    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                  MEMBER DAY:
                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 4, 2025

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 www.govinfo.gov
                               www.cha.house.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    59-442                     WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                        BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

    LAUREL LEE, Florida, Vice Chair      JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia                 Ranking Member
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
    GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          NORMA TORRES, California
    STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
    MARY MILLER, Illinois
    MIKE CAREY, Ohio

                          Mike Platt,  Staff Director
                     Jamie Fleet,  Minority Staff Director

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               Opening Statements

    Chairman Bryan Steil, Representative from the State of Wisconsin.     1
        Prepared statement of Chairman Bryan Steil...................     2
    Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of
      New York.......................................................     2
        Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle..........     3
    The Honorable Maxwell Frost, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Florida...........................................     4
        Prepared statement of Maxwell Frost..........................     6
    The Honorable Andrea Salinas, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Oregon............................................     8
        Prepared statement of Andrea Salinas.........................    10
    The Honorable Jimmy Panetta, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of California........................................    13
        Prepared statement of Jimmy Panetta..........................    15
    The Honorable Delia C. Ramirez, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Illinois..........................................    18
        Prepared statement of Delia C. Ramirez.......................    20
    The Honorable Johnny Olszewski, Jr., a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Maryland.....................................    25
        Prepared statement of Johnny Olszewski, Jr...................    28
    The Honorable Seth Magaziner, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Rhode Island......................................    30
        Prepared statement of Seth Magaziner.........................    31
    The Honorable Chip Roy, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Texas.................................................    32
        Prepared statement of Chip Roy...............................    34
    The Honorable Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of Georgia.............................    36
        Prepared statement of Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter...............    38

                           Submissions for the Record

    Prepared statement of Representative LaMonica R. McIver..........    44
    Prepared statement of Representative Tom Cole....................    46
    Prepared statement of Representative Val Hoyle...................    48
    Prepared statement of Representative Darrell Issa................    49
    Representative Panetta district map..............................    50

                                  MEMBER DAY:
                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                                  ----------

                                 March 4, 2025

                     Committee on House Administration,
                                      House of Representatives,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
    room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Steil, Griffith, Murphy, Bice,
    Carey, Miller, and Morelle.
        Staff present: Annemarie Cake, Professional Staff/Deputy
    Clerk; Rachel Collins, Deputy General Counsel and
    Parliamentarian; Kristen Monterroso, Director of Operations and
    Legislative Clerk; Michael Platt, Staff Director; Elliot Smith,
    Director of Oversight; Jordan Wilson, Director of Member
    Services; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Jamie
    Fleet, Minority Staff Director; and Sean Wright, Minority Chief
    Counsel.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE
     COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                               WISCONSIN

        Chairman Steil. The Committee on House Administration will
    come to order.
        I note that a quorum is present.
        Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any
    time.
        Also, without objection, the hearing record will remain
    open for 5 legislative days so Members may submit any materials
    they wish to be included therein.
        Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle, Members of the
    Committee, and our witnesses for participating in today's
    hearing.
        Today, the Committee on House Administration continues our
    legislative oversight with Member Day for the 119th Congress.
    The Committee on House Administration is tasked with ensuring
    the legislative branch as a whole is operating efficiently and
    effectively. As a Committee with broad oversight of many
    legislative entities, we often bring forward legislation that
    impacts our workplace and our colleagues here in the Capitol.
        From campus safety to committee funding and Federal
    election law, every single Representative is impacted by the
    work we do here in this Committee. That is why it is critical
    for us to hear from our colleagues at the beginning of each
    Congress to see how we can work together to bring forward
    legislation that truly better serves the American people.
        In addition to our legislative oversight duties, the
    Committee also assists Member offices through fulfilling Member
    service requests, programming for staff, and Members and more.
    For example, during the 118th Congress, we completed 660 Member
    service requests for Republicans, 750 newsletters on House
    operations, and a total programming attendance of over 3,000.
        We held a Member day hearing at the beginning of the 118th
    Congress, as well. In that hearing, we heard many great
    recommendations from our colleagues. We even were able to
    implement recommendations we received through pieces of
    legislation that passed this Committee. For example, we heard
    from our colleague, Congresswoman Claudia Tenney of New York,
    about election integrity efforts to prevent noncitizen voting.
        I look forward to hearing from our colleagues today about a
    variety of issues this Committee will consider in the coming
    months. I thank our colleagues for coming before the Committee
    to testify today. I look forward to having a positive
    discussion about how we can work together to improve our
    institution.
        With that, I will yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle,
    for 5 minutes for opening remarks.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]

       PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                       ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL

        Today, the Committee on House Administration continues our
    legislative oversight with Member Day for the 119th Congress.
    The Committee on House Administration is tasked with ensuring
    the legislative branch as a whole is operating efficiently and
    effectively.
        As a Committee with broad oversight of many legislative
    entities, we often bring forward legislation that impacts our
    workplace and our colleagues here in the Capitol. From campus
    safety to committee funding and Federal election law, every
    single Representative is impacted by the work we do here in
    this Committee. That is why it is critical for us to hear from
    our colleagues at the beginning of each Congress to see how we
    can work together to bring forward legislation that truly
    better serves the American people.
        In addition to our legislative oversight duties, the
    Committee also assists Member offices through fulfilling Member
    service requests, programming for staff, and Members and more.
    For example, during the 118th Congress, we completed 660 Member
    service requests for Republicans, 750 newsletters on House
    operations, and a total programming attendance of over 3,000.
        We held a Member day hearing at the beginning of the 118th
    Congress, as well. In that hearing, we heard many great
    recommendations from our colleagues. We even were able to
    implement recommendations we received through pieces of
    legislation that passed this Committee. For example, we heard
    from our colleague, Congresswoman Claudia Tenney of New York,
    about election integrity efforts to prevent noncitizen voting.
        I look forward to hearing from our colleagues today about a
    variety of issues this Committee will consider in the coming
    months. I thank our colleagues for coming before the Committee
    to testify today. I look forward to having a positive
    discussion about how we can work together to improve our
    institution.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
     COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                                NEW YORK

        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for calling this meeting
    and ensuring our compliance with the rules of the House.
        I want to welcome all of our colleagues and friends to the
    Committee on House Administration.
        Our portfolio, as you have articulated, of authorities here
    is pretty diverse. We have considerable legislative and
    oversight responsibilities, from the handing--from the funding
    and administration of Federal elections to the stewardship of
    our cultural institutions, such as the Smithsonian and the
    Library of Congress. We are ultimately a customer-service
    enterprise. Whether it is the security of our buildings, the
    food in our cafeterias, the paint on our walls, or how we
    communicate with constituents, we oversee all of it, a
    responsibility I know we all take very seriously.
        I would, as you did, nod to the Committee's Subcommittee on
    Modernization and Innovation and that panels predecessors in
    the Congress, many ideas on improving the function and form of
    what we do has come out of that Subcommittee, and I appreciate
    all their work.
        You know, we are ultimately the oversight entity of the
    House, and the place could not function without the thousands
    of employees, who, by the way, often go unacknowledged. We
    should thank them for the extraordinary service they do,
    particularly at a time when the Federal workforce is being
    subjected to some indiscriminate, you know, decisions by the
    administration. I want them to know their efforts do not go
    unnoticed or unappreciated.
        I look forward to hearing from our colleagues about what is
    important to them and their constituents and how they think we
    can improve our service to the House. I am sure there will be
    no shortage of Members appearing today simply to lavish us with
    praise and acclaim for what we are doing right. I am eagerly
    welcoming those comments as well.
        Thanks for your kind words. Thanks for holding the hearing.
        With that, I look forward to hearing from our colleagues,
    and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]

    PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                     ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE

        Thank you, Mr. Chair, for calling this meeting and ensuring
    our compliance with the rules of the House. I want to welcome
    all of our colleagues and friends to the Committee on House
    Administration.
        Our portfolio, as you have articulated, of authorities here
    is pretty diverse. We have considerable legislative and
    oversight responsibilities, from the handing--from the funding
    and administration of Federal elections to the stewardship of
    our cultural institutions, such as the Smithsonian and the
    Library of Congress.
        We are ultimately a customer-service enterprise. Whether it
    is the security of our buildings, the food in our cafeterias,
    the paint on our walls, or how we communicate with
    constituents, we oversee all of it, a responsibility I know we
    all take very seriously.
        I would, as you did, nod to the Committee's Subcommittee on
    Modernization and Innovation and that panels predecessors in
    the Congress, many ideas on improving the function and form of
    what we do has come out of that Subcommittee, and I appreciate
    all their work.
        You know, we are ultimately the oversight entity of the
    House, and the place could not function without the thousands
    of employees, who, by the way, often go unacknowledged. We
    should thank them for the extraordinary service they do,
    particularly at a time when the Federal workforce is being
    subjected to some indiscriminate, you know, decisions by the
    administration. I want them to know their efforts do not go
    unnoticed or unappreciated.
        I look forward to hearing from our colleagues about what is
    important to them and their constituents and how they think we
    can improve our service to the House. I am sure there will be
    no shortage of Members appearing today simply to lavish us with
    praise and acclaim for what we are doing right. I am eagerly
    welcoming those comments as well.

        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        Without objection, all other Members' opening statements
    will be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted
    to the Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today.
        Today, we have two panels. Each witness will give a 3-
    minute opening statement, then the majority and minority will
    each have a total of 5 minutes per side to question the
    witnesses.
        We now welcome our first panel of witnesses, and I will
    recognize you, Mr. Frost, from Florida for 3 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAXWELL FROST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Mr. Frost. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Mr. Ranking
    Member, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
    two very important matters I hope the Committee will prioritize
    this Congress.
        First, I will be reintroducing the Voting Overseas Treated
    Equally for Servicemembers Act, or the VOTES Act. I am grateful
    to the Members of this Committee for their unanimous support of
    the VOTES Act when it was marked up last Congress. This country
    owes a lot to those who volunteer to serve, and for as long as
    our Nation has fought wars and deployed servicemembers abroad,
    we have recognized the right of those in uniform to participate
    in the democracy that they defend.
        This is personal to me. I come from a family that has been
    in the United States Air Force since it was the United States
    Army Air Corps. Absentee voting for servicemembers goes at
    least as far back to the civil war, and that legacy continues
    under UOCAVA, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
    Voting Act, and the MOVE Act, which guaranteed ballot access to
    Active Duty servicemembers abroad.
        The MOVE Act, however, was passed over 15 years ago. Today,
    it is not just Active Duty servicemembers who might be deployed
    overseas, and that guarantee of ballot access might not extend
    to some of the 760,000 Reserve and National Guard members who
    might be deployed overseas for critical operation, training
    exercises, and national emergencies.
        The VOTES Act corrects this by ensuring that all
    servicemembers serving overseas, regardless of their duty
    status, get their ballot in time to vote in Federal elections.
    It is a straightforward, bipartisan solution endorsed by the
    American Legion, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard
    of the United States, and the National Guard Association of the
    United States.
        I ask that the Committee markup this bill and report it
    favorably. I will be introducing it soon.
        Second, I would love the Committee to address an issue that
    would immediately make it easier for Members, especially those
    who come from disaster-prone districts, to better serve our
    constituents. Congress should allow district offices to use
    their website and online platform to direct constituents to
    community organizations, resources, and services.
        When a hurricane hits central Florida or a tornado tears
    through the central Wisconsin, our constituents come to our
    offices and our websites looking for help. While we can help
    constituents filing claims with FEMA, we all know local and
    community recovery resources make the biggest difference, and
    we would love to be able to point our constituents to those
    local resources.
        Folks come to us for help, and they deserve better than
    being sent away because their issue is not necessarily a
    Federal one. This Committee could make that happen. Not all
    districts have the same community groups or resources, and each
    Member would have their own discretion to decide how they would
    engage, but at least they would have the ability to do so, if
    needed.
        This is something that the Select Committee on the
    Modernization of Congress investigated and offered as a
    recommendation to Congress. Just like the Committee passed the
    resolution to authorizing cosponsored constituent service
    events, my hope is that we can make this change. I am ready to
    help, and thank you so much for your time and important work. I
    yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Representative Frost follows:]

           PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MAXWELL FROST
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
        I appreciate your testimony, Mr. Frost. We have had some
    great conversations, particularly as it relates to making sure
    that our servicemembers are able to vote overseas.
        Ms. Lee, on this Committee, the chair of the Subcommittee
    on Elections in particular, has a significant interest in
    making sure that we are looking at additional updates to UOCAVA
    in this Congress. As that debate continues, we look forward to
    working with you. We appreciate your interest, and we were
    happy to work with you as we passed your bill out of this
    Committee last year. I think there is an opportunity as we look
    at UOCAVA, maybe a little bit more holistically, to make sure
    that we are making updates in that space that are needed.
        As it relates to your other point, providing local
    resources, this is something that we have been discussing on
    this Committee and appreciate your--hearing your support of
    making that change. I think you are absolutely correct. When
    natural disasters, emergencies occur in a Member's district,
    often our constituents, folks in our home State, reach out
    really not knowing where to turn.
        Often, as Federal policymakers, we think through the
    distinction between Federal law, Federal resources, State law,
    State resources, local, and local resources, where, if your
    roof just got blown off--in my State by a tornado, maybe in
    your State by a hurricane--you do not really give a hoot which
    Government entity you should turn to; you are just looking for
    help. Providing that flexibility to Federal offices is
    something that we are exploring, and appreciate your interest
    and feedback, and we will continue to look at that opportunity
    this year.
        I yield back. I will recognize the Ranking Member for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you, Mr. Frost. You and I have had many, many
    conversations about the bill that relates to servicemembers. I
    could not agree with you more and look forward to working with
    the chair and my colleagues here and Ms. Lee, who is one of
    your cosponsors and the vice chair here of the Committee, to
    get that done.
        As well, I think the issue that relates to natural
    disasters makes a great deal of sense. I think the challenge in
    part is figuring out what the trigger is, whether there is a
    declaration of some kind, but I think we could work on that.
    Then the question of which resources do you direct them to and
    how do you make sure that, you know, you have got a current
    list of places where you can do it, it is a little bit of a
    challenge, but I certainly think it is well worth doing. I
    appreciate both your being here today and both suggestions,
    which I think are things we ought to take up. Thanks for your
    time. Thanks for being here.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        I recognize the representative from Oregon, Ms. Salinas,
    for 3 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANDREA SALINAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Chairman Steil and Ranking Member
    Morelle. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to the
    Committee today on the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act. I
    apologize, I am not able to stay for questions, but I am happy
    to report back any questions the Committee may have.
        The Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act will ensure that
    every eligible voter in America is able to cast a safe, secure,
    and accessible ballot by mail in our Federal elections. That
    includes folks who cannot make it to the polls due to, as we
    have been talking about, natural disasters, age, illness,
    disability, or simply because they work two or three jobs and
    have limited schedules.
        My State of Oregon has been a vote-by-mail State for nearly
    30 years. We have consistently high levels of voter turnout.
    Research has shown that voters from both sides of the aisle
    vote by mail at similar rates. This bill would not favor one
    party over the other; it would benefit all Americans.
        This includes our brave and hardworking first responders,
    who do an indispensable job. Their jobs are dangerous, and they
    are difficult. Beyond the taxing physical work, they also
    require intensive work hours that extend beyond a normal
    workday. The amount of work they do cuts into weekends, public
    holidays, and, yes, even election day. Given these
    circumstances, it is essential that first responders, and all
    voters in similar situations, are provided the ability to
    participate in our democracy.
        In addition to allowing eligible voters--every eligible
    voter--to easily and efficiently participate in our elections,
    vote by mail saves a significant amount of money. Officials in
    my State have reported that vote by mail decreased costs by at
    least one-third, which for our State is around $3 million a
    year. On top of those savings, vote by mail benefits the
    economy by improving productivity and decreasing lost wages
    because Americans can go vote from their kitchen table instead
    of waiting in lines that snake around the block.
        A report from 2012 found that the amount of time Americans
    spent waiting in line to vote cost over $540 million in lost
    productivity and wages. The benefits of my bill do not end
    there. It also includes a requirement that States must provide
    voters with an opportunity to cure their ballots. This is
    critical because voters casting their ballots may make errors
    due to a lack of access to an election official to assist them
    when they are filling out their ballot.
        The Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act would extend the
    access that Oregonians have had for decades to every American.
    It would establish a national right to vote by mail, which
    would only strengthen our democracy by allowing more Americans
    to make their voices heard. That is why the Universal Right to
    Vote by Mail Act is also an integral part of the Freedom to
    Vote Act.
        I encourage this Committee to give its full and fair
    consideration to the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act and to
    oppose any efforts that may arise to restrict access to the
    ballot, including any efforts to restrict the ability of
    Americans to vote by mail.
        Again, I thank you so much for your time and for this
    hearing. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Representative Salinas follows:]

          PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ANDREA SALINAS
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back. Thank you very
    much.
        We will go straight to Mr. Panetta, and then we will go
    back and do questions at the end of the panel.
        We will recognize Mr. Panetta for 3 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIMMY PANETTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Panetta. Great. Thank you, Chairman Steil and Ranking
    Member Morelle.
        I appreciate the concerns of my colleagues and echo their
    sentiments.
        My request is much more selfish, I will be honest with you,
    selfish to the people of my district in the 19th Congressional
    District on the central coast of California. We need more
    money, is what it comes down to, in regards to being able to
    effectively serve our constituents. I say that thanks to this
    independent redistricting commission that used my district--
    previously used my district as hamburger helper to create the
    district to the east of mine and therefore completely spread
    out my district over a wide variety of communities of interest,
    causing me to open up four district offices in the 19th
    Congressional District, which has been a financial strain on my
    office and on the Members' Representational Allowance.
        That is why I respectfully request your consideration for
    changes to better support Members who represent larger
    geographic districts with a high cost of living and high
    property values. The changes that I am asking for will enable
    Members like me to adequately serve the distinct communities of
    interest and recruit and retain qualified staff.
        Now, my district, California's 19th Congressional District,
    which I provided each of the Members a map of, just so you can
    get a little bit of the flavor of it, spans 2,817 square miles
    and covers four counties, each with distinct Federal needs, and
    I think that is the highlight right there that we have got to
    focus on.
        The communities in my district are separated by geography
    that necessitates offices in each population center. Without
    the four offices that I have opened, it would be very expensive
    and time consuming for working families in each of those four
    distinct communities to access congressional services in
    person.
        In addition to geographic separations, my district makes up
    several distinct communities of interest. You have got south
    San Jose, which is a bedroom community to the commuters of
    Silicon Valley. You have got Santa Cruz, which has tourism,
    hospitality, some agriculture economies. You have got Monterey
    County, which has the specialty crop agricultural industry and
    a number of military installations. Then you go all the way
    down the coastline to northern San Luis Obispo County, which
    has cattle, wine, and coastal tourism as well.
        These counties and these areas are very, very different,
    and the people are different. You know what? You cannot really
    expect them to travel to another area--another community of
    interest within the 19th Congressional District. Each of these
    constituencies require local staff who understand their unique
    concerns in addition to access to physical offices.
    Additionally, due to California's redistricting, as talked
    about, I have had to meet most of these constituents for the
    first time in the last Congress, which is 55 percent of the
    constituency which was new.
        To add additional costs, the office rents in my district
    are among the highest in the Nation. While I understand and
    appreciate that the CAO uses sub-market rates to account for
    more expensive office rents, this calculation fails to account
    the quantity of offices needed. Unfortunately, maintaining
    multiple offices is more expensive and results in renting more
    total square footage than a single district office.
        Despite these differences in the cost of living, there is
    no adjustment in the formula dedicated to personnel as well.
    That means that pay for personnel that includes staff in my
    district, where the median salary is $116,000, is the same as
    Kentucky's Fifth District, where the median salary is $44,000.
        If I may? Thank you. Recent reports have also confirmed
    that the cost of housing in my district is among the highest in
    the Nation.
        Look, I want to recognize your leadership for championing
    MRA increases, and thank you, thank you, thank you for the 6.2
    percent increase that the MRA included in 2023. Unfortunately,
    for districts like mine, it has not gone far enough. I know I
    am over my time. I think you get the gist of where I am coming
    from when it comes to my type of district, how expensive it is,
    how spread out it is, how many different communities of
    interest that I have. Therefore, I am asking for a change in
    the formulation for MRAs to take into account all of the
    obstacles and challenges that I have in the 19th Congressional
    District and provide more when it comes to the MRA. Thank you.
    I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Representative Panetta follows:]

           PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JIMMY PANETTA
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Ramirez, is recognized
    for 3 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. DELIA C. RAMIREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
    Member Morelle, for providing me--thank you for the opportunity
    to be able to testify today about how the SAVE Act could strip
    70 million American women in the United States from their right
    to vote.
        Let me start by pointing out a fact some of my colleagues
    seem incapable of accepting: Noncitizens cannot vote. That is
    the law. Noncitizens do not vote, and it is a fact. My
    colleagues on the other side have decided to use this
    information to whip people into fear-driven frenzy to suppress
    the votes of anyone who threatens an extremist,
    unconstitutional, authoritarian agenda, and that includes
    women.
        As Chair Steil admitted in his testimony in front of the
    Rules Committee last Congress, under the SAVE Act, Americans
    would not be able to register to vote with their driver's
    license or REAL IDs. IDs do not meet the SAVE Act's requirement
    of showing a holder's citizenship status, because, again, the
    fact is that noncitizens can legally access REAL IDs. The only
    documentation that is acceptable under the SAVE Act that most
    Americans will be able to use are passports and birth
    certificates paired with IDs.
        Here is the problem: Only half of Americans own a passport,
    and an estimated 70 million women in the United States changed
    their name upon marriage, meaning their IDs and their birth
    certificates do not match. According to the Pew Research
    Center, 80 percent of American women adopt their husband's
    name, and it is my understanding that three women who served in
    this Committee have also done so.
        If they do not have a passport and their birth certificate
    does not match their ID, then what happens then? According to
    the text of the SAVE Act, these 70 million American citizens
    will be unable to prove their citizenship and would be barred
    from registering to vote. However, the impact is not limited to
    married women: There is also survivors of domestic violence who
    decided to create new identities for themselves and sometimes
    for their sons and for their daughters. They would be penalized
    for ensuring their survival.
        Folks, that is unacceptable.
        I have heard from Republicans over and over again that they
    want to protect women. Let me ask you, how is this bill
    protecting women's right to vote? The SAVE Act is not an
    election security bill. It is carefully constructed legislation
    targeting American women, targeting Americans--Black, Brown,
    veterans, indigenous, and working class. It is a bill to
    disenfranchise millions of Americans. It is part of the
    authoritarian playbook--including the funding freeze and the
    persecution of diverse cities--and it takes courage and moral
    clarity to stand against it.
        Today, I wanted to speak because I want to invite every
    Member of this Committee and the House Democrats and
    Republicans to see this bill for what it is: to stand on the
    right side of history and to stand against the SAVE Act. Thank
    you for your attention and time this evening--this morning.
    With that, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Representative Ramirez follows:]

         PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DELIA C. RAMIREZ
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. The Representative from Illinois yields
    back.
        I will recognizes myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of
    asking questions.
        Mr. Panetta, I was given a map of your district. It does
    look long and a little unique, and so the commission in
    California maybe has an opportunity to get some more compact
    districts in the State. Your point as it relates to the number
    of offices you have is well taken, and so I appreciate you
    coming and testifying before us today.
        As it relates to my colleague from Illinois, I think there
    is a real opportunity to improve election integrity, and if you
    compare my home State of Wisconsin and the State of Illinois,
    the contrast could not be more clear. In the State of Illinois,
    there is no requirement for a photo ID; in the State of
    Wisconsin, there is a requirement for a photo ID. We could look
    to the State of North Dakota, where North Dakota includes in
    REAL ID whether or not an individual is a citizen, and so that
    actually addresses the concern you brought forward, something
    maybe the State of Illinois could take a look at. I think there
    is some real opportunities at the State level.
        In your testimony, you noted that noncitizens do not vote.
    As we have shown in this Committee, we have identified where
    noncitizens have gotten on the voter rolls, where, in certain
    situations, noncitizens have voted. It is the reason election
    integrity legislation, such as the SAVE Act, is absolutely
    essential to make sure that noncitizens are not voting in
    American elections.
        To say that that is part of, as you noted, part of a--I
    will quote it here--``to suppress the votes of anyone who
    threatens their extremist, unconstitutional, White supremacist,
    authoritarian agenda,'' end quote, I would say is common sense,
    common sense to require an individual to show photo
    identification when they come to the polls to say that they are
    who they say they are, to make sure that it is only U.S.
    citizens voting in U.S. elections.
        If we look at liberal cities, such as our Nation's capital
    right here in Washington, D.C., which politically is not that
    different than the city of Chicago, in our Nation's capital,
    under current law, noncitizens are legally allowed to vote in
    municipal elections. In fact, what we saw was multiple
    noncitizens participating in this most recent November election
    at the municipal level.
        Yes, it is true noncitizens cannot participate in Federal
    elections. We know that the radical left wants noncitizens to
    vote, and you can simply look at our Nation's capital here in
    Washington, D.C., that is using taxpayer dollars not only to
    allow that but to encourage noncitizens to participate.
        As we look at the contrast between States, I would offer
    that Illinois has some of the weakest election integrity laws
    in our country, and so maybe an opportunity to go to the home
    State of Illinois and to say, ``We need to step up, to make
    sure that we are providing election integrity so that a
    noncitizen does not cancel out the vote of one, legal American
    citizen who is participating.''
        To say that ``noncitizens do not vote, that is a fact,'' we
    have shown in this Committee that that statement is not true.
    It is why election integrity legislation is so absolutely
    critical.
        With 2 minutes left, I want to yield to my colleague from
    Illinois, Mrs. Miller, to comment on election integrity status
    in the State of Illinois. Mrs. Miller.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman.
        I would hope that my colleague from Illinois will come to
    the understanding that the need for robust voter ID and
    election integrity laws is essential. Illinois has a long
    history of electoral irregularities, and the citizens of
    Illinois deserve secure and trustworthy elections. We do not
    have those. I would note that the SAVE Act does have robust
    protections for married women whose names have changed. Arizona
    has a very similar statute on the books, and no one has been
    disenfranchised. It is very disappointing that my colleague
    from Illinois has chosen to resort to scare tactics instead of
    joining the Committee's efforts to secure our elections.
        Thank you, and I yield to the Chairman.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Mr. Griffith. I yield to Mr. Griffith.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Panetta. How many
    square miles did you say your district is?
        Mr. Panetta. Oh, 2,800 square miles, but I would ask that
    you look at not just the geography; I would ask that you look
    at the different communities of interest.
        Mr. Griffith. I am not against you on that. I just--I do
    have one suggestion, and I am not saying that I am opposed to
    your proposal. I have a district that is 9,000 square miles.
        Mr. Panetta. I knew you would say that. I knew you were
    going there. I know it.
        Mr. Griffith. Now, I do--I mean, you raised some other good
    points. What we do is traveling staff office hours where we go
    in the municipal governments in the various--and we use the,
    you know, various offices that they provide to us once a month
    where our staff goes in, and that has been very helpful. Your
    district is how long from one end to the other? How many hours
    does it take you to drive?
        Mr. Panetta. About 4 hours.
        Mr. Griffith. Yes. Mine is a little bit bigger, but not a
    whole lot, depending on where you are starting from.
        Mr. Panetta. Understood.
        Mr. Griffith. One of the issues that I think you are going
    to find with this new district--you may already have--is the
    prohibition on flying. Unless you take a commercial flight--
    now, maybe you have commercial flights. I have no commercial
    airports in my district, and the prohibition, even within your
    own district, I think, has made it harder for people with large
    districts to well serve their people.
        I would say you might want to--we might want to be looking
    at that too, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not, if you are
    flying within your district or within 20 or 30 miles of your
    district, to use some of the small commuter airports and to
    allow us to fly with people who--I mean, we pay for the gas. We
    note it all in our records for ethics purposes, but, right now,
    it is not--that is not allowed.
        There have been many occasions, particularly on like 9/11,
    when I am trying to get to official events and cannot get from
    one place to the next in sufficient time, and I am only able to
    do one or maybe two events out of six or seven in my district.
    Having a long district does make it difficult. You do have--and
    you point out properly you do have the issue with the fact that
    your district is a lot more expensive than mine. My household
    income is about $50,000.
        I know I am over, but I would happily have taken my own 5
    minutes.
        Anyway, I do appreciate that and so I just--I throw that
    out as a suggestion, but it does make it more difficult,
    particularly with the cost of having your folks living in a
    much higher expense area.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The Ranking Member is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
        Thank you, both, for being here again.
        Quick questions for you, Mr. Panetta. Were you suggesting
    it is both a cost of rental and the costs associated with
    having four offices in high-expense areas, or were you also
    talking about staff allocations? Is it both?
        Mr. Panetta. Both. Because, you know, we are having to
    compete with these counties that pay a hell of a lot more than
    we do at the Federal level. Yet the cost of living is
    ridiculously high. Therefore, it is trying to balance and
    trying to get--recruit and retain talent that keeps on getting
    sucked up into these county offices or State offices that are
    paying a lot more than we are because that is how they can
    afford to live in such an expensive area.
        Mr. Morelle. You are essentially, I think, and I do not
    want to put words in your mouth, but some adjustment for
    everyone's MRA based on a baseline and then what the additional
    cost or lower cost of living is. If you start with an average
    and then, if you are in an area that is below average, you get
    a lower MRA, and if you are in a--is that essentially what you
    are suggesting, some----
        Mr. Panetta. Exactly. Exactly, Ranking Member.
        Mr. Morelle [continuing]. some factor?
        Mr. Panetta. Please, yes. That is exactly it. Something to
    take into account, the subjective factors that are there in
    each district that really kind of make it different than if you
    just kind of threw them all together, which they do now. Like I
    said, the comparison of the Kentucky's Fifth District versus
    California's 19th Congressional District with the cost of
    living, as Mr. Griffith talked about, how expensive it is, it
    just makes it very, very difficult. To have a district, like I
    said, not just geographically bigger but the different
    communities of interest that have different service needs, you
    have really got to go into those communities and stay in those
    communities, and they appreciate that, and they deserve that.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you. Thanks.
        Mrs. Ramirez, first of all, thank you so much for your
    comments. I think, if there is an issue on which the two sides
    disagree more than the SAVE Act and election law, I do not know
    what it is. We try to work together on most issues. This is one
    that there is clearly a huge divide.
        I would just point out, and I will let you comment on this,
    but the question or the issue of non-U.S. citizens voting in
    Federal elections only seems to be a problem when the
    Republicans lose, not when they win. I have not heard a single
    thing or any examples of non-U.S. citizens voting. I certainly
    have not heard of the radical left organizing anyone to do it
    this past year.
        I would actually argue the SAVE Act is an extreme, very
    expensive, and cumbersome solution in search of a problem. You
    know, we will continue on this Committee to have our
    differences. I wonder if you could share with me, in Illinois,
    where you represent, how many complaints are you aware of this
    year of non-U.S. citizens voting in the Presidential election
    that just passed?
        Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you, Mr. Morelle. I mean, I think you
    would hear complaints from my colleague here who would be
    saying that. When you actually look at the record, we do not
    have--I mean, first, let me make sure that people understand
    this, for those of you that may not understand the immigration
    system well. If a noncitizen would vote in an election, they
    would be prohibited to never, ever be able to apply for
    residency or citizenship. A noncitizen does not vote----
        Mr. Morelle. Let me interrupt you for a second. Isn't it a
    felony?
        Mrs. Ramirez. It is a felony, and, therefore, they are----
        Mr. Morelle. They risk deportation.
        Mrs. Ramirez [continuing]. prohibited in any way to every
    apply for a green card or a pathway to citizenship if they
    voted. This is the scare tactics that are being used, but
    really it is about the women. I mean, for example, in Chair
    Steil's district, we have 162,000 women who would now have to
    figure out how to bring a birth certificate if their REAL ID
    does not prove that they are a citizen. I mean, really, this is
    really about voter suppression, and this boogeyman thing that
    if you put the word ``immigrant'' in a bill, it will force
    people to vote one way.
        Mr. Morelle. I did note, to your point, if you are a
    woman--my wife made the decision to take my name when we got
    married. On her birth certificate, the name Morelle would not
    appear----
        Mrs. Ramirez. That is right.
        Mr. Morelle [continuing]. so she would have to assume she
    would have to bring a marriage license. She does have a
    passport, but to your point, half of the American public does
    not have a passport. Now, to register, you cannot do it by
    mail. You would have to go to a local board of elections. That
    eliminates campuses having voter registration drives or vote
    by--or register by mail. You would also have to have a slew of
    documentation to prove you are an American citizen, to prove
    that you are who you say you are, which adds all types of
    obstacles to the ability for anyone to register, let alone to
    vote.
        Frankly, still, there is no--I have not heard a single
    person post election day on the Republican side say there was a
    massive amount of non-U.S. citizens voting in Federal
    elections. I agree with you. I appreciate you coming. We
    obviously have a huge gulf between us. My view, and I suspect
    yours, is that we should do everything we can to make sure that
    every single American has a voice at the ballot and to make
    sure we use different methods to ensure that that happens.
        Anyway----
        Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you.
        Chairman Steil [continuing]. with that, I appreciate both
    of you being here and for your interest in the work of this
    Committee.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The Committee will pause while the witness panel changes.
        Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
        Chairman Steil. Thank you.
        We welcome the second panel.
        As we did with the previous panel, we will give each
    witness 3 minutes to testify. Following the conclusion of the
    testimony, the majority and the minority will each control 5
    minutes total for questions to our colleagues.
        I will begin by recognizing the gentleman from Maryland,
    Mr. Olszewski.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Mr. Olszewski. Thank you very much, Chairman Steil, Ranking
    Member Morelle, Members of the Committee. Thanks for the
    opportunity to provide and address a timely issue: the
    dedicated public servants who comprise our Federal workforce
    and the assault that we are seeing from President Trump and
    Elon Musk.
        These days, it seems far too easy to demonize these workers
    from afar for political gain. However, for those of us
    privileged enough to work here on Capitol Hill, particularly
    the Members of this distinguished Committee on House
    Administration, we know better.
        Every single day, we see public servants working hard
    behind the scenes so that we can perform our constitutional
    duties on behalf of those we represent, whether that is the
    audio and video engineers from the House Recording Studio, who
    came in early this morning to ensure this could be broadcast to
    the public; the Capitol Police officers and civilian employees,
    who protect us while we deliberate; the world-class carpenters,
    masons, and other skilled tradespeople, who maintain these
    historic buildings; the cybersecurity professionals, who work
    around the clock; the attorneys, the parliamentarians, the
    clerks, and those who facilitate our legislative process.
        These public servants, along with countless others, are
    lucky that they have constitutional protections that shield
    them from the purge being unleashed by the President and Mr.
    Musk on the executive branch. However, the 3 million other
    Federal civilian employees in the executive branch now find
    themselves scared, confused, and abandoned by the very country
    they have served for years or, in some cases, decades. To me,
    and I hope to you, I find this an incredible betrayal.
        Maryland is home to 140,000 Federal civilian employees,
    more than 22,000 of mine are constituents in District Two.
    These are real people with real bills to pay and real families
    to support. Just as important, they provide critical services
    to Americans, ensuring we are safe when we fly, our food is
    safe to eat, and processing Social Security checks and tax
    refunds. Americans are in for a rude awakening when there is
    virtually no one left to perform these and other vital
    services.
        My guest tonight at the President's joint address is my
    constituent, Katie Stahl. Katie is a biologist who was recently
    let go from her position with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service. She was hired during President Trump's first term to
    help farmers in Maryland. She was fired in President Trump's
    second term because she was in probationary status, and she was
    only in probationary status because she was exceptional at her
    job. She was promoted. Katie was fired for being good at her
    job. She received no notice, no severance, not even the
    documentation she needed to apply for unemployment. I hope you
    agree with me that this is wrong.
        Before coming to Congress, I served as Baltimore County
    executive where I led efforts to find efficiencies and cut
    wasteful spending. I welcome that discussion here, too. I also
    recognize that our employees are our most valuable resource and
    the best way we can identify those cuts at any level of
    government. What President Trump and Elon Musk are doing is not
    about efficiency. Their actions prove to me they do not
    understand that good employees are our best resource.
        It is my sincere hope that Members of this Committee,
    Republicans and Democrats alike, will join me in condoning
    these actions and pushing back against them.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity today.
        [The prepared statement of Representative Olszewski
    follows:]

       PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI, JR.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. The gentleman from Maryland yields back.
        The gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Magaziner, is
    recognized for 3 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. SETH MAGAZINER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

        Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member. I am
    here to ask for your support of H.R. 396, the TRUST in Congress
    Act, a bill introduced by myself and Mr. Roy with more than 50
    cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats, to ban Members of
    Congress from trading stocks.
        All of us in elected office should be focused on doing what
    is right for the people who sent us here, not turning a profit
    for ourselves. As Members of Congress, we frequently have
    access to inside, sensitive information, and we make decisions
    that impact the performance of the market. Because of this, the
    opportunity for Members to profit off of our positions is just
    too great. This presents an enormous loophole in House Ethics
    rules that must be closed.
        As Members of Congress, we generally have strict limits on
    our outside income. If you or I wanted to make extra money
    after hours by driving an Uber or bartending, there are strict
    caps on how much outside income we can make. There is no limit
    whatsoever on Members of Congress trading stocks off of their
    position. Again, a tremendous loophole. It is ridiculous. It is
    absurd, and it must change.
        Our bipartisan legislation bans Members, their spouses, and
    dependent children from trading individual stocks while in
    office. Members who hold individual stocks will have the option
    to either divest those assets or place them into a blind trust
    where they cannot have knowledge of when they are bought or
    sold.
        Americans across the political spectrum overwhelmingly
    support a ban on congressional stock trading. Recent polling
    showed nearly 90 percent of Americans support prohibiting
    Members of Congress and their families from trading individual
    stocks. With this legislation, Congress can take an important
    step in earning back the trust of the American people. This is
    a bipartisan and straightforward bill. It has been endorsed by
    numerous nonpartisan good-Government organizations across the
    spectrum.
        I am thankful to Representative Roy for his partnership and
    leadership on this issue, as well as former Representative
    Abigail Spanberger, who originally introduced the TRUST in
    Congress Act in 2020. This bill continues to grow in bipartisan
    support and momentum. It is time to finally get it done, and I
    urge the Committee to join us in supporting this legislation. I
    will yield back. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Representative Magaziner
    follows:]

          PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SETH MAGAZINER
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Texas, my friend and colleague Mr. Roy,
    is recognized for 3 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHIP ROY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Roy. Is the light on? I do not think so. Oh, there it
    is. It lit up. All right. Thanks, guys. Sorry about that.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. I appreciate the time.
    Thanks for holding this day.
        Seth, thanks for your words there.
        I want to--I do want to thank Abigail for her work. She is
    no longer serving in Congress with us.
        I am not going to repeat what Seth just said. I cosponsor
    what his remarks just were, but I would just add--let me just
    go through a couple examples here. I am not going to mention by
    name because I am not here to point out any Member. This is not
    about Members and trying to get personal. We have got a
    Democrat here, 4,000 trades, $66 million worth with a 19
    percent return; Republican, 1,925 trades, $167 million worth,
    22.7 percent return; a Democrat, 575 trades, $91 million worth,
    21.8 percent return; a Republican Senator, 270 trades, $7.16
    million in volume, 5.7 percent return; a Democrat, 186 trades
    for $13 million for a 56 percent return. That is a pretty good
    return. I should be following that particular Democrat. A
    Republican, 164 trades for $1 million worth; a Republican, 160
    trades, $4 million worth, 30 percent return.
        I could keep going. There is a laundry list here that I
    could keep going down. I could go down and talk about, you
    know, a Republican that made a 149 percent return in 2024, a
    Democrat that made 142 percent return, a Democrat that made 123
    percent, a Republican that made 111 percent return.
        My point is just this: The American people--the reason it
    is called the TRUST Act is, how can the American people trust
    that we are actually doing this with the blindfolds we are
    supposed to have on? Like Lady Justice in our justice system,
    we are supposed to be objective. How can you be objective if
    you are looking at a question about breaking up Big Tech in
    Judiciary or a question about section 230 or a question about
    healthcare policy when insurance companies and hospitals and
    pharmaceutical companies are rolling in Government money? How
    can we have a serious conversation about defense when defense
    contractors are really, not only rolling in money--they are
    driving half our damn defense policy? We are all sitting here,
    and everybody is trading these stocks.
        All we are trying to say is, maybe, just maybe we should
    put all these things in broadly held mutual funds. Maybe, just
    maybe we should say, let us limit the ability you can trade
    them. Now, there is some differences of opinion. We have some
    colleagues, another bill that is Republican and Democrat
    supported, that has penalties in it. Let me explain why I do
    not think we should have the kinds of penalties that are in
    that bill. I do not think we should be policing ourselves here
    in Congress with criminal penalties being at the end of that
    rainbow because that turns Congress into something it should
    not be.
        I am interested in saying, well, if you break these Ethics
    rules, if we were to adopt this legislation, maybe you are no
    longer a Chairman; maybe you are no longer sitting on certain
    committees. We can police things and have penalties if we break
    those. We need to restore the American people's trust in
    Congress. We should not allow people to profit by day trading
    while we are sitting here. We can do that.
        The last point I will make is--it is not in our bill--we
    could also adopt, what is it called, the 1031 exchanges--is
    that what it--you know, a policy where, you know, you can
    convert all your stuff when you get here from equities, you
    could go put them in a mutual fund but not hit the tax, you
    know, implications of that. A lot of things we can do. Very
    open. I think I speak for Seth too. We are open to whatever,
    but the time is now to do it, and we ought to move. I
    appreciate the Chairman for giving us the time.
        [The prepared statement of Representative Roy follows:]

             PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CHIP ROY
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman, Mr. Carter, is recognized for 3 minutes.

           STATEMENT OF THE HON. EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, A
          REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to present before you today. Thank you for allowing
    me to testify.
        I want to discuss some very important matters that I hope
    the Committee will prioritize in this 119th Congress. Under the
    previous administration, the United States has experienced a
    historic rise of drug overdoses and poisoning driven by an
    increased supply of synthetic opioids, such as illicit fentanyl
    and its analogs.
        Last fiscal year, Customs and Border Protection confiscated
    over 21,000 pounds of fentanyl at our borders. That is enough
    fentanyl to kill every American several times over, and that is
    just the drugs we know about. Illicit fentanyl overdoses, and
    please listen to this--hello?--illicit fentanyl overdoses are
    now the No. 1 cause of death among adults 18 to 45, the No. 1
    cause of death.
        However, I believe we have a great opportunity to make
    significant and sustainable progress in combatting this crisis.
    In 2023, I wrote a letter, this letter right here, to the Food
    and Drug Administration, calling for naloxone, an overdose
    reversal drug, to be available without a prescription. Now, I
    am often critical, I think with good reason, of the FDA for
    what they do not do. However, I applaud them for doing this.
    They did that. They made naloxone OTC where you do not have to
    have a prescription to get it, and that is good. That is what
    we need.
        Naloxone nasal spray is safe. It is easy to use. It is
    proven to reduce medical emergencies, drug overdoses, and
    deaths by up to 46 percent. As the fentanyl crisis continues to
    devastate our country, there is no moral, medical, or safety-
    related reason for these lifesaving overdose reversal agents to
    remain locked under prescription regulations. We must continue
    to expand availability of overdose-reversal treatments like
    naloxone, removing the stigma associated with carrying it and
    making it as common as a defibrillator. I have naloxone in my
    backpack. I carry it with me everywhere I have to go. I have
    never had to use it, thank God, but I have it if I do have to
    use it.
        Mr. Chairman, the Republican Members, many of the
    Republican Members on this Committee today, were over at the
    CHC. The CHC has naloxone by the defibrillator. Here at the
    Capitol, you have got to call the Capitol Police first, and
    then it has got to be reported as a medical emergency before
    you can get that naloxone.
        My request here is simple: Naloxone ought to be available
    here at the Capitol. It ought to be where the defibrillators
    are. It ought to be available. It is safe. You cannot misuse
    it. I suspect you could if you tried hard enough, but,
    essentially, it is safe, and we need to make sure that it is
    available. That is what we are trying to do.
        That is why I sent a letter to the Committee on House
    Administration, the Office of the Attending Physician, and the
    Architect of the Capitol urging them to stock FDA-approved
    opioid overdose-reversal agents such as naloxone in the House
    of Representatives office buildings. In Washington, D.C., the
    drug overdose death is 64.3 per 100,000 people, one of the
    highest rates in the Nation.
        Mr. Chairman, this is something we need to do. We need to
    make sure we get this done. I look forward to continuing to
    work with the Committee to ensure that FDA-approved opioid
    overdose reversal agents such as naloxone are available and
    accessible in the House of Representatives buildings. Thank
    you, and I will yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Representative Carter follows:]

     PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter,
    yields back.
        I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        I will yield to Mrs. Bice for 90 seconds.
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you.
        Mr. Roy and Mr. Magaziner, thank you for bringing this
    forward. As someone who made the decision when I was elected to
    Congress to sell all of my stocks and put everything into EFTs
    and mutual funds, I understand the scrutiny and concerns that
    we have about this. Here is something that I struggle with, and
    that is, it is not just Members of Congress that I think should
    be included in this. I mean, our staff has access to classified
    information if you have that clearance. If you are looking at
    the judicial system, there are many judges who are looking at
    court cases that are antitrust or otherwise, and it could have
    an impact.
        Explain to me why we should limit this to only Members of
    Congress and not expand this to staff and others to be able
    to--if we are truly interested in protecting the institution,
    it should not just be Members of Congress that are under this
    new legislation.
        Mr. Roy. Well, I will speak for myself and say that, well,
    that is why you all are on this great Committee, right. You
    take in this stuff, and then let us work on the legislation.
    Let us bring it forward. Let us amend it, offer ideas, and then
    let the legislative process work. I just think we need to let
    the legislative process work.
        On the substantive question, the reason we did not put it
    in the bill, and the reason Abigail and I did not put it in a
    while back was that we did not--and I do not want to eat up all
    your time--was that we wanted to focus on this one issue. Now,
    when you talk about judges, you talk about executive officials,
    agree. Staff gets a little more complex when we ask these
    people to come in, work in our offices, but I hear you. I am
    certainly open to it. We wanted to focus on the core problems
    of Members, address it, and then move from there.
        Mr. Magaziner. If I could just very quickly, I think it is
    a very valid point. You know, personally, you know, I am open
    to looking at including staff or certain categories of staff,
    looking at other branches. I think something that we agree on
    is we also do not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good
    here. Like, we want to get something on the on this, and we can
    think of lots of ways to come up with the strongest version
    possible that may make it harder to pass. We just need to find
    that balance of something that is doable but also meaningful.
        Mr. Roy. We have the----
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you. I yield back. My time has expired.
    Thank you.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Mr. Carter, appreciate you being here and testifying. I
    think you bring up a really important point of making sure that
    we have emergency services in the Capitol. There is always
    discussion about the best way to provide that, but I appreciate
    your testimony and interest in that space.
        I want to jump back to you, Mr. Roy, if I can. I think you
    are asking the right questions, and I appreciate you doing it.
    When the STOCK Act was passed in 2012, it was referred to six
    committees, Committee on Administration being one. The TRUST
    Act last Congress was referred just to this Committee, and so
    it is navigating through with our other committees in the House
    as well. Removing the appearance of impropriety from Members, I
    think it is really, really important.
        One of the questions that I have, and I could offer--I will
    offer it to you, but, Mr. Magaziner, feel free to jump in as
    well, is, how do we make sure in your bill that the blind trust
    is actually blind? What I mean by that is, sometimes in blind
    trust--remove Congress--blind trust in general, they have like
    20/20 vision, and it really makes you suspect because now you
    have removed disclosure, right. The current regime is a
    disclosure regime. An alternative method to provide the
    American public confidence would be a nondisclosure regime, a
    blind trust which would, by definition, remove disclosure, or
    it would not be blind. How do you make sure that a blind trust
    is really blind?
        Mr. Roy. Well, I think that is one of the things that we
    would have to work through with the Committee, bring in experts
    and figure out the best way to do it. There are ways and
    different entities that set it up to make it truly blind, to
    create barriers between you and that individual. Look, I have
    got to be honest with you----
        Chairman Steil. Do you prefer the blind--there is kind of
    two broad avenues of approach. One is the blind approach,
    right, which is no one knows----
        Mr. Roy. Right.
        Chairman Steil [continuing]. what is in the black box,
    including the Member and including the American people. The
    other is a full disclosure regime, which is, here is all the
    information made. Both are good, and this is going to be the
    dialog we are going to have here, but I think it is an
    interesting and worthy point to consider.
        Mr. Roy. I do, too. The only thing I would add is, if it is
    cleaner for us to just say, ``Do not do that either,'' and just
    say, ``Look, you have got to be in broadly held mutual funds,''
    or, I mean, look, and I am open to regimes where we say,
    ``Look, we totally ban the buy side.'' You and I have talked
    about this before.
        Chairman Steil. Yes.
        Mr. Roy. Ban the buy side. You cannot procure additional
    equities or options or whatever, but then you are able to hold
    equities that you came to Congress with, and that is all fully
    transparent, maybe like--and you have to pre, you know, sell
    your--or whatever, premarket your trades----
        Chairman Steil. We see that in many ways with the
    administration----
        Mr. Roy. Right.
        Chairman Steil [continuing]. having different rules and
    regulations than we do. I think it is always important to
    remember that any insider trading is illegal by anyone who
    engages in insider trading. What we are working on is not to
    create new insider trading law. That is illegal and should be,
    and people should be held accountable if they break the law.
    This is also about the appearance of the impropriety in the
    first place.
        I know my colleague will have his 5 minutes, and so I am
    going to recognize the time. I will yield back. I will
    recognize the Ranking Member for his 5 minutes.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you to all my colleagues who asked, I think, really
    important questions.
        Thank you to all of you for being here.
        I will just start with Mr. Magaziner and Mr. Roy. As
    someone who has divested several years ago myself, I completely
    agree.
        I would associate myself with the remarks by Mrs. Bice, and
    I think it needs to be broader.
        I do admit, Mr. Roy, I think it is a bit of a challenge
    when you are talking about staff, but particularly senior staff
    that are involved and in conversations with Members. It is hard
    to acknowledge that they do not have real influence here. I
    certainly think extending this to the judiciary makes great
    deal of sense.
        I am not sure I totally agree that a blind trust and
    disclosure are binary questions. There could be a way to have
    an administrator of a blind trust disclose. The question is,
    who gets to look at it, et cetera? I think there are ways to
    maybe work that difference out, but I think it is worthy to
    have that conversation.
        I am just sort of curious, I am not sure I understand why,
    Mr. Roy, you take the position there would be no criminal
    sanctions. I am not sure I understand that. I do not know, if
    you could shed a little light on that for me.
        Mr. Roy. Well, and, first of all, I also want to----
        Mr. Morelle. I mean, I would prefer that no one breaks the
    law----
        Mr. Roy. Yes.
        Mr. Morelle [continuing]. so we do not have to have--but
    I--you know.
        Mr. Roy. I do not want to monopolize the time. I want to
    let Seth jump in on this. I will just answer that question for
    me----
        Mr. Morelle. Yes.
        Mr. Roy [continuing]. in saying I think it is a dangerous
    place when Congress gets into policing ourselves with respect
    to criminal-type activity. When you start attaching fines or
    you start attaching things that start to go into that realm, we
    spend our time policing each other as opposed to acknowledging
    an ethics violation, allowing the people to decide that in the
    election, and/or potentially, like I said, with your
    Chairmanships, your power, that we do have the power to dole
    out.
        Due process matters. Look, I appreciated my friend, Jamie
    Raskin, who in Judiciary Committee the other day said he did
    not vote for the removal of one of our Members of Congress, Mr.
    Santos, because he did not think he had had due process. I am
    not here to debate that. I understand differences of opinion. I
    just think we ought to be careful with that approach. I would
    give Seth a moment.
        Mr. Morelle. Yes. Mr. Magaziner.
        Mr. Magaziner. I will respond to that, and then, if you do
    not mind, quickly respond to the Chairman's question as well.
    The way I think about all of these questions is we want
    something that is strong and meaningful but also achievable.
    Like, I do not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good
    here. In the context of penalties, we want penalties that are
    meaningful. We want penalties that will be painful but not to
    the point that we cannot get something passed, right.
        Realistically, I am skeptical that Members are going to
    vote for something that is going to, you know, potentially lead
    to, you know, them being thrown in jail or criminally
    prosecuted if their spouse accidentally, you know, executes a
    trade or something like that, right. We can have penalties that
    are meaningful and strong perhaps internal to the House; you
    lose your committee assignments, you know, something. We can
    work together on what is meaningful but also achievable. I
    think we have got to find that right balance.
        Mr. Morelle. Yes.
        Mr. Magaziner. There should be some meaningful penalties.
        Then, just quickly, I mean, I would just say that what we
    have seen since the STOCK Act was passed is that transparency
    regimes alone are not enough, right. Like, there needs to be--
    it needs to be harder for people to insider trade, right. Like,
    yes, insider trading is already illegal, but it is just too
    easy for Members to do it, and transparency alone has not
    solved that problem. Transparency has shown us that the problem
    is very large, as Mr. Chip alluded to.
        I forget what your other question was, but I will come back
    to it later.
        Mr. Morelle. No, that is--thank you. I will, before I move
    on, just say, and this is just me editorializing, I think the
    compensation for Members and reimbursement for Members for
    expenses needs to be looked at----
        Mr. Magaziner. I agree.
        Mr. Morelle [continuing]. in conjunction with that,
    frankly.
        Mr. Magaziner. Oh, sorry, and blind trust, on that, yes, so
    we could look at making expenses related to setting up a blind
    trust MRA eligible, for example. I would also, again, just
    argue that, when it comes to blind trust, no system is perfect.
        Mr. Morelle. Yes.
        Mr. Magaziner. You know, the question is, is it better than
    what we have now? The answer would clearly be yes, I would say.
        Mr. Morelle. In regard to your comments, Mr. Carter, I
    think we just have to sort of figure out where the drug would
    reside, whether it was with Capitol Police, who are our first
    responders, or--but I think it is well worth considering. I did
    not realize Capitol Police do not have it. Maybe they do. I do
    not know the answer to that, but I think it is certainly worth
    investigating.
        Mr. Carter. If I may, I have got a bill that would require
    naloxone to be available in all elementary schools and
    secondary schools in America. Wherever you see a defibrillator,
    you ought to see naloxone.
        Mr. Morelle. Gotcha.
        Mr. Carter. No. 1 cause of death now for 18-to-45-year-
    olds.
        Mr. Morelle. Yep.
        Mr. Carter. It can be reversed. You could save lives.
        Mr. Morelle. Yes. No, I appreciate that. I appreciate your
    comments.
        I just want to leave it with--or ask Mr. Olszewski, I am
    sure I am torturing--the Chairman asked me. I said, I do not
    know; I just call him Johnny O. Just a quick description, when
    you were county executive, if you were looking for
    efficiencies, this seems akin to me right now as chopping off
    your foot to lose a couple pounds. What manner do you think is
    preferable? How did you handle it?
        Mr. Olszewski. If I may, Ranking Member, just to make this
    bipartisan love continue, I will associate myself with the
    remarks of Representative Carter and in support of the
    naloxone. I also have one in my backpack.
        We did a top-to-bottom review of our Government, and we
    were already pretty lean. We brought in an outside agency, not
    unlike DOGE. We did--it was called Government--I will get the
    Committee the name--public works. It was public works. We did a
    line-by-line review of all of the things that our employees
    were doing, all of our programs, and our employees. They talked
    to the directors. They talked to the employees.
        The employees were the ones that said to us, ``Here is
    where you can do things better and do things differently,'' and
    we realized significant savings in our local government.
        Mr. Morelle. I appreciate that. Thanks for the courtesy.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. I would like to
    thank all of our witnesses today, two productive panels here on
    the Committee on House Administration.
        Without objection, each Member, including the witnesses,
    will have 5 legislative days to insert additional materials
    into the record and to revise and extend their remarks.
        If there is no further business, I thank the Members for
    their participation.
        Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

        PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE LAMONICA R. MCIVER
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TOM COLE
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VAL HOYLE
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DARRELL ISSA
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  REPRESENTATIVE PANETTA DISTRICT MAP
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]