[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]