Chairwoman Foxx (14:58):
Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time.
(15:04)
Before we begin, I want to take a moment to recognize Ashlee Anderson, a member of the majority staff on the committee who will be leaving at the end of this month. Ashlee started in Congress in 2017 with Martha McSally, then went on to work for Mr. Reschenthaler, Ms. Miller-Meeks, and then came to the Rules Committee as policy director for Chairman Burgess in 2024. Ashlee, it's been a pleasure to work alongside you and we'll certainly miss you here at the Rules Committee. All of us are rooting for you in this new and exciting chapter of your career. You look entirely too happy.
(15:56)
Now we turn to the business before us. Today, the Rules Committee is convening to consider four measures. H.R. 6955, H.R. 7008, H. Con. Res. 113, and H.R. 9770. H.R. 6955, the Main Street Capital Access Act, would tailor bank regulations based on the size of the financial institution to spur local bank formation and to empower community lenders. When the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law, community and mid-size banks were unnecessarily subjected to a regulatory structure designed for large complex financial institutions. This caused a ripple effect throughout communities across the nation. Local lending was suffocated and the American people were the ones most affected. H.R. 6955 insures community lenders can focus on serving families, small businesses and local economies making life more affordable for Americans and empowering Main Street.
(17:08)
H.R. 7008, The Stop Insider Trading Act, would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, or dependent children from purchasing stocks that are publicly traded. Additionally, this legislation would require members of Congress to disclose publicly each intended sale of stocks with the clerk of the House prior to its sale. Further, should any infractions occur, the House Ethics Committee would issue a fine to the offending member equal to $2,000 or 10% of the value of the covered investment, whichever is greater, plus the net gain realized from the sale. In addition, this legislation aims to restore trust in our election systems by implementing a common sense requirement of showing a valid photo ID to vote in federal elections. 24 states already require photo ID to be presented prior to voting. Heck, you even need to present a vote ID to utilize the Olive Garden's never ending pasta pass. 80% of the American people believe showing photo ID at the polls makes sense. It's beyond time to make this simple first step to securing our election system.
(18:41)
H. Con. Res. 113, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2027 unlocks the very first step in advancing our third reconciliation package under the House Republican majority. This concurrent resolution covers three issues of paramount importance, providing additional resources for baseline readiness so that the men and women of the armed forces are given the tools they need to carry out their missions successfully.
(19:15)
Securing American elections, an issue that the American people remain very attuned to and support through and through, and supporting our nation's farmers and ensuring that our nation's food supply and food security remain as strong as they can possibly be. I look forward to the forthcoming testimony of our colleagues on why advancing this first step of our third reconciliation measure is so important.
(19:46)
Finally, we turn to H.R. 9770, the continuing resolution that would fully fund the federal government through December 4th of this year. The House has been working diligently to pass standalone appropriations bills consistent with regular order. While we remain optimistic about the work of Chairman Cole and our colleagues in this process, that does not mean we should blind ourselves to the reality of the timeline ahead of us. We will likely need some kind of short-term extension to keep some if not all of our government open past the end of the fiscal year.
(20:27)
Providing a buffer to continue our Article 1 duties of funding the government is prudent, responsible and necessary. I note that Democrats supported virtually all of the current funding levels for agencies. They should do so again to responsibly ensure that an unnecessary collapse in government functions will not occur this fall.
(20:54)
Unfortunately, if past is prologue, our Democrat colleagues may very well once again prove themselves incapable of supporting the continuity of government given their previous shutdown antics. I hope that is not the case today. We have the obligation to advance funding immediately so that the government does not bear the brunt once more of political gamesmanship and obstruction spurred by our colleagues across the aisle.
(21:26)
With that, I now yield to the ranking member for any comments he wishes to make.
Jim McGovern (21:31):
Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And let me begin by saying that I want to associate myself with your kind words about Ashlee's service to this committee. And we wish her nothing but the best in her next chapter. And the people who serve on the staffing of the Rules Committee work awfully long hours, probably more than any other committee. And we don't thank them enough, but I wish you all the best, Ashlee.
(21:57)
And now Madam Chair, there's a lot before us today, including two bills that we already considered three weeks ago. They are back on the agenda because Republican leaders sent everyone home before bringing these bills to the floor since they didn't have the votes to pass their own rule. So now we're doing it all over again. And then there are a few new things before us today.
(22:20)
First, a budget proposal that includes $73 billion for Donald Trump's new never ending war in Iran that Congress already voted to end. A $12 billion bandaid for farmers who were hurting, which I would say is a pretty big admission that Trump's tariff policies have devastated American farmers. And of course, $10 billion to indulge the president's insane election conspiracy theories. I don't know how many of you watched his speech last Thursday, but it was both wacky and scary. Wacky because it was one conspiracy theory after another. Scary because this guy's actually sitting in the Oval Office. Together, this budget framework outlines nearly $100 billion. That's billion with a B, in funding with zero pay force. Even Republicans know this thing as a dud. One Republican said, and I quote, "$95 billion in new deficit spending, no offsets and not one provision to lower the cost of living." Other Republican members have called it, quote, "dead on arrival." There's also a continuing resolution to keep the government open. The funding deadline is months away and Republicans are already admitting they cannot finish their work. Instead, they're trying to punt our work until December 4th.
(23:39)
We also have before us the Stop Insider Trading Act. I absolutely support a ban on congressional stock trading. You shouldn't be able to use public power for private profit. I agree with that 100%. But the idea that this Republican Congress has suddenly seen the light is a joke. The net worth of Donald Trump and his family have grown on a scale without precedent. We just found out his own teleprompter operator has been illegally cashing in on Kalshi bets. I mean, the corruption is staggering.
(24:13)
And now the president wants to sell early access to his market moving social media posts to those who can afford it. This president and this Republican Party are rotten to the core and corrupt through and through. This is a nice little game they're playing, bringing the stock trading ban to the floor and attaching it to get this an unrelated partisan bill to make it harder for American citizens to vote in elections.
(24:39)
But that's what they're doing and it's a game to them. It's all a game. If they cared about corruption, they could have banned stock trading 18 months ago and they could have brought a bill to the floor to address the blatant, brazen, shocking corruption at the White House. Instead, we get this totally inadequate and insufficient bill, which they know is dead on arrival in the Senate. And finally, there's Republican so-called Main Street Capital Access Act. Lovely name. Wall Street must have focus grouped it. This bill makes bank mergers easier, regulators weaker, and oversight looser. What could possibly go wrong? Republicans run the House, they run the Senate and the White House. What they lack is any idea on how to use it to make people's lives better. Power is supposed to be about helping people. And instead this majority uses it to protect the President, to pay off the powerful, and to funnel more money into yet another endless war.
(25:40)
The American people deserve a hell of a lot better and I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Foxx (25:46):
Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record.
(25:54)
I now welcome our panel, Chairman Arrington and Representative McGarvey from the House Budget Committee. Your full statements will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes.
(26:09)
Chairman Arrington, I welcome your testimony.
Jodey Arrington (26:12):
Thank you, Madam Chair, ranking member. I agree with Mr. McGovern. The American people deserve better than what they've gotten for the last year and a half.
(26:23)
But what they've gotten is a Democrat party that I don't recognize in my ten years of service, persistent, habitual, never ending obstruction to stop the president from succeeding in advancing the policies and the agenda the American people overwhelmingly supported and voted for unilateral or Republican leadership in Congress alongside of this president. That has made it difficult to govern. What was unprecedented from my Democrat colleagues is now par for the course. Exhibit A, the first shutdown of the entire federal government over a clean CR. It's the first time it's ever happened from my Democrat colleagues. Both parties have participated in these shutdowns. I will readily concede that. But the first time a clean CR was rejected just to keep the government funding at the last year's funding levels until we could meet out a compromised solution.
(27:41)
What was their reasoning? What was their counter offer? To repeal the program integrity measures that we put in place in the Big Beautiful Bill to stop waste, fraud and abuse, to prevent people not eligible, illegal, or people who are able to work and not working, siphoning money off of the safety net programs that are there for our most vulnerable Americans. It was the longest shutdown in history before the next Democrat shutdown.
(28:10)
This time it was shutting down the Department of Homeland Security after we had agreed four corners on funding the government. They shut down Homeland. They handcuffed our border patrol agents from protecting our borders. They basically shut down our Coast Guardsmen from defending our ports, CISA agents from defending our critical infrastructure against being hacked. For over 70 days, they held the American people's security hostage until we used a reconciliation bill to break the obstruction and fund ICE and CBP because they defunded it. To be clear, they shut Homeland Security down and then they defunded ICE and CBP. We had to turn it on unilaterally through reconciliation. We didn't get a single vote from Democrats on that.
(29:05)
Now here we are in the long train of obstruction abuses to do something before November as the window closes that is not just meaningful, it is important, it is critical, it is urgent. Support our troops, strengthen our food supply and safeguard the integrity of our elections.
(29:31)
Madam Chair, the obstruction and resistance at all costs and on all fronts goes beyond shutdowns. For the first time in 65 years or what is at least 65 years of a tradition of bipartisan support for the NDAA, National Defense Authorization Act, that are the policies that undergird our entire United States national defense have been held up in the Senate By the Democrats. Prior to that, based on a temporary personnel decision of the president, they held up FISA 702, a critical security tool for our intelligence community to stop Chinese espionage, to stop terrorism, to stop drug trafficking. This is this new shameful era of obstruction and I presume that the motivation is to placate the left wing Mamdani socialist based of the party. I have no other answers.
(30:38)
So Madam Chair and members of the distinguished Rules Committee, I present to you a reconciliation bill that will provide emergency funding for our sons and daughters so they have baseline battlefield readiness, emergency funding to provide resilience and strength to our food supply that we all benefit from. And lastly, again, the consent of the governed and a functioning democracy requires integrity and confidence in elections. And I will quote former Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2017 after the 2016 election based on the phony Russia collusion that was debunked later by an independent council. And I quote, "Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to protect our democracy."
(31:45)
Well, here's where I agree with her. We have a duty to protect our democracy. And when half the country has little to no confidence in the outcome of our elections because we don't have basic safeguards like a photo ID, I think it is incumbent upon us to act and act with purpose and with urgency, and with that I yield.
Chairwoman Foxx (32:07):
Thank you very much, Mr. Arrington.
(32:09)
Mr. McGarvey, you're recognized. Thank you. Welcome to the Rules Committee.
Morgan McGarvey (32:15):
Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ranking Member McGovern. Ashlee, thank you for your service, best of luck in your next chapter.
(32:22)
I'm here on behalf of ranking member Boyle and House Budget Committee Democrats to talk about what is actually in this bill, and I think importantly, what is not. But first I want to start off with something that my colleague, Chairman Arrington addressed, and he addressed the need for people to work together. Let me talk about that for just a second. As a candidate, Donald Trump promised the American people two things I actually agreed with. He said no more foreign wars and that he would lower costs on day one. Here's the thing. Those weren't just empty, worthless campaign promises, they've become actual and dangerous lies. More than 18 months since he took office, we are fighting a foreign war in Iran. 17 American service members are dead. Three were killed just this past weekend, one was 19 years old. Three more Americans dead after Donald Trump declared a total and complete victory in the war that he started. This war has cost us American lives. This war has cost us tens upon tens of billions of dollars and we are getting nothing in return. It is the president's incompetence that has made our world less safe and stable than the day that he started this war.
(33:38)
And because of Trump's war, because of Trump's tariffs and because of this lapdog Republican Congress, families in Louisville, Kentucky, and across this country are paying more than ever for groceries, for rent, utilities, for healthcare, and just about everything else. But here's the thing, it's not happening by accident. These aren't just broken promises. These are deliberate policy choices by the House Republicans.
(34:04)
Let's look at the first Republican reconciliation bill. We're on the third one right now. The first Republican reconciliation bill. The one Big, Beautiful Bill as everyone called it. It gave massive tax cuts to billionaires and the wealthiest corporations while taking trillions of dollars away from American family's health insurance. It took money away from kids and seniors, moms who were just trying to put food on the table.
(34:27)
So they did a second reconciliation bill, and the second reconciliation bill, what did it do? It gifted ICE $70 billion. That was on top of the already $140 billion that they gave them the year before. And what is this money going toward? 55 deaths in ICE custody since Donald Trump took office. Kids used his bait, families ripped apart, people killed on American streets. Just this past week, we saw two Americans killed by unfit and untrained ICE agents.
(34:58)
So you think that the third reconciliation bill, this would be the one where they finally do something-
Morgan McGarvey (35:00):
... bill. This would be the one where they finally do something about affordability for American families. Spoiler alert, it's not. The bill's 47 pages long. It doesn't include one single word about lowering costs for the American people. There is not one word in here about affordability. Instead, Republicans use this to add nearly $100 billion to the debt and deficit of this country to fund the most unpopular war in American history. But back to the original comments by the chairman about working together, we do want to work on things that I think are broadly popular. During the Budget Committee markup, Democrats offered 14 common sense amendments to try to make this into a bill that does anything to help families. We tried to reverse cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. We tried to lower health insurance premiums, repeal Trump's tariff taxes, stop taxpayer dollars from funding an unauthorized war on more ICE brutality.
(35:58)
I offered an amendment to make sure that the taxpayers would not be forced to pay for Donald Trump's ballroom. What happened? Republicans rejected every single amendment. They said no to healthcare. They said no to food assistance. They said no to lower gas prices. They said no to ending the President's corruption. But for Donald Trump's foreign war, here we are, and House Republicans are happy to open the checkbook. This is a budget of broken promises. It puts American people last.
(36:28)
As we sit here, we sit in this fancy room, and we're talking about rules and process and budgets and reconciliation. And we may think that the American people are sitting here watching. They're not. They're not talking about reconciliation. They are at home right now talking about their bills. They're talking about rent. They're talking about healthcare. They're talking about groceries. They're talking about gas prices. They are sitting here wondering what they're going to do about utilities and prescription drugs, and why their paychecks don't go as far as they used to.
(36:59)
And they're asking a fair question. This is a question we should ask ourselves. The American people are asking this question, "Why can Republicans always find money for billionaires and wars but never for the rest of us?" Because that's who they serve. The Budget Committee Democrats are ready to work with anyone who is serious about lowering costs and making life easier for the American people. This bill does neither. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, and thank you and I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (37:32):
Thank you, Mr. McGarvey. Ms. Fischbach, do you have any questions? Mr. McGovern.
Jim McGovern (37:39):
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, let me just say, I love you Republicans. You don't take responsibility for anything. I mean, you control the House, you control the Senate, you control the White House, I think you control the Supreme Court, and nothing is your responsibility. Boy, it must be nice to live that way.
(37:56)
And I'll just say one thing. When you guys want to get things done, I mean, you do. When you wanted tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, I mean, you shoved that through, added $4.7 trillion to the debt. You got that through. I wish we could have stopped it, but you got it through. When you wanted to cut Medicaid by a trillion dollars, you did it in a nanosecond. SNAP by $200 billion, you're going to increase hunger in this country.
(38:22)
So, this idea that somehow you can't get anything done. Yeah, you do. The stuff you get done, unfortunately, is bad for the American people, but everything is somebody else's fault. It's never your fault. And don't even get me going on corruption or on fraud, or waste or abuse. I'm looking at what's happening in the White House right now and the silence of the entire Republican Conference. I mean, that is complicity. That is complicity.
(38:48)
And history will record that you were silent as this President ripped off the American people. I've never seen anything like it. It makes Richard Nixon look like a Boy Scout. But Chairman Arrington, in 2024, you came before this committee and you said, quote, "At a time when our national debt is approaching 35 trillion, we are adding almost $8 billion to the debt every day, and we pay 62 cents on every dollar just to service the debt. We must lead Congress toward a path of fiscal responsibility. The trajectory is unsustainable and is arguably the biggest threat facing our nation," end quote.
(39:22)
You ended your remarks by saying, and I quote, "Not paying for our spending is not only irresponsible, it is irrational. We cannot continue to thrust the costs of things we think are important onto the backs of our kids and grandkids," end quote. Chairman Arrington, do you still believe that our debt is one of the biggest threats facing our nation?
Jodey Arrington (39:41):
I do.
Jim McGovern (39:43):
So Chairman Arrington, can you affirm the basic fact that since January 20th, 2025, since President Trump and the Republicans assumed full control of government, the national debt has increased by $3.3 trillion from 36.2 trillion to 39.5 trillion?
Jodey Arrington (40:03):
It's a misleading stat because the economy has grown with the cuts that we made on waste, fraud and abuse. In total, for the first time in a decade, the deficit to GDP has gone down under Republican leadership and this President's watch.
Jim McGovern (40:19):
You disagree with the figure?
Jodey Arrington (40:21):
That's a direct quote from the CBO.
Jim McGovern (40:23):
Yeah, but do you disagree that our debt went from 36.2 to 39.5? 'Cause I think that's pretty clear.
Jodey Arrington (40:32):
We have liabilities in Social Security, Medicare. We have liabilities across the board that are outpacing our-
Jim McGovern (40:41):
Mr. McGarvey-
Jodey Arrington (40:42):
... our sources of revenue.
Jim McGovern (40:43):
... those are accurate numbers?
Morgan McGarvey (40:45):
Yes. And in fact, another stat we can look at, the debt of this country from George Washington through Bill Clinton was about $5.7 trillion. The debt from George W. Bush and Donald Trump alone is nearly double that.
Jim McGovern (40:59):
Chairman Arrington, isn't it true that you and everybody on the Republican side here voted in favor of a Republican reconciliation bill that is projected to add $4.7 trillion to our nation's debt over the next decade?
Jodey Arrington (41:10):
Not true.
Jim McGovern (41:11):
Another $70 billion that provided funding for ICE and CBP?
Jodey Arrington (41:17):
The ICE and CBP was simply a replacement of what would've been discretionary funding for ICE and CBP when every Democrat voted to defund it.
Jim McGovern (41:27):
Did you vote for that?
Jodey Arrington (41:29):
Of course I wouldn't defund ICE and CBP. That's-
Jim McGovern (41:31):
Chairman Arrington-
Jodey Arrington (41:32):
Yes, sir.
Jim McGovern (41:32):
... can you confirm that the plain text of the budget resolution before us right now instructs committees to propose legislation that would increase the deficit by as much as $95 billion with no requirement that it be paid for?
Jodey Arrington (41:49):
Mr. McGovern, ever since I've been here, and probably for 100 years, when we are in conflict and our military needs supplemental resourcing to keep our troops safe, we have never offset it. And the $200 billion that you and your colleagues gave to Ukraine, that was not offset. So I don't expect we should do this any differently.
Jim McGovern (42:12):
Yeah. But you said, and I go back, "Not paying for our spending is not only irresponsible, it's irrational."
Jodey Arrington (42:17):
I agree.
Jim McGovern (42:18):
"We cannot continue to trust the cost of things that we think are important onto the backs of our kids and our grandkids."
Jodey Arrington (42:23):
That's correct.
Jim McGovern (42:24):
My question is, how can you come before the committee and advocate for spending tens of billions more taxpayer dollars on top of the trillions that you have already added to the deficit while not requiring any of this money?
Jodey Arrington (42:36):
It's a fair question.
Jim McGovern (42:37):
Not just the military stuff, but other stuff, that none of it is paid for.
Jodey Arrington (42:40):
It's a fair question.
Jim McGovern (42:41):
Yeah.
Jodey Arrington (42:42):
And I think we have to ask ourselves as a Congress why we provide emergency funding, supplemental appropriations for emergencies because those emergencies require expeditious action? A, and B, if we don't act, we'll spend a lot more money. Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't budget for emergencies. We needed to do a better job of that across the board.
Jim McGovern (43:03):
Was it an emergency to give tax breaks to billionaires and millionaires? 'Cause that was not paid for either.
Jodey Arrington (43:08):
It was, in fact.
Jim McGovern (43:10):
Okay. All right. So we just have a disagreement. You think an emergency is making sure that millionaires and billionaires get tax cuts, the big corporations? I just disagree with that. That's a fundamental values question.
Jodey Arrington (43:22):
I didn't say that just for the record. Although some, after a 21% inflation tax, would've said a 22% tax hike would be an emergency for their families.
Jim McGovern (43:32):
Yeah. Your budget resolution instructs the Armed Services Committee to increase the deficit by as much as $60 billion in order to use taxpayer dollars to cover more of the cost of the President's war in Iran. Are you aware that Republicans gave the Department of Defense an extra $150 billion last July?
Jodey Arrington (43:47):
Yes.
Jim McGovern (43:48):
And according to the Trump administration's own numbers, more than half of that money, $75.7 billion, has yet to be spent or even obligated?
Jodey Arrington (43:57):
I know that we gave 150 billion to the defense of our country.
Jim McGovern (44:01):
Right. So given that you've said that our nation's debt is such an existential crisis, wouldn't you agree that it is irresponsible to spend another $60 billion in taxpayer dollars on Trump's war when you already have $75 billion available?
Jodey Arrington (44:16):
No, sir, because we were so in the hole after four years of a president that didn't have not just regard for our readiness, but for what our troops were focused on in terms of war fighting. That first 100 billion was to make up for four years. Thank God we put that additional monies to prepare for-
Jim McGovern (44:35):
$75 billion that hasn't even been obligated yet. I've also submitted an amendment that I hope to offer in the Rules Committee later tonight, to use $13 billion out of that $60 billion to add the Major Richard Starr Act to the reconciliation bill. This would help combat wounded veterans get the full support that they're entitled to. Chairman Arrington, would you support making my amendment an order to help these veterans?
Jodey Arrington (44:59):
We simply unlocked the reconciliation process, Mr. McGovern, and you know the process as well as I do. The policies will be meted out by the authorizing committee chairs, not myself.
Jim McGovern (45:10):
But you would have no objection for me offering an amendment and hopefully maybe getting a [inaudible 00:45:14]?
Jodey Arrington (45:14):
Our focus-
Jim McGovern (45:14):
'Cause we're not going to pay for this other stuff. The whole issue over the veterans bill that Republicans pulled last week was a lot of the veterans organizations were upset that you were robbing Peter to pay Paul.
(45:28)
You were actually cutting veterans benefits on one hand to increase veterans benefits for other groups on the other end. So this would alleviate that. So that's what we're trying to do. Mr. McGarvey, would you be okay with us trying to do that?
Morgan McGarvey (45:42):
No. In fact, I sit on the Veterans' Committee, Ranking Member McGovern. I think this is something where we actually all agree we should be taking care of our veterans.
(45:50)
Instead, they are looking to actually take things away from veterans who are suffering from tinnitus, veterans who are suffering, and they're not willing to pay to help them.
Jim McGovern (45:58):
So we'll see what happens later today. I think you'd all agree that affordability and the cost of living, whether it's gas prices or childcare costs, are some of the top concerns of the American people. The question is why does this budget resolution not include anything to bring down costs?
(46:12)
I mean, you don't have to just take my word for it. On July 15th, the Republican congresswoman from South Carolina described your budget as, quote, "$95 billion in new deficit spending, no offsets and not one provision to lower the cost of living," end quote. So the question is, why doesn't your resolution instruct any committee to propose legislation that would, for example, lower healthcare costs or help people who have lost their healthcare coverage regain it?
Jodey Arrington (46:41):
I would say that the first step in unwinding the cost of living crisis that was created by the failed policies of your party was to stop the wild, reckless, unbridled spending.
(46:54)
This administration continues, by the way, a whole of government assault on fraud, not on domestic energy producers, but on fraud. And we cut, like I said $1.6 trillion in waste. We put pro-growth policies that gave us a 3.8 and a 4.3 growth rates before you shut the government down.
Jim McGovern (47:15):
It sounds like we're back to the old, let's blame Joe Biden. Well, why doesn't your resolution instruct any committee to propose legislation that would lower Americans' childcare costs? Or why doesn't the resolution instruct any committee to propose legislation that would lower American's housing or rent costs? Or why doesn't your resolution instruct any committee to propose legislation that would lower gas prices for Americans' energy bills?
(47:40)
I mean, this is kind of the problem in a nutshell, and I'll close with this. When it comes to war and tax cuts for wealthy and big corporations, you guys trip over yourselves to spend tax dollars with no offsets. This is your MO. But when it comes to helping American families, Republicans think it would be wasteful spending. I got to tell you, I still do in -person town halls. I don't know about you, but I do. And all people want to talk about is the high cost of living.
(48:07)
They can't afford their rents, can't afford to buy homes. Childcare costs are out of control, healthcare costs are out of control. They want to know why the hell aren't we focused in on that? And instead we're focused in on giving with the well off and the well-connected even more. I think people have had it. And I think that's one of the reasons why you're going to see every Democrat oppose this. And I hope some Republicans who care about fiscal responsibility will oppose it as well. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (48:36):
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mr. Scott, you're recognized.
Mr. Scott (48:39):
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Arrington, I personally believe that we won the last election 'cause Americans wanted us to secure the border and stop the tax increase. I mean, the millions upon millions of people that were allowed to come into this country unchecked, and intentionally unchecked by the Biden administration at the behest of the Democrat Socialist Movement, has had a tremendous cost to us. But we were elected to secure the border and stop the tax increase from the Democratic Party.
Jodey Arrington (49:20):
That's right.
Mr. Scott (49:22):
And the Democratic Party, we stopped their tax increase. We didn't actually reduce the rate for millionaires. Am I correct? No millionaires' tax rate went down. They just didn't get the tax increase that the Democrats wanted them to get. Is that correct?
Jodey Arrington (49:36):
Well, the 92% of the American people who are working people, I would suggest 92% that take a standard deduction actually got another tax break, as did working people who work overtime, work for tips, et cetera.
Mr. Scott (49:50):
If you're working for tips... I eat at Waffle House on a regular basis, not as fancy as some of the places most members eat at, but I enjoy Waffle House with my family. You're working overtime, you got a nice tax cut. Our senior citizens are getting a tax credit on the Social Security side because of some budget rules that we have to comply with.
(50:12)
That's the way that was done. But we were elected to secure the border and stop the tax increase that the Democrats wanted. And the end result of stopping the tax increases, and this doesn't get talked about enough, I don't believe, but my understanding, according to CBO, tax revenue in the United States is higher than it's ever been in the history of the country. Is that correct?
Jodey Arrington (50:30):
That's correct.
Mr. Scott (50:31):
And actually, and you may not exactly know this number, but I looked it up, revenue for 2026 is 17.5% of GDP. The 50-year average is 17.3%.
Jodey Arrington (50:45):
Yeah.
Mr. Scott (50:46):
So just factually-speaking, if you want more money, you have to grow the GDP of the country. You don't grow the GDP of the country taking all of the capital out of the private sector and depositing it in accounts where fraudsters are able to go get it. And nobody at the state level in certain states, Democratic states like Minnesota, want to do anything about it.
Jodey Arrington (51:10):
That's right.
Mr. Scott (51:10):
And so the one thing that I would tell you that I wish we had done, I think the other thing people want us to do was to cut spending. And it's pretty clear to me that if you look at the fraud that is occurring throughout the United States, that simply stopping the people that should not be getting assistance from stealing assistance or dollars, I should say, from the US government. I mean, my understanding is CBO came out the other... Was it CBO or Congressional Research?
Jodey Arrington (51:37):
CBO.
Mr. Scott (51:38):
One of our people came out and said, "For every dollar you put into fraud prevention-
Jodey Arrington (51:41):
That's right.
Mr. Scott (51:42):
... It would generate a $7 return on the investment.
Jodey Arrington (51:47):
That's correct.
Mr. Scott (51:48):
Is that correct?
Jodey Arrington (51:48):
That's correct. Because we have $500 billion, according to GAO, on the high side, but hundreds of billions for sure in fraud leaking out every year of this government.
Mr. Scott (52:00):
And of course, the Democrats are defending the fraudsters. I mean, that's what's happening. They don't want us to cut spending. We could get all of the cuts that we wanted simply by getting rid of the fraud in this country, I believe. At least the vast majority of them.
Jodey Arrington (52:13):
The enhanced COVID tax credits for Obamacare that they wanted to shut the government down over, there were tens of billions according to GAO and CBO in fraud. And some of that was tens of thousands of Social Security numbers from dead people.
Mr. Scott (52:29):
Yeah. Yep. All of that money was going to the insurance carriers-
Jodey Arrington (52:35):
That's correct.
Mr. Scott (52:35):
... not to the hospitals, correct?
Jodey Arrington (52:37):
That's correct.
Mr. Scott (52:38):
And so they blame the challenge that local hospitals are having. And I'm getting some reports together on what is actually happening at local hospitals. But the fact of the matter is Medicare Advantage plans aren't paying their claims and other things. And because of the way the Democrats have done things, there's no mechanism to force these gargantuan insurance carriers to actually pay the claims that they owe the local hospitals.
(53:01)
I'm getting together some reports on that, but I just want to get back to some basics. I mean, the fact of the matter is we were elected to secure the border and stop the tax increase. We did that. They can scream that billionaires got a lower tax rate and all of that. It's just nonsense. But the main thing is, with regard to the economy, the taxpayers need to understand, tax revenues are higher than they've ever been in the history of the country.
Jodey Arrington (53:26):
Yes. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And if you're going to bend the curve on the debt-to-GDP, which is the measure of our fiscal health, which we have lowered, the deficit is the input to the debt, and that's gone down for the first time in a decade, you have to do two things.
(53:43)
What we did to root out waste and fraud and save money, and pro-growth policies that ignite the growth that we've seen, as I've said, 1% over CBO's projections gives us 3 trillion in deficit reduction.
Mr. Scott (53:56):
The final thing I want to say is about the war with Iran. Every president, whether they be Democrat or Republican, has recognized the threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. There is no civilian purpose for uranium enrichment beyond 20%. You could say 5, but we'll stretch it and say 20. No civilian use beyond 20. It's widely accepted in the international community that Iran was far beyond the 20% of enrichment and was continuing to enrich beyond those levels.
(54:37)
Had President Trump not done what he did, Iran would have had a nuclear weapon within a short period of time. And they already had the ability to make dirty... They had enough enrichment to create a tremendous amount of damage throughout the world. And the fact of the matter is, the majority of terrorism throughout the world, Iran has something to do with, whether it be sponsoring with intelligence or with weapons. Iran, it's a country run by jihadists. I'm glad our president has the balls to do something about it. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield.
Chairwoman Foxx (55:12):
Thank you, Mr. Scott. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.
Ms. Scanlon (55:17):
Thank you. I yield first to the ranking member.
Jim McGovern (55:20):
Well, thank you. I just want to say that listening to my colleague, Mr. Scott, I think maybe this is the biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans. You think that people in this country should be happy, that they should be grateful for all that they received under Republican leadership and under the leadership of Donald Trump.
(55:40)
I will say to you, go to any coffee shop in this country. Go to any VFW hall, go to any union hall. Go to any workplace and talk to regular people about what's on their mind and they will tell you the issue of affordability is front and center.
Mr. Scott (55:53):
I do that. I see them at Waffle House at Walmart and other places, Mr. McGovern. Most of the Americans I know recognize how blessed they are to live in this country and do not want a socialist takeover like the Democratic Party has allowed.
Jim McGovern (56:06):
Well, and they don't want a fascist takeover by the Republican Party either. You want to go down that road? I'll go down that road. All right. As we inch toward authoritarianism, you know what? People are sick of that, too.
(56:16)
They're frightened of a president whose ego is so fragile that he can't admit he lost an election, and promotes all this wacky propaganda that scares the hell out of the average voter, including a lot of Republicans.
(56:29)
And I would also just say one thing on Iran, the Strait of Hormuz was open and oil prices were coming down before this president launched this war. And now the strait is closed, gas prices are going up, which is also an affordability issue. So I'm sorry, you think-
Mr. Scott (56:46):
Gas prices are still lower than they would be if Kamala Harris had been elected.
Jim McGovern (56:50):
No, that's ridiculous. But anyway, but the bottom line is you go down this road. You can keep thinking that people are happy and they should be grateful. I will tell you, you will find out in November, people are sick of this.
(57:05)
And by the way, when you say that the tax cuts didn't help people who are rich, I remember Donald Trump was up there bragging about the fact that one of his closest friends-
Mr. Scott (57:12):
I didn't say that.
Jim McGovern (57:13):
... was able to buy a new private jet with the money he saved on the tax cuts. I don't know anybody who owns a private jet. I don't hang around with those people like maybe you guys do, but the bottom line is that average working people in this country feel they're getting screwed, and they've had it, and they want to know why we're not focused more like a laser beam on the issues of affordability. I yield back to the gentlelady.
Mr. Scott (57:34):
I think working people in this country love this country and don't want to [inaudible 00:57:37].
Ms. Scanlon (57:36):
Thank you. I'm reclaiming my time. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I do have to agree with the ranking member. I mean, at a time when the price of gas and groceries and healthcare keeps climbing, you might think Republicans would come to Congress with a plan to help working families. Instead, they're back with a third, a third partisan budget bill. And once again, it's completely missing the moment from my constituents, I think for most Americans.
(58:04)
This budget resolution paves the way for nearly $95 billion to be added to the deficit. That's on top of the trillions that have already been added by this administration through its misguided tax cuts and the prior reconciliation bills. Look, more than 70 billion would bankroll the President's ill-conceived senseless war. I mean, that's the monetary damage on top of the deaths that we're already seeing. It is the most unpopular war in American history.
(58:33)
And presumably, some portion of that will go to fund Pete Hegseth's obsession with the testosterone levels of members of our military. Another $10 billion is going to fund Republican's wild goose chase of a voter suppression bill, the SAVE Act, that would restrict access to the ballot for millions of Americans with provisions that even Republicans acknowledge are unlikely to survive Senate reconciliation rules.
(58:59)
It's interesting to hear our Republican colleagues try to justify that bill. They don't say that it's necessary to actually prevent election fraud or even voting by non-citizens because that's not true. Those things aren't happening at the levels they claim. No, what they say is that, "The bill is necessary because Americans are concerned about the security of our elections." Well, of course they are. The President's been lying to them about that for nearly a decade.
(59:25)
But back to the main point on this, not one dollar is devoted to lowering the cost of groceries, reducing healthcare costs or slashing skyrocketing energy prices. Republicans keep promising to lower costs, but instead they keep shifting the economic burdens to consumers through tariffs, through giveaways to billionaires in big business. The only kind of welfare they seem interested in is corporate welfare. And boy, are we seeing a lot of that.
(59:54)
So apparently there's always more money for war or to clean up some of the economic damage caused by this administration. If Republicans were serious about helping American families, they would be working to actually lower costs, strengthen healthcare, invest in our communities through housing, through childcare, through all the things that Americans actually need, rather than golden ballrooms and ripped up reflecting pools and golden arches, and all the other crap that keeps getting proposed by this administration. So Mr. McGarvey, I sense that you have some remarks you'd like to add in response to some of the nonsense we've been hearing.
Morgan McGarvey (01:00:32):
Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. I appreciate your remarks. I wanted to go to some of the things that Mr. Scott addressed specifically about fraud and about the actual budget and the tax cuts themselves. We all agree, right? Let's get rid of the fraud. Let's get rid of fraud. Let's get rid of fraud. Let's get rid of waste. Let's get rid of abuse. Let's also remember what this administration is labeling as fraud or labeling as abuse.
(01:00:59)
Director Vogt came in front of our committee, Mr. Chairman, and he answered our questions, because the thing about a budget is you can talk about things all you want. In a budget, it's actually written down what you like and what you value. So he said there was fraud in the LIHEAP program, LIHEAP, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. But he didn't find the fraud in the program. He zeroed it out completely.
(01:01:28)
Over 100,000 seniors in Kentucky who rely on this program to keep their homes warm in the winter, and right now when it is blazing hot in Kentucky, to keep it cool in the summer. This can be life or death. He couldn't answer whether it's fraud for every single senior in Kentucky who uses this program. It is not a serious attempt.
(01:01:51)
What they're trying to do is find little offsets that impact the people who are our neighbors, who live in our areas every single day, and they're trying to cut those so that they can pave the way for the wealthy tax cuts that they have put in place.
(01:02:05)
Now, Mr. Scott, I'm from Kentucky. I love Waffle House. In fact, if they serve bourbon, I don't think I'd ever leave. But what you need to do is explain the tax cuts to the people at Waffle House the next time you're there, because in this budget, there were $4.7 trillion in tax cuts. The wealthiest Americans got over 50% of that.
(01:02:25)
If you make a million dollars in America under these tax cuts, by 2027, you will have a $100,000 more in your pocket. But let's look at what we did for the people who work at Waffle House. There is no tax on overtime. There is no tax on tips. What does that actually mean? Because these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, they are permanent. They're not going anywhere unless we can change it.
(01:02:49)
The no tax on overtime, no tax on tips. It's sunsets. They expire after three years. And what are they actually? If the person at Waffle House doesn't want to have a tax on their tips, what do they now have to do? Under this bill, they have to itemize their deductions. They itemize their deductions. It sunsets after three years.
(01:03:06)
There's also a $25,000 cap in this. When you itemize your deductions on tips, you actually lose the $15,000 standard deduction you get right now. This is no tax on $9,900 worth of tips for 3 years, but if you make a million bucks, you get $100,000, where if you're a low income senior, they're zeroing out your programs. They're taking food off the table. They're making health insurance less and less affordable for every single American. And that's the numbers and the impact that are in this bill.
Ms. Scanlon (01:03:38):
Thank you. I appreciate that. And it just galls me every time our colleagues start talking about fraud, when the actions of this administration show that that is not the focus, or at least not the focus with respect to the people who are committing massive fraud.
(01:03:57)
And if you just look at the fact that the administration has canned most of the inspectors general, whose job it is to actually investigate and prosecute fraud, waste and abuse, and have been doing a really good job at that up till now.
(01:04:11)
When you look at the pardons that this administration has made for corporate tycoons who have defrauded Americans out of billions of dollars, and then they get a get out of jail free pass, which also removes their obligation to repay the seniors and the veterans and the folks who were defrauded.
(01:04:31)
And finally, I guess in addition to that, you see the folks who've had their charges dropped when they've made sizable donations to either the President's campaign funds or his library, or one of his golden ballrooms or something like that.
(01:04:44)
And then finally, you just look at the front page of the Wall Street Journal today, which says, "Justice Department pulls back on pursuing corporate crime." They've sent all their folks out to track down day workers at Home Depot. And they are not going after corporate crime, they're not going after drug traffickers, they're not going after human traffickers, and they're sure as heck not going after folks in our government who are defrauding the American people. So, I thank you for your work on this and I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:05:15):
Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Griffiths, you're recognized.
Mr. Griffiths (01:05:18):
No questions, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:05:20):
Thank you. Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:05:24):
Hello, hello. Thank you very much. Good to see you, Chairman, and good to see you're the ranking member here today, Morgan McGarvey. And thank you for that explanation about the fact that it's not really working people, it's not seniors, it's not people who pay taxes who have benefited from the deficit spending that we have seen the Republicans engage in in the last 18 months. And that's really what's key here, is this is deficit spending, deficit spending.
(01:06:04)
And Chairman Arrington, you've seen this chart. I think you and I have discussed this chart before because it shows that Republicans like talking about the deficit, but really what Republicans like doing is increasing the deficit. And every year, every presidency, under Reagan, H.W. Bush, the deficit went up. Not by law under those two. It went down during Clinton. During W. Bush, it went up, went down during Obama. And then, boy, into Trump, it just soared. Came down a bit under Biden.
(01:06:48)
And now, you actually have the distinction of being able to serve as chairman of the Budget Committee and will be able to retire and claim as one of, I think, your accomplishments that you have added to that deficit spending. And this bill before us is going to add to that legacy of deficit spending by Republican presidencies if it ever got passed into law.
(01:07:21)
And what we're hearing is that we're finally maybe some of the, they call them hardliners, I don't know what the right name for it is, but people who say it's not good to do deficit spending are saying, "Wait a minute, there's no pay-fors in here. There were no pay-fors in the $70 billion that we passed last month either." Do you remember by how much Trump raised the debt in his first term, Chairman Arrington?
Jodey Arrington (01:07:46):
The debt has gone up by too much under presidents in recent times, mainly because of the unfunded liability entitlements that are on automatic spending. And just to be clear, we have a crisis of a balance sheet that has $140 trillion, that will be brought to bear on that balance sheet without the funding to deliver on the promises in those entitlements. That's the biggest reason it's increasing on everyone's watch.
(01:08:21)
But no one in 10 years, to my colleague and friend from New Mexico, in 10 years, no party, no budget chairman, no president has worked to reduce the deficit to GDP like the House Republicans and this president. And CBO has confirmed that, it's over 10%. And it's because we reduced wasteful spending by $2.5 trillion. It's because of the Fiscal Responsibility Act that we forced Democrats to the table to negotiate, and have saved, to date, a half a trillion dollars just keeping discretionary spending flat.
(01:09:04)
And it's because we had poultry growth at a 1.8. In the last quarter of President Biden, we had a 3.8 and 4.3 growth rate. That is tremendous. That is until Democrats shut the government down to expand a fraud-ridden COVID-era program that they said was temporary that would cost $130 billion with no pay for it.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:09:25):
The question, Chairman Arrington, the question was a simple question, which was how much did President Trump increase the deficit?
Jodey Arrington (01:09:33):
Less than Joe Biden did and under Democratic control.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:09:36):
Actually, not true at all. It was by $8.4 trillion and Joe Biden actually brought it down. So actually, when you look at the numbers... And this is the issue, is that when you look at the rhetoric-
Jodey Arrington (01:09:50):
What's the source of that chart?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:09:52):
When you look at the rhetoric... Well actually-
Speaker 1 (01:09:54):
[inaudible 01:09:56].
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:09:55):
What?
Speaker 1 (01:09:56):
The Treasury.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:09:59):
United States Treasury, I don't know if you-
Jodey Arrington (01:10:01):
Yeah. I've heard of them.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:10:02):
... agree with United States Treasury, but-
Jodey Arrington (01:10:03):
Yeah, you can-
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:10:03):
... this is a part from the United States Treasury.
Jodey Arrington (01:10:03):
If...
Jodey Arrington (01:10:00):
I've heard of them.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:10:02):
United States Treasury, but-
Jodey Arrington (01:10:03):
Yeah, you can...
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:10:03):
This is [inaudible 01:10:04] from the United States Treasury.
Jodey Arrington (01:10:03):
If I may-
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:10:04):
We have handed it over.
Jodey Arrington (01:10:05):
... just to fact-check, the interest on the debt, which tripled from 350 billion to a trillion dollars under President Biden because the spending created record 40-year inflation, interest rates soared, and so if you add the extra-
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:10:21):
So, [inaudible 01:10:21]...
Jodey Arrington (01:10:21):
... cost and interest, it's $12 trillion magically.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:10:24):
But that's the [inaudible 01:10:25]-
Jodey Arrington (01:10:24):
I yield.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:10:25):
... that the rhetoric of Republicans on the-
Jodey Arrington (01:10:28):
It's the facts.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:10:28):
... deficit does not match the numbers. And I think that that's the issue that we keep bringing up and what are you doing it for? The $4.7 trillion price tag that the CBO has told us the first reconciliation cost is, the first reconciliation, who are the big beneficiaries? And we heard Representative McGarvey point that out. They were the millionaires. They were the billionaires.
(01:10:58)
And we brought amendments in this rules committee to say, "Hey, how about if we let the middle income tax cuts stay? We extend those, and instead say no tax cuts if we're earning over a billion dollars." They said, "No." "How about over 500 million?" They said, "No." Republicans continuously tell us where their priorities are. And the last $70 billion was for ICE. And what's happened in the last two weeks? More shootings in the streets, murders, killings in the streets, because Republicans refuse to put any guardrails on.
(01:11:40)
And I think that that's what we're facing here is, there is... You celebrate what came out of the One Big Beautiful Bill. You don't like the name anymore because you changed the name. But what really came out of there is, how many people lost access to medical coverage? Do you know that, Representative McGarvey?
Morgan McGarvey (01:12:02):
How many people lost access to?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:12:04):
To medical coverage after passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill.
Morgan McGarvey (01:12:08):
It is thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:12:11):
Five million-
Morgan McGarvey (01:12:12):
Yeah.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:12:12):
... people. Five million people. And if we actually took what they intend to spend on war, we could extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits for... I think it's three years. The people who are losing access to healthcare, they're all working families, and instead they want more war. And I think that that's the issue that we're concerned about.
(01:12:41)
I don't know if you want to talk a little bit more about why these budget priorities of the Republicans are hurting Americans' access to healthcare and they're doing nothing to lower the cost for everyday Americans.
Morgan McGarvey (01:12:57):
Yeah. I mean, the stories that are coming into our offices, they're real and they're heart-wrenching. I had a woman from Louisville, Kentucky. Her name's Anne. She called my office. She works two jobs. One of them, she owns her own business. Her husband also is an independent contractor. They have a 19-year-old son who lives at their home while trying to go to the University of Louisville because he's disabled. Her health insurance premiums cost $325 a month under the Silver plan of the Affordable Care Act.
(01:13:32)
Because of the Republican's actions in these budget bills, her premiums are going up to $1,275 a month. She talked about the fact that she can't sleep at night, that she gets short of breath when she thinks about it, that her son is still required to go to specialists multiple times per year, doesn't know if she's going to be able to pay for it. She's doing everything right. She's playing by the rules, but the policy decisions coming out of the House Republicans and coming out of the Trump administration, they are giving millions of dollars to the richest corporations and people in this country. And they are yanking healthcare away from people who are trying to make their way every single day doing it the right way.
(01:14:19)
There are so many stories about this. I had a guy call me just a couple of weeks ago. His health insurance premiums gone up by $1,000. This doesn't mention the fact that already in Louisville, a birthing center has announced it's going to close, that the Lee's Specialty Clinic was at the verge of closure because of the Medicaid cuts that are going into effect. This is going to impact. The Kentucky Hospital Association, this is not some flaming liberal group, by the way, they have projected that 35 rural hospitals in Kentucky could close because of these Medicaid cuts.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:14:51):
And there is nothing in today's proposed budget reconciliation that addresses any of these issues that you're talking about, correct?
Morgan McGarvey (01:15:00):
None of this whatsoever. In fact, I was listening to the chairman. He can argue all he wants to about whether it's a good thing to increase the debt or deficit of this country. What we can't argue about is whether or not it's happening. Reconciliation one, increase the debt and deficit of this country. Reconciliation two, increase the debt and deficit of this country. This is reconciliation three. And guess what? Third time's a charm. They are increasing the debt and deficit of this country once again.
(01:15:25)
And just look at the numbers. It's right here because it's a budget. $60 billion deficit increase for armed services, $13 billion deficit increase for intelligence, $12 billion deficit increase for agriculture, a $10 billion deficit increase for House Administration. And again, just look at the language, don't believe me. Look at the language in the bill. They waive the CUTGO provision. The CUTGO provision is the fancy Republican rules term that they use for you got to pay for what you do. They waive it. Why waive it unless you're going to increase the debtor deficit? So, it's very clear what they're doing.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:16:01):
And I think that the other thing is, we were here last week and were... They're allocating they're going to send more money for war. But last week they were unwilling. They were unwilling to pay for veterans' services, for the benefits that veterans need without a pay-for. But they're going to spend this money without a pay-for. I think we should prioritize our veterans. And there's no instruction to the Veterans Services Committee, is there?
Morgan McGarvey (01:16:33):
Our veterans get nothing in this bill.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:16:35):
So, our veterans get nothing out of this bill. Shows you where their priorities are. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:16:42):
Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernández.
(01:16:45)
Chairman Arrington, this resolution is about security, funding our armed services to protect our national security, funding our nation's farmers to protect food security, and funding measures to protect election security. What would be the cost if we fail in our constitutional duty to protect America's security?
Jodey Arrington (01:17:12):
Madam Chair, I can't imagine if our troops could hear the conversation about pay-fors that every Democrat on this committee has supported supplemental funding for Ukraine, for Taiwan, for Israel. And now they're taking exception with emergency funding for our troops in conflict right now on the front lines, risking their lives. So, let me tell you the cost. The cost is our sons and daughters can't be safe in saluting the commander-in-chief and doing their duty. This is bombs, bullets, and battlefield readiness.
(01:17:52)
This is not modernization of the military. The 350 billion requests that the president submitted for modernization, that's not what this is. It's emergency supplemental. And if I thought we could work that out on a bipartisan basis, we would do it.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:18:10):
And the number one duty of the federal government-
Jodey Arrington (01:18:13):
Provide for the common defense.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:18:14):
... is provide for the common defense.
Jodey Arrington (01:18:15):
Yes, ma'am.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:18:15):
Thank you very much.
Jodey Arrington (01:18:15):
Yes, ma'am.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:18:19):
Any further questions of our witnesses on this panel? Seeing none, we thank you both for coming.
Jodey Arrington (01:18:28):
They get shorter every reconciliation, Madam Chair. I think we may be wearing Mr. McGovern down.
James P. McGovern (01:18:36):
You're not.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:18:36):
Don't count on it.
James P. McGovern (01:18:37):
She's a-
Chairwoman Foxx (01:18:37):
Do not count...
James P. McGovern (01:18:37):
She's a heavy gavel.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:18:40):
Do not count on wearing Mr. McGovern down.
Jodey Arrington (01:18:42):
No, I know that about this guy. Thank you for the time-
Chairwoman Foxx (01:18:46):
Thank you.
Jodey Arrington (01:18:46):
... and opportunity.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:18:47):
Thank you, both, for your good work. We appreciate you coming.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:18:50):
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:20:21):
Thank you, Mr. McGarvey.
(01:20:21)
I now welcome our second panel, Chairman Cole, former chairman of this committee, so he's chairman squared. And I understand that Ranking Member DeLauro is on her way. The two of you represent the Appropriations Committee. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. And there is Ranking Member DeLauro in all her glory.
(01:20:59)
Chairman Cole, I welcome your testimony.
Tom Cole (01:21:04):
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, members of the rules committee, I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify today. I come before you today on H.R. 9770, the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2027. Over the past year, the House Appropriations Committee has worked diligently to fulfill our Article I duties. Last month we completed our markup process for fiscal year 2027, reporting all 12 bills out of the full committee by June 24th. It's the earliest date this feed has been accomplished since fiscal year 2020.
(01:21:43)
As of today, the full House of Representatives has also passed three of these bills across the floor, including the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Bill, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Bill and Related Agencies Bill and the National Security Department of State and Related Programs Bill. I'm deeply proud of the work that the committee's done thus far and I'm appreciative of the support we've received from the rest of our colleagues in this chamber.
(01:22:14)
Unfortunately, current circumstances in the Senate make clear that Congress as a whole is unlikely to complete the full appropriations process by the start of the fiscal year. The fact remains that our friends and colleagues across the rotunda have yet to report any appropriations bills out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Despite good faith efforts and reasonable negotiations, political gainsmanship from the left has kept their process at a standstill.
(01:22:42)
While I've not given up hope that we can enact at least some appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year, I'm also realistic and I acknowledge the reality on the ground. Congress will need to enact a continuing resolution of some sort prior to September 30th to avoid a government shutdown at the start of the fiscal year 2027. Every member in this room is only too aware of what transpired over the last year. The threat of a shutdown is not only real, it's happened twice in the last 12 months.
(01:23:16)
First, Senator Schumer and Senate Democrats plunged the nation into the longest government shutdown in history last October. Not to be outdone, they then later pushed the Department of Homeland Security into the longest partial shutdown in American history. Both of these shutdowns were unnecessary, reckless, and irresponsible. It would be equally reckless and irresponsible to repeat the same mistake at the end of this fiscal year.
(01:23:44)
Stability is necessary, which is why the House is moving early and taking the step of putting today's bill forward. H.R. 9770, the Continuing Appropriations Act 2027 will put in place a continuing resolution keeping the government open and operating through December 4th of 2026. This will not only allow Congress time to continue our work on full year appropriations bills through regular order, but we'll also ensure that the government remains open through the November election and into early December.
(01:24:20)
Some may ask why it is necessary that we take this bill up in July. I would simply state that it's never too early to do the right thing. The right thing for this body and for the American people is to make sure that the government remains funded and remains open. Passing this bill now ensures that we, the House, have taken this important step prior to the August district work period. There will be no question about where the house stands. We stand squarely with our constituents who overwhelmingly want to keep the government open and providing services to them.
(01:24:55)
Importantly, today's bill also does not contain a single poison pill rider. It's a clean CR, fully funding our government. This includes our military and defense needs, support for our veterans, and critical services for our constituents like roads, parks, childcare, water projects, infrastructure improvements, scientific research, job training, and countless others. I look forward to continuing the FY 2027 appropriations process in the coming months. I thank each of you for your time and I look forward to your questions.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:25:32):
Thank you, Chairman Cole.
(01:25:33)
Ranking Member DeLauro.
Rosa DeLauro (01:25:35):
Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:25:36):
You're recognized.
Rosa DeLauro (01:25:37):
Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member McGovern and members of the committee. Good afternoon to all of you. It's great to be here alongside my friend, Chairman Cole, to discuss the stopgap funding measure released on Friday afternoon.
(01:25:52)
I want to begin by stating clearly and plainly, Democrats do not want a government shutdown. In a perfect world, the months remaining between now and September 30th would be ample time to fund the government on a bipartisan basis through the appropriations process one bill at a time. However, given Republican's refusal to write bipartisan bills in either the House or Senate, a continuing resolution is necessary. If I am going to support a continuing resolution, it needs to continue government operations, exclude any poison pills, and it must maintain Congress's constitutional authority over spending decisions.
(01:26:37)
At this time, the continuing resolution released on Friday does not meet that standard. The final Homeland Security Bill passed unopposed in April, unopposed was by a voice vote, by including a provision to remove all funding for the border patrol. Chairman Cole's bill does not continue that agreement, giving the Trump administration permission to use billions provided by this bill to fund border patrol without any substantial reforms to how that agency operates. It's a clear line in the sand that Democrats have drawn for months.
(01:27:21)
In recent weeks, immigration agents have shot and killed residents in Maine and Texas, neither of whom were the target of enforcement operations, highlighting the urgent need for dramatic reforms to protect our communities from further violence. We have also been presented this measure hastily put together with little more than a couple of days of thought. That is not the way to govern. The majority has not made time to gather information from our colleagues in the executive branch to identify any potentially critical anticipated needs, let alone anything that may come to light over the next couple of months, especially as we head into the heart of wildfire season and approach hurricane season.
(01:28:13)
We are putting the cart before the horse by considering this legislation without understanding the full scope of what is needed to continue operations through December 4th. As a matter of fact, we have just received a lengthy proposed list of anomalies from The White House, but the process has made no time for us to evaluate these proposals. And this bill does not account for anything that is in these proposals. And the chairman and I both know we go through these with a fine-tooth comb to see what is flexible and what isn't flexible. What are the needs that have to be met?
(01:28:58)
Border patrol problems aside, Chairman Cole has put forward a plain bill absent controversial riders and containing most of the standard authorities we enact in these stopgap measures. That's a welcome change for most of the regular bills that have come to the floor this summer, but we still do not have all of the information that we need. We still have two months before the end of the fiscal year and should not rush through an incomplete funding extension. We ought to wait for the information that we need to get it right the first time.
(01:29:35)
This resolution was dropped on us on Friday afternoon without any bipartisan negotiation. Had we been consulted, there are several provisions we would have pushed for to strengthen the measure and to protect congressional prerogatives, including the reversal of a proposed federal rule from the Office of Management and Budget that allows political appointees in the Trump administration to unilaterally block or terminate grant funding if they deem it not sufficiently in line with the president's policy priorities. If we had been brought in before the bill was released, we could be here touting a bipartisan agreement with a plan to fully fund the government for the next fiscal year before the end of this Congress. Instead, we are scrambling to jam through a one-sided stopgap measure three days before everyone leaves for the August recess.
(01:30:32)
I'm deeply concerned about what may be attached to this funding measure through the rule that is passed out of this committee. There are some Republicans who have decided that they will not allow any legislation to be considered under a rule unless it includes an extremely partisan measure to restrict voting access for millions of American citizens. Under no circumstances will Democrats support that measure. If the position of my friends across the aisle is that they will shut down the government unless we severely restrict American citizens' voting access, I invite them to make that case to the public and see how the public responds in November.
(01:31:15)
At minimum, I cannot support this bill without the inclusion of the technical language regarding the border patrol that was agreed on. It was agreed on as a bipartisan, overwhelming voice vote in April until we are certain that the Republicans will not use this legislation to advance their voter suppression measure. Beyond that, the decision to pursue this path without any bipartisan negotiations gives me serious reservations in moving forward. I'm happy to answer the committee's questions. I thank you and I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:31:53):
Thank you, Ms. DeLauro.
(01:31:54)
Ms. Fischbach, you're recognized.
Michelle Fischbach (01:31:56):
Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman Cole, I think you mentioned it in your opening remarks, but I just wanted to check again and make a point of it, how many of the 12 appropriations bills have been passed out of your committee?
Tom Cole (01:32:12):
12. All 12.
Michelle Fischbach (01:32:15):
And how many have passed the House?
Tom Cole (01:32:16):
Three.
Michelle Fischbach (01:32:16):
And how many have passed the Senate?
Tom Cole (01:32:17):
Zero.
Michelle Fischbach (01:32:18):
So-
Tom Cole (01:32:18):
And that includes obviously out of committee, not just out of the Senate itself, but the Senate Appropriations Committee hasn't gotten a single bill done yet. And I think it's pretty unlikely they're going to get them done between now and September 30th.
Michelle Fischbach (01:32:31):
And thank you for pointing it out, I wouldn't have asked the question, but not out of committee, not out of the Senate. I mean, Senate's obviously not taking their duty seriously if they are not even taking up the ones we've sent and doing anything, and so I think this is the only responsible thing to do. It's like you said, they're probably not going to do anything before September 30th or it's unlikely that they will. And I think that to avoid a shutdown and allow them more opportunity to get their work done and take it seriously, I think this is a necessary thing that we need to do.
(01:33:09)
So, I appreciate you bringing it forward. It's a pretty simple resolution, pretty simple piece of legislation, and so I think that it's easy to understand what's going on in it, and so I don't think we need to have three months to digest what's going on in this. I understand it and I think that everybody else does too. I appreciate you bringing it forward and I appreciate the fact that you're taking the responsible approach and making sure that we are able to insist the Senate get their work done. Thank you very much and I yield back.
Tom Cole (01:33:45):
Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:33:46):
Thank you, Ms. Fischbach.
(01:33:46)
Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.
James P. McGovern (01:33:48):
Let me just first of all say that I want to remind my colleagues that the Senate is controlled by the Republican Party and Susan Collins is the chair of the Appropriations Committee over there, so maybe there's a need for some change. I don't want to prolong this. I have respect for both the chairman and the ranking member. It just seems to me, based on what Ms. DeLauro just said, that maybe we could have reached a bipartisan agreement if there was a bipartisan back and forth before this was announced and maybe we still can get to that at some point.
(01:34:23)
I don't really have any questions. I just wish that this was more of a bipartisan process and maybe everything would be a little bit different right now, but it is what it is. And I thank you both for being here and I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:34:35):
Thank you.
(01:34:36)
Mr. Scott, you're recognized.
Mr. Scott (01:34:39):
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would tell you it seems to me that the Senate's actually controlled by the parliamentarian, not the Republicans over there. Mr. Cole, looking through the things, I don't see any reason for anybody to necessarily object to this. I, like you, don't have confidence that bills are going to make it through the House and the Senate prior to the end of the fiscal year. We don't have that many work days until then, to be honest with you. But I haven't seen the Senate take much action on anything yet.
(01:35:22)
I think it's smart to go ahead and take the potential chaos of a shutdown off of the table because of the amount of damage that it does to the American citizens. I think a shutdown probably works to the advantage of the Democrats politically because of the way the press operates and their messaging apparatus is very damaging to the American citizens in our country. I intend to vote for it. If you have any other comments that you'd like to make as the chair, you're welcome to it, other than that, Madam Chair, I'm prepared to vote in favor of the continuing resolution.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:35:55):
Mr. Cole.
Tom Cole (01:35:57):
All I'd point out is that there's nothing in the bill to be against. It just simply is a clean CR. And I've always had the philosophy, I don't vote on bills because of what's not in them. I vote against them or for them on the basis of what is in them. There's nothing in here that's remotely controversial. We've been through the two longest shutdowns in American history. The longest shutdown of full government, which Senator Schumer and Senate Democrats sprung on us. And to say they control by the Republicans, simply not true because of the filibuster. And that's just the reality.
(01:36:37)
I don't want to go through that again. I don't want the final part of the campaign this year to be fought over a government shutdown. Frankly, I don't think people on either side of the partisan divide should want that. They should want to be fighting on the issues. I promise you this, if we shut down the government come September 30th, that will be the issue that dominates politics in the next few years. We're just trying to take that off the table for both sides, make sure that there's certainty in funding the government, that we don't have another one of these situations where we have lines at airports because two TSA agents aren't being paid for or any of those sorts of things.
(01:37:17)
Just fund the essential things. We'll have the election. Things can be sorted out. Come back after that. If the Senate were moving, if they'd made as much progress as we have then, again, I'd be happy to hope that that would happen, but I just don't see the time for it. So, let's remove the possibility of a government shutdown now through the election, have enough time when we finish that election to come back and make some appropriate decisions.
(01:37:47)
In the meantime, we want to keep working on appropriations bills. I hope we keep bringing them to the floor. I know the House has lots of things to consider, but we're going to continue to try and move the regular process along. But we want to take away the possibility of a shutdown between now and the election. Because again, we've seen that happen twice in this Congress already generated by the Senate and I'm not willing to risk a third time if we can avoid that.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:38:15):
There's a difference between having a majority and being in control. Do you yield back, Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (01:38:21):
Yes, ma'am.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:38:22):
Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.
Ms. Scanlon (01:38:25):
Thank you. I hate to say it, but it feels like this continuing resolution is an admission of failure not by our brilliant appropriators, but by House Republican leadership. They're willing to give up one of Congress's most fundamental powers and duties in order to avoid another potential political loss just before the election. They're asking us to give a blank check to this administration because they can't manage either their Republican caucus or to negotiate actual bipartisan funding bills.
(01:39:04)
So, I think it's an insult to the appropriations committee because I know they continue to do good work even under duress, but it's a failure of Congress to be doing this months before the end of the year. And it also robs the House of the ability to direct funding to our districts where we know we need it. It robs every member of the ability to highlight whether community health centers or local infrastructure or we've been able to get additional resources for schools and libraries. All that goes out the window with a continuing resolution.
(01:39:42)
I'm not in favor of this. I think it is an admission of failure by the Republican leadership. I was struck, Ranking Member DeLauro, about something you said about the continuation of funding without guardrails for ICE, at a time when in the last week to 10 days, we've seen two more killings of people on American streets under very, very questionable circumstances, when we're still seeing a failure to have clear rules about use of force. All the money that has been sent to ICE amidst promises that they would be deploying body cams for people to wear to remove some of these questions, we're not seeing that, but now we're supposed to give them more money. Is that what this bill would do?
Rosa DeLauro (01:40:29):
Let me be clear. First of all, I just want to say there would have been no need to go down a road where there are difficulties here. As I said, some of the provisions that are in the bill are fine, which we could all agree to. But the issue is that the Republican continuing resolution, it does not include all of the sections of the fiscal year 2026 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, not with regard to ICE, because what they said is that there was no money that goes to ICE. But they have failed to put in what the agreement was. The funding agreement, PL119-86, zeroed out funding for border patrol. They did it in two ways.
(01:41:19)
This Republican CR omits that prohibition that guaranteed zero for border patrol. That gives the administration the flexibility to fund border patrol with the money that has been provided to CBP because we did provide money to CBP to carry out its functions in a strong way. By the way, so that you understand, we... We, being the Democrats... discovered this technical error and it was an error, I believe that that was an error, but nevertheless, we then formulated language in a way to fix it so we could move forward.
(01:42:15)
That was denied, because when the bill came forward, it... We noticed that problem, we drafted the correction. When it came forward on Saturday, Republicans did not make the technical corrections in the bill that was introduced on Saturday. So, they made a choice to allow the CR to potentially fund border patrol, no reforms as we have fought for over the last several months. And quite frankly, as I say, this piece was passed on the floor of the House bipartisan in April by virtue of a voice vote. So, why not fix it? This would allow them to potentially fund border patrol on top of the $90.7 billion that CBP has already received through reconciliation. And that's largely for border patrol operations. This could have been corrected. And I got all the citations and what bill it is, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
(01:43:31)
So, it emits this language and I don't think that we can... What is it? Was it Ronald Reagan who said, "trust, but verify"? We have no way of verifying that this money would not be used.
Ms. Scanlon (01:43:46):
When this bill was produced, you checked it over-
Rosa DeLauro (01:43:50):
We drafted language.
Ms. Scanlon (01:43:51):
... and in the process of verifying that it didn't have anything that was different than what had been previously agreed to, you found that there were things that were different and when you asked for corrections, they didn't happen.
Rosa DeLauro (01:44:01):
We drafted the language.
Ms. Scanlon (01:44:03):
That's not good faith negotiation.
Rosa DeLauro (01:44:05):
So [inaudible 01:44:06].
Ms. Scanlon (01:44:05):
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:44:08):
Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
(01:44:09)
Mr. Griffith, you're recognized.
Morgan Griffith (01:44:13):
Mr. Chairman, if the Senate doesn't act, if we don't get these appropriations bills passed, these sections that the ranking member has just mentioned would not be in the government shutdown period either, would they?
Tom Cole (01:44:35):
Correct.
Morgan Griffith (01:44:37):
And if we do the CR now, which I will tell you, I think is the responsible thing to do based on past actions on the Senate side. It's not just the filibuster, it's the modern filibuster that's been changed. If you went to the filibuster before the '70s, you wouldn't have these issues, but nonetheless. If we take these actions and then...
Morgan Griffith (01:45:00):
... if we take these actions, and then through negotiations with the House and the Senate and these things that the ranking member wants, which have been agreed to by the House previously, that would all be in the appropriations bill most likely, would it not?
Tom Cole (01:45:18):
Correct.
Morgan Griffith (01:45:21):
And there's no reason why if we pass a CR to take effect should we not get appropriations bills and we do pass appropriations bills, then the CR would not go into effect. Is that also correct?
Tom Cole (01:45:31):
That's also correct.
Morgan Griffith (01:45:32):
Now let me ask you this, because I don't know the answer. If we approve, let's say the House and the Senate get together and we approve six of the 12 or so appropriations bills, does the CR only go into effect for the remaining areas that weren't approved?
Tom Cole (01:45:48):
That's also correct. If we actually passed bills and they were signed into law, those would supersede a CR.
Morgan Griffith (01:45:55):
So this is kind of like buying that life insurance policy. When you have children, you hope you aren't going to die, but if you do, you want them taken care of. Am I correct that this is kind of like saying, "Okay, we're going to have this policy here. We hope we get it all done by September 30th. But if we don't, while members are distracted in October and we're going off campaigning or trying to campaign for both the House and the Senate, then we don't have to worry about the government shutting down and not doing the things that the American people wanted to do." Is that my understanding?
Tom Cole (01:46:29):
That is correct.
Morgan Griffith (01:46:31):
And has it been your experience in your district as it has been in mine that of all the issues we fight about up here, having the government shut down and having people worrying about whether or not there's going to be this, that, or the other, whether the money for disaster relief is going to actually get to where it needs to be, whether or not the Blue Ridge Parkway's going to be open and your district may not be asking about the Blue Ridge Parkway, but similar functions like that, these are the things that people care about the most. Isn't that true?
Tom Cole (01:47:00):
In my view it is.
Speaker X (01:47:01):
[inaudible 01:47:02].
Morgan Griffith (01:47:02):
And so what we're doing here is we're trying to do the responsible thing, recognizing that in the past there have been issues and problems, we're just trying to make sure that government moves smoothly as we move forward, and then we can negotiate all those things and we can get these appropriations bills passed. That's fabulous, is it not?
Tom Cole (01:47:21):
I think it's the prudent thing to do, given what's happened literally within the last year. I mean, the longest government shut down in history followed by the longest partial government shut down history. There's nothing in this bill that's remotely offensive to anyone. It just simply continues things and make sure we can have an election, sort these things out, but not shut down the government with all the risk, the public safety, to the functioning of the economy, put those things out. And again, we've watched the Democratic contingent in the Senate, do that twice already. So making sure it doesn't happen a third time, we think is the prudent thing to do.
Morgan Griffith (01:48:03):
Well, and it's prudent, notwithstanding... I mean, it doesn't matter who does what. It just makes sure that if we're negotiating points and we're arguing for our points vehemently and respectfully, but we can get an agreement by September 30th, the American people don't have to pay the price.
Tom Cole (01:48:21):
That's exactly the effort here.
Morgan Griffith (01:48:24):
I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Tom Cole (01:48:28):
Thank you.
Morgan Griffith (01:48:29):
Appreciate your work, I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:48:29):
Thank you, Mr. Griffiths, for always getting to the heart of the matter. Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:48:34):
Thank you, Madam Chair, and hello, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. I would note that in the short hearing that we've had so far, we've had Republicans mention repeatedly, over and over and over again, "Shut down, shut down, shut down.".
Chairwoman Foxx (01:48:49):
We're not talking about a shutdown.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:48:50):
And I've heard the ranking member talk about, "Can we have a conversation about a CR, so that we can work out matters?" Because a CR is best, like an appropriations. I always like it when the two of you come before us and say, "Well, we worked things out. We didn't each get what we wanted, but we worked things out." And what I'm hearing today, is we were giving this bill. We had very little time to look in. We haven't been able to work things out. Is that a good summary of kind of what we're seeing here?
Rosa DeLauro (01:49:25):
I mean, the fact is, as I said at the outset, I'm not going to get into everybody's views about the government shutdown. All I can just say, it took you 79 days to come to a conclusion I made the very first day, is to say, "Let's separate out border security and ICE and fund everybody else." It took you 79 days to want to do that, to pay these people. You kept talking about it, but you didn't. That aside, we could come to an agreement here. Why are we not following what we said we would do in April of 2026 with regard to the funding of ICE, which is there, and the technical error? I don't believe anybody did this with malice aforethought. I think it was a technical error, but what is contemplated is not providing that fix, and saying zero, as is in the bill for this.
(01:50:26)
That is not a problem. By the way, I might just add, look, I've talked about the Senate a lot and what they do or what they don't know, but I do know that the chair and the ranking member there, Chair Collins and Ranking Member Murray have talked about coming to a bipartisan conclusion on where we go to a CR, which is not the case on the House side. And again, look, we received this moments ago. How many pages is this?
(01:51:04)
Some 20 pages of anomalies from the White House, which have not been reviewed or gone through about what that means. For instance, the OMB proposal for Section eight, you need language to address funding shortfalls and to maintain the current services for public housing agencies. Without the anomaly, public housing authorities would have insufficient funds to maintain assistance for tens of thousands of households. Shouldn't we take the time to find out whether or not we can get this right on the first go round? All we're simply asking for is to take a look at the technical fix that's needed. Let's make sure that the appropriations bill is not going to be loaded down with the SAVE Act as we saw with the State and Foreign Operations Bill, and talk about not a clean CR. That certainly wouldn't be a clean CR. We have no guarantees there what comes out of the committee here.
(01:52:15)
And we could get to a bipartisan resolve of this if we were to move forward in good faith. It defies imagination that we have now two months to go, we're going with half ideas and not full knowledge and understanding of what needs to go into a continuing resolution. And so happy to continue to talk about it. I will say one last word. People talk about, well, let's wait and see. Very clearly, there hasn't been any level of trust built up by this administration. Let's take a look at rescissions, let's take a look at impoundments, let's take a look at reconciliation, let's take a look at a rule now at OMB says no longer are we going to provide grants across all agencies. Not only they're not going to be based on merit or peer reviewed with regard to science, but they're going to go through a filter, a political filter with political appointees who know Jack about what is in some of these bills. And they will make the decision as to where federal dollars are going to go.
(01:53:37)
Both sides of the aisle should be so offended by that, because we come to a conclusion. We win some, we lose some, but we come to a conclusion on a bipartisan basis of what our constituents have said that they want these dollars for, and we pass the bills bicameral, bipartisan. President signs the bill, and then it gets reversed? Hell no. That cannot be the case. On both sides of the aisle, we cannot go forward. And as I said, we need some assurances here, we need a fix, and we need to be guaranteed that the SAVE Act is not going to be part of this effort. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:54:15):
Thank you, I look forward to having a conclusion that has more bipartisan... I look forward to your bipartisan-
Rosa DeLauro (01:54:20):
[inaudible 01:54:21].
Ms. Leger Fernandez (01:54:21):
... conversations moving forward. And with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:54:24):
Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. I don't see anyone else here available to ask any questions of our witnesses. I thank you all very much-
Rosa DeLauro (01:54:37):
Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:54:37):
... for coming, and-
Rosa DeLauro (01:54:37):
Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:54:39):
... making your positions perfectly clear. Thank you very much. And you're excused.
Speaker 2 (01:54:50):
Thank you.
Rosa DeLauro (01:54:50):
Thanks.
Speaker 2 (01:54:50):
Thank you. [inaudible 01:54:51].
Chairwoman Foxx (01:55:21):
I now welcome our next panel, Chairman Steil and Ranking Member Morelle from the House Administration Committee. Well, I'm still looking for Chairman Steil.
Speaker 5 (01:55:54):
I'm sure Mr. Morelle could represent both sides.
Chairwoman Foxx (01:55:55):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (01:55:55):
[inaudible 01:55:59] to do that way.
Speaker 4 (01:55:55):
He's supposed to be close.
Speaker 3 (01:55:55):
Sorry, [inaudible 01:57:42]. Behind [inaudible 01:57:43].
Chairwoman Foxx (01:57:44):
I now welcome our next panel, Chairman Steil, and Ranking Member Morelle from the House Administration Committee. Your full statements will be submitted for the record, and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Steil, I welcome your testimony.
Chairperson Steil (01:58:01):
Chair Foxx, thanks for having me in. Ranking Member McGovern, members of the committee, thanks for inviting me to testify today in support of HR 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act. I also want to thank Speaker Johnson, Leader Scalise, whip Emmer, and their teams for their commitment to getting this common sense bill to the floor. Also want to thank a handful of our colleagues who are at the front and center of this debate, including your colleague on this committee, Chip Roy, as well as Brian Fitzpatrick, Tim Burchett, Anna Paulina Luna and others for their feedback and support throughout the process. Before the committee today is a rules committee print, which combines the Stop Insider Trading Act with another common sense measure. The committee has advanced, the Voter ID Act. Together, these bills will clean up Congress and strengthen election integrity. I'll begin by discussing the second section first, which addresses lawmaker stock trading.
(01:59:03)
This section ensures that lawmakers cannot use their position to profit off insider information they may garner while serving in Congress. Under the bill, members of Congress, their spouses, their dependent children, are prohibited from purchasing securities issued by publicly traded companies. To sell a stock, members are required to provide advanced public disclosure at least seven days in advance to the clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate. The penalties associated with violations are steep. Members will be assessed a fine equal to $2,000 or 10% of the value of the transaction, whichever's greater. In addition, violators must forfeit any realized gains from a profitable sale. Legislation, I believe, is critical to restoring public trust in this institution. Nearly 15 years ago, Congress passed the Stock Act, which required lawmakers to publicly disclose stock trades. However, disclosure rules lack detail and can be filed a month after the transaction.
(02:00:05)
This, coupled with increased attention to members' trades, in particular by social media accounts, has fueled public frustration. I believe it's time we just stop allowing members to buy new stock. Doing so removes the appearance of impropriety altogether. Americans should be confident that lawmakers are working for them, not for their stock portfolios. Someone wants to go trade stocks for a living, there's a place to do that, it's called Wall Street. If you're here in Washington, you should be working on behalf of the American people. The reforms of the Stop Insider Trading Act are common sense and I think that's actually why they're so overwhelmingly popular. Now let me turn to the third section of bill, the voter ID section. Madam Chair, you may have seen the big news over the weekend. The never ending pasta bowl is back at Olive Garden. I used to work at Olive Garden, so this hit close to home.
(02:00:51)
But to safeguard the integrity of their pasta program, Olive Garden, as you may have seen, implemented photo ID requirements. However, in jurisdictions across the country from Illinois and California or Minnesota, an individual can go to the polls on election day and cast a ballot without providing confirmation of their identity. In other words, Madam Chair, we're protecting our breadsticks more than our ballots in jurisdictions across this country. Our Voter ID Act implements common sense election integrity measures to require voters to show photo ID when casting a ballot in federal elections. This is another common sense policy, and again, I think that's why it's so popular with American people. 24 states require photo ID to vote. This bill makes the same, that standard, and takes it nationwide. Today we have a real opportunity to clean up Washington and increase Americans' confidence in our election. I encourage all committee members to support this legislation. I look forward to your questions. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (02:01:51):
]Thank you, Chairman Steil. Ranking Member Morelle, you're recognized.
Mr. Morelle (02:01:56):
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, to you and to Ranking Member McGovern and to all my esteemed colleagues, it's always nice to be back in the rules committee, so thanks for the opportunity to be here and address the-
Chairwoman Foxx (02:02:09):
And former member of the committee.
Mr. Morelle (02:02:11):
Yes, yes, I'm sorry, yes, of course. Most importantly. Madam Chair, as I've said repeatedly, House Democrats strongly support a stock trading ban for members of Congress. We also support a ban on the president, the vice president, and federal judicial officers from trading individual stock as well. But none of that is before us today. Rather, this bill is a crude combination of two completely unrelated bills. The so-called Stop Insider Trading Act and the Voter ID Act, the latter of which is already a crude reformulation of at least three other failed Republican voter suppression proposals. The Republicans were serious about ending stock trading by government officials, they would not have attached a subsection of the Save America Act as a poison pill. And if Republicans were serious about protecting elections, they would not have gutted CISA's election security unit. They would actually fund the work of election workers across the country instead of indulging the president's almost childlike obsession with the 2020 election.
(02:03:20)
Instead, they echo his criticisms of state and local election administrators, both Republicans and Democrats who patriotically and without favor do the unglamorous work of securing our democracy. Turning to the bill before us, I'll address both measures individually. Neither of them deserves passage. First, the so-called Stop Insider Trading Act. This bill would in fact allow members of Congress to continue to own and trade individual stocks. The bill would let members of Congress keep every single share of stock they currently own. The bill would allow members to liquidate their holdings at any time, profiting off years of ballooning investment portfolios. There is no divestiture required under this bill. And crucially, the bill does nothing to reign in the unprecedented, absurd, and deeply offensive corruption currently taking place in the White House. Donald Trump promised a booming economy and no new wars. Instead, he's enriched himself by billions and billions of dollars, picking winners and losers in the stock market, while pocketing the profits.
(02:04:23)
I welcome any chance for us to consider legislation to end insider trading in Washington, including at the White House. But again, that is not what this bill does. So we'll have to wait even longer for real progress. And when House Democrats regain gavels in November after this bill inevitably and justifiably fails to become law and we finally ban stock trading by Congress, by the President and by the Supreme Court. Now to address the second fully distinct part of this bill, Voter ID Act. I have to say in the words supposedly of Yogi Berra, "This feels like deja vu all over again." We will all remember the long list of failures. Republicans attempted to pass the SAVE Act, then the SAVE Act part two, once again, then the Save America Act, and now the Voter ID Act.
(02:05:10)
All these bills have the same purposes and the same origins. They aim to eviscerate male voting, needlessly burden millions of eligible American voters, and further President Trump's obsession with undermining our elections in aid of Republican Party priorities and Republican politicians. Not to further the aims of this Republic, not to assist our democracy, but to do this in a partisan way. The Show Your Papers regimen and regime passed and proposed in this latest iteration would be more restrictive than any in the country currently in use anywhere, including in states like Texas and Florida, those "Liberal bastions of voting rights." In fact, several Republican officials have appropriately criticized provisions of this bill as burdensome and potentially illegal. Republican Ohio Governor DeWine recently vetoed an anti-vote by mail bill almost identical to this one, noting its restrictions would quote, "Would not discourage fraud, would not add any real security, and would create an additional and significant burden for Ohioans to vote by mail."
(02:06:20)
As I've said before, I support voter identification, but despite its name, the Voter ID Act is not a voter identification bill. It's a voter suppression act. And I might just say, and my dear friend and colleague who I often agree with, Chairman Steil, but equating an endless pasta bowl at a chain Italian restaurant with the fundamental constitutional right to vote, I think indicates how seriously we're taking this matter. In our markup, committee Democrats offered a reasonable voter identification provision as an amendment to this bill. In a show of good faith, we even retained a grant making provision in the original text. Not only did Republicans reject our amendment, but they stripped out the grant making provision in advance of today's rule. That's right. Republicans remove the only slightly redeemable quality of this otherwise very bad bill. Simultaneously in a different vehicle, Republicans would instruct the Committee on House Administration to increase the deficit by $10 billion to impose SAVE Act restrictions that have died in the Senate.
(02:07:27)
So I'll tell you this much. It's notable the majority has agreed to 10 billion as a new baseline for federal support for election administrators. I'm going to remind people of that, and I look forward to a more effective, more secure use for that level of funding over the next year. But in the face of these two destructive bills, I would ask my colleagues to show some courage, oppose these foolish measures. And with that, I thank you for the time and I'll yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (02:07:55):
Thank you both for your comments. Chairman Steil, I did mention that the Olive Garden has now instituted a requirement for ID in my opening remarks. Our friends across the aisle want to sow division by claiming that voter ID requirements for voters suppress voting. Did the largest study on this question conducted by the Nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research, which tracked 1.6 billion data points over an eight-year period confirm that voter ID laws have no statistically measurable negative impact on voter participation?
Chairperson Steil (02:08:54):
That's correct, I think that's a really important point. You'd need an ID to board an airplane, open a bank account. I obviously make light hard of the Olive Garden requiring photo ID. There's events that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle host that require a photo ID to get in. And so the notion that somehow photo identification for voting is a barrier, it's actually the statistics just don't support that. If you look at my home state of Wisconsin, we have a reasonably robust photo ID bill, I think there's room for improvement, this law does that. But what we see is continued high voter participation and I encourage high voter participation. I think that's a good thing. I think actually what we will see by requiring photo identification is people's confidence in our elections to increase. And the statistics really show us when people have confidence in their elections, they're actually more likely to participate. There's a lot of data that came out of the state of Georgia after Georgia passed their state election integrity legislation. And so I'm actually of the belief that we will see voter participation increase.
Chairwoman Foxx (02:10:07):
May I? Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle (02:10:10):
Yeah, just respond to it. I don't think that we face such profound differences in belief around voter ID requirements. My state doesn't have a photo ID, we do signature analysis as is done in many states. But let's just assume for a moment that we could get together and decide that we have a national standard. I would say that for instance, in North Carolina, I know you're well acquainted with it, you can register to vote and vote with a driver's license, even if it's expired for a year or less, a public assistance program ID card, a student ID or staff ID from a list of over 7,000 institutions. That would not be the case under this.
(02:10:55)
This would be a much more restrictive voter ID law that you attempt to pass than is in the state of North Carolina and the state of South Carolina, and the state of Florida, and the state of Texas. As I said, places that have placed a premium on voter ID and support this, but the bill before the House that you're considering today is far more restrictive, and many of those IDs, those forms of ID would no longer be allowed under federal law. I would urge you to take a look at that.
Chairwoman Foxx (02:11:23):
Well, I wasn't going to bring up North Carolina, but since you have brought up North Carolina, I would say to you that we passed a law in the state, the Republicans passed a law in the state of North Carolina, with no Democrat support, to have voter ID. That was challenged in court by a Democrat member of our Supreme Court, stopped that from going through, till it was approved. We passed a constitutional amendment supported by 61% of the people in the state. That was challenged by Democrats.
(02:12:06)
We then passed another law. We finally, after about 10 years of Democrats fighting us tooth and nail in North Carolina to keep from having a voter ID. All that people say to me all the time is, why do the Democrats fight voter ID? Could it be that they want to cheat? People do not understand why. It's an 80%, I believe, 82% approval rating that we have ID to vote. It is an extraordinarily popular idea. It took us over 10 years in North Carolina to get it passed, over the objections of Democrats who constantly didn't want it.
Mr. Morelle (02:12:57):
I think that-
Chairwoman Foxx (02:12:58):
[inaudible 02:12:59].
Mr. Morelle (02:12:58):
I'm sorry.
Chairwoman Foxx (02:13:00):
I yield back. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.
Jim McGovern (02:13:03):
Well, thank you. I'll let the gentleman answer if he...
Mr. Morelle (02:13:08):
Yeah, the only thing I would say, and I appreciate, is that the question is, first of all, voting is not a privilege. It's a right in America. And I know the president always refers to it as a privilege. It's not. Maybe drinking beer is a privilege, maybe getting a bottomless bowl of pasta is a privilege. They're not rights. This is a right. All of the other rights flow from it. So you want to make sure, I think, and I think many people would agree, that as long as you're in a position to provide ID that proves who you are, why is it such a restrictive list? Why are student IDs no longer allowed? Virtually every state that has some form of photo ID allows the state university to issue a student ID. This bill wouldn't allow it.
Jim McGovern (02:13:50):
Right. Right. Well, let me just again say for the record that voting is a constitutional right. It's not a lunch special. You have a constitutional right to vote. You don't have a constitutional right to a breadstick or a bowl of pasta. And if your right to vote is denied, you have lost your voice in our government. So I mean, these analogies are just-
Chairwoman Foxx (02:14:17):
Will the gentleman [inaudible 02:14:18].
Jim McGovern (02:14:17):
Happy to yield to the gentle lady.
Chairwoman Foxx (02:14:18):
Thank you. We also have a right to bear arms, but we have to show an ID to buy a gun.
Jim McGovern (02:14:25):
Yeah. Well, I mean, again, that's a whole separate topic, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx (02:14:32):
Oh. It's [inaudible 02:14:33].
Jim McGovern (02:14:33):
It is a whole separate topic.
Chairwoman Foxx (02:14:33):
[inaudible 02:14:34].
Jim McGovern (02:14:34):
No, have you said it... But I just want to say on the issue of voting rights and voting integrity, my Republican colleagues in this administration have absolutely no standing. I mean, I listened to this president's speech last week. It's 40 minutes of my life I'll never get back. It was crazy. It was insane. Conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. And all of my Republican colleagues here just kind of went along to get along. Or whatever the president says. I get it, he can't stand the fact that he lost the 2020 election. I know his ego is fragile, but we're just going to let him say whatever he wants, and let him create doubt in the minds of the American people that somehow our elections are not safe. I actually read the garbage that he said he released, all the intelligence basically is saying that there's no evidence that there's been any kind of foreign interference in our elections. That's the tool that foreign governments have, is to try to create the impression that they may have influenced our election as a way to discourage people from voting.
(02:15:39)
Well, we don't have to worry about Russia or China or anybody else. Donald Trump's doing it all by himself, all because his ego can't stand the fact that he lost an election. And now my Republican friends are bending over backwards trying to do whatever they can to make it more difficult for people to vote. Chairman Steil, the introduced version of your voter ID bill included a grant program to help states provide eligible voters with free voter ID cards. Your committee reported a version of your bill that also included this grant program. The bill published on the rules committee website also included this grant program. Then for some reason, a new version was published that deleted this grant program. Why?
Chairperson Steil (02:16:24):
So there's different ways that we want to make sure all individuals can receive an ID under Supreme Court-
Jim McGovern (02:16:34):
I just want to know why the grant program was deleted.
Chairperson Steil (02:16:34):
I was getting there-
Jim McGovern (02:16:35):
Okay, all right.
Chairperson Steil (02:16:35):
... if you'll give me the opportunity to respond. There are multiple ways we want to make sure that everyone can receive an ID. We're also going through a reconciliation process. As you know, this committee had a conversation, I believe, on that earlier today. There are a fund now available in the committee on House Administration, something that we're looking at. But under the Supreme Court, everyone is allowed to get an ID if it is so determined that it's needed as it will be under this legislation to vote-
Jim McGovern (02:17:04):
But you could have done it in this bill today.
Chairperson Steil (02:17:05):
Yeah, there's different avenues of how we're looking at it doing to.
Jim McGovern (02:17:07):
I mean, so without this grant program, if a state does not provide IDs for free, people without the specific forms of ID required by your bill, will have to pay in order to simply vote.
Chairperson Steil (02:17:17):
I don't know-
Jim McGovern (02:17:21):
And I guess the question is, I want to know, who asked you to delete this grant program?
Chairperson Steil (02:17:24):
Actually, if I can comment, I don't think your previous statement's actually accurate. I think as we look at the Supreme Court jurisprudence, if it is required, states to be required to provide the ID-
Jim McGovern (02:17:35):
But I'm just going to go, who asked-
Chairperson Steil (02:17:36):
The second question that you asked, is we're looking at ways to make sure that these-
Jim McGovern (02:17:40):
Well, who asked you to delete the grant program? Because it was [inaudible 02:17:42], it was reported out of your committee, it was in the bill, it was published on the rules committee website. So somebody just recently had asked you to take this out. I'm just curious, who was it? Was it the speaker? Was it Trump? Was it, who?
Chairperson Steil (02:17:57):
No, there are broad conversations about how we ultimately have all of these pieces of the puzzle work. We're also working in real time on the reconciliation piece.
Jim McGovern (02:18:05):
But why? Why was it taken out? I'm just trying to understand why it was taken out. You had it in your original bill, it was in the bill that you reported out of your committee, it was in the bill published on the rules website. So now it's not there, and so I'm just trying to understand why. There's got to be a reason why. Somebody asked you to do it. So I just want to know who asked you to take it out and I want to know why.
Chairperson Steil (02:18:28):
Yeah. We're always looking at ways to improve and finesse bills-
Jim McGovern (02:18:31):
No, who asked you to take it out?
Chairperson Steil (02:18:32):
... and it's part of a broader conversation.
Jim McGovern (02:18:34):
Can you give us a name so we can follow up with somebody to find out why was... I mean, who's having this broader conversation?
Chairperson Steil (02:18:44):
Republicans and the House of Representatives.
Jim McGovern (02:18:46):
Okay, all right. So I'm reading your letter that you sent to the rules committee, and you're asking the rules committee for a closed rule on this bill. Meaning that you don't want any amendments to be even considered. Yet you got a chance to amend this bill at the last minute by taking out the grant program. Why do you think your colleagues don't deserve the same opportunity?
Chairperson Steil (02:19:09):
Obviously that'll be a decision for you here at the rules committee as to whether or not amendments are allowed.
Jim McGovern (02:19:15):
Usually when we get a letter like this from a chair, it says that they asked the rules committee for an appropriate rule. You actually are very specific, saying that you request the committee grant a closed rule.
Chairperson Steil (02:19:27):
Yeah. I'm in the belief that the bill's ready to be brought to the floor and will pass.
Jim McGovern (02:19:34):
But again, this was in the bill that you introduced, that was reported out of your committee, that was published on the rules committee website. It mysteriously gets taken out, you can't tell us who asked you to take it out or why it's taken out. And yet you kind of do something that most chairs don't do, who usually ask for an appropriate rule. You ask for a closed rule, I guess, so that nobody could try to put it back in or to amend this in any other way. I just...
Jim McGovern (02:20:00):
... to put it back in or to amend this in any other way. I just don't understand why your colleagues don't deserve the same opportunity that you had to be able to remove something that, again, made it through your committee. And I got to tell you, it just seems to me that this is just another example of all of you guys playing politics. And the reason why this matters is that these grants could have made it so that people without these ideas could get them. I mean, that was the whole point of this. And it's gone. Again, I don't even know what the hell you guys are trying to do, but it's certainly not trying to preserve the integrity of elections or to get more people to vote. You're trying to make it so that people will be frustrated and can't vote. And again, I think that goes against what this country is about.
(02:20:52)
Mr. Morelle, you've submitted a substitute amendment to this legislation. Can you explain your amendment to us and what advantages it has over Mr. Steil's bill?
Mr. Morelle (02:21:02):
Yeah. Actually, because there's multiple pieces of the bill that we would make better, but I also just... To your earlier point about amendments, we would make amendments, and I would like to see an amendment that we revert to at least the portion of the bill that had the grant making, so my amendment would restore the grants. I think it was the only redeemable part of this bill would be to give resources to local election administrators. They're doing hard work. They're doing it without support from the federal government. And now this bill takes away what I consider the only redeemable part of the bill. They need support. They need support whether or not we add all these additional requirements on them or not, but at least it would make the bill better. I mean, it's a bad bill, but it would make it better to be able to provide some resources.
(02:22:01)
The thing that we should note is that they would be administered by the Elections Advisory Commission. And the EAC... Or the Elections Assistance Commission. And the EAC provides resources and support for state and local election administrators. The whole point, and the president is now fired. So there are no members of the commission at all, fired all the remaining ones. So the commissioners don't exist. The professional staff does. They can continue to do grant making, but I think it says words about how the president views this. He continues to try to take guardrails off of the election system so that people will lose confidence.
(02:22:45)
And I appreciate your comments about the president's speech the other night. I mean, the president's the one who took apart and eliminated the election security unit of CISA. And then he talks about the challenges facing our local administrators and vulnerabilities. Well, you're the one who's making it worse, not better. So the grants would be one. And then we have additional amendments as it relates to the program that relates to the other part of the bill that's entirely as it relates to stock trading.
Jim McGovern (02:23:20):
Yeah. I'm just surprised that there's a request for a totally closed rule, not an appropriate rule. So clearly some thought-
Mr. Morelle (02:23:27):
Well, if I might, it also may have to do with amendments that could come forward by other members that mirror the voter ID requirements in the various states.
Jim McGovern (02:23:36):
Right.
Mr. Morelle (02:23:36):
In some states you can use concealed weapons permits. You can almost always use student IDs.
Jim McGovern (02:23:41):
Right.
Mr. Morelle (02:23:41):
If you're trying to control who can vote, you have to make sure that there's no amendments because they might actually pass.
Jim McGovern (02:23:46):
And just going back to the Olive Garden Pasta Bowl example, my understanding that you got to put down, in addition to an ID, $100. So I hope what we're not trying to do here is kind of institute another pole tax to actually make it costly for people to vote.
(02:24:04)
And again, I asked the question about the grant program. Again, it was in the bill that you introduced. It was in the bill that you reported on a committee. It was the bill published in the rules website and can't get an answer why it was removed. Can't get an answer who actually asked you to remove it. I guess there's some backroom deal going on and some backroom in the Capitol here trying to figure out how to make it more difficult for people to vote because we have not yet to hear a good reason why it was taken out of this bill. But I mean, this is not the way you should be legislating on elections or protecting people's right to vote or on any of this stuff. I mean, this is just not the way you should do it.
Mr. Morelle (02:24:47):
May I-
Jim McGovern (02:24:47):
Yeah.
Mr. Morelle (02:24:48):
... if I might, just make one other additional point. This bill is not going to pass the Senate. I think everyone in this room, anybody who's in the Capitol knows that. But you could find yourself in a position. Let's say this did pass, President signed it, but the reconciliation didn't happen, which is also highly dubious. You could end up having this bill with no money in it. So efforts to provide people with free voter ID, any of that would be without any resources to be able to carry out.
Jim McGovern (02:25:14):
But we have no idea how that money in the reconciliation bill, if it would ever pass, would be used.
Mr. Morelle (02:25:17):
Right.
Jim McGovern (02:25:18):
I mean, yeah, this is scary. And this should not be a partisan issue. And not just Democrats, but Republicans in this chamber who give a damn about integrity in elections, had to be outraged by what's going on.
(02:25:32)
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith (02:25:35):
Chairman yields back. I now recognized the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for his time.
Mr. Scott (02:25:38):
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm just listening to how ridiculous their argument is over not showing a photo ID. I literally showed a photo ID to buy Sudafed over the last couple of weeks and they actually scanned the back of the ID to make sure that you can buy it. I also showed an ID to pick up some prescriptions for another family member of mine the other day. And you know what? The people who were working behind the counter knew exactly who I was because we've been doing business there for a long, long time. Although with PBMs conducting themselves the way that they do, not sure how much longer those independent pharmacies are able to survive. That's a different issue though.
(02:26:15)
But I want to get to the stock issue. Chairman Steil, you and I have had this discussion before. As you know, I had my Series 7 before I got here. I look at the bill. I'm going to vote for the bill. I want to bring up a couple of things though that I wish we could just do that I think would solve a lot of the problems. And you and I have had this discussion. I appreciate your time with that.
(02:26:46)
I think the issue that leads to the confusion is the range on the trade. So when you go and we fill out our disclosures, you have a range of 1,001 to 15,000, 15,001 to 50,000, 50,001 to 100,000, 100,001 to 250, 250 to 500. And it goes all the way up 5 million to 25 million. Sometimes when things get reported in blogs, if you will, just say you paid $14,000 for a stock, that falls in the 1 to 15,000 range. And if you sold it for 16,000, it falls in the 15 to 50. And so sometimes when they do their calculation, they'll say, "Paid as little as $1,000 and sold it for as much as $50,000." And it certainly gives the perception if that's happening on a regular basis, that there is tremendous amounts of insider trading going on in the halls of Congress.
(02:27:44)
Now let me be clear about this. There is at least one member of Congress that has been prosecuted for insider trading. Is that correct?
Chairperson Steil (02:27:51):
Yes.
Mr. Scott (02:27:53):
But if you look at this form, you can also go down and you can click other exact amount, and I just really think if members... And I don't have much stock, I have less than 10,000 left I think. But I really think if we simply put the number of shares that were purchased and the price that was purchased at, or the number of shares that were sold and the price that was sold at, it would eliminate a lot of the accusations. And just wondering if that was discussed. That's not a part of the bill, but I've actually started doing that when I do sell something. Sold X at this particular share value. Any thoughts on that?
Chairperson Steil (02:28:43):
You bring up great point. When Congress passed the Stock Act 15 years ago, it was largely a disclosure regime. And you correctly note that it gave large bans in which those reports would be made available. If an individual wants to try to make a persuasion off of returns on any of those given reports, especially under the rules of social media, if you will, one can sometimes tell a story that's inaccurate. I think that's a broader challenge with how the reporting regime under the Stock Act operates.
(02:29:16)
This bill before us today is a little bit more laser-focused in the aspect of insider trading. As you correctly noted, a member of Congress was held accountable for insider trading. Insider trading is already illegal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I think one of the challenges we see is prosecuting insider trading is actually really difficult. And so due to the scrutiny that's been placed on buying and selling individual shares of stock, I think there's an opportunity to simply put in place a bright line rule that prevents members of Congress from doing that and in so removing even the appearance of impropriety that an individual was engaged in a trade based on insider information.
Mr. Scott (02:29:57):
So we're saying that you can't buy stock?
Chairperson Steil (02:30:00):
Individual shares of stock-
Mr. Scott (02:30:02):
Individual shares.
Chairperson Steil (02:30:02):
... upon being elected to Congress. That's accurate.
Mr. Scott (02:30:04):
Right. And so a lot of us have spouses that work. And if you work for companies, a lot of times the company 401(k) match may be done in stock in that company. This bill doesn't prohibit the working spouse from 401(k) matches or other things along those lines from continuing to work at that employer, does it?
Chairperson Steil (02:30:33):
Great question. So the spouse of a member as well as dependent children are restricted under this as it relates to buying and selling shares. The exception that you correctly note is what we call the spousal exception. So if that income is earned in the ordinary course, that is allowed. So if your spouse works for Coca-Cola and they give a thousand shares of stock to every employee at that pay grade, your spouse will be able to earn that. And again, that goes back to the core concept here. The focus on this is not to prevent ownership of private assets.
Mr. Scott (02:31:07):
Sure.
Chairperson Steil (02:31:07):
The focus on this is to prevent an individual member from profiting off of insider information. So if it's through the ordinary course of their business, almost by definition, your spouse is not engaged in a trade based on inside information garnered from the member's inside information. So we allow that.
Mr. Scott (02:31:26):
If your grandparents started a company that then got bought and bought again and ended up with shares of a company, you're not forced to liquidate them. You just can't buy more shares, correct?
Chairperson Steil (02:31:36):
That would be accurate.
Mr. Scott (02:31:37):
Okay. And those shares are also disclosed on your financial disclosure so people could see if you-
Chairperson Steil (02:31:42):
They would be.
Mr. Scott (02:31:44):
Okay. So one of the other areas that I do have concerns about, and I'd like to submit for the record, actually a Wall Street Journal article. And if it wasn't the Wall Street Journal, I wouldn't pay much attention to it. I shouldn't say that I guess, but it's probably true. There's not much journalism anymore out there. But the new Washington Temptation Inside Information and a Prediction Market account. Are we doing anything to...
(02:32:18)
And Mr. Chair, I'd like to submit for the record that Wall Street Journal article, just as we're having this discussion. Are we doing anything-
Mr. Griffith (02:32:24):
What was the date on that again?
Mr. Scott (02:32:28):
I'll have to expand it with my eyes like they are. July the 16th. July 18th.
Mr. Griffith (02:32:33):
All right. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Scott (02:32:36):
Are we addressing the polymarket issue?
Chairperson Steil (02:32:39):
In the Committee on House Administration, which Member Morgan Griffith, your... The name tag is off right now. So as I looked right up there, you're not Chairwoman Fox.
Mr. Griffith (02:32:51):
[inaudible 02:32:52].
Chairperson Steil (02:32:52):
Morgan Griffith joins us on the Committee on House Administration. We have a separate piece of legislation addressing that.
Mr. Scott (02:32:59):
Okay.
Chairperson Steil (02:32:59):
Not included in this bill before us today, but I think it's one absolutely worthy of our efforts.
Mr. Scott (02:33:04):
I absolutely believe that there's probably more potential for abuse there than there is even in this with property disclosure. We had a member a couple of years ago that when their spouse was going before Senate confirmation, it was revealed that there had been a fairly significant trade that had not been reported. Do you remember what I'm talking about? I'm not going to call the member, but-
Chairperson Steil (02:33:30):
I don't know that I recall that, but I could envision that occurring.
Mr. Scott (02:33:33):
So there was a member of the House who was going through the confirmation process and then they went through an audit because of the Senate confirmation process. And in that comparison, they found a trade that had not been disclosed. I guess one of my frustrations with this... And again, I support the legislation, I think the ban on buying is the right way to go with the solution. But I guess one of my frustrations with this, I had another member and they were being very critical of a Republican who had bought a bunch of stocks, I'm like, "Well, how do you know they bought the stocks?" Because they filled out the disclosure. The ones who don't fill out the disclosure are actually the ones that you probably... If they're out there, the ones that you need to be more worried about. Would that be a reasonable statement that-
Chairperson Steil (02:34:25):
It's a great question because in a lot of these broader ethics regimes, it's either a disclosure regime or a prohibition regime. And the Stock Act passed 15 years ago is broadly a disclosure regime, which then brings to light the concern. This bill before us today, the Stop Insider Trading Act, has a specific prohibition which simply removes even the appearance of inappropriate actions.
Mr. Scott (02:34:51):
This bill, I believe it's well-thought and a big step in the right direction. The ban is limited to purchasing individual stocks from publicly traded companies. I do worry about private placements and the potential with private placements. I think that's something we probably need to address in the future, but I appreciate your work on this. I look forward to supporting it. And I think it's a broad step in the right direction.
Mr. Griffith (02:35:18):
Gentleman yields back. I now recognize the gentleman lady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her time.
Ms. Scanlon (02:35:23):
Thank you.
(02:35:25)
I think we are way past the time where we need to be dealing with the fact that the public is broadly mistrustful of members of Congress or the president or the vice president dealing in the stock market because it has not just provided the appearance of impropriety or the appearance of using government information for personal profit, but we've seen it actually occurring in real time and on an increasing basis, particularly with the White House.
(02:35:57)
I mean, it's interesting that our colleagues mentioned that there actually was a member of Congress who was prosecuted for insider trading, a Republican member, but even after the courts held him accountable, he was pardoned by this president. So we're not seeing the kind of serious attention to preventing this kind of, essentially, insider trading from occurring. And the American people have had it. They are fed up with it. Congress needs to enact a comprehensive ban on members of Congress as well as the president, the vice president, and members of their families from owning or trading individual stocks or having other financial dealings.
(02:36:40)
And I agree with Mr. Scott. I know he's leaving now, but I agree that we should also be dealing with this with the prediction markets. But unfortunately, the bill that our colleagues are putting on the floor this week doesn't do any of that. The bill only prohibits members of Congress from purchasing additional stocks. Now I have never traded stocks myself, but it's my understanding that the way you make money is when you sell the stocks. And this bill does not prohibit them from selling the stocks and that's where the profit is made.
(02:37:15)
The public notice requirement in this bill is so weak, it wouldn't prevent the kinds of transactions that have already eroded public trust, things like a lawmaker unloading healthcare stocks that then promptly lost value after he voted in the big ugly bill last summer to cut Medicare funding by billions and billions of dollars. If our Republican colleagues are serious about government accountability, we would have on the floor this week Ranking Member Morelle's Resolve Restore Trust in Government Act, which establishes a comprehensive ban on stock ownership and trading for members of Congress, the president, and the vice president. Or as a backup, have the Restore Trust in Congress Act co-led by our rules colleague, Congressman Chip Roy, which at least would comprehensively prohibit members of Congress, if not the president and vice president, from owning and trading individual stocks.
(02:38:17)
Instead, after 18 months of unprecedented self-dealing and personal enrichment by members of the Trump administration, Republicans are choosing to ignore the most significant conflicts of interest in government while advancing legislation that barely scratches the surface. And if that weren't enough, they've combined this with this completely unrelated voter ID bill, which doesn't actually deal with any actual voter fraud, but instead suppresses votes.
(02:38:47)
So we got to get this straight. Republicans are refusing to address this problem that actually exists, the president, his family, and some members of Congress getting rich off stocks whose value changes based on official government action. But instead they're pushing the SAVE Act, a bill that would prevent hundreds of thousands of American citizens from voting in order to satisfy the president's obsession about fictitious non-citizen voting. So the corruption is coming from inside the House, but it's the White House and that's where our attention should be.
(02:39:23)
Rep Morelle, can you talk about why the requirements in the stock bill that Republicans have put forward is so inadequate, particularly when it allows them to continue to own and sell stocks?
Mr. Morelle (02:39:40):
Yeah, thanks. And I think you did a great job of summarizing. I mean, there's several problems with this bill. First of all, it does not require divestiture. You can still own stocks. You can sell them. You're not required to sell them at a particular time. So you can wait until the appropriate time when it benefits you to sell the stock. And it also allows you to buy additional stock of those companies that provide you with a dividend. So if you get a dividend from SpaceX, you can buy more SpaceX stock. So that's publicly traded.
(02:40:07)
Second problem is it doesn't do anything with private sale or private stock. In fact, this isn't a hypothetical. Members of the House are trading in private stock, making massive profits from stocks in privately traded companies with federal contracts. It's happened, it's been highlighted, it's been detailed. And in those cases, some cases, they've done it with a company that was then purchased by SpaceX, a publicly-traded company. So you can make a lot of money still. So you don't have to divest public stocks. You can own private stocks and continue to trade in those, does nothing to reign in the crypto market whatsoever. And we know the president and his family have made billions of dollars in the crypto space.
(02:40:49)
The president also purchased Warner Bros. corporate bonds at a time when Warner Bros. in the middle of merger talks right now over which the president's FCC will ultimately be able to make decisions. The president also failed on thousands of trades to acknowledge and disclose them within the time required under the law. In fact, the president trades stock more than all of the members of the House combined, the president of the United States, yet he's not even covered in this bill for reasons. Well, I don't even know for what reasons. It is without realistic explanation of why that would happen.
(02:41:27)
And the other thing which I agree with Mr. Scott is the exclusion of the prediction markets is shocking. I mean, we see the abuse is being reported every single day, whether it's things about contracts or military strikes or some foolish things like when the White House press secretary is going to stop her press conferences to the minute and find that some people can trade on that. We know that it was reported over the weekend that Representative Luna shared with someone that JD Vance was going to be chosen as vice president because she had inside information and she passed it along to someone with the express purpose of putting down a contract in the prediction markets over whether or not it would be JD Vance, and that person profited handsomely from this.
(02:42:21)
To the point you made, if we have any hope of restoring trust the American people in our government, we have to stop doing the things... The president, the vice president, members of Congress, and the judiciary have to stop doing things where the public feels there's inside information that we have access to, in many cases that we do and are profiting from it. And this is not that hard to do. There are bills, there's a number that you've referenced. We could do it in this bill. We'd need to take out the Save America Act provisions, which don't deserve to be in this bill, but we could change this, but require divestiture and private stock trades and the crypto market participation and prediction markets. Let's give the American people the kind of government they deserve and that they want.
Ms. Scanlon (02:43:11):
It is just unbelievably concerning and offensive that folks are supposed to be public servants, supposed to be serving the people, not themselves, continue to be able to use information that they obtain as a result of government service in order to profit. Although we did see a new twist on that this week when the president announced that he will sell access to his Truth Social posts. If you can pay a $100,000 or so, you will get early access to government action that will then move the market so it is literally pay to play. If you pay off the president's social media company, you're going to be able to make more money because you'll have advanced notice. I mean, it is a culture of corruption that is truly mind-boggling and we need to put an end to it. Had something else?
Mr. Morelle (02:44:10):
Well, just that the president is somehow under the idea that if you do things openly publicly, it makes them okay. So if he told you he was going to rob your bank in the middle of the day and filmed it while he was robbing your bank, that somehow that's no longer a crime because he told you he was going to do it. So developing for Truth Social, where he's going to give inside information to people who will pay-
Ms. Scanlon (02:44:35):
Oh, my God.
Mr. Morelle (02:44:36):
... significant amount of money. So you're only doing it for economic advantages. There's no other reason to have the app. But think about this, in the 21st century, the United States Congress is going to sit and allow the president of the United States who makes market making decisions every single hour, he's going to allow that person to sell that information to private investors who will pay him for it and we're just going to sit here and go, "Okay." That's okay? I mean, does anybody in America think that's okay other than the members of Congress who are unwilling to stand up to him?
Ms. Scanlon (02:45:11):
Well, I'd suggest that this Congress will say it's okay, but hopefully the next one won't. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith (02:45:18):
Gentlelady yields back. I now recognized the other gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack.
Mr. Jack (02:45:24):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to congratulate my friend, Chairman Steil, on bringing this legislation before us and the work that you put into this topic to deliver a really impressive piece of legislation.
(02:45:35)
I'm curious, could you explain to this committee from your perspective, what are people voting against when they vote against this legislation this week?
Chairperson Steil (02:45:42):
Well, I think that's important to know. We hear a lot from our friends across what they would do if they were in charge. They were in charge and they didn't bring any of this. So you got a pretty good idea what they're going to do, absolutely nothing.
(02:45:55)
This bill in front of us is an opportunity to ban members of Congress from buying individual shares of stock. And when this comes to this committee for a vote to give us a rule, if we're successful, I think we will be, we'll be on the floor. And if members vote against it, they're allowing members to buy and trade individual shares of stock as they are today. I think this is our opportunity actually for the most comprehensive and important piece of ethics reform in the House that we've seen probably over 10 years.
(02:46:27)
This bill before us is substantive. It works. It has broad support. And I think we got an opportunity to make a huge change. And in folks that choose to vote against it, you can go home and explain to their constituents why they think members of Congress should be able to buy individual shares of stock. And two, on the other side with photo identification, this is our opportunity to make sure that all 50 states have photo ID when individuals go to the polls. It's a pretty straightforward, easy concept. It's popular because it's common sense. American people understand that we need to have basic common sense election integrity. And you either support election integrity or you think that you should just be able to walk in as they do in the state of Minnesota and vouch for up to eight people to cast their ballot.
Mr. Jack (02:47:15):
Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I just submit, not only is banning stock trading for members of Congress wildly, wildly popular if you poll Americans, so too are some of these common sense requirements with respect to voting. So this should be a wildly popular bill. I hope the vote later this week reflects that. And I will yield back to our distinguished chairman, Mr. Griffith. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith (02:47:39):
Gentleman yields back. I now recognized gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Nagoose, for his time of questioning.
Mr. Nagoose (02:47:44):
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Steil and Ranking Member Morelle for being here and for your testimony.
(02:47:52)
Chairman Steil, so the name of your bill is the Stop Insider Trading Act, correct?
Chairperson Steil (02:48:00):
That's correct.
Mr. Nagoose (02:48:01):
Okay. You think that's an accurate description of the bill?
Chairperson Steil (02:48:05):
Yeah.
Mr. Nagoose (02:48:06):
Okay. What does trading mean to you?
Chairperson Steil (02:48:09):
The buying and selling for profit.
Mr. Nagoose (02:48:11):
The buying and selling for profit.
Chairperson Steil (02:48:14):
Yeah.
Mr. Nagoose (02:48:14):
I couldn't agree with you more. I looked, Webster's dictionary defines it as "the business of buying and selling." This bill, as you said, bans the buying of individual shares of stock, right?
Chairperson Steil (02:48:27):
That's correct.
Mr. Nagoose (02:48:28):
It does not ban the selling.
Chairperson Steil (02:48:29):
It reforms the selling, of course. It makes changes-
Mr. Nagoose (02:48:32):
It does not ban the selling, right? You're allowed to sell as much stock as you would like as a member of Congress under this bill. Is that wrong?
Chairperson Steil (02:48:41):
I think it's insufficient to describe it that way, but what you said is accurate, but misleading.
Mr. Nagoose (02:48:45):
It is accurate, yes.
Chairperson Steil (02:48:46):
But misleading.
Mr. Nagoose (02:48:46):
Correct. Yes, it is accurate.
Chairperson Steil (02:48:47):
Accurate, but misleading. Yes.
Mr. Nagoose (02:48:49):
So let's say there's a Republican senator who decides that they're going to sell millions of dollars of stock the week before the COVID-19 pandemic begins in earnest. That's legal under your bill, right?
Chairperson Steil (02:49:02):
Of course they would have provided a minimum of seven days advanced notice.
Mr. Nagoose (02:49:05):
Correct. And that would be legal-
Chairperson Steil (02:49:05):
I'm not sure that you could do that in the timeline you just proposed.
Mr. Nagoose (02:49:08):
And that would be legal under this... This isn't a hypothetical. A Republican senator seven, eight days before, nine days before the COVID-19 pandemic began in earnest, sold millions of dollars of stock. Under this bill, that would not be illegal, right?
Chairperson Steil (02:49:26):
But of course they would provide notice.
Mr. Nagoose (02:49:27):
Yes, I understand-
Chairperson Steil (02:49:28):
That's the part that you don't want to discuss.
Mr. Nagoose (02:49:29):
... I understand the notice, but here's what... I don't understand why you don't just... Hold on. I'll give you a chance to explain this. You could defend it on the merits. You've clearly decided that the buying of stock, right, is a practice that you don't believe should be permitted by members of Congress. I agree.
Chairperson Steil (02:49:45):
Okay.
Mr. Nagoose (02:49:45):
But for some reason you've decided that the sale of stocks, individual stocks, is completely fine, but for the notice requirements that you've now imposed in this bill. I don't quite understand that disconnect because there are many bills, many bills that have been introduced, including a bill I introduced seven years ago with Chip Roy and other members of this body that has 140 co-sponsors on it that would ensure that the sale and the purchase of stocks is banned. And this bill does not do that. So I'm trying to understand why you've decided that it's permissible on one end, but not the other.
Chairperson Steil (02:50:26):
Opportunity to respond.
Mr. Nagoose (02:50:27):
Sure. By all means.
Chairperson Steil (02:50:27):
Great. So the focus of the bill is to stop an individual from being able to profit off of insider information. So that core concept of "what is the bill's goal?" I think is really important. So let's go back to your example of an-
Mr. Nagoose (02:50:43):
Go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead. Please. I want to [inaudible 02:50:46]-
Chairperson Steil (02:50:46):
So let's go back to the example of an individual that made a significant sale prior to the pandemic because I think that's actually a very relevant discussion point inside of this.
Mr. Nagoose (02:50:54):
Sure.
Chairperson Steil (02:50:55):
The point of the pre-disclosure is that it prevents the individual from being able to profit off of that sale because the information is now publicly available. So if an individual is in a leadership role, say they're the chair of the intelligence committee of the House or the Senate, that individual may have information leading up to a pandemic.
Jim McGovern (02:51:15):
Sure.
Chairperson Steil (02:51:15):
Now proving that information was inside, that's very difficult. I noted that earlier. Proving illegal inside trades is actually very difficult for the Department of Justice. So my bill would require that you would provide an advanced disclosure of that. That would be, of course, market-moving. It mirrors-
Mr. Nagoose (02:51:34):
Of the sale. Just of the notion of that you intend to sell this stock.
Chairperson Steil (02:51:37):
Right. That's an accurate statement.
Mr. Nagoose (02:51:39):
Yeah. So... Okay.
Chairperson Steil (02:51:39):
So walk you through the economics maybe. So in-
Mr. Nagoose (02:51:42):
No, I understand the example. I'm going to clear my time here-
Chairperson Steil (02:51:44):
[inaudible 02:51:45].
Mr. Nagoose (02:51:44):
... because I wanted to give you ample opportunity here. If you're the chairman of the Intel committee and today you come across information that compels you to sell $500,000 worth of stock in a particular company that you own, you make that disclosure under the Steil bill, right? Seven days I think or what's the notice requirement?
Chairperson Steil (02:52:08):
Minimum seven.
Mr. Nagoose (02:52:09):
Minimum seven days. Okay. I don't know that that's necessarily going to draw the scrutiny of anybody in the public domain. And if a week from now or two weeks-
Chairperson Steil (02:52:18):
Oh, we will disagree with that.
Mr. Nagoose (02:52:18):
... from now... Well, stock trades are made every day by members much to-
Chairperson Steil (02:52:22):
Right. A public disclosure would be prima fascia evidence of insider trading subject to the jurisdiction of the-
Mr. Nagoose (02:52:27):
Then why not do that on the purchase?
Chairperson Steil (02:52:28):
... Department of Justice.
Mr. Nagoose (02:52:29):
Then why not do that on the purchase? Why have you decided-
Chairperson Steil (02:52:32):
Because there's no an individual-
Mr. Nagoose (02:52:32):
[inaudible 02:52:34].
Chairperson Steil (02:52:33):
That's actually a great question, Mr. Nagoose. So what we're looking at is real world situations where individuals enter Congress. So upon entering Congress, easy for all of us to agree there should be no additional purchase of an individual share of stock. I think that's actually reasonably straightforward. You have made the choice to become a member of Congress, that's an obligation that we're placing upon you.
Mr. Nagoose (02:52:52):
Sure.
Chairperson Steil (02:52:52):
An individual who is leaving their private life, who is making reasonable savings for themselves and their family, maybe they bought a hundred shares, I used Coca-Cola earlier because we had the gentleman from Georgia here, 100 shares of Coca-Cola Stock or any other good American company that's working hard. They're using that to maybe save up for down payment on a home, their wedding, their child's wedding. Now they arrive in Congress. The question then became, "What do we do? How do we think through this and how do we address this?"
(02:53:19)
We share the goal of preventing that individual from benefiting off of any insider information. Of course, if an individual was leading up to a major global event and that individual's trade was noticed in advance rather than after, one, that would most likely be market-moving such that the profit would be removed, thus preventing the individual from making it.
Mr. Nagoose (02:53:39):
I would just simply say, because I've got limited time, I would say that while I understand that there are members of your caucus, and frankly members of the Democratic caucus as well who have concerns about divestment of stocks that they already own, I understand that that's a concern that's been expressed by some members. And so insofar as you're trying to address that concern, you've adopted this new paradigm that you've constructed. I would just say that that's the reason, and that it's not this argument. I just don't think that it's intellectually consistent.
(02:54:14)
I hear you. You've made the argument.
Chairperson Steil (02:54:16):
Well, I'll get right to it later then.
Mr. Nagoose (02:54:17):
You've made the argument. And so yeah, I'm sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will give you more time if you'd like, but I just don't think that that's an accurate argument. In my view, 140 members of this body, Republicans and Democrats have clearly unambiguously said we should ban the sale or purchase of stocks. Period, full stop. And there's a bill by one of the members of this committee, this [inaudible 02:54:45] committee, the Rules committee, and I look forward to making an amendment to this bill that you proposed to perhaps consider substituting Mr. Roy's bill, which would accomplish what I've described.
(02:54:54)
I want to make sure I'm understanding as a technical matter, the ambit of this bill. Under this bill, can you purchase crypto-
Mr. Nagoose (02:55:00):
Under this bill, can you purchase crypto holdings?
Chairperson Steil (02:55:05):
It makes no changes to the house rules in that regard.
Mr. Nagoose (02:55:07):
So, you can't or you can't?
Chairperson Steil (02:55:08):
It makes no changes in this regard.
Mr. Nagoose (02:55:10):
Is it allowed now?
Chairperson Steil (02:55:11):
House rules still apply. You today are allowed to buy crypto if you still chose.
Mr. Nagoose (02:55:16):
Okay. So, that's all I'm asking. It's not a trick question. You're allowed to.
Chairperson Steil (02:55:17):
That's what I'm saying.
Mr. Nagoose (02:55:17):
Individual placements because someone else referenced this previously that can you do individual purchase of individual placements of stock under this rule?
Chairperson Steil (02:55:26):
Individual shares of stock, no.
Mr. Nagoose (02:55:29):
Individual shares, no. Private placements, yes?
Chairperson Steil (02:55:33):
Right. The current house rules would apply.
Mr. Nagoose (02:55:36):
Correct. Okay. So, if it's easier, I'll frame it that way. I'll use your-
Chairperson Steil (02:55:40):
Yeah, current house rules apply.
Mr. Nagoose (02:55:41):
Okay, fine.
Chairperson Steil (02:55:42):
But what I want to make clear to people who are listening is-
Mr. Nagoose (02:55:44):
Sure.
Chairperson Steil (02:55:45):
... there are significant restrictions in place under house rules. I wouldn't want somebody to walk away and think-
Mr. Nagoose (02:55:49):
Fine.
Chairperson Steil (02:55:49):
... that no other rules apply. I want to make sure that they're clear that current house rules apply.
Mr. Nagoose (02:55:53):
Let's use language. Let's use language.
Chairperson Steil (02:55:54):
I think it's more accurate.
Mr. Nagoose (02:55:55):
Under current house rules, members of Congress can buy crypto holdings and under your bill that does not change, right?
Chairperson Steil (02:56:01):
There's no change.
Mr. Nagoose (02:56:02):
Okay. And under current house rules, members of Congress can buy stocks through private placements. And under your bill, that does not change, right?
Chairperson Steil (02:56:08):
No change.
Mr. Nagoose (02:56:09):
Okay. And under current house rules, members of Congress can buy stocks, or excuse me, can buy industry specific mutual funds, right?
Chairperson Steil (02:56:17):
That's accurate.
Mr. Nagoose (02:56:17):
And that does not change under your bill?
Chairperson Steil (02:56:19):
It does not change.
Mr. Nagoose (02:56:19):
Okay. And under current house rules, members of Congress can buy bonds, right?
Chairperson Steil (02:56:24):
Mm-hmm.
Mr. Nagoose (02:56:25):
And under your bill, that does not change.
Chairperson Steil (02:56:27):
We still buy bonds.
Mr. Nagoose (02:56:27):
And there are countless other pieces of legislation that members of Congress have introduced, myself included, that would ban all of what I just described. That is the point. I would say with respect to Mr. Morelle's comment about the prediction markets, I do not understand. And perhaps you can illuminate this for me. The House Administration Committee has jurisdiction over member participation in prediction markets, right?
Chairperson Steil (02:56:56):
That's accurate.
Mr. Nagoose (02:56:56):
Okay. You're the chair.
Chairperson Steil (02:56:57):
Along with others, but yes. We're one of them.
Mr. Nagoose (02:56:59):
But you've got principal jurisdiction.
Chairperson Steil (02:57:00):
Yes, yes.
Mr. Nagoose (02:57:01):
You're in charge. Okay. Four months ago, the United States Senate on a bipartisan basis on a voice vote took action and said, "You know what? No Senator in this body is allowed to make bets on prediction markets. Every Republican, every Democrat agreed to it. Why can't we?
Chairperson Steil (02:57:22):
We have moved forward legislation, the community and House administration on this topic. I look forward to-
Mr. Nagoose (02:57:27):
Let's do it today. I'm saying this happened in April. We could do a one-page resolution. We could just literally cut and paste the Senate resolution and we could pass it tomorrow. Will you help us with that?
Chairperson Steil (02:57:40):
Yeah. So, I've been supportive of making restrictions in the prediction market space.
Mr. Nagoose (02:57:45):
Why isn't it in this bill?
Chairperson Steil (02:57:46):
We have two different pieces of legislation. Obviously, prediction markets are reasonably new and novel technology available to marry people.
Mr. Nagoose (02:57:53):
It took the Senate a day. It's a one-page resolution.
Chairperson Steil (02:57:56):
Yeah, I know.
Mr. Nagoose (02:57:57):
It literally is a paragraph. It just says members of the Senate are banned from participating in prediction.
Chairperson Steil (02:58:01):
I'm fully supportive of my legislation moving forward, if that's the question.
Mr. Nagoose (02:58:05):
Well, I guess I'll follow with Mr. Morelle and maybe Mr. Morelle, I would encourage... I know you've been pushing on this, but maybe we can just write a one-page resolution. We'll just take the Senate resolution, go to the floor this week. And apparently, according to Mr. Steil, that would meet with his approval. Am I wrong? Is that not something that you all have been able to debate in the committee? Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle (02:58:27):
Well, no, you're absolutely right. We can do by resolution and have it apply to House members and members of families of House members dependents and do just exactly what the Senate did. The alternative is to do it in a bill, which isn't even in front of us for reasons that completely escape my understanding. There should be a provision in this bill as bad as this bill is. How would you not include the prediction markets? But yes, to your point, we could do a resolution. Doesn't have to pass the Senate. Doesn't have to have the president sign it. We can do a resolution pertaining simply to the House. We should do that today.
Mr. Nagoose (02:59:01):
I couldn't agree more. And I would hope that the majority Republican House would perhaps emulate what your colleagues in the upper chamber did under John Thune and simply say instead of the delay and the dilatory tactics and everything else, we're just going to ban it. And you'll certainly have my support. And I suspect you'll have a lot of Democrats who would agree with you. I do want to talk about very briefly because the chair has indulged me so here on the vote, what's it called? The Save Vote Act or-
Morgan Griffith (02:59:32):
And normally, you say y'all get to go on forever and ever because you have less people, but today you have more.
Mr. Nagoose (02:59:39):
Well, you don't want to tempt me here, Mr. Chairman.
Morgan Griffith (02:59:40):
Go ahead. If you can make it quick, please.
Mr. Nagoose (02:59:42):
Very quick question on the SAVE America, I don't know if we'll call it the reduced version or what's this new version called?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (02:59:51):
Section three. SAVE America Life.
Mr. Nagoose (02:59:54):
Isn't there a title of it? The voter ID or what? Or section three of the bill. Or Section three of the bill. Okay. So, my understanding is that in Wisconsin, the voters approved by constitutional amendment, essentially a codification of the voter ID law that had already been on the books in Wisconsin, right? That's accurate. Okay.
Chairperson Steil (03:00:20):
That's accurate.
Mr. Nagoose (03:00:20):
And National Conference of State Legislatures has described Wisconsin's constitutional measure, which is the same as the statutory measure, as the most restrictive in the country. I don't know if you've seen that.
Chairperson Steil (03:00:34):
I've not seen that term, but it's a reasonably good photo ID law.
Mr. Nagoose (03:00:39):
Reasonably good photo ID law. Under that law, you can use a college ID. And under your bill, you can't.
Chairperson Steil (03:00:47):
Correct.
Mr. Nagoose (03:00:49):
And I'm trying to understand why if that, as you said, reasonably good standard is good enough for your constituents and the people that you represent in Wisconsin. There are plenty of constituents of yours at a variety of different colleges and universities that you represent that right now comply with what has been described by others as the most strict voter ID law in the country by using their college ID, but their congressman is championing a bill that would tell them that they no longer can do that. I don't understand that.
Chairperson Steil (03:01:25):
Sure. Great question. Universities across the country, including in my home state, issue IDs to non-citizens, issue IDs to illegal immigrants as many states do, many of them blue states. The state next to me, the state of Illinois issues driver's licenses, for example, to non-citizens and including illegal immigrants. And so, this is a standard to say, how do we make sure that we are protecting the integrity of our elections? And we believe the best way to do that is through the forms of ID as listed in the bill.
Mr. Nagoose (03:01:57):
So, the Wisconsin standard really isn't the reasonable... I think the word you used was reasonably good standard. That doesn't sound like... I mean, it sounds like-
Chairperson Steil (03:02:05):
Yeah, I don't think the standard to get a student ID is nearly a sufficient-
Mr. Nagoose (03:02:08):
No, no, no, I didn't ask that. I said the Wisconsin law, that 62% of the voters of Wisconsin a year and a half ago decided they put in the state constitution that you five minutes ago described as a reasonably fair standard apparently did not meet the muster here at the federal level.
Chairperson Steil (03:02:27):
Well, sure. The Wisconsin standard is way better than a lot of other states. I mean, a lot of states have nothing. In the state of Minnesota next to my home state, you can vouch for eight people. I think that's disastrous.
Mr. Nagoose (03:02:37):
Why don't emulate?
Chairperson Steil (03:02:38):
Well, because I don't want to look anything like Minnesota.
Mr. Nagoose (03:02:40):
No, we don't. I'm saying why didn't you... You're the Wisconsin.
Chairperson Steil (03:02:43):
Because I actually think we can do better. Yeah. So, I think Wisconsin beats most states. No doubt. I'm not uniquely familiar with your home state's voter laws, but I can tell you in the neighboring states next to Wisconsin, we got some disasters on our hands.
Mr. Nagoose (03:02:56):
How much time do you have under this law if you vote provisionally, if you don't have photo ID, to be able to then ensure that your vote still counts? What's the timestamp?
Chairperson Steil (03:03:06):
You'd reference back to your state law on that.
Mr. Nagoose (03:03:11):
I though the standard here was three days or is that wrong?
Chairperson Steil (03:03:14):
Oh, it is three days. I apologize.
Mr. Nagoose (03:03:16):
Three days.
Chairperson Steil (03:03:17):
Apologize three days.
Mr. Nagoose (03:03:18):
72 hours.
Chairperson Steil (03:03:19):
So, if you forget your ID-
Mr. Nagoose (03:03:20):
You forget your ID, you've got 72 hours.
Chairperson Steil (03:03:22):
That'd be accurate.
Mr. Nagoose (03:03:23):
And if you don't do that, then your vote doesn't count. Right?
Chairperson Steil (03:03:27):
Right. You would not have cured your ballot.
Mr. Nagoose (03:03:29):
Correct.
Chairperson Steil (03:03:29):
That's right.
Mr. Nagoose (03:03:30):
Do you know what that time period is in Wisconsin?
Chairperson Steil (03:03:34):
Go ahead.
Mr. Nagoose (03:03:35):
It's a lot longer.
Chairperson Steil (03:03:36):
Yeah. We also have many weeks-
Mr. Nagoose (03:03:37):
A lot longer.
Chairperson Steil (03:03:38):
... of early voting. So, an individual-
Mr. Nagoose (03:03:40):
I hear you.
Chairperson Steil (03:03:41):
... could go in and do their early in-person vote safely in the state of Wisconsin. And if you forgot it, you could show up day after day after day.
Mr. Nagoose (03:03:48):
I would just simply say, obviously I believe Colorado has a gold standard, but if it's good enough for the people of Wisconsin, I'm just, again, don't really understand why you would champion on the one hand the Wisconsin standard and then simultaneously propose a far more exact in my view-
Chairperson Steil (03:04:08):
If the gentleman will give me a time, I'd be happy to answer the question. Yeah, you don't want to hear the answer.
Mr. Nagoose (03:04:10):
We've probably beaten this horse to death here. So, in any event, I thank you both.
Morgan Griffith (03:04:15):
Gentleman yields back.
Mr. Nagoose (03:04:16):
I will yield back.
Morgan Griffith (03:04:17):
And I'll recognize myself and I will beat that horse. Mr. Steil, is it not true that the individual states, while they have sovereignty under the United States of America, do not represent everybody in the nation?
Chairperson Steil (03:04:36):
That's right.
Morgan Griffith (03:04:37):
So, Wisconsin has a great standard for Wisconsin, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we want Wisconsin student IDs changing federal policy. Isn't that accurate?
Chairperson Steil (03:04:51):
That's accurate. I wouldn't say that Wisconsin's is flawless. I just say it's better the other states.
Morgan Griffith (03:04:55):
State legislature says it's the best of the states. That doesn't mean it's the best that the United States can do for its federal elections. Am I not?
Chairperson Steil (03:05:01):
That's accurate.
Morgan Griffith (03:05:02):
There you go. Now I got a couple other things because y'all got into talking about some financial stuff that I'm just a poor boy from Southwest Virginia and I don't understand it all. I got to tell you, and I'm sure there's some people back home don't know what this is. Now y'all have money or big time in the financial world, maybe you do. What in the heck is a private placement? He said you can still do private placements. I don't even know what y'all are talking about.
Chairperson Steil (03:05:27):
Yeah, it's not something I engage in, but under the house rules, individuals can own a host of different private assets.
Morgan Griffith (03:05:35):
All right. What is a private placement? He said you can buy-
Chairperson Steil (03:05:38):
You could ask your colleague to describe private placement per his question if he'd like.
Morgan Griffith (03:05:43):
Maybe Mr. Morelle can answer. He seems-
Chairperson Steil (03:05:45):
Or terminology.
Mr. Morelle (03:05:46):
No, I think there's just private offerings from companies that are not publicly traded, but are privately issued private stock.
Morgan Griffith (03:05:54):
All right. And so, as both of you know, because that's what I was worried about because the gentleman implied he wanted to get rid of that, but as you all know, having heard me talk about it, I got rid of all my $6,000 worth of stocks when the previous act was enacted. And the only thing I have is a small swimming pool entity that I have a ownership interest in. And if that's a private placement and we suddenly want to ban that, I'm like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute." Because that community pool might not exist if I hadn't bought a fair number of shares in it back in 1991. And I will confess I sold a share this year.
(03:06:43)
Sold is a loose term. Gave one to my youngest son when he turned 18. One of the shares that I... So, I understand there may be people doing big time stuff, but there's also a lot of people. If that's a private placement, there's a lot of people who are doing things in their community where they've got a little community pool or some other thing that's more... I mean, it makes money some years. We might even make money this year, but we didn't make money in a number of years as well. And the idea is to make sure that people have a place to go swimming, be on the swim team, play water polo, pick up Stonegate rules water polo on Sunday nights, that kind of stuff.
(03:07:25)
So, let's make sure we're not throwing the baby out with the swimming pool water, so to speak. That would be my concern, but I didn't know exactly what you're talking about. Now I do, and I appreciate that. The other thing on the sales, and I think the seven days, Mr. Chairman, is probably a pretty good idea. I mean, if somebody wanted to argue about it being 10 days, okay, maybe the 10 days is a little bit better. But if you own some stock and you're not a wealthy person, and we've been going through some of this not with stock, but with other assets, trying to figure out how are we going to pay for that college education this year.
(03:08:01)
I mean, that was a discussion my wife and I had this morning before I left town is what are we going to jigger to make sure we get tuition paid and the rooming board paid? And what's it going to look like in September when we get through paying all the big fees and what's the monthly outgoing going to be? And so, to say that a member who comes to Congress, gets elected and comes to Congress and has a portfolio can't make a decision to sell that stock for whatever reasons. But most of the time, most members of Congress are not as wealthy as the public thinks we are. And you got to figure out how you're going to pay for things like college education.
(03:08:38)
I've got two coming up on August 18th. I'll have two in college at the same time. And we're trying to figure out how to juggle all that. Now, as I said, we don't have the publicly traded stocks. And this bill just deals with those publicly traded stocks. Isn't that correct, Mr. Chairman?
Chairperson Steil (03:08:56):
That's accurate.
Morgan Griffith (03:08:56):
Yeah. And I think that's appropriate and I think it's a pretty good idea. The mutual funds is pretty innocuous too. You can still own the mutual funds. And my other son, who's more financially adept perhaps than I am, my older one who's now 20 apparently and we've got to change our financial forms because apparently he got a statement the other day in the mail and I saw it and I said, "What's this?" He goes, "Oh, I bought a couple thousand dollars out of my summer earnings last year in a mutual fund." I'm like, "Oh great. I got to amend my public disclosure form to reflect that. It's not big money. And I think the disclosure's fine.
(03:09:36)
But saying that they can't own or they can't sell I think a little owners and would discourage good people from running for Congress." Is there anything else you wanted to add as we've had these discussions going on now for a good while?
Chairperson Steil (03:09:50):
I appreciate it. Maybe just a couple things to note. And so, going back to the seven-day disclosure in how do you get there? Looking at securities law, 10b5-1 plans are how publicly traded companies manage their senior leaders who by definition have inside information on their company. And so, as I noted earlier, actually enforcing insider trading violations is actually pretty difficult for the DOJ. That's already illegal for all members and all Americans. It's illegal that should be held accountable. DOJ should prosecute it. It's difficult to prosecute. The 10b5-1 plan on the publicly traded company side, what in large part they're doing is these pre-disclosures.
(03:10:28)
And what it does is it sets up the evidence to prosecute an insider trading case. So, our colleague from Colorado was referencing this. And so, if an individual made that public announcement seven days in advance, it would be pretty easy to show the timeline. Now let's leave that one given person so I don't make an accusation of that given person. But let's say, an individual member you could document had inside information on a given topic. They provide a seven-day notice that they're going to make this sale. They then go and make the sale and then the evidence is pretty clear that individual engaged in insider trading.
(03:11:09)
That disclosure and that point in time actually gives great leverage to the Department of Justice to hold an individual accountable. It's more difficult under the current scenario because you don't see where that timeline is. And so, the reason publicly traded companies put these plans in place for their executives is to root out and prevent individuals from making insider information trades which are illegal and should be prevented.
(03:11:36)
And so, what we tried to do is strike the balance to make sure that individuals who have successful private sector careers and whatever that word is, whether or not it's successful that you own a local pool and are able to help people swim or maybe you or your spouse worked at a publicly traded company and that publicly traded company gave stock as part of the compensation or you used it to save up for either your retirement or for the education of your child. Is it the belief that we want to make sure that those individuals are encouraged and able to come to Congress in the same way we can have farmers and veterans come to this institution and serve.
(03:12:15)
Once you're here, you can't acquire new and additional individual shares of stock. I think that's a reasonable restriction to put in place. But the core of this bill is it prevents members of Congress from being able to profit off of insider information by putting in place a bright line rule. That is really important. If I can just quickly go back on the photo ID in my home state of Wisconsin because I think it's relevant. Wisconsin, as I noted, has a reasonably good photo ID bill. I don't think it's perfect. I think it's reasonably good. Now I think it's reasonably good specifically in comparison to what I view as disastrous states.
(03:12:50)
And in Wisconsin, we can look across a river and across a state line and see a pair of really bad examples Illinois to our south, Minnesota to our west. In the state of Minnesota, it's been noted in our committee. You were there at the hearing, Mr. Griffith, about how in Minnesota, not only do you not need a photo ID, an individual can come to the polls and vouch for up to eight other people to vote. We were making lighthearted comments earlier about the never ending possible. Imagine rolling into your local olive garden and vouching for eight other people at your table that they too are who they say they are. Nobody thinks that's rational. So, I think Wisconsin has a pretty good idea.
(03:13:32)
We have a Supreme Court that's become hyper-partisan and hyper liberal. And so, thoughtfully our state assembly and state Senate moved through and moved the Wisconsin legislation on photo ID into the Constitution as a mechanism to prevent our Supreme Court from driving forward a partisan liberal agenda. Smart move by our colleagues in the state assembly in state Senate. And so, we enshrine that in the Constitution. That's good. I don't want our state to look like Minnesota or Illinois, Mr. Chairman. And so, that said, I think there's room for improvement. And I flag my concern specifically as it relates to the standards some of our universities are using when issuing a photo ID.
(03:14:18)
It's a very different standard, for example, than the state of Wisconsin's Department of Transportation has when issuing a driver's license or a state issued ID. I think we are best served if we move to that higher standard rather than the lower standard allowing universities to issue photo IDs with either limited documentation or giving those IDs to non-citizens or to illegal immigrants. So, I appreciate you giving me the time, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Morgan Griffith (03:14:48):
Yeah. And I will say this going back on the stock issue. I think one of the nice things about the seven-day rule and everything you said was accurate, but one of the things I like about it is if a wealthy member of Congress, more likely to be a senator, but still a wealthy member of Congress suddenly said, "I'm going to sell a million or two million or $5 million of the share in the X, Y, Z corporation," that gives the public notice that they're selling maybe aisle too or that they'll take a look at it or people will take a roll call and certainly report it if there's a seven-day notice and now that's not happening and it just happens.
(03:15:24)
And then people say, "Well, I wish I'd known he was going to sell. I'd have sold too." Anyway, I yield back and now recognize the gentle lady from New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernández, for her time.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:15:33):
Thank you so very much. And I want to go back to this idea that this is the Stop Insider Trading Act. And we went over earlier that trading involves both the purchase and the sale. You cannot have trading without the sale. And Chairman, you said that the purpose of this was to make sure that Congress people don't make a profit off of information we get here from serving. Did I recall you saying that correctly?
Chairperson Steil (03:16:03):
Yeah, as it relates to publicly traded company stock.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:16:05):
Let's go back to the question of, do you make a profit when you buy a stock?
Chairperson Steil (03:16:11):
No.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:16:12):
You make a profit when you do what?
Chairperson Steil (03:16:14):
You may.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:16:15):
You sell the stock.
Chairperson Steil (03:16:17):
No, only if you sell for a profit. You could lose.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:16:20):
To clarify, you could lose, but that's your chance for making a profit is the sale of the stock, right?
Chairperson Steil (03:16:24):
That's your chance.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:16:25):
And your stock Stop Insider Trading Act does not prohibit the sale of stocks.
Chairperson Steil (03:16:33):
Right. But it prevents you from profiting off of the sale.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:16:35):
No, it doesn't. You can profit as much as you want.
Chairperson Steil (03:16:36):
With Insider Information. I would disagree.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:16:38):
You could profit as much as you want.
Chairperson Steil (03:16:39):
I disagree.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:16:40):
As long as you own that stock, you can profit. And that's where Democrats are going, is that we should not... Congress people, if you make the choice to come here, there should be a vehicle for you to be able to divest of individual stocks. That's what the bill that Joe Neguse and Chip Roy introduced, that's what the bill that we have presented, that's what the bill that Democrats offered as an alternative does. Is that correct ranking member?
Mr. Morelle (03:17:10):
Absolutely requires divestiture. And may I just add the notion that a seven-day waiting period, and I appreciate Mr. Griffith's comments, but honestly, I don't think of a member of Congress who learned that it's likely maybe Boeing instead of Northrop Grumman was going to get a military contract and they owned Northrop Grumman and wanted to get rid of their stock before that was acknowledged saying I sold $10,000 worth of stock a month before anybody knows about it and I acknowledge it's seven days. That does virtually nothing. Nobody's sitting around watching in real time what members of Congress are doing respectfully.
(03:17:50)
And there's no way to track that. And to your point, you only make the money if you sell at a price that's higher than what you bought it at. So, you can only make the money and it's true, you can lose money too, but you get to control the timing of when that happens if you're not required to divest. And by the way, if you already own stock and there's a dividend, you can buy more of that. So, the notion that you can't buy is not true. Now it is more narrow, but the buying, holding and selling of stock is still allowed under this on the public side, on the private side. They haven't done anything here at all.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:18:31):
Right. And I think the concern is my colleague from Pennsylvania referenced it earlier that maybe what you want to do is maybe lose less. And here's the article that said that when you're going to be making these big decisions about what happens, we had a colleague that a week before he voted to significantly cut Medicaid, and I'm quoting from an article here dated 11/20/25 of the first on NBC, Mr. Chairman, which I'd seek to enter into the record. A week before he voted to significantly cut Medicaid by a trillion dollars, this representative dumped six figures worth of stock in a quartet of companies that managed nearly half of all Medicaid enrollees in the country. Now, Chairman-
Morgan Griffith (03:19:22):
Without objection.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:19:24):
Your bill would do nothing to have prevented this sale, correct?
Chairperson Steil (03:19:28):
I would actually disagree with that.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:19:32):
You disagree with that?
Chairperson Steil (03:19:33):
Yeah. It would do nothing. I think that's an inaccurate statement of the bill.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:19:35):
Okay. So, he would be able to have sold this stock?
Chairperson Steil (03:19:40):
You would've provided public notice of the sale.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:19:45):
But he would've been able to sell it. It would not have prevented it. It might've allowed the world to know before a newspaper article came out, but it would've still allowed it.
Chairperson Steil (03:19:56):
Well, it depends on the timeline of that sale. Of course, seven days notice would require seven days to elapse.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:20:02):
All your bill does is fill out a form. And this is the thing, what the American public is mad and they are mad as hell about, is the idea that elected officials both in Congress and the Senate and the White House are making big bucks and they are the ones-
Chairperson Steil (03:20:23):
That's actually why this bill is so important. It's about ending the profiting off of insider information. So, you exactly nailed what they're upset about. And this is what the bill actually accomplishes.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:20:34):
It does not end the profit. It does not end the profit because the profit is at the sale and this does not prevent the sale. You are allowed to continue-
Chairperson Steil (03:20:40):
Only if you don't believe in market forces.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:20:42):
I'm going to move on ranking member because-
Mr. Morelle (03:20:43):
May I just make one-
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:20:45):
Yeah, sure.
Mr. Morelle (03:20:45):
... additional point? Even if you had seven days notice, let's say, the press did know. They came and said, "Hey, we realize that you sold all your stock in some company. You're going to say it's because I was diversifying." It's not likely you're going to say it's because I learned that the United States government is going to be buying. I mean, it doesn't disclose anything. Yeah, it gives, I guess, the press a couple of days if they happen to be following your specific trades and gives them a little bit of a headstart on trying to figure out what you were doing.
(03:21:14)
But let's be clear, no one is going to say because I had information which led me to sell. But the good news is I did it for seven days so it gives you some advanced time to figure out what was motivating me. I mean, it's a silly-
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:21:29):
It gives you cover. All it does is give you cover. And I think the bigger, bigger, huge gaping hole of this bill is that we might have information or we might be in this instance, going to be one of hundreds of votes. The reality is there is a man and there will always be a man and hopefully someday, a woman who can move markets much bigger than any one of us. And that is the President of the United States. And this bill does not cover that at all. And we know that this is happening. Just Truth Social, President Trump said with regards to NVIDIA, "I've got an all necessary permits. This company's going to go through. It's great."
(03:22:14)
He never told everybody on Truth Social that he had bought $200,000 to $500,000 of that company's stock. And a CNN investigation found that President Trump is marketing stocks on Truth Social after he's purchased shares. Now, Chairman Steil, your bill doesn't cover the president or the vice president, does it?
Chairperson Steil (03:22:44):
Is that a question? No, it is focused on Congress per the jurisdiction of the community on House Administration.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:22:49):
Okay. But we have jurisdiction. Congress has jurisdiction and we are the only ones who can say the president should not be purchasing or selling stock because he controls the market. Congress is the one that we don't tell him. Nobody else is going to do it. Is that correct ranking member?
Mr. Morelle (03:23:12):
Absolutely.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:23:13):
And earlier we had a conversation about the fact that President Trump has now said that he's going to sell early access to Wall Street on Truth Social. I don't know what you thought about that. There was a conversation about it, but I think in the end, Chairman Steil, you never told us what you thought about having a president give access to Wall Street early on paid access for information that could move the market. Do you think that should be allowed?
Chairperson Steil (03:23:47):
I haven't read those reports.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:23:49):
Okay. Well, I'm going to just tell you now. President Trump has said that he would provide early access to Wall Street to Truth Social so that they would be able to make decisions about what's happening. Do you think that that is appropriate behavior for a president?
Chairperson Steil (03:24:05):
I haven't read the reports. I'll read it following the meeting here.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:24:08):
Okay. It's interesting. I will say that Josh Hawley actually said that what he thought, that the idea that having a president buy and sell stock and market stock, that there should be a bill that applied to him. And what happened to Josh Holly was that President Trump came after him. And I'm just wondering if Republicans on the House side are equally afraid of this president coming after them for actually holding him to a high standard, to any kind of standard with regards to owning and selling stock. But I want to go to another matter and that's this section three of the bill, which is like say be light, I guess.
(03:25:01)
And what strikes me is that there are three forms of ID now allowed and there is no tribal ID allowed. Did I miss that? I saw three forms that says state ID, military ID and a passport.
Chairperson Steil (03:25:19):
There's five forms allowed. The fifth one being tribal IDs issued. It'll take me a second to find you the legislative text, but it's five forms.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:25:32):
Okay, thank you. I'm sorry. I'm glad I asked that because I-
Chairperson Steil (03:25:34):
You're welcome.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:25:36):
... had missed that section. It does have a tribal ID.
Chairperson Steil (03:25:38):
Yep.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:25:39):
But the other piece of this bill is that right now you have taken away the money that would allow states that would help states. And you keep shaking your head, but it's not in this bill. I'm going back to that awful analogy you all kept turning to of that this is like a bowl of pasta, that you need an ID to get a bowl of pasta. Ranking member Morelle, you spoke so eloquently about voting is not pasta. Voting is not a privilege. It's not a privilege. It's not something you do when you have enough money. When you have enough money to be able to go to a restaurant and eat as much pasta as you want. It is a right.
(03:26:25)
It's a constitutional right. And our problem is that a lot of people do not have enough money to be able to own a passport. They do not have enough money to be able to own a car and have a driver's license. They do not have the kinds of money that allows them to easily access a passport, a driver's license or these other things. And that's why a pot of money that would help people get the photo IDs they need would be so essential. And ranking member Morale, you seem to want to add to that.
Mr. Morelle (03:27:03):
Well, I just say this, that I think there's a little bit of a conflation of two different things. Voter ID, as I understand it, is to prove to a poll watcher that you are who you say you are. That's all. So, why would student ID not be acceptable? The chairman said it's because it doesn't prove citizenship, but that's not the point of voter ID at the polls. The point of voter ID, as I understand it, photo ID, is to simply prove who you are. You're already registered to vote. That's already done. And so, this makes it harder. And I think it's because honestly, they'd prefer that college students not vote.
(03:27:45)
So, let's put a number of barriers in front of them and the ID, which clearly proves who they are. I am Joe Morelle, here's my ID. It says it right here. I go to the University of Wisconsin. I go to the State University of New York. I go to the University of New Mexico. That's all. I am who I am. And by the way, if you look, even in places like every state literally allows student ID because it's a way of proving who you are. Universities issue them. That's a pretty basic thing. Most states allow hunter's license or gun permits or in some cases your utility bills.
(03:28:22)
All you need to do when you go to vote, if you're not willing to accept the system that a number of states have where you have signature analysis and you feel the need to have photo ID, why would you limit the number of photo ID possibilities which simply allow you to prove who you say you are? And by the way, I don't know. We've had, I don't know how many hearings, I haven't heard anybody bring to us people who showed ID and vouched to vote when it wasn't them. I mean, it simply never happens. This is the other thing that's fascinating about this. In the reconciliation bill, they would give $10 billion, which I'm glad for.
(03:29:00)
I mean, we should be giving money to local administrators, but a portion of that is intended to help facilitate this. But we'd spend billions of dollars on something that isn't even a problem. We got plenty of problems in this country that actually could use some resources to help go to address them. This is not one of them.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (03:29:18):
One of our problems is corruption. And what we're seeing in this bill is it doesn't address corruption. It just makes voting a little harder. And that seems part for the courts for Republicans. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Morgan Griffith (03:29:34):
Gentleman yields back and now recognize the general lady from Indiana.
Erin Houchin (03:29:40):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get into my questions about the Stop Insider Trading Act, I want to give Chairman Steil an opportunity to respond to some of the concerns that were raised about voter identification. Chairman Steil, is there not also an affidavit option for those that may or may not have IDs? And what else...
Erin Houchin (03:30:00):
... for those that may or may not have IDs and what else can you tell us about the ability that this provides to give opportunities to vote while also safeguarding our elections?
Chairperson Steil (03:30:14):
You bring up a couple good points. We lay out in this bill in particular for situations where individuals are voting by mail, that one can go through the process of including your last four digital of Social Security number as well as an affidavit. What we want to make sure is that everybody is able and eligible to vote, which builds on the previous point, which I think is important to go back to, which is about the need for some individuals who may not have resources to obtain a free ID.
(03:30:44)
In my home state of Wisconsin, the Department of Transportation estimates that the cost of issuing an ID knowing that the employees and the equipment is already there, the cost of issuing an ID for an individual who can't afford one is a little less than $5, in the neighborhood of $4.50. Last year in the state of Wisconsin, it was two years ago if my memory serves me correctly, roughly 100,000 people in the state of Wisconsin obtained an ID without payment, costing the state less than half a million dollars.
(03:31:16)
So the state of Wisconsin provides that to individuals that can't afford it, recognizing that it's required to vote in the state of Wisconsin. Then the question becomes how do we pay for that? The total cost in a federal concept is reasonably de minimis. Half a million dollars in the state of Wisconsin, about 2% of the United States of America, you'd run that out nationally and get a pretty good idea.
(03:31:36)
A few million dollars to make sure everybody has it. If an individual doesn't have an ID in the United States, a state issued ID, it's really important to help that individual get that. So I'm a big supporter of making sure that states are doing that. Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, states would be required to do that. Whether or not the funds come through the expansion of HAVA grants, whether or not it comes through reconciliation, whether or not it comes through appropriations, we can work that piece out. But I think ultimately to make sure that individuals who... If there are individuals who can't afford a state ID, we should help them get that.
(03:32:11)
I think that's important. As it relates to student IDs, I think there's a lot of challenges on how some, again, not all, but how some universities issue their IDs, that there is not strict protocols as it relates to that in comparison to the five ways that we allow for IDs. We all recognize that every state issues their state ID or state driver's license differently. We respect that difference, but we all respect that it's a robust and secure process.
(03:32:39)
And so relying on that, obviously if somebody has a passport federally issued ID, if you will, that's allowed in a travel ID. That being the core concept, I think strengthens the integrity of our photo ID requirements. But again, these are common sense and I know some of our colleagues on the left struggle when we slightly make fun of all the different reasons and ways that you need an ID.
(03:33:04)
The point is you need it for almost everything. So goodness gracious, if you need an ID for everything, let's just put the standard in place. You need a photo ID to vote so we don't have folks going to the polls voting in federal elections in the state of Minnesota this November where one person walks in and vouches for eight other people. The standard needs to be set. You need to show photo identification to vote.
(03:33:26)
Now ultimately, I'd love to see the whole broader package go through with other election reforms, but this is the most basic common sense principle you can imagine. You need photo identification to vote. In separate, of course, this legislation that prevents members of Congress from profiting off of insider information, the Stop Insider Trading Act.
Erin Houchin (03:33:47):
Thank you. We often hear the Democrats say, "Voter fraud is not widespread." And we look only to Bush v Gore and the closeness of that presidential election and to understand, and we see it every day in our elections. In my own hometown, we had a city council race that came down to three votes. And so it doesn't have to be widespread to disenfranchise voters across the country.
(03:34:14)
So voter ID is a critical component of preventing voter fraud because it doesn't have to be widespread to threaten the integrity of our elections in the United States. How concerned are you with the president's most recent report of China's influence in our elections and the urgent need to pass not just the voter identification provisions in the Stop Insider Trading Act, but also in Save America?
Chairperson Steil (03:34:42):
Well, we unquestionably know that there are actors that want to destabilize the US election system. And so we should be cognizant of that and always working to enhance the integrity inside of our elections.
(03:34:56)
To your earlier point, how many illegal votes or inappropriate votes should we accept?
Erin Houchin (03:35:03):
Right.
Chairperson Steil (03:35:04):
And the obvious answer is zero. And so you reference Bush v Gore because for all Americans over a certain age, they remember that election. But for you and I, not too far from our home state, Mariannette Miller Meeks in the state of Iowa won her congressional seat by six votes. The Democrat who lost that race challenged that. Challenges come before the committee on House administration. And so this is when Democrats were in control, and they were driving forward trying to take Mariannette Miller Meeks out of her duly elected position at that time to try to expand their majority in the House.
(03:35:46)
And so when we know House races, because we have 435 House races a year, there's more data points. We know how close some of these races are. Many aren't called and decided for weeks after the election. That is when you recognize how important election integrity is.
(03:36:05)
In narrowly divided House and narrowly divided Senate, any movement can actually swing elections. And so making sure that we have this standard nationwide, that we know individuals are showing photo identification when they go to the polls matters. That we know that the members that come from, for example, the state of Minnesota are the duly elected members, that there wasn't shenanigans in those elections. And I think that's really important to do in all 50 states.
(03:36:32)
And this bill sets the standard and says, "No. You need to have photo identification when you go to the polls and vote." In federal elections, it matters, it's important, it's common sense and it's easy to do.
Erin Houchin (03:36:43):
The House and Senate majorities and the presidential election will depend on the integrity of these elections. So I appreciate your work on that.
(03:36:50)
And then turning to the Stop Insider Trading Act, members of Congress are elected to serve their constituents and the American people not profit from non-public information. However, Americans rightly fear that some members of Congress may be using sensitive information to benefit their stock portfolios. Congress passed the Stop Trading on congressional knowledge, the Stock Act in 2012.
(03:37:19)
So lawmakers are already prohibited from using non-public information for their own financial benefit, but many Americans, including me, remain concerned that the Stock Act is insufficient and that we must implement stronger measures, which brings me to the Stop Insider Trading Act, which I appreciate your leadership on. I'm a proud co-sponsor of this bill to help ensure that members of Congress are not able to use their public office for private financial gain.
(03:37:48)
Though we did take an important step, Congress did with the Stock Act more than a decade ago. It's clear members of Congress, though we are subject to the same insider trading laws as every other American under the Stock Act, more needs to be done on this front. Despite the existing safeguards that we have, the American people remain concerned. It's one of the most, I would say, responses I've received in input to the office asking to support the Stop Insider Trading Act.
(03:38:22)
So this will build on existing ethics laws, strengthening the framework with clear, common sense guardrails to increase transparency and accountability. Chairman Steil, from your perspective, what shortcomings have become apparent since the enactment of the Stock Act more than a decade ago? Why are additional safeguards necessary? And what new restrictions in this bill will close those loopholes?
Chairperson Steil (03:38:49):
Thank you very much. You note the Stock Act passed about 15 years ago and what it does and does not require. One of the challenges that we see with the Stock Act is because the reporting is 30 days after the fact and the reporting is within bands. That was noted earlier by our colleague, Mr. Scott. That coupled with attention, in particular, in the social media space raises a lot of concerns.
(03:39:20)
The question then began, how do you prevent members of Congress from profiting off of this in the first place? What's the solution recognizing this concern? Well, let's prevent members from profiting off of any inside information they gain. And let's make a bright line rule that you can't trade, you can't continue to buy and sell individual shares of stock. The bill accomplishes that goal. It puts in place a blanket rule on the acquisition of individual shares of stock.
(03:39:47)
It provides seven days, minimum seven days advance notice for the sale that provides the public notice of any sale. It would gut the ability to profit from that. And it would set up an individual's case in the event that somebody was still trying to profit off of insider information to actually be prosecuted and held account to the law. I think this makes meaningful and substantive reforms and it's the types of reforms I think we need to pass here in the House.
Erin Houchin (03:40:14):
It also will ban members of Congress and their families from purchasing individual stocks. I think that's critically important just because members of Congress might be banned, their family members may also yet currently be able to trade on information that may be accessible to members of Congress. And the advanced notice on selling those investments I think is an important step to increase transparency and restore public trust.
(03:40:45)
I think this is a must do. I hope we'll get this bill through across the finish line. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your tremendous leadership on this issue. The American people deserve confidence that the decisions that we make are guided by what's best for them, not what benefits personal investment portfolios. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation in this committee and on the floor. Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx (03:41:13):
Mr. Norman, do you have any questions?
Ralph Norman (03:41:18):
Thank both of you for testifying. There was a lot of questions about this before, Bryan. You heard it in caucus meeting and I think others. Has most of this been resolved in your opinion?
Chairperson Steil (03:41:28):
Yeah. I actually think that we have a product that should be able to garner the support of the overwhelming majority of the House.
Ralph Norman (03:41:36):
Joe, you have any comments?
Joe Morelle (03:41:39):
I do have quite a few, but I'll simply say this, that I think at the end of the day, if we want Americans to trust us, if they want to have faith that the decisions we're making are in their interests, that we need to get to a point where we ban the ownership of individual stock by members of Congress, by the president, by the vice president. And until that time that we do and this bill doesn't do it, doesn't really even come close to doing it then I think we're going to continue to disappoint the American people.
Ralph Norman (03:42:09):
Well, we know things that the ordinary public doesn't. We have access to things that people don't, and hopefully the safeguards. If you're a crook, you can beat any system. It doesn't matter what, but there ought to be rules on it. But I didn't get to hear much of your testimony, if any, but I've heard some of the background on it. But thank each of you for taking the time.
Joe Morelle (03:42:29):
I think you can watch it later tonight when you're back in your apartment if you have a few hours.
Ralph Norman (03:42:39):
Okay. Yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (03:42:40):
Thank you, Mr. Norman. Seeing no further members here to ask any questions. I thank our witnesses for being here and you are excused.
Ralph Norman (03:43:07):
[inaudible 03:43:05] Which one? Thank you, Bryan. See you.
Chairperson Steil (03:43:15):
Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx (03:43:17):
I now welcome our next panel, Chairman Hill, Ranking Member Waters from the House Financial Services Committee.
Speaker X (03:43:30):
Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx (03:43:42):
Your full statements will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Hill, I welcome your testimony.
French Hill (03:44:16):
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be with the rules committee today to talk about HR 6955, which is the Main Street Capital Access Act. It was introduced by myself along with the chair of our subcommittee, Andy Barr of Kentucky. Since becoming chairman of the committee, I've made it a priority to restore strength and vitality to America's community banks. These institutions are foundational to our financial system, indispensable to our economy, and a unique strength of our country.
(03:44:50)
The legislation before you is about one simple idea. Let's help community lenders make it easier for small businesses and entrepreneurs to access the capital they need to grow, hire workers and strengthen Main Street America. For many small businesses, the greatest obstacle to expansion is not a lack of good ideas or hardworking employees, but it's access to financing. Community banks and credit unions remain the backbone of small business lending across the country, particularly in rural communities and in smaller cities.
(03:45:22)
Recently during our debates about comprehensive housing policy that the ranking member and I were engaged in, you heard me say time and time again that six out of 10 home construction loans come from our community banks under $10 billion. Our community banks and their credit unions, they know their customers, they understand local markets and they're often willing to finance businesses that larger institutions overlook.
(03:45:49)
Unfortunately, over time, outdated regulatory requirements have made it increasingly difficult for those community focused institutions to deploy their capital efficiently. Compliance costs have risen dramatically and resources that could otherwise be used to make loans instead have been devoted to navigating unnecessary regulatory burdens.
(03:46:12)
The Main Street Capital Access Act takes meaningful steps to modernize these requirements while preserving the safety and soundness of our financial system. It removes barriers that unnecessarily restrict the flow of capital to local businesses without compromising our strong supervisory framework that protects consumers and maintains confidence in our banking system. This legislation recognizes an important reality that regulation should be tailored to risk.
(03:46:42)
Requirements designed for the nation's largest and most complex financial institution should not automatically apply in the same manner to community-based lenders whose business model is centered on relationship banking and serving local communities. By improving the regulatory environment for these smaller institutions, we expand opportunities for small businesses that depend on them.
(03:47:04)
Several times this year, Congress has taken on a strong bipartisan basis votes and passed this kind of concept of tailored regulatory compliance based on business size and complexity. This approach means that greater access to financing for manufacturers looking to purchase new equipment, family-owned restaurants seeking to open a second location, farmers investing in new technology and entrepreneurs starting businesses right along all of our main streets.
(03:47:34)
This is not about weakening oversight. It's about making sure that our regulatory framework is efficient, effective and appropriately calibrated. Strong financial institutions and vibrant local economies are complimentary goals, not competing ones. And the benefits of increased access to capital extend well beyond individual businesses. When small businesses can obtain financing, they hire employees, increase wages, invest in their communities and generate greater economic growth.
(03:48:02)
These investments ripple outwards supporting suppliers, creating new opportunities and strengthening local tax bases that fund schools, infrastructure and essential public services. At a time when many small businesses continue to face inflationary pressures, higher borrowing costs, and economic uncertainty, Congress should be looking for practical bipartisan ways to remove unnecessary barriers to growth.
(03:48:27)
This legislation does precisely that. The Main Street Act spurs new bank formation, tackles banking deserts and lowers significant barriers for new banks. It reforms the bank supervisory process to make it more transparent. The bill brings common sense tailoring back to bank regulation based on an institution size, business model and risk profile. And it provides certainty around regulatory approval of bank mergers and acquisitions.
(03:48:56)
The bill improves bank resolution framework in a way that protects depositors, promotes greater competition and allows smaller banks to meaningfully participate in the bidding process for the assets of a bank that has failed. It helps banks attract, retain, and enhance their funding sources to better serve American families and business.
(03:49:16)
All in all, in my view, the Main Street Capital Access Act reflects the principle that federal policy should encourage responsible lending, promote economic opportunity, and ensure that our community financial institutions can continue to serve the businesses and families that rely on them every day. I urge my colleagues to support HR 6955 and I thank the chair and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Foxx (03:49:40):
Thank you, Chairman Hill. Ranking Member Waters, you're recognized.
Maxine Waters (03:49:44):
Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair Foxx. We all care about community banks and credit unions. For that reason, I was pleased to work with Chair Hill on a package of community bank provisions included in our landmark housing bill, the 21st Century Road to Housing Act.
(03:50:04)
Oh, there it is. Now, even though Trump refused to sign it, that legislation has become the law of the land. And those provisions help community lenders and not mega banks, big tech payment apps, or even payday lenders, debt collectors and credit bureaus. Unfortunately, that is not the case for the bill before you today. HR 6955 is a Wall Street deregulation hiding as a community bank bill. This package made up of 24 Republican bills with just two Democratic bills. Tomorrow, Madam Chair, we mark the 16th anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Community Protection Act becoming a law.
(03:50:55)
That law was passed in response to the 2008 financial crisis when in case my Republican colleagues have forgotten. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, their homes, and their life savings. But this package ignores those lessons and rolls back a long list of safeguards and oversight of the largest banks.
(03:51:20)
Importantly, the nation is grappling with an affordability crisis and surge in financial scams and fraud costing consumers tens of billions of dollars. This is all made worse because Trump has shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Voting for HR 6955 would add insult to injury by hampering a future CFPB from issuing new rules such as reigning in debt collectors or abusive medical debt practices, but maybe that is the point.
(03:51:59)
Furthermore, Madam Chair, this bill ignores the lessons from the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and other regional banks. Just three years ago, these large regional banks failed after Congress rolled by capital, liquidity and other rules specifically for those banks. Nevertheless, this bill lets even more of these large banks escape critical safeguards risking more failures.
(03:52:31)
In fact, the sponsors of this bill were so zealous to raise thresholds. They increase one threshold that will add bad actors who commit fraud against a bank. Yes, you can't make this up. There's a provision that will increase the amount individuals can defraud absolutely at a bank by then turn around and obtain subsidized financing from the government for those assets from the failed bank.
(03:53:04)
HR 6955 also falls well short of what we know can be done on a bipartisan basis to promote, preserve, and enhance access to banking services for Main Street communities. I have a letter led by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and signed by organizations all over the country, including Alabama, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah.
(03:53:35)
They are opposed because the bill would quote, "Sharply limit monopoly and competition review for mergers involving roughly 96% of all banks. Compress merger review and sideline community evidence and weaken fair lending accountability."
(03:54:01)
Americans for Financial Reform and other leading consumer group organization wrote a letter saying, I quote, "This radical legislation would compound an already aggressive deregulatory spree. Taken together, these changes would be more damaging than the sum of their parts, leaving the financial system dramatically weaker and more vulnerable to instability and crisis." Quote-unquote.
(03:54:33)
Now, Republicans made a few technical changes at the request of Trump regulators, but let me give you another example of what they didn't change. Wells Fargo, which many of you may remember, created millions of fake consumer accounts and has been the subject of countless enforcement actions for consumer harm, like discrimination and anti-money laundering deficiencies would have a new tool to delay future enforcement actions even when consumers have been harmed.
(03:55:08)
Madam Chair, instead of letting Wall Street put Americans and our economy at risk again, we should be working together to address the affordability crisis caused by Trump's failed economic policies and endless war with Iran. So I urge members to oppose this bill. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Foxx (03:55:34):
Thank you both. I'm going to defer my questions for a little bit. Mr. Norman, you have any questions? I'm sorry. Mr. Griffin. I should ask Mr. Griffin first.
Griffin (03:55:45):
I have no questions.
Chairwoman Foxx (03:55:46):
No questions. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (03:55:50):
Thank you. I think we agree America needs a strong financial system that supports community banks and credit unions and small businesses because they're the backbones of our local economies. But we're concerned because instead of advancing targeted reforms to support those institutions, what we have here is bundling together the largest package of banking and Wall Street deregulation since the 2008 financial crisis. And it's just pretending to say that this is going to help Main Street instead of mega banks.
(03:56:26)
Meanwhile, President Trump has spent the last year and a half dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency that actually does protect families from predatory financial practices. So we know the president's actions have already cost American consumers an estimated $19 billion in dismissed enforcement cases, pardon fraudsters, rescinded rules, and the gutting of the consumer complaint system. This bill would go even further by weakening the ability of banking regulators to protect consumers and preserve financial stability.
(03:57:04)
I mean, if our Republican colleagues were serious about supporting Main Street, they would work across the aisle on targeted reforms that strengthen community banks without weakening the safeguards that protect consumers and taxpayers and the economy. Instead, once again, this bill asked the American people to take on more financial risk so the banking industry can make more money and face less accountability. So I'm not in favor of putting the thumb on the scale for billionaires in big businesses and leaving the American people to shoulder the risk. Ranking Member Waters, after the financial crisis in 2008, Congress established a number of regulatory thresholds and supervisory authorities that this bill would change or roll back. Can you explain why those guardrails exist and what could happen if regulators lose the tools they need to identify problems before they become crises? And I think you mentioned some California banks.
Maxine Waters (03:58:07):
Well, thank you Representative Scanlon. I just want to say in the way that you have described your concerns, that's exactly what is happening with this bill. As a matter of fact, I do believe that we have to be concerned about members who say that they support community banks, but really they are using this as a way to hide the deregulatory efforts that have been made by some members on the opposite side of the aisle.
(03:58:41)
And to tell you the truth, I think that with all of the good work that we have done with the big housing bill, Mr. Hill and I working together, bipartisan effort, this will hurt some of what we've accomplished in making sure that we get rid of deregulatory work by many of those who would like to see the big banks continue to have more power and more control than they should.
(03:59:11)
I reference Wells Fargo when I spoke just a moment ago. Everybody remembers the fake accounts that were set up. Everybody knows we worked very hard. We worked so hard, we were able to undo those who sat on the board and the CEO at one point so that we could try and clean up what was happening in Wells Fargo.
(03:59:35)
Well, Wells Fargo really doesn't mind. It is a cost of doing business. We don't want our banks to be able to undermine this kind of work that we have done in order to save face for the big banks. And so this bill does not do what I think some will think it does in terms of support for community banks. In fact, I think we'll undermine much of the work that we have done.
Ms. Scanlon (04:00:08):
Well, I do want to take the opportunity to thank Chairman Hill and yourself for the incredible work you did in putting together the bipartisan housing bill and overcoming a number of obstacles, not the least of which is always the Senate, to get that passed and hopefully start providing more housing options for Americans because I'm sure you hear as I do all the time how much housing problems are just driving so much of what's going on in our community. So thank you for your work on that. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:00:40):
Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (04:00:44):
I want to thank both of you for coming. This is one of the few times, Maxine, I think you're kind of happy with this bill, which is a good thing. No, I appreciate your bipartisanship.
(04:00:54)
Chairman Hill, the CAMELS rating has been a subject of a lot of discussion. I know in my banking days where they felt like it was too much was left up to whoever was judging the sensitivity, the capital adequacy. Has the appeals process, is there a time limit? And I noticed that's in there. If a examiner is not fair and doesn't have the ratings that they feel is... Is there an adequate time for the appeal process and is there ending time to get an answer on it?
French Hill (04:01:28):
I appreciate that, Mr. Norman. And let me start out by saying that I couldn't disagree more with the ranking member's opening statement on her positioning of this bill. This bill is aimed at the heart of America's consumer banking companies, our community lenders. There's nothing in this bill that's going to benefit the biggest banks in the country.
(04:01:48)
In fact, to the contrary, this bill makes our local community banks and our small regional banks much more competitive with those big global Wall Street banks. It's just a fact. In fact, this bill allows them to now compete dramatically for both deposits and for resolution of banks when they fail so that these failed banks don't automatically go in the hands of one of the biggest banks headquartered in New York, for example.
(04:02:17)
And I can walk through more detail on that as we go through the evening, but let me answer your question, Mr. Norman. Don Riegle, a Democratic senator from Michigan in the 1990s said that one of the biggest frustrations he heard from his constituents in the Riegle-Neal bill that was signed into law in the 1990s by President Clinton. That bill said that banks ought to be able to question and exam output in some orderly way to have an ombudsman to allow them to assess with an independent view whether that bank had been treated fairly or not.
(04:02:51)
And this was after really 10 tumultuous years in the economy in the 1980s where a lot of banks failed all across the country and a lot of savings and loans failed. But the government never really fully implemented that. And so in this bill, we have a provision that allows, I think, for a much more fair examination process that we got technical assistance from the regulators and from bankers.
(04:03:16)
Is this a fair process by which people could question an exam output? I believe that's represented in the bill. And also we facilitated in the bill that if they're not satisfied through that process, they can go to federal court, of course, which is every citizen's right.
Ralph Norman (04:03:31):
Okay. Thank you. Maxine, you have any comment on that?
Maxine Waters (04:03:34):
Well, I'm just looking at what is in this legislation. Voting for HR 6955 would add insult to injury by hampering a future CFPB from issuing new rules such as reigning in debt collectors or abusive medical debt practices, but maybe that is the point.
(04:03:58)
I guess all that I'm saying when I point to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is there's still a lot of work to be done to help our constituents. I want to tell you something I just read on the plane coming out. Walmart is putting beef under lock and key because the thievery that is going on by people who can't afford the increased price of beef anymore is just ruining their profit margins on beef.
(04:04:34)
And so why is this happening? It is happening because we have an affordability crisis. We need to be paying attention to what we do to protect our consumers. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is there to make sure that our big agencies who have so much power are not working on behalf of just big banks, but on behalf of small banks. We can't excuse them. We can't let them off the-
Maxine Waters (04:05:00):
Small banks, we can't excuse them and we can't let them off the hook. As a matter of fact, if you really want to do something for community banks, separate big banks from community banks in a real way instead of big banks hiding behind legislation supposedly for community banks.
Mr. Norman (04:05:19):
Well, thank both of you for testifying. Appreciate it. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:05:25):
Thank you, Mr. Norman. Ms. Leger Fernández.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (04:05:28):
Thank you so very much, Madam Chair, for recognizing me, and for the conversation today. I'm a big fan of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And I'm also very concerned that what we're seeing is President Trump is regularly pardoning fraudsters who provide tens of thousands, sometimes millions to his campaign or to his family's businesses and so forth.
(04:06:02)
But who's standing up and fighting for consumers? Who's fighting for working families? Who's fighting for the people who are holding those credit cards, who are seeing those big banks gouge them? And that has in the past been the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's. And before President Trump took office, the CFPB had returned $21 billion to Americans cheated by scammers. $21 billion, right? And that's their money. That's their money.
(04:06:39)
But what we're seeing is that he's taken an ax to this great Consumer Protection Bureau. He's fired staff and this has cost consumers. And so what does this bill do to protect the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? It needs protecting now too, doesn't it, Ranking Member Waters?
Maxine Waters (04:07:01):
Well, you aptly mention the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which many of us have fought so hard to have some place for our consumers to register their complaints. Prior to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, there was no place really in government that the average consumer could lodge a complaint.
(04:07:23)
Well, I want you to know that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau helped millions. And you just mentioned the return of assets and money, whatever, that our consumers were able to experience. And so if we don't have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, those people who are being treated badly, who have been ripped off, who have been taken advantage of, really don't have anywhere to go. And so we've got to look out really for the consumer banks. We all, everybody knows that I and many of you, we really support the small banks. We really support the community banks.
(04:08:05)
We wouldn't do anything to undermine the community banks, but this bill does that. It really undermines their ability to have a voice, to have someone that's going to speak up for them when they have been defrauded, et cetera. And so we've got to fight against the bill. I know some people will be tricked and they'll think that they'll be helping community banks. Not true. And so I'm hopeful that we're able to get the message out so that people will understand, like you do, exactly of what we have to be aware of.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (04:08:42):
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:08:45):
Thank you very much. Chairman Hill, I appreciated the comments that you made. Having grown up in an extremely rural area, I'm very familiar with how important rural banking is. And I have very strong feelings about how bad Dodd-Frank has been over the years. And I'm glad that to see your committee coming in to correct some of the problems with Dodd-Frank.
(04:09:25)
I don't think that this hides the deregulatory effort on the part of Republicans. I think we're very proud of the deregulatory efforts that we're putting out there. What I am, growing up again in a rural area, I'm quite familiar with how banks know how to make decisions because they know the people, they know the area. They can make a lot of great decisions based on the area. And frankly, I get a little put out with the people who want to help us poor rural people, whose institutions just can't get along without big regulations from Washington DC when they do much better.
(04:10:17)
The bank in my community was a very small bank. Forever and ever and ever the most profitable small bank in the United States for a long time and did a wonderful job.
(04:10:35)
Ms. Waters, you bring up the beef under lock and key. What about those flash mobs out there in California, who came into the drug stores and the jewelry stores and stole when our economy was at its best in this country? It isn't the economy. It isn't the affordability that makes people thieves. It's bad values on their part. So, I thank you both for coming today and bringing this good bill to us and I look forward to discussing it.
French Hill (04:11:15):
Madam Chair, may I?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:11:15):
Do you have something you'd like to add?
French Hill (04:11:16):
I'd like to add just because, a couple of things. That this bill is completely tailored to small banks. Just a few weeks ago on the House floor on the suspension calendar, we gave regulatory relief on the suspension calendar, 100% vote in this House by voice to tailor regulatory compliance for banks under $6 billion.
(04:11:44)
Of the 5,000 banks in this country, probably 4,500 of them are under $6 billion, and it's precisely that theme that is in this bill. So, first of all, this bill is absolutely written and tailored to small community banks, both rural and urban. And if it's not, then why did the Opportunity Finance Network all across the country represent 500 community development lenders?
(04:12:10)
What about the National Bankers Association of African American Banks? What about the CDFI coalition of urban, rural, and native communities nationwide, and the Community Development Bankers Association all support this bill strongly because it has that balance in it? And then this assertion that this is weakening consumer protection or consumer laws, nothing could be further from the case.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:12:37):
I don't believe that at all. I don't believe that assertion at all. I appreciate your speaking up. Would you like to get those in the record?
French Hill (04:12:47):
Well, I would just simply say that this bill in no way weakens consumer protection. The laws on safety and soundness, like if you want to stop a bank from unsafe or unsound activity, are fully able to be implemented in this statute. And the same for consumer compliance on fair housing, fair lending, equal opportunity, credit opportunity. All those laws are in place and fully implementable by our supervisors.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:13:16):
Well, without objection, I can insert those letters-
French Hill (04:13:19):
Yeah. Without objection-
Chairwoman Foxx (04:13:20):
... of support for this bill and for community banking.
Maxine Waters (04:13:26):
May I?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:13:26):
I know the community bankers in North Carolina and I know how good they are.
Maxine Waters (04:13:30):
Madam Chair, may I?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:13:31):
Well, I'm going to recognize Mr. Scott.
Maxine Waters (04:13:35):
Okay.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:13:35):
Ms. Water.
Mr. Scott (04:13:37):
Madam Chair, I appreciate the chair and the ranking member being here today. Mr. Hill, do you have any further comments on the bill? I know I'm from a small town, and regulatory relief with small banks I think is important.
French Hill (04:13:59):
Well, I ran one of those small banks before I was in Congress. I ran it successfully throughout the financial crisis. Our bank grew and was more profitable in the years of the financial crisis and following the financial crisis. But we were operated in very small rural counties, like 10,000 people in the county in the Mississippi Delta.
(04:14:18)
I know that I spent more time worried about the next compliance exam or hiring the next compliance officer than I did than hiring the next loan officer, because of the one size fits all approach on consumer compliance and safety and soundness laws. And what we do here is without compromising compliance or compromising safety and soundness. We tailor it to the business mission, size, and complexity of the institution.
(04:14:46)
I think this will really help, particularly small rural institutions. I was just in the Chairwoman's state earlier today with a group of small banks from around North Carolina, and they explained to me how they thought this would benefit them specifically in that regard. And if they are better off, then their customers are better off.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:15:06):
That's exactly right.
French Hill (04:15:08):
Yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. Scott (04:15:09):
I don't do much banking anymore, unfortunately, but I look forward to the day when I'm back in business and banking again. And I look forward to walking into a small community bank where they know me and I know them, and I'm not just a number like you are with a Bank of America or one of those big boys.
French Hill (04:15:26):
You've raised a good point there, because I mentioned at the top that six out of 10 home construction loans are made by banks under 10 billion. If you ask the biggest banks in the country, what is your home construction portfolio in Arkansas? And the answer will be none. We don't do that business.
Mr. Scott (04:15:44):
Ag is what?
French Hill (04:15:44):
And the pandemic exposed that the biggest banks, like Bank of America or other, I'm not picking on Bank of Americas, but the largest five to 10 banks, have a credit requirement and a credit box that doesn't facilitate reaching out to a lot of small, rural, entrepreneurial, or local farm, or local businesses. And that's why our Main Street banks are essential.
(04:16:06)
We don't want to be Canada with four banks. We want to have a diverse in size and diverse in location financial system. This bank, this bill, the Main Street Bill will aid Main Street, not Wall Street and help achieve that.
Mr. Scott (04:16:20):
I know BB&T and SunTrust weren't necessarily your hometown community bank, but they originated that way and bought them. And the bigger they get, the less important you are to them and the less customer service you get out of them.
(04:16:35)
And so I'll just tell you, the small banks are the ones that I very much want to make sure we're taking care of. And I trust you, Chairman Hill, to do that. And competition is good for the marketplace because that's where customer service will succeed. With that, Madam Chair, I yield.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:16:53):
Thank you very much. I thank our witnesses for being here. We have no other members here to ask questions. So, thank you all very much for patiently waiting.
French Hill (04:17:07):
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:17:07):
And appreciate your being here. I need a statement about... No. Okay.
Speaker 6 (04:17:13):
We go to amendments now.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:17:35):
I now welcome Ms. Spartz, Mr. Magaziner and Mr. Davidson. Ms. Spartz, you may submit your written testimony and we ask you to keep your remarks to five minutes. Yeah, pull it close to you.
Ms. Spartz (04:18:05):
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to explain why I did this amendment. Actually, there's and issue that came to my attention last week. It was on the floor when we had discussion about Take Care of America's Veterans Act, and there was a lot of confusion.
(04:18:23)
So, a variety of ways to look at how we want to make sure is that we going to fund the benefits for people when we go to send them to wars, we're going to send them in the military. There was some concerns to be able to fund the Richard Star Act that we would codify some of the VA actions that potentially could cut benefits for future veterans and current militaries. So, I think to be fair, I think we need to make sure that if we send people to war, we're going to fund the benefits for them including the current military.
(04:18:59)
So, I think there is a better solution. I think it should be bipartisan issue. And Major Richards, I think most probably committee familiar what this act is. So, it's fixes in some way a loophole. If you are in the military and you're medically discharged to your combat related military, you are not there for 20 years. So, you cannot get full military retirement and full VA disabilities offset. But ultimately, if you got injured in combat, you probably couldn't stay for 20 years.
(04:19:30)
So, I think it's fair for those people who actually get these injuries that they can get both. I think this act, which is, I think the fiscal of this act about 9.4 billion, but this is germane to this reconciliation where we're going to be funding Department of War, and that's who is actually going to provide for military retirement, full military retirement pension. I think this shouldn't be a partisan issue. Representative Jeff Van Drew and Anna Paulina Luna sponsored this amendment. I really appreciate that. And I know that we're going to be dealing with some offsets later, which is fine, but with something could be dealing with this situation. And whatever VA does really, they can do some efficiencies. They can change some things. If they change something, there are some savings. It still goes to the bottom line to go to our national debt.
(04:20:27)
So, ultimately, VA is going to be saving something, 20 billion, 19 billion roughly. So, we'll still be 10 billions of savings if we just fund this particular act, because these people truly deserve to have full pay through retirement, pension, and compensation. So, I think my amendment is very simple. It just increases that what CBO score said. It costs us 9.4 billion to be able to treat our veterans and militarily fairly.
(04:20:54)
And this is just adds to the reconciliation as a separate amendment, and seems like it should be not even a partisan issue. I'd appreciate your support. And in the long run, I think it will also might even be able to save us money. But regardless what it is, if we send people to war, we should fund the benefits when they come back. We have a lot of heroic people serving in the military in tough situations and we, as a country, should appreciate that.
(04:21:21)
And I believe there's a best and brightest of our countries that save our republic, fight for our republic. So, I would appreciate bipartisan support of this amendment and happy to answer any questions. Yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:21:33):
Thank you. Mr. Magaziner.
Chairperson Steil (04:21:39):
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I come before you tonight disappointed, but not surprised. I came to Congress to fight corruption, to stop bribes, to get dark money out of our elections, to ban members of Congress from profiting off their positions by trading on inside information. And for a brief moment, I thought we might actually get it done this year.
(04:22:04)
I worked with a bipartisan group of Republican and Democratic members, including Mr. Roy, my co-lead, to write a strong bill to ban stock trading in Congress once and for all. We introduced our bipartisan bill, the Restore Trust in Congress Act, with strong support from both sides of the aisle and the support of the American people, who are disgusted by the corruption in Washington.
(04:22:32)
But instead of letting us vote on that bill, the Republican majority is playing political games because they don't want change, because they want politicians to continue to get rich off of their positions.
(04:22:46)
So, let's get one thing straight. The so-called stock trading ban that the House Republicans are pushing today would still allow members of Congress to trade stocks, to sell unlimited amounts at any time with insider knowledge. Just like some former members sold stocks before the COVID-19 pandemic, because they knew what was coming before everybody else did. That would still be allowed under this bill that's being pushed to the floor today.
(04:23:16)
And under this bill, members would still be allowed to vote on healthcare policy knowing that they own a bunch of healthcare stocks. Would still be allowed to vote on defense policy, knowing that they own defense company stocks. On AI policy, knowing that they own the stocks of those same AI companies. This bill would do nothing to end the conflicts of interest in order to make Congress work for the American people and not just the insiders.
(04:23:42)
In addition, the Republican leadership has combined their bad bill with a completely unrelated and controversial bill about election administration. So, whatever you think about that issue, whatever you think about voter ID, the decision to combine the two into one bill rather than allow separate votes, shows that the Republican majority doesn't really want any of this to pass. It's just a political game to them.
(04:24:12)
So, I have introduced an amendment that will strike the language of this unserious, fake, reform bill that the Republican leadership has put in front of us, and replace it with the language from the bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act. A real ban on members of Congress owning and trading stocks with no gimmicks and no exceptions. The same exact bipartisan language that Mr. Roy and a lot of other Republican members came together with us to introduce last year.
(04:24:45)
That is the better bill because it actually bans stock trading as opposed to the one that the leadership is trying to jam through today, which does not, and everybody knows it.
(04:24:54)
But there's one other thing that we must do. When we got our bipartisan group together and we started working on the Restore Trust in Congress Act, there wasn't a lot of talk then about the president trading stocks. Because up until that point, President Trump, for all of his many faults, had not been an active stock trader while in office.
(04:25:18)
But over the past year, that has changed dramatically. So far, in 2026, and listen to this. So far, in 2026, President Trump has traded more stocks than every member of Congress combined based on the public filings. He bought Nvidia stock right before he lifted export controls on Nvidia chips. He bought and sold defense stocks when making decisions about the Iran war. He even bought stocks of the parent company of the UFC, right before the UFC fights on the White House lawn. No stock trading ban is complete if it doesn't also include the President of the United States.
(04:26:01)
So, in addition to fully banning stock trading in Congress, my amendment also will ban stock trading by the president, the vice president and the Supreme Court. Let's root out corruption everywhere. That is what the American people want and deserve for us to do. And I'll yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:26:19):
Thank you very much. Ms. Fedorchak, you're recognized.
Ms. Fedorchak (04:26:23):
Thank you Chairwoman Foxx and members of the committee. I appreciate Chairman Steil's leadership on this legislation and I support all the goals of this legislation. I have amendment before you that deals specifically and narrowly with some of the voter ID provisions in this bill.
(04:26:41)
I, like most Americans, believe that only eligible American citizens should vote in our elections. Requiring voters to present photo ID is a common sense way to do that. Americans deserve confidence that every legal vote is counted, and only legal votes are counted. My amendment fully supports that objective.
(04:27:04)
In fact, my amendment exists because North Dakota already meets, and in many respects, exceeds the legislation the election integrity standards this bill is designed to establish. North Dakota is the only state in the nation that does not require voter registration. Instead, for more than 70 years, we've relied on a different system that emphasizes continuous voter verification rather than voter registration. Because of that system, North Dakota is exempt from the National Voter Registration Act. Our system already requires voters to present photo ID before voting. It verifies citizenship and residency through official state records. Our Secretary of State continuously updates our voter eligibility using information on residency changes, deaths, and other eligibility records maintained by the state.
(04:27:57)
North Dakota has strong safeguards for absentee and mail-in voting. Voters must verify their identity before receiving and casting a ballot, and our election administrators maintain secure chain of custody procedures throughout the absentee ballot voting process. Our election laws also include accommodations that work well for tribal communities, while maintaining election integrity.
(04:28:22)
Simply put, North Dakota has developed a system that is tailored to our state, protects the integrity of our elections, and has worked successfully for decades. The concerns raised by our Secretary of State is not with the purpose of Chairman Steil's bill. We support its purpose. The concern is that the bill amends the Help America Vote Act in ways that assume every state has a voter registration system.
(04:28:49)
As currently drafted, portions of this bill expand requirements that are common practices for voter registration. This includes collection of social security numbers, use of military IDs, and voter affidavits and other procedures that simply don't exist in North Dakota. In the opinion of the Secretary of State of North Dakota, those changes would weaken North Dakota's election integrity by requiring us to move away from the system that already exceeds the objectives Congress is trying to achieve today.
(04:29:23)
My amendment is narrow. It does not weaken voter ID requirements. It does not weaken election integrity. It does not create a loophole. It simply preserves North Dakota's longstanding election system. We should avoid unintentionally replacing one of the strongest election integrity systems in the country with requirements that were never designed for a state without voter registration.
(04:29:46)
I respectfully ask the committee to make my amendment an order. Thank you. I yield back and look forward to your questions.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:29:53):
Thank you, Mr. Fedorchak. Mr. Davidson, you're recognized.
Mr. Davidson (04:29:59):
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thanks to the Rules Committee for the work you do here. We have a number of bills that comprise consideration as part of this rule. So, I will once again plead that we fix a problem, an unconstitutional and ineffective surveillance tool called the Corporate Transparency Act. Democrats installed it in the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. And for some reason, Republicans want to unilaterally disarm and not include even the ability to consider this as an amendment.
(04:30:32)
Whereas, Democrats put it into the base text, wouldn't allow amendments, and forced it into law. They've done rulemaking that made a bad law even worse in practice, but thankfully the Trump administration has a rule in place that minimizes that impact. The bill I've got that relates to this has 193 co-sponsors. This is broadly supported and it locks in what the administration is doing, but it makes it law. So, I plead with the committee, please make this an order and ideally just incorporate it into the base text. I think that would be a better way to do it.
(04:31:08)
We're also talking about budget reconciliation again. And look, reconciliation is an important tool. We are in the House, I think, uniformly frustrated by the Senate at times, but we're requesting $95 billion on offset. One of the tools in budget reconciliation is to do just that. One of the points of the Budget Reconciliation Act is to pay for our spending.
(04:31:34)
Sound money is essential to defending freedom. We don't currently have sound money. And since we don't have sound money, we must cut spending and grow revenue. Since we aren't cutting spending, we should at least prioritize our spending, so that we avoid increases that outpace our revenue growth. And while our revenue growth is strong, our spending is growing even faster.
(04:31:58)
So, I'd ask unanimous consent to submit this for the record. This is just a summary of that.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:32:05):
Without objection.
Mr. Davidson (04:32:07):
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. But look, there are easy ways to save money. Conservative groups have provided them for us. We debated them through Reconciliation One, Reconciliation Two. The Republican study committees consolidated them and various other colleagues have worked on this for years. So, I have four amendments.
(04:32:30)
One would save $4 trillion on the 10-year budget scoring window, and I don't think that's incredibly hard to do. I think importantly, look, this is a budget window that because of our rules, we lay out a 10-year window. Well, what happens inside that 10-year window?
(04:32:47)
In 2032, the Social Security Trust Fund quits working, which is the payroll taxes that are collected become insufficient to cover the payouts. And under current law as scored in our budget and all of our CBO scores that go from 2032 and beyond, they assume under current law that we're going to cut spending on social security by 20%.
(04:33:09)
Now, I don't believe a future Congress is going to do that, but I think it's irresponsible for us to put a budget out that pretends that that would even happen. So, this first amendment creates a mandate that all savings, all of the savings that we get from budget reconciliation would go into that Social Security Fund, because it protects it. Bad news doesn't get better with time. Kicking the can down the road isn't going to make this easier to solve down the road.
(04:33:33)
We should protect Social Security. And I think this would be a good way to do both things. I've got a related proposal, separate amendment, $2.6 trillion. I got a different one that's a little easier that's $1.25 trillion. And since we're only asking for $95 billion worth of new debt, I got one that would save $95 billion, but it would lock it in every stinking year.
(04:33:55)
Look, we're bankrupt in our country. It's not compassionate to bankrupt the country. $5 footlongs are $12. Houses have gone up 80%, and payroll wages have not gone up like that. And it's because we're spending too much money. So, regardless of how important it is, we fought last week over a Veteran's Bill. Caring for our veterans is a first order priority. But because of the rules of the House and common sense, we found pay-fors.
(04:34:23)
Now, the pay-fors created a debate here and people though maybe we could find better pay-fors, but the principle was we're going to pay for it. But you're telling me this new $95 billion request we don't have to pay for? I'm offended. Now, lastly, we're talking about a bill that deals with insider trading. And I do object to calling it insider trading, Stop Insider Trading Act because insider trading is already illegal. And so I think we're confusing people. Insider trading is already a crime.
(04:34:53)
But you do get access to a lot of information in Congress. I think the ethics rules already steer people to do the right thing. But passing this law makes sense, but it should make sense for the executive branch and the judiciary branch too. So, I have an amendment that would apply this equally to all SES employees and above in the executive branch. So, that would include cabinet secretaries, all elected officials in the executive branch. It would include the judiciary branch as well.
(04:35:18)
So, I'd plead with you to make all of my amendments an order. Let's give us a chance to represent the people that sent us here to represent them, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:35:27):
Thank you, Mr. Davidson. Does any member on our side have any questions? Mr. McGovern.
Jim McGovern (04:35:37):
Just briefly. Mr. Davidson, we objected to your veterans bill because you cut veterans' benefits to pay for other veterans' benefits. But if you're going to pay for a veteran's benefits, then you ought to pay for the war and this doesn't do that.
(04:35:52)
And Ms. Spartz, I asked Chairman Arrington here, I have an amendment similar to yours on the Richard Star Act, whether he'd be open to allowing us to make that an order. And I got a blank stare. So, I don't know whether he was having a moment or whether he was just trying not to answer the question. But I would hope that if your amendment gets blocked, that you will sign the discharge petition, because otherwise I don't see how we're ever going to get a vote on it. So, I hope that you'll sign the discharge petition if they block your amendment. Otherwise, this is all talk.
(04:36:23)
And Mr. Magaziner and Ms. Fedorchak, just so you know, when Chairman Steil came up to testify, he wrote a letter that's a little different than a lot of other chair who request rules. They usually request an appropriate rule, but he was pretty clear. He wants a totally closed rule to govern this issue. And I understand why, because they don't want to expand there and make more effective the Stop Insider Trading Act.
(04:36:58)
And I don't know what the problem is with North Dakota, but the point of the matter is we'll see what happens. But he specifically asked for a totally closed rule.
Ms. Spartz (04:37:11):
To clarify, I just want to make sure that we know, we can try to fund a lot of things, and I think the version that you have on discharge petition is roughly $90 billion. So, let's just find 9 billion to fund. It's 10 times more. Let's just find 9 billion to fund.
Jim McGovern (04:37:26):
Not what I asked for-
Ms. Spartz (04:37:27):
What I'm just saying-
Jim McGovern (04:37:27):
Make your amendment [inaudible 04:37:28]
Ms. Spartz (04:37:28):
No, I'm just saying, let's just find... What I'm just saying, let's find nine billion to truly deal with an issue of combat veterans, not expand on that.
Jim McGovern (04:37:37):
But if they don't make your amendment an order, you sing the discharge petition.
Ms. Spartz (04:37:39):
So, would you do some of it as a lower amount or not? Not 90 billion. 90 billion is a lot.
Jim McGovern (04:37:44):
That's unfortunate. The veterans will be very disappointed.
Ms. Spartz (04:37:46):
No, we do. No, I think we need to do it. We need to fund something, not more things.
Jim McGovern (04:37:49):
It sounds like the answer is no.
Ms. Spartz (04:37:53):
Well, your bill is too broad. We need to truly deal with an issue. We need to deal, not do more and more. So, I think this is a bill. So, will you support this on the floor, this version?
Jim McGovern (04:38:02):
The veterans are very disappointed.
Ms. Spartz (04:38:04):
No. They're very disappointed because it seems like you don't want to support this amendment. You want to have more stuff. So, would you support this amendment, Ranking Member? Would you support this 9.4 billion amendment?
Jim McGovern (04:38:15):
I have an amendment to make the Richard Star Act an order.
Ms. Spartz (04:38:18):
So, you only support Democrat amendments, you don't support Republican amendments.
Jim McGovern (04:38:21):
No, but I mean-
Ms. Spartz (04:38:22):
Seems like we should be bipartisan on this issue.
Jim McGovern (04:38:24):
Excuse me. Your party is in charge of this Congress and in charge of this committee. If your amendment is not made an order, it is not because four Democrats didn't vote for it. It is because all of these Republicans voted against it. So, that's the issue. And all I'm saying to you is if they don't make your amendment an order, will you sign the discharge petition so we can have a vote? And I think your answer is no. And that's all I wanted to know. Thank you.
Ms. Spartz (04:38:47):
Well, you have a different legislation on that petition. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, but hopefully you can support if it's an order.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:38:55):
Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon (04:38:56):
Thank you. I do want to thank the representative from North Dakota for bringing forward the fact that our elections are constitutionally run by the states. And the fact that there's some issues with the legislation that's being pressed here, and how it would be implemented in the states, I think is really telling Mr. Magaziner.
(04:39:17)
I hope that your amendment is made an order. I certainly will be voting for it myself, but you seem to have a fair amount of... You mentioned there was a lot of bipartisan support and that's including among members of the Rules Committee. So, hopefully they will follow what they've already sponsored.
Chairperson Steil (04:39:36):
Yeah, no, that's right. Thank you. And again, when we introduced the Restore Trust in Congress Act last year, it was with broad bipartisan support, including by at least one of the Republican members of the Rules Committee.
(04:39:46)
I think to Ranking Member McGovern's point, the reason that Chairman Steil doesn't want an open rule is because he knows that there is broad support in both parties for including the President and Vice President and Supreme Court, for having a real stock trading ban that actually bans stock trading and doesn't just for-
Seth Magaziner (04:40:00):
... [inaudible 04:40:00] a real stock trading ban that actually bans stock trading and doesn't just pretend to. And so, if we can open this up, then I think you'll find broad support on both sides, and of course the American people as well.
Ms. Scanlon (04:40:11):
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:40:14):
Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernández.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (04:40:17):
Thank you for your amendments. We made many of the same points you did, Representative Davidson, of where they're willing to rack up the debt again, and we don't really see them willing to raise revenue. And so, we're going to have some amendments suggesting that there are ways to raise revenue to pay for what they want to do. And I think it's like a half stock trading ban, it's not really a trading ban. And earlier today, Chairman Steil said, "No, it's enough to just require disclosure of sales." But that's not a ban, is it, Representative-
Seth Magaziner (04:40:50):
Well, we've had disclosure for over a decade and it hasn't fixed the problem, all it's done is shown that there is a big problem. And again, under this so-called stock trading ban, that's not a stock trading ban, members could still sell any amount, at any time, on any inside information, and can still hold as much stock as they want while they're voting on the regulations and the laws for those same industries. So, there'll still be a tremendous conflict of interest. And, of course, it does nothing to address the trader-in-chief right now, who is the president, who's traded more than every member of Congress combined this year.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (04:41:24):
Outrageous and corruption action, and thank you for your amendment. And with that, Madam Chair, thank you all for coming forward and explaining your amendment, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:41:35):
Thank you. Ms. Fedorchak, did you have some other comment you wish to make?
Julie Fedorchak (04:41:41):
No, I just wanted to emphasize that the amendment I'm seeking is very narrow, and it recognizes that North Dakota already meets and exceeds the standards that we're trying to create for the rest of the country, of which I strongly support.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:41:56):
Thank you.
Jim McGovern (04:41:57):
Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:41:57):
[inaudible 04:42:09].
Jim McGovern (04:42:09):
Madam Chair? May I ask unanimous consent to assert on the record written testimony from Representative Courtney in support of his amendment, number 878, to H.R. 8800, which would authorize 610 million for the construction of up to two medium landing ships by reducing funds authorized for the one big battleship program by 610 million?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:42:30):
Without objection. Is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith.
Morgan Griffith (04:42:48):
Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H.R. 8800, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027 a structured rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services or the respective designees. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment, the nature of substitute recommended by the committee on armed services now printed in the bill and amendment the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-33 shall be considered as adopted, and the bill as amended shall be considered as read.
(04:43:23)
The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule makes an order only those amendments printed in part A of the Rules Committee Report. Amendments en bloc, described in Section 3, and pro forma amendments described in Section 4. Each amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent shall not be subject to amendment exceptions provided by Section 4 of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part A of the Rules Committee Report or amendments en bloc described in Section 3 of the rule. The rule provides that the chair of the committee on armed services or its designee may offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part A of the Rules Committee Report not early or disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services or their respective designees. Shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by Section 4 of the rule, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question.
(04:44:39)
The rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8884, the Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act. Under a closed rule, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment, the nature of substitute recommended by the Committee of Ways and Means now printed in a bill and amendment, the nature of substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-34 shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read.
(04:45:18)
The rule waives all points of order against provisions and the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or the respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommend. The rule further provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 113, establishing the congressional budget for the United States government for fiscal year 2027, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2028 through 2036. Under a closed rule, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget or their respective designees. The rule provides that an amendment of the nature of substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-37 shall be considered as adopted and the concurrent resolution as amended shall be considered as read.
(04:46:10)
The rule permits the chair of the committee on the budget to offer amendments in the House pursuant to Section 305A5 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 70008, the Stop Insider Trading Act under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment, the nature of substitute recommended by the committee on House administration now printed in the bill and amendment of the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-38, modified by the amendment printed in Part B of the Rules Committee Report shall be considered as adopted, and the bill as amended shall be considered as read.
(04:46:53)
The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on House administration or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 6955, the Main Street Capital Access Act under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment, the nature of substitute recommended by the committee on financial services now printed in the bill and amendment of the nature of substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-35 shall be considered as adopted, and the bill as amended shall be considered as read.
(04:47:32)
The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. Rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 9770, the Continuing Appropriations Act 2027 under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the bill should be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking of minority member of the committee on appropriations or the respective designees.
(04:48:10)
The rule provides one motion to recommit. Finally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 8800, the clerk shall add the text of Senate 1383 as passed by the House as new matter at the end of H.R. 8800. Assign appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment, conform cross references and provisions for short titles within the engrossment and be authorized to make technical corrections to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, page and line numbering, section numbering, and insertion of appropriate headings. And I so move.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:48:50):
Thank you very much, Mr. Griffith. Is there-
Jim McGovern (04:48:57):
Amendment, yeah.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:48:59):
Yeah, sorry. Is there any discussion on the motion from the gentleman from Virginia?
Jim McGovern (04:49:05):
Yeah. Madam Chair, we have several amendments, we're going to try to be quick, but six bills and one rule is an awful lot. But I have an amendment to the rule, I move the committee make an order amendment number 19, to H. Con. Res. 113, offered by myself, which would add budget reconciliation instructions requiring the House Committee on Armed Services to submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase direct spending by no less than $13 billion out of the $60 billion that Republicans allocated for the Department of Defense, for the purpose of adding the Major Richard Star Act to the reconciliation bill. Republicans gave DOD $150 billion last July, they haven't used half of it.
(04:49:40)
Now, they want to send another $60 billion for the war, again without paying for it. But when it comes to helping combat wounded veterans, Republicans assist on cutting benefits to other disabled veterans and raising VA home loan fees. That's BS, and that's why your bill was pulled from the House floor last week. I urge a yes vote on my motion, and I yield back, and I'm going to ask for a recorded vote.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:50:02):
You've heard the motion from Mr. McGovern, is there any further discussion? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (04:50:13):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:50:14):
Those opposed say no.
Group (04:50:15):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:50:15):
No. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it.
Jim McGovern (04:50:18):
[inaudible 04:50:18] recorded vote.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:50:19):
The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (04:50:20):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (04:50:22):
No.
Clerk (04:50:22):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (04:50:23):
No.
Clerk (04:50:23):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin? Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (04:50:25):
No.
Clerk (04:50:26):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (04:50:27):
No.
Clerk (04:50:27):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (04:50:28):
No.
Clerk (04:50:29):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (04:50:30):
No.
Clerk (04:50:30):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (04:50:32):
Aye.
Clerk (04:50:32):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (04:50:33):
Aye.
Clerk (04:50:34):
Ms. Scanlon, Aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (04:50:35):
Aye.
Clerk (04:50:35):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (04:50:36):
Aye.
Clerk (04:50:37):
Ms. Leger Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:50:39):
No.
Clerk (04:50:39):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:50:40):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (04:50:42):
4 yays, seven nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:50:44):
The nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to. Further discussion.
Jim McGovern (04:50:48):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment number 17 to H. Con. Res. 113, offered by myself, which would add budget reconciliation instructions requiring the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide $60 billion for natural disaster recovery efforts. Communities across the country have been devastated by natural disasters, this budget resolution includes no money to help them recover, rebuild. If we're going to spend $60 billion more for Trump's war, we should spend the same amount helping people across the US who have lost their loved ones, friends and homes, farms, and businesses due to natural disasters. I urge a yes vote on my motion, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:51:26):
Is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (04:51:33):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:51:35):
Those opposed say no.
Group (04:51:36):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:51:37):
In the opinion of the chair the nos have it.
Jim McGovern (04:51:37):
I ask for roll call.
Group (04:51:39):
The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (04:51:41):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (04:51:41):
No.
Clerk (04:51:42):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (04:51:43):
No.
Clerk (04:51:43):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin? Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (04:51:45):
No.
Clerk (04:51:46):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (04:51:47):
No.
Clerk (04:51:48):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (04:51:49):
No.
Clerk (04:51:49):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (04:51:50):
No.
Clerk (04:51:51):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (04:51:52):
Aye.
Clerk (04:51:52):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (04:51:54):
Aye.
Clerk (04:51:54):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (04:51:54):
Aye.
Clerk (04:51:55):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (04:51:57):
Aye.
Clerk (04:51:57):
Ms. Leger Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:51:58):
No.
Clerk (04:51:59):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:52:00):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (04:52:01):
4 yays, seven nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:52:03):
The nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to.
Jim McGovern (04:52:05):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order, amendment number 20 to H. Con. Res. 113 offered by myself, which would create a point of order requiring that any reconciliation bill resulting from the Republican's fiscal year 2027 budget resolution must be fully offset or paid for and must not increase the deficit, and I would urge a yes vote on this.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:52:26):
Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (04:52:33):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:52:34):
Those opposed say no.
Group (04:52:35):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:52:36):
In the opinion [inaudible 04:52:37]-
Jim McGovern (04:52:36):
I ask for roll call, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:52:38):
The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (04:52:40):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (04:52:40):
No.
Clerk (04:52:41):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (04:52:42):
No.
Clerk (04:52:42):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin? Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (04:52:44):
No.
Clerk (04:52:45):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (04:52:46):
No.
Clerk (04:52:47):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (04:52:48):
No.
Clerk (04:52:48):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (04:52:49):
No.
Clerk (04:52:50):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (04:52:51):
Aye.
Clerk (04:52:51):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (04:52:53):
Aye.
Clerk (04:52:53):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (04:52:54):
Aye.
Clerk (04:52:54):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (04:52:56):
Aye.
Clerk (04:52:56):
Ms. Leger Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:52:57):
No.
Clerk (04:52:58):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:52:59):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (04:53:00):
Four yays, seven nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:53:02):
The nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to.
Jim McGovern (04:53:04):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment number one, to H. Con. Res. 113, offered by Representative Omar, which would reverse the cuts to SNAP that were imposed by Republicans in their Big Ugly Bill. Because of the Big Ugly Bill, Republicans enacted last year, over four million Americans have lost their food benefits, including one million kids. All to give massive tax breaks to Jeff Bezos and other billionaires. And the bill, the cuts haven't even been fully implemented yet, so I'd urge a yes vote on this to reverse these terrible cuts.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:53:34):
Any further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern?
Jodey Arrington (04:53:38):
Just a reminder that... Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:53:39):
[inaudible 04:53:41].
Jodey Arrington (04:53:40):
Just a reminder that anybody under the age of 18 or over the age of 64, 65 and over, or anybody who is medically or psychologically disabled and unable to work was exempt from the work requirements in our bill.
Jim McGovern (04:53:52):
Yeah, but they're not exempt from losing their benefits, and many of them are as we speak.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:54:00):
Is there further discussion? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (04:54:06):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:54:07):
Those opposed, no.
Group (04:54:09):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:54:09):
In the opinion of the chair the nos have it.
Jim McGovern (04:54:10):
I ask for roll call, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:54:12):
The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (04:54:13):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (04:54:13):
No.
Clerk (04:54:14):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (04:54:15):
No.
Clerk (04:54:15):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin? Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (04:54:18):
No.
Clerk (04:54:19):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (04:54:20):
No.
Clerk (04:54:21):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (04:54:21):
No.
Clerk (04:54:22):
Mr. Griffin, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (04:54:23):
No.
Clerk (04:54:24):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (04:54:25):
Aye.
Clerk (04:54:25):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (04:54:27):
Aye.
Clerk (04:54:27):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (04:54:29):
Aye.
Clerk (04:54:29):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (04:54:31):
Aye.
Clerk (04:54:31):
Ms. Leger Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:54:32):
No.
Clerk (04:54:33):
Madam chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:54:34):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (04:54:35):
4 yays, seven nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:54:36):
The nos have it.
Jim McGovern (04:54:37):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order of amendments number nine, to H. Con. Res. 113 offered by Representative Tonko, which would add a section to the budget resolution requiring that no taxpayer funds could be given by the Trump administration to people who were convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers on January 6th, 2021. Madam Chair, this fund's a disgrace, people who assaulted police officers should not be given compensation for doing so. Last week, Acting Attorney General Blanche testified the fund was dead, but Senator Cornyn, during his questioning, raised continued concerns that the administration has yet to commit to that in writing. So, I ask that this amendment be made in order so we can debate and vote on it.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:55:18):
Is there any further discussion on Mr. McGovern's amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (04:55:26):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:55:27):
Those opposed say no.
Group (04:55:28):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:55:30):
The opinion of the chair the no-
Jim McGovern (04:55:31):
I ask for roll call.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:55:32):
Clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (04:55:33):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (04:55:34):
No.
Clerk (04:55:34):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (04:55:35):
No.
Clerk (04:55:36):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin? Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (04:55:38):
No.
Clerk (04:55:39):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (04:55:40):
No.
Clerk (04:55:40):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (04:55:41):
No.
Clerk (04:55:42):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (04:55:43):
No.
Clerk (04:55:43):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (04:55:45):
Aye.
Clerk (04:55:45):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (04:55:46):
Aye.
Clerk (04:55:46):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (04:55:50):
Aye.
Clerk (04:55:50):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (04:55:50):
Aye.
Clerk (04:55:51):
Ms. Leger Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:55:51):
No.
Clerk (04:55:52):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:55:53):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (04:55:54):
4 yays, seven nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:55:56):
The nos have it-
Jim McGovern (04:55:58):
We have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make order of amendment number 14, to H.R. 7008 offered by Representative Olszewski, which restores grants to states that require photo IDs without charge to eligible voters.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:56:14):
Is there any further discussion to the amendment from Mr. McGovern? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (04:56:22):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:56:23):
Those opposed say no.
Group (04:56:25):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:56:26):
In the opinion of the chair the nos have it, the amendment-
Jim McGovern (04:56:28):
I ask for roll call, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:56:29):
Clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (04:56:30):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (04:56:31):
No.
Clerk (04:56:31):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (04:56:32):
No.
Clerk (04:56:33):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin? Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (04:56:36):
No.
Clerk (04:56:36):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (04:56:38):
No.
Clerk (04:56:38):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (04:56:39):
No.
Clerk (04:56:40):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (04:56:41):
No.
Clerk (04:56:42):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (04:56:43):
Aye.
Clerk (04:56:43):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (04:56:45):
Aye.
Clerk (04:56:45):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (04:56:46):
Aye.
Clerk (04:56:48):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (04:56:49):
Aye.
Clerk (04:56:49):
Ms. Leger Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:56:50):
No.
Clerk (04:56:51):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:56:52):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (04:56:54):
4 yays, seven nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:56:57):
The nos have it. The amendment's not agreed to.
Jim McGovern (04:56:57):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment number 15 to H.R. 7008, offered by Representative Davidson, which extends the stock trading restrictions the bill creates to judicial officers as well as all senior executive service positions and above, including the president, the vice president, and any cabinet secretary and any political appointee. I just say if Republicans won't work with us to get a stock trading ban bill that is bipartisan and comprehensive, at least you can make an order and amendment from one of your own members to expand the restrictions in this bill to include senior administration officials and judicial officers.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:57:32):
Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (04:57:39):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:57:40):
Those opposed say no.
Group (04:57:41):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:57:42):
In the opinion of the chair the nos have it.
Jim McGovern (04:57:44):
I ask for roll call, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:57:45):
The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (04:57:47):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (04:57:48):
No.
Clerk (04:57:48):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (04:57:48):
No.
Clerk (04:57:49):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Erin Houchin (04:57:51):
No.
Clerk (04:57:52):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (04:57:53):
No.
Clerk (04:57:53):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (04:57:54):
No.
Clerk (04:57:55):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (04:57:56):
No.
Clerk (04:57:57):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (04:57:58):
No.
Clerk (04:57:58):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (04:58:00):
Aye.
Clerk (04:58:00):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (04:58:01):
Aye.
Clerk (04:58:01):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (04:58:04):
Aye.
Clerk (04:58:04):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (04:58:04):
Aye.
Clerk (04:58:05):
Ms. Leger Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:58:06):
No.
Clerk (04:58:07):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:58:08):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (04:58:10):
Four yays, eight nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:58:12):
The nos have it. The amendment's not agreed to.
Jim McGovern (04:58:14):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order in amendment number 232 to H.R. 8800 offered by Representative Barrett, which repeals the 1957 AUMF.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:58:27):
You've heard, any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (04:58:37):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:58:37):
Those opposed say no.
Group (04:58:38):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:58:39):
No. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it.
Jim McGovern (04:58:42):
I ask for roll call.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:58:42):
The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (04:58:45):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (04:58:46):
No.
Clerk (04:58:46):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (04:58:47):
No.
Clerk (04:58:47):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Erin Houchin (04:58:49):
No.
Clerk (04:58:50):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (04:58:50):
No.
Clerk (04:58:51):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (04:58:52):
No.
Clerk (04:58:53):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (04:58:58):
No.
Clerk (04:58:59):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (04:59:00):
No.
Clerk (04:59:01):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (04:59:03):
Aye.
Clerk (04:59:03):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (04:59:04):
Aye.
Clerk (04:59:04):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (04:59:05):
Aye.
Clerk (04:59:06):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (04:59:07):
Aye.
Clerk (04:59:09):
Mr. Leger Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (04:59:09):
No.
Clerk (04:59:10):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:59:11):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (04:59:13):
Four yays, eight nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (04:59:14):
The nos have it. The amendment's [inaudible 04:59:17]. Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon (04:59:17):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment 10 to H. Con. Res. 113, offered by myself, which would add budget reconciliation instructions requiring the House Committee on Education Workforce to submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction to provide $10 billion to lower Americans' childcare costs by increasing funding for Childcare and Development Block Grants. Americans are struggling with the cost of living, this Republican budget resolution would add nearly 100 billion in new spending, but without a dollar devoted to addressing the cost of living crisis. My amendment would help more families afford childcare, allow parents to stay in the workforce, and strengthen our economy by making it easier for Americans to raise a family. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:00:04):
Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (05:00:10):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:00:11):
Those opposed say no.
Group (05:00:13):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:00:13):
No.
Ms. Scanlon (05:00:13):
I'd ask for a roll call-
Chairwoman Foxx (05:00:14):
In the opinion of the chair the nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to.
Ms. Scanlon (05:00:18):
I'd ask for a roll call.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:00:19):
The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (05:00:20):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (05:00:21):
No.
Clerk (05:00:22):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (05:00:23):
No.
Clerk (05:00:23):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Erin Houchin (05:00:25):
No.
Clerk (05:00:26):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (05:00:26):
No.
Clerk (05:00:27):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:00:28):
No.
Clerk (05:00:29):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (05:00:30):
No.
Clerk (05:00:30):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (05:00:31):
No.
Clerk (05:00:32):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:00:33):
Aye.
Clerk (05:00:33):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:00:34):
Aye. Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:00:38):
Aye.
Jim McGovern (05:00:38):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (05:00:39):
Aye.
Jim McGovern (05:00:39):
Ms. Leger Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (05:00:39):
No.
Clerk (05:00:40):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:00:42):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:00:44):
Four yays, eight nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:00:44):
And the nos have it, the amendments don't agree to it. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.
Ms. Scanlon (05:00:48):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee making order amendment 11 to H. Con. Res. 113, offered by myself, which would add budget reconciliation instructions requiring the House Committee on Financial Services to submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction, and provide $10 billion for the purposes of lowering Americans' rent and housing costs by increasing funding for the Home Investment Partnership Program and Community Development Block Grants. I'm disappointed that our Republican colleagues voted against lowering costs of childcare for American families, but since you rejected that opportunity, let's try another approach and address the housing costs that are stretching family budgets to the breaking point. We've seen what bipartisan collaboration can do to bring about positive change in the housing space, so I propose an amendment to do the same here. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:01:40):
Thank you. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (05:01:47):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:01:48):
Those opposed say no.
Group (05:01:49):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:01:50):
No. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to. Ms. Scanlon requests roll call, the clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (05:01:56):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (05:01:57):
No.
Clerk (05:01:57):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (05:01:58):
No.
Clerk (05:01:58):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Erin Houchin (05:02:01):
No.
Clerk (05:02:01):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (05:02:02):
No.
Clerk (05:02:03):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:02:04):
No.
Clerk (05:02:04):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (05:02:07):
No.
Clerk (05:02:07):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (05:02:07):
No.
Clerk (05:02:08):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:02:09):
Aye.
Clerk (05:02:09):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:02:10):
Aye.
Clerk (05:02:11):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:02:11):
Aye.
Clerk (05:02:12):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (05:02:14):
Aye.
Clerk (05:02:14):
Ms. Leger Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (05:02:16):
No.
Clerk (05:02:16):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:02:18):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:02:19):
Four yays, eight nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:02:21):
The nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.
Ms. Scanlon (05:02:24):
I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment number 12 to H. Con. Res. 113, offered by myself, which would add budget reconciliation instructions requiring the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to submit changes to provide $10 billion for purposes of lowering Americans' energy bills by increasing funding for the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. LIHEAP is incredibly important in my community, and I know the communities of many of the members here. Our Republican colleagues rejected an opportunity to lower costs for childcare than they rejected the opportunity to help families afford housing, so let's try to keep the lights on for Americans by providing additional LIHEAP funding. It's a lifeline for families, and I would urge a yes vote on my amendment. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:03:16):
Any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (05:03:23):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:03:24):
Those opposed say no.
Group (05:03:25):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:03:26):
No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it.
Ms. Scanlon (05:03:28):
I request a roll call.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:03:29):
Ms. Scanlon requests a roll call, the clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (05:03:31):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (05:03:34):
No.
Clerk (05:03:34):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (05:03:34):
No.
Clerk (05:03:35):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Erin Houchin (05:03:36):
No.
Clerk (05:03:37):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (05:03:37):
No.
Clerk (05:03:38):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:03:39):
No.
Clerk (05:03:40):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (05:03:41):
No.
Clerk (05:03:42):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (05:03:43):
No.
Clerk (05:03:43):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:03:45):
Aye.
Clerk (05:03:45):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:03:47):
Aye.
Clerk (05:03:47):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:03:47):
Aye.
Clerk (05:03:49):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (05:03:50):
Aye.
Clerk (05:03:50):
Ms. Leger-Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (05:03:52):
No.
Clerk (05:03:52):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:03:53):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:03:55):
Four yays, eight nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:03:56):
The nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized?
Ms. Scanlon (05:03:59):
I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment two, to H.R. 7008 offered by Representative Morelle. The amendment would strike the text and replace it with the text of H.R. 6731, the Restore Trusting Government Act, which bans congressional participation in prediction markets, and provides that eligible voters are able to cast a ballot using any number of acceptable forms of identification. We've already discussed these bills at length, but if we're going to... An overwhelming majority of Americans believe members of Congress shouldn't trade individual stocks, they feel similarly about the president, the vice president, the Supreme Court, if we're going to be serious about fighting corruption, we should pass this bill.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:04:46):
Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (05:04:54):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:04:55):
Those opposed say no.
Group (05:04:56):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:04:57):
No. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it. Amendment's not-
Group (05:04:57):
I ask for a roll call vote.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:05:01):
The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (05:05:02):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (05:05:03):
No.
Clerk (05:05:03):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (05:05:04):
No.
Clerk (05:05:05):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Erin Houchin (05:05:06):
No.
Clerk (05:05:07):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (05:05:08):
No.
Clerk (05:05:08):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:05:09):
No.
Clerk (05:05:10):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (05:05:11):
No.
Clerk (05:05:12):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (05:05:13):
No.
Clerk (05:05:13):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:05:15):
Aye.
Clerk (05:05:15):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:05:16):
Aye.
Clerk (05:05:16):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:05:17):
Aye.
Clerk (05:05:18):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (05:05:20):
Aye.
Clerk (05:05:21):
Ms. Leger Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (05:05:22):
No.
Clerk (05:05:23):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:05:24):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:05:25):
Four yays, eight nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:05:27):
Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.
Ms. Scanlon (05:05:29):
Thank you, I have one more amendment. I move the committee make an order amendment five, to H.R. 7008 offered, by Representative Magaziner, which strikes the text and replaces it with the text of H.R. 5106, the Restore Trust in Congress Act. And I have really high hopes for this one because it is co-sponsored by Representative Roy, several members of the committee here are co-sponsors of it, including Representatives Langworthy and Norman. This would strike the underlying bill, and while it doesn't extend to the president and vice president, it does what the bill before us fails to do, which is establish a comprehensive ban on members of Congress and their families owning and trading individual stocks. It's a real standard, and I think we definitely should be allowing Congress to vote on this, and instead of the sham bill that we have before us, I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:06:24):
Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (05:06:32):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:06:33):
Those opposed say no.
Group (05:06:33):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:06:34):
No. In the opinion chair the nos have it.
Ms. Scanlon (05:06:36):
I'd ask for a roll call vote.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:06:38):
The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (05:06:40):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (05:06:40):
No.
Clerk (05:06:42):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (05:06:42):
No.
Clerk (05:06:43):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Erin Houchin (05:06:44):
No.
Clerk (05:06:45):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (05:06:46):
No.
Clerk (05:06:46):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:06:47):
No.
Clerk (05:06:48):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (05:06:49):
No.
Clerk (05:06:50):
Mr. Griffith, No. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (05:06:50):
No.
Clerk (05:06:51):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:06:53):
Aye.
Clerk (05:06:53):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:06:54):
Aye.
Clerk (05:06:55):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:06:57):
Aye.
Clerk (05:06:57):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (05:06:58):
Aye.
Clerk (05:06:58):
Ms. Leger Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (05:07:00):
No.
Clerk (05:07:00):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:07:02):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:07:03):
Four yays, eight nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:07:04):
The nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (05:07:08):
Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:07:08):
Ms. Leger Fernández, you're recognized.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (05:07:10):
I have amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order to amendment number 13, to H. Con. Res. 113, offered by myself, which would add budget reconciliation instructions requiring Republicans to fully offset any deficit increase in their reconciliation bill by requiring wealthy individuals and large corporations to pay their fair share in taxes, which may include reversing or limiting some of the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations passed as part of the Republican's Big, Beautifully Ugly Bill, raising the corporate tax rate, imposing a minimum tax on billionaires, while closing loopholes used by the ultra-rich. You guys can work it out, but you should pay for what you want to spend. And with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:07:59):
Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (05:08:05):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:08:07):
Those opposed say no.
Group (05:08:08):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:08:09):
No. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it, the amendment is not agreed to. The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (05:08:10):
No.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (05:08:10):
No.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Erin Houchin (05:08:10):
No.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (05:08:10):
No.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:08:10):
No.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (05:08:10):
No.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (05:08:10):
No.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:08:10):
Aye.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:08:10):
Aye.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:08:10):
Aye.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (05:08:10):
Aye.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Ms. Leger Fernández, Aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (05:08:10):
No.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:08:10):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:08:10):
Four yays, eight nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:08:11):
The nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (05:08:31):
Madam Chair-
Chairwoman Foxx (05:08:32):
Ms. Leger Fernández.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (05:08:34):
I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee strikes Section 11 of the resolution, who provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 8800, the clerk shall add the text of the Save America Act as passed by the House. This is the Save America Act that Republicans keep adding to every single bill and now they want to put it on NDAA. Let's kill this zombie voter suppression effort once and for all. So, I suggest we strike that from the NDAA, allow the NDAA to move forward on its merits or not, and with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:09:23):
Is there a further discussion on the amendment from Ms. Leger Fernández? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (05:09:31):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:09:33):
Those opposed say no.
Group (05:09:34):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:09:35):
No. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to.
Ms. Leger Fernandez (05:09:38):
[inaudible 05:09:39].
Chairwoman Foxx (05:09:39):
Okay, the clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (05:09:41):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (05:09:42):
No.
Clerk (05:09:42):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (05:09:43):
No.
Clerk (05:09:44):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Erin Houchin (05:09:49):
No. No.
Clerk (05:09:49):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (05:09:49):
No.
Clerk (05:09:50):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:09:51):
No.
Clerk (05:09:52):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (05:09:53):
No.
Clerk (05:09:53):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (05:09:54):
No.
Clerk (05:09:57):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:09:58):
Aye.
Clerk (05:09:58):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:10:00):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:00):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:10:01):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:01):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (05:10:03):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:03):
Ms. Leger Fernández, aye. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (05:10:05):
No.
Clerk (05:10:05):
Madam Chair, no.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:10:06):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:10:08):
Four yays, eight nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:10:09):
The nos have it, the amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion or amendment? Hearing no further discussion, the questions on the motion from the gentleman from Virginia, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (05:10:24):
Aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:10:25):
Those opposed say no.
Group (05:10:26):
No.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:10:27):
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the motion is agreed to.
Jim McGovern (05:10:30):
Madam Chair, I ask for roll call.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:10:31):
The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (05:10:32):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Michelle Fischbach (05:10:33):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:33):
Mrs. Fischbach, aye. Mr. Norman?
Ralph Norman (05:10:35):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:35):
Mr. Norman, aye. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Erin Houchin (05:10:37):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:37):
Mrs. Houchin, aye. Mr. Langworthy?
Nick Langworthy (05:10:39):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:39):
Mr. Langworthy, aye. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:10:41):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:41):
Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Griffith?
Morgan Griffith (05:10:43):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:43):
Mr. Griffith, aye. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (05:10:44):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:45):
Mr. Jack, aye. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:10:46):
No.
Clerk (05:10:46):
Mr. McGovern, no. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:10:47):
No.
Clerk (05:10:48):
Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:10:49):
No.
Clerk (05:10:51):
Mr. Neguse, no. Ms. Leger Fernández?
Ms. Leger Fernandez (05:10:53):
No.
Clerk (05:10:53):
Ms. Leger Fernández, no. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Foxx (05:10:54):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:55):
Madam Chair, aye.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:10:56):
The clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:10:59):
Eight yays, four nays.
Chairwoman Foxx (05:10:59):
Ayes have it, the motion to report is agreed to, I'll be managing the rule for the majority.
Jim McGovern (05:11:04):
And me, me for the [inaudible 05:11:08].
Chairwoman Foxx (05:11:08):
The dynamic duo again. Without objection, the meeting is adjourned.
