executive Summary Republicans believe that every eligible voter who wants to vote must be able to do so, and all lawful votes must be counted according to state law. Through an examination of history, precedent, the Framers' words, debates concerning ratification, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution itself, this document explains the constitutional division of power envisioned by the Framers between the States and the federal government with respect to election administration. Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the ``times, places, and manner of holding elections''. Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate refusal to pass election laws. As do other aspects of our federal system, this division of sovereignty continues to serve to protect one of Americans' most precious freedoms, the right to vote. The Constitution reserves to the States the primary authority to set election legislation and administer elections--the ``times, places, and manner of holding of elections'' and Congress' power in this space is purely second to the States' power. Congress' power is to be employed only in the direst of circumstances. Despite Democrats' insistence that Congress' power over elections is unfettered and permits Congress to enact sweeping legislation like H.R. 1, it is simply not true. History, precedent, the Framers' words, debates concerning ratification, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution itself make this exceedingly clear. The Framing Generation grappled with the failure of the Articles of Confederation, which provided for only a weak national government incapable of preserving the Union. Under the Articles, the States had exclusive authority over federal elections held within their territory. but, given the difficulties the national government had experienced with State cooperation (e.g., the failure of Rhode Island to send delegates to the Confederation Congress); the Federalists, including Alexander Hamilton, were concerned with the possibility that the States, in an effort to destroy the federal government, simply might not hold elections or that an emergency, such as an invasion or insurrection, might prevent the operation of a State's government, leaving the Congress without Members and the federal government unable to respond. Indeed, as counsel for the Democrat Members of our Committee so keenly observed: For the Founders, particularly during the Federal Constitutional Convention, the primary concern was informing the discussions of federal elections in Article I was the risk of uncooperative states. For example, Alexander Hamilton noted that by providing states the authority to run congressional elections, under Article I, Section 4, ``risk[ed] `leaving the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy.' '' Following the failings of the Articles of Confederation, the Founders looked for processes that would insulate Congress from recalcitrant states. Indeed, ``[t]he dominant purpose of the Elections Clause, the historical record bears out, was to empower Congress to override state election rules, not to restrict the way States enact legislation[,]'' and that ``the Clause `was the Framers' insurance against the possibility that a State would refuse to provide for the election of representatives to the Federal Congress.' ''. Quite plainly, Alexander Hamilton, a leading Federalist and proponent of our Constitution, understood the Elections Clause as serving only as a sort of emergency fail-safe, not as a cudgel used to nationalize our elections process. Writing as Publius to the people of New York, Hamilton further expounds on the correct understanding of the Elections Clause: ``T[he] natural order of the subject leads us to consider, in this place, that provision of the Constitution which authorizes the national legislature to regulate, in the last resort, the election of its own members.'' When questioned at the States' constitutional ratifying conventions with respect to this provision, the Federalists confirmed this understanding of a constitutionally limited, secondary congressional power under Article 1, Section 4: Maryland: Convention delegate James McHenry added that the risk to the federal government [without a fail-safe provision] might not arise from state malice: An insurrection or rebellion might prevent a state legislature from administering an election. North Carolina: An occasion may arise when the exercise of this ultimate power of Congress may be necessary . . . a state should be involved in war, and its legislature could not assemble, (as was the case of South Carolina and occasionally of some other states, during the [Revolutionary] war). Pennsylvania: Sir, let it be remembered that this power can only operate in a case of necessity, after the factious or listless disposition of a particular state has rendered an interference essential to the salvation of the general government. John Jay made similar claims in New York. And, as constitutional scholar Robert Natelson, notes in his invaluable article, The Original Scope of the Congressional Power to Regulate Elections, Alexander Contee Hanson, a member of Congress whose pamphlet supporting the Constitution proved popular, stated flatly that Congress would exercise its times, places, and manner authority only in cases of invasion, legislative neglect or obstinate refusal to pass election laws [providing for the election of Members of Congress], or if a state crafted its election laws with a `sinister purpose' or to injure the general government.'' Cementing his point, Hanson goes further to decree, ``The exercise of this power must at all times be so very invidious, that congress will not venture upon it without some very cogent and substantial reason.'' In Floor debate during the 117th Congress concerning H.R. 1, the Democrats' intended nationalization of elections, Ranking Member Davis argued, as he has many other times, that: According to Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution, States have the primary role in establishing ``[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.'' Under the Constitution, Congress has a purely secondary role in this space and must restrain itself from acting improperly and unconstitutionally. Federal election legislation should never be the first step and must never impose burdensome, unfunded federal mandates on state and local elections officials. When Congress does speak, it must devote its efforts only to resolving highly significant and substantial deficiencies. State legislatures are the primary venues to correct most issues. In fact, had the Democrats' view of the Elections Clause been accepted at the time of the Constitution's drafting-- that is, that it offers Congress unfettered power over federal elections--it is likely that the Constitution would not have been ratified or that an amendment to this language would have been required. Indeed, at least seven of the original 13 states--over half and enough to prevent the Constitution from being ratified--expressd specific concerns with the language of the Elections Clause. However, ``[l]eading Federalists . . . assured them, . . . that, even without amendment, the [Elections] Clause should be construed as limited to emergencies.'' Three states, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, specifically made their ratification contingent on this understanding being made express: New York: Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the Name and in [sic] the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution. In full Confidence . . . that the Congress will not make or alter any Regulation in this State respecting the times places and manner of holding Elections for Senators or Representatives unless the Legislature of this State shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same, and that in those cases such power will only be exercised until the Legislature of this State shall make provision in the Premises[.] North Carolina: That Congress shall not alter, modify, or interfere in the times, places, or manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, or either of them, except when the legislature of any state shall neglect, refuse or be disabled by invasion or rebellion, to prescribe the same. Rhode Island: Under these impressions, and declaring, that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid, are consistent with the said constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter mentioned, will receive an early and mature consideration, and conformably to the fifth article of said constitution, speedily become a part thereof; We the said delegates, in the name, and in [sic] the behalf of the People, of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, do by these Presents, assent to, and ratify the said Constitution. In full confidence . . . That the Congress will not make or alter any regulation in this State, respecting the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, unless the legislature of this state shall neglect, or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same; and that [i]n those cases, such power will only be exercised, until the legislature of this State shall make provision in the Premises[.] This clearly demonstrates that the Framers designed and the ratifying States understood the Elections Clause to serve solely as a protective backstop to ensure the preservation of the Federal Government, not as a font of limitless power for Congress to wrest control of federal elections from the States. This understanding was also reinforced by debate during the first Congress that convened under the Constitution. ``During the first session of the First Congress . . . Representative Aedanus Burke unsuccessfully proposed a constitutional amendment to limit the Times, Places and Manner Clause to emergencies. But those on both sides of the Burke amendment debate already understood the Elections Clause to limit Federal elections power to emergencies. For example, the recorded description of opponent Representative Goodhue's comments notes that he believed the Elections Clause as written was intended to prevent ``. . . the State Governments [from] oppos[ing] and thwart[ing] the general one to such a degree as finally to overturn it. Now, to guard against this evil, he wished the Federal Government to possess every power necessary to its existence.'' With any change to the original text therefore unnecessary to achieve Burke's desired goal, Mr. Goodhue voted against the proposed amendment. Similarly, proponent Representative Smith of South Carolina also believed the original text of the Elections Clause already limited the Federal Government's power over federal elections to emergencies and so thought there would be no harm in supporting an amendment to make that language express. So, even the records of the First Congress reflect a recognition of the emergency nature of congressional power over federal elections. Similarly, the Supreme Court has supported this understanding. In Smiley v. Holm, the Court held that Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution reserved to the States the primary authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns; in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved. And these requirements would be nugatory if they did not have appropriate sanctions in the definition of offenses and punishments. All this is comprised in the subject of ``times, places and manner of holding elections,'' and involves lawmaking in its essential features and most important aspect. This holding, of course, is consistent with the understanding of the Elections Clause since the framing of the Constitution. The Smiley Court also held that while Congress maintains the authority to . . . supplement these state regulations or [to] substitute its own[]'', such authority remains merely `` `a general supervisory power over the whole subject.' '' More recently, the Court noted in Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. that ``[t]his grant of congressional power [that is, the fail-safe provision in the Elections Clause] was the Framers' insurance against the possibility that a State would refuse to provide for the election of representatives to the Federal Congress.'' The Court explained that the Elections Clause ``. . . imposes [upon the States] the duty . . . to prescribe the time, place, and manner of electing Representatives and Senators[.]'' And, while, as the Court noted, ``[t]he power of Congress over the `Times, Places and Manner' of congressional elections `is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent therewith[]'', the Inter-Tribal Court explained, quoting extensively from The Federalist no. 59, that it was clear that the congressional fail-safe included in the Elections Clause was intended for the sorts of governmental self- preservation discussed in this Report: ``[E]very government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation[.]''; ``[A]n exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate it by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to administer its affairs.''

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), my good friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report by Common Cause that is titled: ``Maryland General Assembly Approves Gerrymandered Congressional Map.'' [From the Common Cause Maryland, Dec. 8, 2021] Maryland General Assembly Approves Gerrymandered Congressional Map Today, the Maryland General Assembly passed HB 1--the congressional districting plan adopted by the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission (LRAC). The map is now headed to Governor Hogan's desk. Statement of Joanne Antoine, Common Cause Maryland Executive Director When the redistricting process is led by politicians, the maps will be drawn to benefit the politicians--and that's exactly what state legislators have done today. While we were encouraged by the General Assembly's willingness to improve transparency and access throughout the process in comparison to the 2011 redistricting cycle, they have chosen to maintain the status quo. They had an opportunity to do what's in the best interest of Marylanders for the next decade and have chosen, yet again, to wait on a national solution. While I'm not surprised, I am disappointed. Thank you to public for making their voices heard and Delegate Gabriel Acevero (D-Montgomery) for taking a stand against partisan gerrymandering here in Maryland and nationwide by being the lone Democratic vote against the congressional map.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).