Rodney Davis

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Indiana (Mr. Banks) for yielding. I can tell you, when I got elected to serve in this body almost 9 years ago, I didn't expect to be standing here today to talk about such an important issue. I spent 16 years as a congressional staffer working for a Member of Congress whom I looked up to and who respected this institution for what it was and what it meant to our country. When I came to Congress to serve with him, I had the utmost respect for this institution at the same time. That is why I wanted to be part of the House Administration Committee because I wanted to make this Congress and this House work better, act in a much more bipartisan manner, and make sure that we protect those who run this campus, but also at the same time protect those who protect us. Madam Speaker, we are now months and months in, months and months post January 6. From my many conversations with U.S. Capitol Police officers and those who work on this campus, they have the same concerns I have. The question they ask is: Why were we so unprotected on January 6? And what has changed since then? Getting to the bottom of those questions should be the top priority for all of us in this House. There are serious security vulnerabilities that have not been addressed by this House in nearly 11 months after January 6. And this is what the majority has decided to spend its time on, holding a private citizen, who wasn't even part of the administration at the time, in contempt for refusing to comply with House Democrats' subpoenas. This is after more than 600 people have been arrested for their role in the tragedies we saw on January 6. When I get the article, I will submit for the Record, Madam Speaker, a Reuters article that talks about senior officials stating at the FBI that there was no organized effort to overthrow the government on January 6. So I will submit it once I get a copy of that. I did not bring it with me. But our job, again, is to secure this Capitol. We have never seen a breach like the one that we saw that day. And it is our responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again. But that hasn't been done under the leadership of this House. We have had two independent reports regarding January 6, one bipartisan report in the Senate and another one commissioned by the Speaker herself, and that came out in March. These have never been acted on. But this is what the select committee has been working on? The Capitol Police IG has released seven reports related to January 6, making recommendations on what is needed to secure this Capitol. To my disappointment, the majority has not acted in a meaningful way to ensure that all 103 IG findings are implemented. These reports have all told us what the problems are and the recommendations on how to fix them. But Congress, us, have failed to even debate these changes, let alone act on them. We know massive changes to intel, perimeter protection training, leadership structure, decisionmaking processes, and many, many more are needed, but neither the select committee, nor the Committee on House Administration, seem at all interested in ensuring these changes are made. The Committee on House Administration, which has oversight of security, hasn't held a single hearing since August 5, with no upcoming hearings scheduled according to the majority's website. The select committee, right now, as we see, is just purely focused on political subpoenas. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the articles I previously mentioned. [From Reuters, Aug. 20, 2021] Exclusive: FBI Finds Scant Evidence U.S. Capitol Attack Was Coordinated--Sources (By Mark Hosenball and Sarah N. Lynch) Washington, Aug 20 (Reuters).--The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials. Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supports of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations. ``Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,'' said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. ``Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.'' Stone, a veteran Republican operative and self-described ``dirty trickster'', and Jones, founder of a conspiracy- driven radio show and webcast, are both allies of Trump and had been involved in pro-Trump events in Washington on Jan. 5, the day before the riot. FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside, the sources said. Prosecutors have filed conspiracy charges against 40 of those defendants, alleging that they engaged in some degree of planning before the attack. They alleged that one Proud Boy leader recruited members and urged them to stockpile bulletproof vests and other military-style equipment in the weeks before the attack and on Jan. 6 sent members forward with a plan to split into groups and make multiple entries to the Capitol. But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious, politically-loaded charges that the sources said had been initially discussed by prosecutors, such as seditious conspiracy or racketeering. The FBI's assessment could prove relevant for a congressional investigation that also aims to determine how that day's events were organized and by whom. Senior lawmakers have been briefed in detail on the results of the FBI's investigation so far and find them credible, a Democratic congressional source said. The chaos on Jan. 6 erupted as the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives met to certify Joe Biden's victory in November's presidential election. It was the most violent attack on the Capitol since the War of 1812, forcing lawmakers and Trump's own vice president, Mike Pence, to scramble for safety. Four people died and another died the following day, and more than 100 police officers were injured.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Additionally, a number of questions from that day still remain unanswered. I am still waiting for the Speaker of the House to answer a letter I sent her back in February that asked why the National Guard, requested by Police Chief Sund, were denied? And why was the Speaker's office and the Speaker involved in eventually approving the request? Why has the House Sergeant at Arms refused to comply with preservation and production requests from my office? We have many, many more questions about why the Capitol was so unprepared that day. Our top priority should be ensuring our Capitol is never as vulnerable as it was on January 6, but this majority has done absolutely nothing to make the security changes needed to make this Capitol safer. Madam Speaker, we must do better. We have not fixed the institutional problems with our security apparatus that led to the lack of preparation, the danger that our brave officers were put in on that day and any other possible day like that in the future. That is a failure of leadership in this institution. We must fix the problems that led to the terrible security posture here--and I will tell you, after witnessing what we saw a few different days and security postures that this House was put into a couple of other days since January 6--and I urge you to talk to the brave officers that stand around these buildings and protect all of us every day; ask them the same question I do. Ask them if we have put them in a better position than they were in on January 6? And the answer out of every single officer I asked that question to is ``no.'' What is stopping this House from fixing the problems? It is a lack of will. It is a lack of focusing on the true issues that led for them to be put in a dangerous spot on January 6. Instead, we are talking politics. It is wrong, and we must do better. I have said this time and time again, I stand willing to work with my Democrat colleagues to make this House, this Capitol, safer for everyone. Instead, it is all about political points like the one being scored today. I am disappointed. You can tell. My frustration is going to continue to boil over until we are in a position to fix the problems that I have laid out and that we know exist.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize The Baby Fold in Normal, Illinois, for being chosen as a 2021 Angels in Adoption honoree. I nominated The Baby Fold this year because of their passion for adoption support and services throughout my Congressional district. Since 1902, The Baby Fold has been transforming the lives of children and families by focusing on the Christian values of love, hope, and healing. They currently serve over 1,200 individuals each year across 28 different counties in Central Illinois. The Baby Fold focuses on improving the lives of children and families by building safe environments through adoption services, foster care to adoption, community services, and more. The Baby Fold puts children first so that they can be blessed with the stability and love that they deserve. Every day, I am grateful for adoption organizations that bring families together, like The Baby Fold. I applaud The Baby Fold and their volunteers for their strong dedication to children and families throughout Illinois. Taylorville Junior High School Awarded the National Blue Ribbon

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Taylorville Junior High School regarding their selection for the National Blue Ribbon from the U.S. Department of Education. The National Blue Ribbon is awarded to schools for their academic achievement or their progress in closing the achievement gaps among student subgroups. Mrs. Jessica Miller, the principal at the time of the nomination, and assistant principal, Mrs. Jennifer Wise, led several building initiatives that improved academic performance and emotional growth by investing in professional development, creating a community of learners, and meeting the emotional needs of students. The national recognition is also the result of the collective efforts of the building administration, teachers, support staff, and the entire Taylorville community. I would like to personally congratulate both the Taylorville Junior High School and its administrators and teachers for their commitment and dedication to the improvement of public education for the students in my hometown of Taylorville. Congratulating Ken Leonard on His 400th Victory

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend, Ken Leonard, on reinforcing his Illinois high school football legacy by becoming the only coach in Illinois history to record 400 wins as a high school football coach. Ken is currently the head coach at the dominant powerhouse Sacred Heart-Griffin in Springfield, Illinois. This achievement actually adds to Coach Leonard's impressive list of accomplishments. Ken has held the record for career wins in Illinois since 2018 and has led the SHG Cyclones to five State championships and three State runner-up trophies. Coach Leonard holds an overall record of 400 wins and 80 losses throughout his 42 seasons as a head coach. Ken began coaching at Sacred Heart-Griffin in 1984, and throughout his tenure at SHG, Coach Leonard is credited with creating a winning culture and inspiring countless young lives. Ken's place in Illinois high school football has already been cemented but will forever be cemented more with this victory. Ken, and your entire coaching staff, and the SHG community, congratulations on this historic win, and we are looking forward to many more.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to wish Twilia Mackey a happy 105th birthday. Twilia lives in Monticello, Illinois, and was born on October 2, 1916 to parents who spent their lives farming in the White Heath area of Piatt County. Twilia's education began in a one room rural schoolhouse and she graduated from Monticello High School in 1936. She met Stanley Mackey while they both attended Centerville Methodist Church. They married in December 1936 and farmed together in the Cisco area until they retired in 1993. They were blessed with four children, John, Jean, Joyce, and Joe, and many grandchildren. Twilia has been involved in many activities and organizations throughout the years including 4-H, PTA, and the United Methodist Women & Home Extension, now known as Home & Community Education. Locally, she is known for her award-winning quilting and homemade pies. When asked her secret to a long life, she simply says, ``Just be happy every day.'' Happy 105th birthday to Twilia, and may she enjoy her special day.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Larry Joe Alexander of Jerseyville who passed away on September 6 at the age of 57. After graduating from Jersey Community High School, Larry attended Worsham College of Mortuary Science and obtained his degree in funeral directing and embalming. Larry married his true love, Julie Ann Calvey, in 1989. After building a beautiful life together, Julie passed away on May 14, 2016, after a brave battle with cancer. In 1985 Larry started his career in the funeral home business. In 1992 Larry was elected as the Jersey County Coroner and continued to hold that office until his death. Larry was a member of the First Assembly of God church in Jerseyville, the Jersey County Republican Party, the Shriners, Full Moon Masonic Lodge 341, the Scottish Rite, and many other organizations. His passing is a loss for the 13th District and everyone who had the pleasure of knowing him. In the past few months, Larry and his daughters have been in the process of creating a scholarship in his wife, Julie's, memory. His daughter, Alyssa, and niece, Kari Jo, have decided to honor both their parents with a joint education scholarship. Shannon and I send our thoughts and prayers to Alyssa, Kari Jo, and the rest of Larry's family. Larry, may you rest in peace my friend. Honoring the Distinguished Service of William Haine

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor my good friend, William Haine, for his distinguished service to the State of Illinois and the American people. Bill was born in Alton in 1944. He attended St. Patrick's Grade School and Marquette High School in Alton, and received a Bachelor's Degree from St. Louis University. Soon after, he enlisted and served in Vietnam as a member of the First Cavalry Division, earning the Bronze Star for Meritorious Service in Combat Operations. After returning home from Vietnam, he earned his juris doctorate from St. Louis University, where he met his future wife, Anna. Bill began his career as a clerk for George Moran of the Fifth Appellate Court District. He soon became an assistant public defender while entering into private practice. Bill's illustrious career of public service began with his election to the Madison County Board. He was then elected to multiple terms as the Madison County State's Attorney and eventually as a State Senator in the 13th District. At the time of Bill's passing just a few weeks ago, he was serving on the Illinois State Board of Elections. Bill was a member of many civic and religious organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, and the American Legion and VFW. One of my favorite stories about Senator Haine was when he and his family and his wife, Anna, came to tour Washington, D.C., and I had a chance to take him on the House floor here and on the Senate floor where Bill, who wasn't in the best health when he came, decided to sit down in the Senate, and an overzealous Senate staffer came out and said: ``I'm sorry, but that chair is reserved for a Senator.'' And Bill said: ``I'm a Senator.'' And I happily reminded that overzealous staffer at the time that it was actually a staff member's chair and Bill was okay sitting there while we showed the glorious splendor of what we get to see every day. Shannon, my kids, we send our heartfelt prayers to his wife, his seven children, his 38 grandchildren, and his great grandchild. Bill's commitment to public service was second to none. Honoring the Service of Joe Champley

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of my best friends in the world, Joe Champley, who was honored as Taylorville Junior High School's Teacher of the Month for September. Joe has over 30 years of experience serving as a teacher, coach, mentor, and friend to so many in our community. Joe received Taylorville Junior High School's Red Apple Award which honors his outstanding dedication to students and staff. As an instructor, his compassion and care for kids is unmatched, as is his humor. He teaches because he believes teachers can make a difference in kids' lives, and he hopes to lead them down the right path. And I can count countless numbers of kids who have gone through the junior high school that I went to who Joe has helped. One of his fondest memories is when he introduced the Illinois Secretary of State, Jesse White, and all the students chanted ``Champley needs a raise. Champley needs a raise.'' Joe graduated from our high school, Taylorville High School, in 1985, after having an outstanding career in athletics. During Joe's tenure as a three-year starter on the basketball team, the Tornadoes won an Apollo Conference Championship and a regional championship; and he happens to still be 16th on the all-time Tornadoes scoring list. The Taylorville community, my community, is honored to have leaders like Joe Champley. Joe is somebody who has made a difference in so many lives, and he is going to continue to do that for many years to come. I wish you the best, Joe, my friend.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Bernard A. Barton, Jr. on his retirement from the Library of Congress and to thank him for nearly three decades of dedicated public service. Following his service as a U.S. Air Force officer, Mr. Barton spent his career at the intersection of knowledge and technology. As Deputy Chief Information Officer for the North Carolina National Guard, Mr. Barton designed the agency's disaster recovery and continuity of operations capabilities, ensuring the Guard can meet its ``Always Ready'' motto. As Chief Information Officer for the Defense Technical Information Center, Mr. Barton ensured that the Department of Defense's largest library had the IT infrastructure necessary to ``fuse science and technology data'' and ``reliably deliver the knowledge needed to develop the next generation of technologies to support our Warfighters and help assure national security.'' In 2015, Mr. Barton took on what Fortune Magazine labeled maybe the ``hardest job in tech,'' serving as the Chief Information Officer for the Library of Congress. Since then, he has ably guided the nation's oldest federal cultural institution through a complete technological overhaul. With aplomb, he oversaw the centralization of Library technology activities; fostered the creation of an agency-wide digital strategy; and marshalled efforts to optimize and modernize the Library's IT infrastructure and critical IT business systems. Under his leadership, the Library completed a three-year Data Center Transformation, embracing the best of traditional IT services and the Cloud to ensure a stable, flexible, scalable foundation for the future. He also completely revamped IT security, and successfully addressed more than 100 major technology recommendations identified by Congress and the GAO. Through it all, he has been a transparent, proactive, and enthusiastic partner for Members of Congress, our staff, and our constituents. He has responded to our inquiries and ideas with the resolute assurance that technology will not be a problem for our Library. The impact of these changes cannot be overstated. As the world's largest library and home of both the Congressional Research Service and the U.S. Copyright Office, the Library of Congress stands as a beacon of knowledge and creativity the world over. Mr. Barton leaves the Library a stronger, more digitally enabled institution that is better prepared than ever to serve the needs of Congress, researchers, and all Americans. Please join me in wishing Mr. Barton a well-deserved retirement after a lifetime of faithful public service.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, recently, another friend of ours and our colleague, Congressman Burgess Owens, who grew up in the Jim Crow South, testified before my committee, and I want to highlight two very important points he made: Not only is our country not facing a new era of Jim Crow voting laws, as many of my Democrat colleagues have falsely claimed, but it is incredibly offensive to lie to the American people to further a political agenda. Our country has come a long way since the Jim Crow era, and it is in part because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. More Americans voted in the last two elections than in any midterm or Presidential election in our Nation's history. This includes historic turnouts among African Americans and other minority voters. We should celebrate this progress, not ignore it. Using Georgia as an example, since my friends on the other side of the aisle were so quick to condemn new election integrity laws in this State; in Georgia, which was once covered under the VRA's preclearance formula, African-American turnout in the last election was 64 percent, compared to 27 percent in 1965. And an amazing 95 percent of the total eligible voting-age population in Georgia is registered to vote. That is incredible. It is easier to vote in Georgia than it is in Democrat-run States like New York and Delaware and even others. Democrats on the Committee on House Administration held hearing after hearing on election issues where they produced zero evidence of voter suppression, likely due to the fact that voter discrimination and suppression remain against the law in this country. Yet, the bill before us goes far beyond the original VRA and would subject every State to preclearance, an extraordinary measure established in 1965 to prevent Democratic-led Southern States, with a history of discrimination, from intimidating and preventing African Americans from voting. If you vote for this legislation, you are voting for a Federal takeover of elections; you are removing the people elected at the State and local level to run elections from making decisions about how elections are run, including voter ID laws, and putting an unaccountable, unelected election czar at the DOJ, the Attorney General, in charge of all election decisions in this country. Members of this body and the American people should be asking the simple question: If it is easier to vote today than at any time in our history and more Americans are voting than ever before, then why are Democrats going to such extreme measures to ensure a Federal takeover of elections? I hope my colleagues and the American people will see this bill for what it is, a partisan power grab which circumvents the people to ensure a one-party rule. I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a report I released as ranking member of the House Administration Committee earlier this month titled ``The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional Authority Over Elections.'' [From Representative Rodney Davis (IL-13), Ranking Member, House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Aug. 12, 2021] 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 secondary 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: ``[C]onvention 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.'' N. Carolina: ``An occasion may arise when the exercise of this ultimate power of Congress may be necessary . . . if 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--expressed 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[.]'' N. 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.'' Conclusion It is clear in every respect that the congressional fail- safe described in the Elections Clause vests purely secondary authority over federal elections in the federal legislative branch and that the primary authority rests with the States. Congressional authority is intended to be, and as a matter of constitutional fact is, limited to addressing the worst imaginable issues, such as invasion or other matters that might lead to a State not electing representatives to constitute the two Houses of Congress.'' Our authority has never extended to the day-to-day authority over the ``Times, Places and Manner of Election'' that the Constitution clearly reserves to the States. Unfortunately for Democrats, this clear restriction on congressional authority means that we do not have the power to implement the overwhelming majority--if not the entirety--of their biggest legislative priority, H.R. 1 and related legislation, which would purport to nationalize our elections and centralize their administration in Washington, D.C. Thankfully, the Framers had the foresight to write our Constitution so as to prevent those bad policies from going into effect and preserve the health of our republic.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have a joint report from the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on the Judiciary Republicans titled ``An Unprecedented and Unconstitutional Power Grab: How Democrats are Abusing the Constitution to Nationalize Elections.''

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have the Census Bureau report detailing record turnout in 2020; the Election Integrity Network H.R. 4 fact sheet; the Honest Election Project analysis titled ``H.R. 4 Legal and Constitutional Challenges''; the Independent Women's Forum analysis titled ``D.C. Bureaucrats and Judges Will Steal the Pen in Drawing Voting Districts''; and also the Foundation for Government Accountability analysis titled ``H.R. 4 Isn't Voting Progress. It is a Power Grab.''

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have the following reports: an analysis of H.R. 4 titled ``How H.R. 4 Would Let Leftist Extremists Control the Entire Nation's Elections''; the Lawyers Democracy Fund H.R. 4 analysis; a RealClear Politics article titled ``'Jim Crow 2.0' Is Imaginary''; a letter opposing H.R. 4 from the Independent Women's Forum and others; a Heritage analysis titled ``Another Bill in Congress to Give Partisan Bureaucrats Control Over State Election Laws''; and lastly, the Honest Elections Project Action analysis titled ``H.R. 4: The Nancy Pelosi Power Grab.''

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, a foundational dependency of any democracy sustaining is its citizens having confidence in the outcome of its elections. Simply put, if people don't have faith in elections, democracy doesn't work. According to a recent Gallup poll, America's confidence in our elections has decreased by 20 percent since 2009. Ensuring that our elections are run in a way that makes it easy to vote and hard to cheat increases confidence. A common best practice to ensure election integrity are voter IDs, a way for people to prove they are who they say they are. For Democrats to equate this with the poll taxes of the early 20th century is a ludicrous, false equivalency. According to the Honest Elections Project, 77 percent of all Americans support voter ID requirements, including 75 percent of independents, 64 percent of African Americans, and 76 percent of low-income voters. Knowing that, what does the majority do? They include language in H.R. 4 that would restrict commonsense voter ID requirements and require the judicial branch to consider voter ID laws as evidence of voter suppression, and by extension, racism. That doesn't restore faith in elections. H.R. 4, as introduced, would require preapproval by an unaccountable election czar in the Biden DOJ before any State or locality under preclearance could enact popular, commonsense voter ID laws. H.R. 4 goes even further, requiring almost a dozen States to have their existing voter ID laws examined by the Biden DOJ before they can continue to be enforced. These are the same election integrity laws that have been in place for years. This is a partisan power grab of maintaining control. Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to consider my amendment to H.R. 4 to strike from the bill the provisions that penalize State and local governments who implement commonsense voter ID requirements. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Michael DeMichael of my hometown of Taylorville, Illinois, who passed away on August 17 at the age of 69. Mike was a true lover of sports, especially when it came to coaching. He began as the coach of the seventh grade Terriers basketball team. His coaching career lasted over 20 years, taking teams to the State tournament on four occasions. He loved the game, but his true passion was caring for the kids he coached throughout the years. Mike gave back to our community in many ways. He was a member of St. Mary's Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus, and the Moose Lodge. He was a founding member of the Sertoma Club, the Taylorville Public Schools Foundation, and the Lakeshore Golf Course improvement committee. He was also a member of the Taylorville Junior High Terriers Sports Boosters, the High School Band Boosters, and the Tornado Open. His passing is a loss for our Taylorville community and everyone who had the pleasure of knowing him. Shannon and I send our thoughts and prayers to his wife, Karen; his children, Brent and Susie; his grandchildren, Hudson, Hayden, Peyton, and Brayden; his brother, Tony; his sister, Patricia; and the rest of his family. May my friend Mike rest in peace.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 219, YEA on Roll Call No. 220, and YEA on Roll Call No. 221.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the motion to recommit at the appropriate time and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.

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

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Bilirakis, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1, the Democrats' so-called For the People Act, would create a public money slush fund using corporate fines to fund political campaigns, including their own. Based on numbers from the last election cycle, H.R. 1 would add up to an average of $7.2 million into each Congressional candidate's campaign. My motion would ensure any fines collected by the Federal Trade Commission under this bill would go to the victims of fraud and not be used as a pathway to fund Congressional campaign coffers--victims, like the thousands of students that were cheated out of $62 million by a debt relief scam recently prosecuted by the FTC; or the patients with liver disease who spent thousands on a supplement that was deceptively marketed as a treatment; or those struggling with opioid abuse who were part of a scheme that overcharged them for medication to help minimize withdrawal symptoms. The FTC has worked to ensure these victims are compensated. But if H.R. 1 were to become law, many of these fine structures would be weaponized to boost public funds given to candidates to pay for their campaign mailers, political consultants, and even attack ads. Our focus should be on assisting victims, not using public dollars to fund our own campaigns. Again, based on numbers from the 2020 cycle, that is up to $7.2 million per Congressional candidate. H.R. 1 is often touted by my Democrat colleagues and the media as voting rights legislation. This is the furthest thing from the truth. How does weaponizing our victim compensation system to line the pockets of politicians help people vote, or really help people at all? Mr. Speaker, if we adopt this motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Energy and Commerce to consider my amendment to H.R. 2668 that would prevent any public funds collected because of this bill from going into the campaign coffers of Members of Congress or Congressional candidates, and instead, keep the fines' process focused on helping the victims of fraud. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Wayne Calhoun Temple for his distinguished service to the State of Illinois and the American people. Wayne was born on his family farm in Delaware County, Ohio. Until eighth grade he worked on the farm and attended a one room schoolhouse a mile from his home. He went on to graduate as valedictorian of Prospect High School and earned a football scholarship to Ohio State University. He attended college for only two quarters before answering the call to serve in the U.S. Army during World War II. He was sent to the University of Illinois to study engineering and was later assigned to an Army communications service-plant engineering agency. While overseas, he was responsible for authoring General Dwight D. Eisenhower's communications and was awarded the Bronze Star for his work at the Rhine River. Following World War II, Wayne attended the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1946, where he graduated with honors in engineering and received a PhD in history. During his time at the University of Illinois he served as a research assistant to ``The Dean of Lincoln Scholars'' Professor James G. Randall and contributed to Professor Randall's writing of four books. Throughout his life, Wayne has authored over 600 works on the life of President Abraham Lincoln. In 1964, he moved to Springfield to work in the Illinois State Archives depository of public records and served as both the Chief Deputy Director and Acting Director of the depository. His dedication to serve and educate others is evident through his life's work and I would like to personally thank him for his continued service to the State of Illinois.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and my friend on the Committee on House Administration for running this debate for our side. Madam Speaker, despite its flaws, I intend to vote for the underlying bill. But, nevertheless, I rise to highlight several points the majority has failed to address. It has been 6 years--6 years--since the people of North Carolina, through their elected State legislature, requested on a bipartisan basis to replace the State statue of Charles Brantley Aycock, a former Democrat Governor of that State, who supported segregation and white supremacy. The people of North Carolina have requested to replace the statue with a sculpture of the late Reverend Billy Graham, a worthy North Carolinian respected and beloved by millions. Even the Speaker of the House has had many kind words for Reverend Graham, only the fourth American ever to lie in honor in the U.S. Capitol. In a press release dated February 21, 2018, the Speaker said in part the following: ``Reverend Graham's leadership and firm partnership with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., were vital in the fight for civil rights in the South. His counsel to U.S. Presidents, regardless of party, brought grace and humility into our politics.'' Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the entire press release. Pelosi Statement on the Passing of the Reverend Billy Graham (February 21, 2018, Press Release) San Francisco--Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued this statement today on the passing of the Reverend Billy Graham: ``Today, millions around the world grieve the loss of the Reverend Billy Graham. His clarion message of fellowship and faith lifted and inspired countless members of the Christian community. ``Reverend Graham's leadership and firm partnership with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were vital in the fight for civil rights in the South. His counsel to U.S. Presidents, regardless of party, brought grace and humility into our politics. In moments of crisis, from terrorist attacks to horrific natural disasters, Americans roiled by tragedy and turmoil looked to Reverend Graham for solace. ``May it bring comfort to William, Nelson, Virginia, Anne, Ruth and the entire Graham family that so many around the world share in their sorrow at this time.''