Rodney Davis

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Georgia an additional 15 seconds.

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that reminder. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the State of Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

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

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

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

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. The gentleman is also my friend. I appreciate it. I enjoyed the debate and, Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, if I may. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. It is friendships like this with Mr. Butterfield, that I look around this Chamber and I think we, as Americans, should be celebrating what America is doing right. Look at the diversity of who serves here in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was necessary to stop discrimination, and it has worked. But make no mistake, today's bill is not a voting rights bill. Today's bill, unfortunately, is a bill that leads to lining your own campaign coffers with public funds. Now, Speaker Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, was here on the floor today. And no matter how many times she says it, that there are no taxpayer funds, it doesn't make it true. Let me go through it. What happened is, the original H.R. 1 when proposed last Congress did have taxpayer funding of political campaigns, our own campaigns. But now they take the first ever corporate money, through corporate fines. They put it into the Department of the Treasury's laundering machine, and it comes out as part of the Department of the Treasury. Those are not public funds. Does that mean when you send your check to pay your taxes and it goes to the Department of the Treasury, that those aren't public funds? Every single person who votes ``yes'' for this bill that is not a voting rights bill is voting to line their own campaign pockets. That is not what the American people want. Ninety-four percent of Americans said it is easy to vote. We have asked, time and time again, give me one person to show up at a hearing that said that they wanted to vote in the last election and couldn't, not one person has walked through that door. Not one person has showed up on a Zoom call, not one person. Why in the world do we continue to try to gaslight the American people into thinking that this is about voting rights? This is not about voting rights. This about lining your own campaign coffers. This is about breaking a tradition in the Senate. This is about taking over and winning elections for one side over the other. Vote ``no'' on this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can bring up my resolution, H. Res. 866, to highlight how imperative it is for election integrity and voter confidence that only American citizens vote in our elections. As Members of Congress, most of us have attended a naturalization ceremony or two during our time of service. We have watched these very moving ceremonies as these prospective Americans take the oath of allegiance to the United States of America. They pledge their allegiance to our country. They swear to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is one of those moments that makes America the greatest country on Earth. They have earned the right to vote in our elections. What New York City and others are doing, by allowing nearly a million noncitizens to vote, is a slap in the face to those who worked hard for that sacred right. While I don't support what New York is doing by any means, it is our job that we protect Federal elections. Common sense will tell you that combining noncitizens and eligible American voters on the same voter rolls is ripe for abuse. It is really just not practical. Currently, in Illinois, noncitizens cannot vote, and if they do, they face major legal consequences and could be deported. But in 2016, Illinois' Automatic Voter Registration program mistakenly registered to vote more than 500 noncitizens who had done the right thing by checking the box stating they are not citizens on their driver's license applications. However, several of these noncitizens voted in the 2018 and 2019 elections. This does nothing to bolster voter confidence in our elections. In fact, Madam Speaker, it does the opposite. Not only does this undermine the integrity of our elections, but the mistake by Illinois could also have had dire consequences for these individuals if they seek citizenship in the future. All of this could be prevented if States were actually maintaining accurate voter rolls, which has been required by Federal law for nearly 30 years. Whether intentional or not, we know this is happening. It is undermining the integrity of our elections. This amendment would simply ensure those who are noncitizens, who do not have the right to vote in Federal elections, are removed from States' voter rolls. This is especially critical as my friends on the other side of the aisle push for a Federal takeover of elections. Let's defeat the previous question so that we can take a stand with my resolution to support only citizens voting in our elections and encourage States to adopt reforms that don't put noncitizens at risk of intentionally or unintentionally breaking the law by illegally voting in Federal elections.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Weren't the Raider fans Republicans, too?

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from California. It was 10 years ago when we all came in as brand-new freshmen. One of the first questions I asked any of my colleagues from the State of California when I got here was: Are you a Raiders fan? Today, we are all Raiders fans, but just so everybody knows, he is a 49ers fan. That is okay. As my friend says, there is a lot of disagreement in this place. He and I don't agree on a lot of issues that are coming in front of this institution during this week or the upcoming weeks or, frankly, the past few years. But we are here all together to celebrate the life of a man who had an impact on all of us in this great Nation, especially on a young Raiders fan who became that Raiders fan when I lived in the State of Iowa. Anyone who knew me as I was growing up knows that there is only one football team that I root for, and that is the Oakland Raiders, then the Los Angeles Raiders, then the Oakland Raiders, and now the Las Vegas Raiders. Most people in this country know John Madden as that broadcaster. This is the guy who actually broadcast professional football games on every single television network. What a feat that is. People knew him for being afraid to fly and driving a bus, talking about food, and writing with the little scribbler pen on the screen. What they don't know about John Madden is that his life was football before he became that broadcaster. He helped make my life about football because, one day on January 9, 1977, my family, as I was 7 years old, sat down to watch the Super Bowl. It was the first football game I had ever watched in my life. Now, many people who know me are not going to be surprised by this. Everybody else in my house was rooting for the Vikings, so I had to be obstinate and say: I guess I am going to root for the Raiders. What I saw in that game was something that I still have never forgotten. I didn't know who John Madden was, but I learned about what he meant to that team. All I knew was there was a great team led by a great quarterback, Ken Stabler, whom John Madden allowed to call his own plays. Madam Speaker, can you imagine that in today's day and age, allowing the quarterback to call their own plays? Bill Belichick probably is having a seizure right now thinking about that. There is no way they are going to let people call their own plays. But John Madden believed in his players, and those players believed in him. They went out there, and they did their job that day. I was hooked, watching Jack Tatum knock Sammy White's helmet off in an incomplete pass. I knew when I got to play football, I had to play defensive back. That was the coolest thing I had ever seen in my life. Ever since that day, there were Raider shirts, Raider pajamas, and Raider helmets. I actually still have my first one that I used to use in grade school, and it still has No. 30 on the back because my hero growing up was Mark van Eeghen, the fullback for the Raiders. My good friend and colleague Burgess Owens, who played on the next Super Bowl team, not for Coach Madden, but for Coach Flores, actually has promised me a chance to meet Mr. van Eeghen, so I am going to take him up on that. But to hear Burgess talk about stories of being a Raider, it is what John Madden, Al Davis, and the Al Davis family built and the entire Raiders organization built that made players want to come to Oakland and be a part of that winning atmosphere. John Madden helped create that winning atmosphere. Players like Ken Stabler, Mark van Eeghen, Burgess Owens, Jack Tatum, George Atkinson, Otis Sistrunk, Dave Casper, Fred Biletnikoff, Cliff Branch, you name it, Madam Speaker, they were there, and they created that atmosphere. But they needed a leader, and that leader in the 1976 season leading up to January 1977 was none other than John Madden, a great coach, a Hall of Famer. And from what I hear--because I never had the great chance to meet him--he was just a great person. As time has worn on, I have gotten to know people in the Raiders organization, and they epitomize the same values John Madden did. When you look at what is happening right now with the leadership of Mark Davis; the president of the team, Dan Ventrelle, my good friend; and so many others, they are taking that same John Madden attitude. We saw what happened on Sunday when they willed themselves through great players and great leadership into the playoffs. I know John Madden's family lit the flame that day in honor of Al Davis, and that flame was also lit that day in honor of John Madden. I am so glad the Raiders had a victory. I wish them well. Go Raiders. This week, beat the Bengals. And let's never forget the impact of John Madden.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my hometown Taylorville Junior High School's seventh grade girls' basketball team on their 2021 State championship win. After a back and forth game, the score was tied at 16-16 with 4 seconds to go. The Tornadoes came out triumphant after Grace Rogers hit a clutch shot. The seventh grade girls' basketball team ends their season with an overall record of 26-2. This team's hard work, dedication, and sportsmanship shine throughout our entire Taylorville community. I give a big tip of the hat and personally congratulate my good friend and head coach, Doug Bowsher. I congratulate all the girls on this wonderful, championship team for their hard work and dedication, and I am excited to see what the future holds for this championship Taylorville Tornado team. Congratulating David Brown

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my good friend David Brown for his retirement after more than 30 years at WAND in Decatur, Illinois. David's ancestors moved from New Hampshire to Illinois in 1867 in a search for new farming opportunities. David is a centennial farmer, and his son is the sixth generation from his family to farm in central Illinois. After graduating from Millikin University, David also worked at WSOY radio. David first joined the WAND news team as an ag reporter when the Farm Progress Show came to central Illinois in 1991. At WAND, many of his colleagues described him as a mentor, a friend, and one of the hardest workers they have come to know. Throughout David's tenure at the station, he was loved by all and received an award for Media Excellence in Agriculture. According to David, he had the best of both worlds, working at his passion, and then getting to share the importance of agriculture with the viewers as a farmer and as an ag broadcaster. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate David on his retirement. It is well deserved. Now David has a little more time to spend with his four children and six grandchildren. Recognizing Ray and Barbie Swinda

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Decatur residents Ray and Barbie Swinda and their Facebook page, Support Decatur IL Business. Ray his wife, Barbie, have been using their Facebook page to show off local Decatur businesses and restaurants they have been enjoying, and encouraging others in the community to follow their lead in buying and eating local. Ray and his wife started their page in response to larger chains harming the diversity of options for food and services in the Decatur area that Ray remembers existing as a kid. Many of the businesses that have been featured on their page have been shocked by the increase in traffic. Ray and Barbie have received responses from others in the community, including Mayor Julie Moore Wolfe herself, and have become local leaders simply through their work in promoting local businesses and restaurants. I urge everybody, if you are traveling through Decatur, Illinois, and you want a good recommendation, go visit Ray and Barbie's Facebook page, and you will see some great plates of delicious food. I also personally congratulate Ray and Barbie on the success of their Facebook page and thank them for being pillars of the community and encouraging so many others to invest in our local businesses.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, here we are again, considering another politically motivated contempt resolution. This time the contempt resolution is for someone who actually provided this select committee with nearly 7,000 pages of nonprivileged e-mails and other documents in response to a subpoena. More than 1,100 documents and more than 2,300 text messages were also provided. But that doesn't seem to be enough for this select committee. It really has turned out to be nothing more than a partisan committee just to investigate the former President. Subpoenas are not open-ended. They are required to be narrowly tailored. Unfortunately, this committee doesn't seem to care about the rules. I also have some serious concerns with the way whistleblowers and other witnesses are being treated by this select committee. I asked this question the last time we were here voting on a politically motivated contempt resolution, and it still hasn't been answered by the majority, so I will ask it again: Why was the Capitol so unprotected on January 6? There are serious security vulnerabilities that have not been addressed and won't be addressed nearly a year after January 6. There has been little real action taken in response to the Senate report on January 6 and the Honore task force findings. The Capitol Police inspector general has released 7 reports and 103 findings, yet the majority has failed to ensure these findings are implemented in a meaningful way. We know massive changes to intel, perimeter protection, training, leadership structure, decision-making processes, and many, many more are needed, but neither this select committee nor the Committee on House Administration seem at all interested in ensuring that these changes are made. Additionally, a number of questions, Madam Speaker, from that day still remain unanswered. I am still waiting on the Speaker of the House to answer a letter I sent her back in February that asks why the National Guard request by then Police Chief Steven Sund were denied? Why the Speaker was involved in eventually approving the request? And why the House Sergeant at Arms has refused to comply with preservation and production requests from my office? I am the ranking member of the oversight committee for the Sergeant at Arms. They will not comply with the preservation request from the committee of jurisdiction. We have many other unanswered questions, too, Madam Speaker. With these questions still unanswered and another purely political contempt resolution on the floor today, it makes you ask yourself, what is the majority hiding? And why are their priorities not the men and women serving in the Capitol Police and making this Capitol more secure for everyone? We need these reforms. They should have been done months ago.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky, for yielding. The bill we are debating here today, the so-called Protecting Our Democracy Act, is another attempt by the outgoing majority to relitigate many of the Democrats' sham investigations. Many of the bill's provisions are unnecessary and recycled attempts to take away individual States' sovereignty. If we were really here to talk about protecting our democracy, then we would focus on the importance of voter rolls list maintenance to ensure only eligible citizens are able to vote in Federal elections. Congress passed the bipartisan National Voter Registration Act in 1993. That is almost 30 years ago. This law requires States to conduct regular list maintenance to ensure their voter rolls are kept up to date. This simple, commonsense requirement is incredibly important for voter confidence in our entire election process and its outcomes. However, the Biden DOJ refuses to enforce it. Instead, Progressives focus on defunding the police and embracing lawlessness, keeping our economy and Capitol shut down while ignoring the science, labeling concerned parents as extremist threats, and weaponizing the DOJ to go after them, and pursuing reckless, unnecessary spending that is driving the inflation every single American feels in their pocketbook. If Democrats were really focused on protecting our democracy, the Biden Justice Department would investigate States like California where the number of registered voters far exceeds the number of adults in the State. Senator Alex Padilla, a newly appointed Senator from the State of California, knew about the problem and refused to address it when he was Secretary of State in California during the last election cycle. Republicans care about election integrity because our constitutional republic means nothing if our citizens don't have faith in our elections. When everyday Americans hear more and more reports of individuals on active voter rolls who have moved to another State, died, or are noncitizens, it frustrates them because it calls into question whether their valid vote actually counts. One eligible person, one whole non- diluted vote. It is so frustrating because the fix is so simple, but Democrats refuse time and time again to address this problem. It is common sense and has been Federal law for decades that only eligible Americans should be on our voter rolls. Republicans want every eligible voter who wants to vote to exercise that right. Democrats dilute your vote, but Republicans restore it. I am here today to talk about protecting our democracy, and I think the only way to do that is to make sure Americans know our elections have integrity. So today, I am calling on the radical Biden Justice Department to do the right thing and enforce Federal law across the board. Stop investigating parents that want to be involved in their children's education. Stop supporting efforts to defund our men and women in blue resulting in the lawlessness that we see ravaging our great country. Focus on what really matters. Protect our democracy, protect our vote, and ensure States like California conduct voter roll list maintenance so that voters know only eligible American citizens are able to vote. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Department of Justice IG detailing the DOJ's official policy not to enforce Federal voter list maintenance requirements. [From the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, March 2013] A Review of the Operations of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division V. Enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) In this section we review the Voting Section's history of enforcing the National Voter Registration Act, the so-called motor-voter law. Enacted in 1993, the NVRA has. two primary purposes: to increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in federal elections and to protect the integrity of the electoral process. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg(b). Critics have alleged that CRT leadership during the prior administration favored enforcement of the list-maintenance (electoral integrity) provisions because those provisions purportedly are more strongly supported by Republicans and remove more potential Democratic voters from the rolls. Conversely, critics of the current CRT leadership allege that it has neglected the electoral integrity provisions of the NVRA in favor of enforcing the voter access provisions, because these provisions purportedly are supported by Democratic constituencies and lead to the registration of more voters who are likely to support Democrats. Without opining on the underlying political assumptions, we examine both of these allegations in this section. A. Data Regarding Enforcement Trends in NVRA Cases Figure 3. 7 below displays the number of NVRA enforcement actions initiated by the Voting Section on an annual basis since January 1995, when the statute became effective in most states. Figure 3. 7 is broken down by actions that enforced the statute's list-maintenance provision (Section 8(a)(4)), actions that enforced the voter registration provisions (Sections 5, 6, 7, and the improper purging paragraphs of Section 8), and actions that brought both types of claims. The most noteworthy trend in the Department's enforcement of the NVRA relates to the statute's voter list-maintenance provision, Section 8(a)(4). In the 17 years since the statute became effective, the Department has asserted list- maintenance claims on 7 occasions, 6 of which occurred in a 3-year span between 2004 and 2007. According to Hans von Spakovsky, CRT leadership initiated an effort to enforce Section 8's list-maintenance provision in late 2004. Von Spakovsky told the OIG that he recommended to Division leadership exploring those cases because he believed that the Department had never conducted a systematic review of states' list-maintenance compliance in the 10 years since the NVRA became effective. This effort ultimately resulted in the filing of a complaint alleging list-maintenance claims in 2005 and 2006. According to witnesses involved in the four other matters involving list-maintenance claims brought between 2004 and 2007, those claims arose when the Section obtained evidence suggesting a failure to comply with the list-maintenance provision during the course of ongoing investigations into other voting-related matters. B. Enforcement of the NVRA during 2001-2008 We received allegations that the only NVRA cases that Division leadership wanted to pursue during this period were Section 8(a)(4) list-maintenance claims, at the expense of cases to protect or increase voter registration under other provisions of the NVRA. Critics further alleged that the Division's leadership was particularly focused on bringing such list-purging cases in political swing states and large Democratic jurisdictions. The Division's leadership denied any such focus and identified several cases approved by Division leadership to controvert the suggestion that NVRA enforcement decisions were driven by a partisan agenda. We examined the entire range of NVRA cases pursued during January 2001 to January 2009 in order to address this issue. From January 2001 through January 2009, the Department was involved in 12 NVRA enforcement matters, summarized in Table 3.2. As reflected in Table 3.2, the Voting Section began filing list-maintenance cases in 2004. As noted above, von Spakovsky confirmed that Division leadership initiated an effort in 2004 to enforce Section 8's list-maintenance provision on a systemic basis. Von Spakovsky told the OIG that he recommended exploring those cases because he believed the Department had never conducted a systematic review of states' list-maintenance compliance in the 10 years since the NVRA's enactment. Division leadership directed the Voting Section to conduct the research effort, to review the census data and voter registration data for all 50 states to determine which states had more people registered to vote than the voting-age population, as reflected in the census data. Based on the results of this research, the Section sent letters to 12 states, stating that the Section's review of relevant data indicated that the state may not be complying with Section 8's list-maintenance provision and requesting information on their efforts to remove ineligible voters from their registration lists. Von Spakovsky told the OIG that some of the targeted states responded to the Department's letter, explained why there was a discrepancy in the data, and established that they were complying with the NVRA's list-maintenance requirements. He also stated that a number of states failed to show that they were in compliance with Section 8(a)(4) and that the Section proceeded toward enforcement actions against those non- compliant states. Division leadership approved the filing of two complaints as a result of this enforcement initiative. In November 2005, the Section filed a lawsuit against the state of Missouri alleging both improper purging and failure-to-purge violations. In June 2006, the Section filed a complaint against Indiana alleging that the state failed to conduct list purging as required by Section 8(a)(4). The Indiana case was resolved by a settlement agreement, but the Missouri case continued until early 2009, when the Division voluntarily dismissed the case. In 2006 and 2007, Division leadership approved three additional complaints containing Section 8(a)(4) list- maintenance claims, against the States of Maine and New Jersey and the City of Philadelphia. According to the Voting Section attorney supervising those efforts, these complaints did not arise out of the enforcement initiative described above. Instead, the complaints were brought as a result of investigations under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that uncovered evidence of both HAVA and NVRA violations. The Section ultimately settled the lawsuits with Maine, New Jersey, and Philadelphia. In each settlement agreement, the jurisdiction agreed to implement specific steps to satisfy its list-maintenance obligations. In August 2007, Voting Section Chief John Tanner initiated a program to enforce Section 7 of the NVRA, requiring states to provide voter registration opportunities in public assistance and disability offices. Section attorneys reviewed federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) data to identify states that were not meeting Section 7's requirements and discovered 18 states that reported registering 0 voters in offices providing public assistance over the previous 2-year period. Following further investigation, the Section entered into settlement agreements with Arizona and Illinois to resolve Section 7 violations. In 2007 and 2008, Voting Section teams reviewed EAC data and census information to identify states that might not be in compliance with the NVRA'sSection 8(a)(4) list-maintenance requirements. The teams identified states in which a significant percentage of the counties or electoral jurisdictions had more registered voters than voting-age population. The teams recommended to Division leadership that the Voting Section initiate investigations into the states that failed to meet the relevant criterion. The states that were the subject of these recommendations included some states that historically have consistently favored one party in presidential elections as well as political ``swing states.'' The 2007 recommendation was approved and the Section later issued requests for information to the relevant states. Ultimately, however, no further enforcement action was taken arising out of this effort. The investigations that were proposed in late November 2008 were never approved by either the outgoing or the incoming administrations. C. Enforcement of the NVRA during 2009-2012 1. Division Leadership Declines To Act on Voting Section Proposal for Section 8 Investigation In February 2009, shortly after the new administration took office, the Voting Section submitted a memorandum to Division leadership requesting approval to initiate investigations into the list-maintenance procedures of a State (``State E''). According to the State E memorandum, voter-registration data indicated that roughly 22 percent of State E's counties had more registered voters than either the voting-age population or the citizen voting-age population. The memorandum stated that the Section had been alerted to State E's potential list-maintenance failures in connection with an unrelated Section 5 investigation. We were told that the Section never received a response from Division leadership to the proposal memorandum. 2. Drafting of NVRA Guidance In the spring of 2009, a few months after the inauguration of the new administration, the Department commenced an effort to draft public guidance concerning the requirements of NVRA Section 7. Samuel Hirsch, who joined the Department in March 2009 as a Deputy Associate Attorney General and led the NVRA guidance effort, described the project as rewriting the NVRA in plain terms and posting it on the CRT website to assist those running state governmental offices in complying with the NVRA's requirements. Hirsch told the OIG the original scope of the NVRA guidance project was limited to Section 7 because the administration believed that Section 7 had been somewhat ignored by state government officials. According to Hirsch, there was a sense in the administration that NVRA Section 8 and other provisions were working fairly well, but that Section 7 ``was slipping through the cracks.'' DAAG Julie Fernandes and AAG Thomas Perez became involved in the NVRA guidance project after they joined the Department in July and October 2009, respectively. According to Fernandes, she expressed concern to Hirsch that the project was limited to Section 7 and proposed broadening the guidance to include other NVRA provisions, such as Sections 5 and 8. Perez also told the OIG that in early 2010 he instructed that the guidance include a discussion of all NVRA provisions, including the list-maintenance provisions. Hirsch told the OIG that he did not oppose expanding the guidance to include Section 8, but stated that he may have been opposed to holding up the release of the Section 7 guidance while preparing the Section 8 segment. The Division ultimately posted guidance concerning NVRA Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 on its website in June 2010. 3. Comments by DAAG Julie Fernandes Regarding NVRA Enforcement at a November 2009 Section Meeting DAAG Julie Fernandes told the OIG that she urged Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates to hold section-wide meetings shortly after she joined the Department in July 2009. As a result, the Voting Section held several brown-bag lunches. In addition to the September meeting at which Section 2 enforcement was discussed as outlined above, another session devoted to NVRA matters was held on November 10, 2009. At some point during the November meeting, the discussion turned to the enforcement of the NVRA's voter list- maintenance provision in Section 8. Witnesses who recalled Fernandes's statements uniformly remembered that she said something to the effect that she was more interested in pursuing cases under NVRA Section 7 than Section 8 because Section 8 does not expand voter access. Witnesses' recollections of the context of Fernandes's statements, her precise wording, and the meaning of her comments, however, varied widely. Thirteen witnesses told the OIG that Fernandes stated that she ``did not care about'' or ``was not interested'' in pursuing Section 8 cases, or similar formulations. For instance, Chris Herren, who was later promoted by current Division leadership to Section Chief, told the OIG that Fernandes made a controversial and ``very provocative'' statement at this brown bag lunch. In particular, Herren stated that Fernandes stated something to the effect of ``[Section 8] does nothing to help voters. We have no interest in that.'' Herren told the OIG that he winced when he heard Fernandes's response because he believed it would raise a controversy. Two other Section attorneys took handwritten notes at the meeting, both of which quoted Fernandes saying that she did not ``care'' about Section 8. Ten attorneys who attended the meeting told the OIG that they interpreted Fernandes's comments to be a clear directive that Division leadership would not approve Section 8 list- maintenance cases in the future. One Section attorney told the OIG that he understood Fernandes's statements to mean that proposing a Section 8 case would be futile and that he believed proposing Section 8 could be detrimental for the attorneys. Seven Voting Section attorneys told the OIG, however, that they did not believe Fernandes said that the Division would not enforce Section 8 of the NVRA. Among these were three Deputy Chiefs who told the OIG that they believed Fernandes meant that Section 7 cases would be prioritized over Section 8 matters, but that they did not construe her statement to mean that Section 8 cases would not be approved. Those attorneys who were generally identified as being more conservative tended to recall that Fernandes took the more extreme position, while those generally identified as being more liberal tended to recall her statements as being more limited. Fernandes told the OIG that she did not recall exactly what she said at the November brown bag lunch regarding enforcement of Section 8 of the NVRA. She said that she and the Section staff discussed the NVRA and what their approach, goals, and strategy should be. She said that she talked about how Division leadership is interested in creating equal opportunity for minority voters. Fernandes further told the OIG that she talked about wanting the Section to focus on voter access, which would involve NVRA Sections 5, 7, and 8, all of which are in the vein of ensuring that jurisdictions have a fair and accessible process for all voters. She stated that she recalled being asked about Section 8 and that her response included something to the effect that Division leadership's focus is on the provisions of the NVRA pertaining to voter access. With respect to the comments attributed to her that she did not care about enforcing Section 8, Fernandes told the OIG that she did not think she said the words ``don't care'' about enforcing Section 8 because that is not her position. Fernandes denied saying that she or Division leadership had no interest in pursuing Section 8 cases. Fernandes said that she believed her comment about not caring was in the context of how to determine what jurisdictions they should target for enforcement, given that she believed there is widespread noncompliance with the NVRA. Fernandes noted that the list-maintenance provision of Section 8 requires jurisdictions to employ reasonable, non- discriminatory measures to ensure that people who are eligible can vote and those who are ineligible cannot. Therefore, Fernandes stated, she does not care whether a jurisdiction's voter list is big, but rather whether it has a list-maintenance program that does not work. She explained that the fact that a jurisdiction's voter list is too big means that the Section may want to inquire about the jurisdiction's list-maintenance program, but that alone would not justify bringing a lawsuit. Roughly one year later, in September 2010, allegations concerning Fernandes's comments at the brown bag lunch regarding NVRA enforcement surfaced in news media. Fernandes and other Division leadership personnel assisted other Department officials in preparing talking points to address the allegations and Fernandes stated in one of the relevant e-mails: ``If we are o.k. with having priorities, we should say that we have a priority on the enforcement of the NVRA, with a focus on the parts of the statute that require states to provide voter registration opportunities in a variety of settings.'' 4. Approval of List-Maintenance Investigations In September 2009, the Section submitted a memorandum to DAAG Fernandes requesting authority to initiate formal investigations into the list-maintenance procedures of eight states. The recommendation was based on the Section's review of an EAC report that contained voting-related data from each of the 50 states covering the period from November 2006 to November 2008. A Deputy Section Chief supervised a team of Section attorneys that reviewed the EAC report for anomalous entries, particularly states that reported that throughout the 2-year period they did not remove any voters from their rolls due to death or that they had not issued any voter- removal notices related to citizens who were believed to have moved out of the state. The team identified eight states that met one of those criteria, four of which reported removing zero ineligible voters from their rolls over the 2-year period for any reason, including death, change of address, disqualifying criminal conviction, or mental incapacity. The team presented the relevant data in its memorandum to DAAG Fernandes and stated that the information suggested that the eight states in question were not fulfilling their list- maintenance obligations under Section 8. As a result, the team recommended initiating formal investigations of the states in question and directing inquiries to relevant state officials. Fernandes told the OIG that, after receiving the proposal for the Section 8 investigations, she told Section Chief Coates that he needed to ``hold off' because she was not ready to decide whether this was the proper approach for NVRA enforcement. Fernandes told the OIG that she believed the Section's NVRA work when she became DAAG in July 2009 was disorganized and that its process for evaluating NVRA matters was ``random, unstrategic, [and] not very well thought-out.'' She said that Division leadership and Voting Section management were therefore engaged in a process of identifying what their NVRA enforcement strategy should be by reviewing where the Section had focused its enforcement efforts in the past, determining which areas had been neglected, and developing an analytical model to bring NVRA cases. According to Fernandes, she and Division leadership believed that the NVRA enforcement efforts from January 2001 through January 2009 had focused on Section 8's list- maintenance cases, largely to the exclusion of the voter- registration provisions in Section 7, which she believed had been underenforced and neglected. While we found no evidence that she examined any data to support this belief, it was consistent with what we found to be the prevailing belief about the prior administration's efforts in this area. Fernandes stated further that she believed the way to ``rectify this imbalance was to determine what Section 7 efforts were in process, whether they were being performed correctly, and whether the Section should expand its Section 7 enforcement further. Fernandes stated that her supervisors were pressuring her to move forward on Section 7 enforcement and that she received a clear message that they viewed enforcing Section 7 as a higher priority than Section 8. She told the OIG that she believed she had to ``scratch the Section 7 itch before turning to Section 8 matters and that her supervisors would have criticized her if she had approved Section 8 efforts first. She also noted that there was significant criticism of the Department from civil rights groups that their Section 7 enforcement efforts had been inadequate, saying they had gotten--and continued to get-- ``beat up all the time by [their] lefty friends not doing enough on Section 7.''

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. This is a report from the DOJ's IG. It takes this many pages to tell the American voter that they are not going to enforce Federal law in ensuring that States actually provide and exercise the required voter list maintenance. This is an affront to election integrity in our great country, and it needs to end today. Let's protect our democracy, and let's work together to make that happen.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Kentucky for yielding. Madam Speaker, our most basic duty of the Federal Government should be protecting the right for our citizens to vote, but we are not doing everything we can to protect that. A disturbing trend across the country is that more and more States and localities are allowing noncitizens to vote. Furthermore, many States are conducting elections that rely on wildly outdated voter lists, many of which include these noncitizens. In some States, such as California, the voter rolls are so outdated that they have more registered voters than people who reside in the State. This creates a potential for our citizens' votes to be diluted. LA County had over 1.5 million ineligible people on their voter rolls. A suit filed by a nonpartisan watch dog alleged that LA County had 112 percent of its adult citizens registered to vote. Under pressure, California and LA County finally agreed to clean up their voter rolls in 2019. Unfortunately, when then-California Secretary of State Alex Padilla appeared before my committee in 2020, he could not confirm that many of those ineligible people had actually been removed from California's unmaintained voter rolls. I do not have a lot of faith that California is doing everything it can to protect the integrity of our elections. And then there is New York City, which just decided to allow nearly a million noncitizens to vote in city elections. New York can make its own bad decisions, but it is our job to ensure that we protect Federal elections. Common sense will tell you that combining noncitizens and eligible American voters on the same voter rolls is ripe for abuse. I will also use a final example from my home State of Illinois. In Illinois, noncitizens cannot vote, and if they do, they face major legal consequences and could be deported. But in 2016, Illinois' automatic voter registration program mistakenly registered to vote more than 500 noncitizens who had done the right thing by checking the box stating that they are not citizens on their driver's license application. However, several of these noncitizens voted in the 2018 and 2019 elections. This does nothing to bolster voter confidence in our elections; in fact, it does the opposite. Not only does this undermine the integrity of our elections, the mistake by Illinois could have had dire consequences for these individuals, and it could be prevented if States were being forced to maintain accurate voter rolls. Whether intentional or not, we know this is happening. It is undermining the integrity of our elections. This amendment would simply ensure those who are noncitizens who do not have the right to vote in Federal elections are removed from States' voter rolls. As someone who has attended many citizenship ceremonies as a Member of Congress, it is unthinkable that we have States undermining what it means to be a citizen of this great country. My office has helped many immigrants go through the legal process to become American citizens, and there is nothing better than seeing them raise their right hand and swear to support and defend our Constitution; to swear to bear arms in defense of this Nation; to swear allegiance to this great country.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, there is nothing better than to think that their vote, something they worked hard to get, the right to vote on something that they worked hard to get the right to do is being undermined. That is unthinkable. Let's pass this amendment to ensure only citizens are voting in our elections and prevent States from putting noncitizens at risk of intentionally or unintentionally breaking the law and illegally voting in our elections. We will offer this solution as a motion to recommit. If we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Oversight and Reform to consider an amendment to ensure States remove noncitizens from their voter rolls as part of a regular comprehensive list maintenance program. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a national problem that has continued for years; that is the rise in student loan debt. Over 40 million borrowers hold outstanding student loan balances that exceed $1.7 trillion. The average borrower holds about $39,000 in student debt. This is unacceptable. We hear talk about pie-in-the-sky policies, like debt forgiveness, that come maybe from the other side of this Capitol or Chamber, what we call the U.S. Senate. These are not just pie-in-the-sky proposals; they are BS. They are not going to happen. It is time that Members of this body talk about the solutions that all of us here helped implement. We actually addressed the student debt issue. It is through legislation I led with my colleague, Congressman Scott Peters of California, that was signed into law by President Trump last year, that would allow employers to make tax-free student loan payments of up to $5,250 per year to each employee who holds an eligible student loan, lowering payroll taxes both for employers and the employees. This public-private partnership model makes student loan payments eligible for employer-sponsored educational assistance programs, just like tuition assistance has been for years. In fact, my good friends at Chegg--and I have got four public universities in my district, four private universities in my district, and a handful of community colleges in my district--every one of those students, like my three kids who are in college right now and grad school, knows what Chegg is. That is where they are getting their books. It is a cost-effective, private-sector approach to lower the cost of textbooks for kids nationwide. Well, the people of Chegg know how important student debt is, because they have actually paid back over a million dollars in student debt for their employees. They have actually taken advantage of this program that we all passed in a bipartisan way to address this $1.7 trillion problem. Every employer out there should do what Chegg has done and take advantage of the tax provisions that are in place and were put in place by Republicans and Democrats and signed into law by President Trump. Let's make sure that you use this as an effective recruitment tool and retention tool in this economy. Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to help get the word out to our employers across this great country to use what is already available to them and their employees who have student debt. They can use this student loan debt benefit to help recruit more workers. They can use it to retain more talent. They can use it to give their employees financial freedom and make a real difference in their lives by reducing their student debt and by reducing the $1.7 trillion in debt that we have in this country, which outnumbers all auto and credit card debt combined. Help the employees. Help America. Let's get this economy back on track.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, the Speaker pro tempore from Kentucky, and also my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for their work. I would like to thank Mr. Pallone and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers for allowing this piece of legislation to come to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 2355, the Opioid Prescription Verification Act of 2021. As my good friend Mr. Bilirakis just said a few minutes ago, this bill builds on the successes in the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act that was signed into law by President Trump in 2018. Our bill adds to this success by incentivizing electronic prescribing of opioids. This bill also encourages the full use of States' existing prescription drug monitoring programs to help facilitate informed and responsible dispensing of controlled substances. My bill will ultimately help doctors and pharmacists track the prescriptions a patient has received and ensure they cannot be altered or copied and used multiple times in an illicit manner. This will help reduce prescription shopping and curb illegal sales that result in unprescribed use of opioids, which have tragically led to millions of overdose deaths. This idea actually came from a meeting I had with local law enforcement in the Bloomington-Normal area in central Illinois. I have to thank Chief Bleichner and also Sergeant Kapchinske for coming up with the idea because they had to track down some illicit opioid pill shoppers in their communities. By the time they figured out this group was shopping for opioid pills, the criminals were able to secure over 300 pills that would have been sold on the black market and could have added to our death tolls. The dramatic increase in overdoses during the COVID-19 pandemic has also shown that we must be doing more to prevent opioid abuse. The Opioid Prescription Verification Act is an important tool in our fight against the opioid epidemic. The original concept of this bill was to encourage States to implement protocols for opioid prescriptions similar to the federally mandated ID check on Sudafed-type drugs that has been in Federal law since 2005 because they can simply be used to illegally manufacture deadly methamphetamines. While I believe a Federal mandate for manual checks for opioids would stop a significant number of bad actors, expanded use of e-prescribing will be an important and effective tool to combat the abuse. I thank, again, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and also Ranking Member Guthrie; my good friend Mr. Bilirakis; and also Congresswoman Wagner for helping move this bill and finding this good, principled compromise today. I also encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill.