▶ 0:05:55Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Before we begin, I want to take a moment to recognize ashley anderson, um, a member of the majority staff on the committee who will be leaving at the end of this month. Ashley started in congress in 2017 with martha mcsally. They went on to work for Mr.
▶ 0:06:16Reschenthaler miss miller-meeks, and then came to the rules committee as policy director for chairman burgess in 2024. Ashley, it's been a pleasure to work alongside you and will 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. Uh.
▶ 0:06:50Now we turn to the business before us. Today, the rules committee is convening to consider four measures h.r. 6955 h.r. 7008, h 113, and h.r. 9770. H.r.
▶ 0:07:076955, 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 midsize banks were unnecessarily subjected to a regulatory structure designed for large, complex financial institutions.
▶ 0:07:38This 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 ensures community lenders can focus on serving families, small businesses and local economies, making life more affordable for americans and empowering. Main street. H.r.
▶ 0:08:017008, 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.
▶ 0:08:28Further, should any infractions occur, the house ethics committee would issue a fee. 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.
▶ 0:08:57In 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 photo id to utilize the olive garden never ending pasta pass.
▶ 0:09:2580% 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. H 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.
▶ 0:09:50This 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 securing american elections, an issue that the american people remain very attuned to and support through and through, and supporting our
▶ 0:10:22Nation'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. Finally, we turn to h.r. 9770, the continuing resolution that would fully fund the federal government through december 4th of this year.
▶ 0:10:51The 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.
▶ 0:11:11We 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, providing a buffer to continue our article one duties of funding. The government is prudent, responsible and necessary. I note that democrats supported virtually all of the current funding levels for agencies.
▶ 0:11:38They should do so again to responsibly ensure that an unnecessary collapse in government functions will not occur this fall. Unfortunately, if past is prolog, 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.
▶ 0:12:05We 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. With that, I now yield to the ranking member for any comments he wishes to make. Speaker 2: well, thank you, madam chair, and let me begin by saying that I want to associate myself with your kind words about ashley's service to this committee.
▶ 0:12:33Um, and we wish her nothing but the best in her next chapter. Um, and, um, you know, the people who serve on the staff here in the rules committee work awfully long hours. Um, um, probably more than any other committee. Uh, and we don't thank them enough, but I wish you all the best, ashley. And now, uh, madam chair, there's a lot before us today, including two bills that we already considered three weeks ago.
▶ 0:12:58Uh, 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.
▶ 0:13:14First, a budget proposal that that includes 73 $3 billion for donald trump's new never ending war in iran that congress already voted to end a $12 billion band-aid for farmers who are 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.
▶ 0:13:41I don't know how many of you watched the 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. Uh, together, this budget framework outlines nearly $100 billion. That's billion with a b in funding with zero payfors even republicans know this thing is a dud.
▶ 0:14:07One republican said, and I quote, $95 billion in new deficit spending, no offsets and not one provision to lower the cost of living, end quote. 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. We also have before us the stop insider trading act.
▶ 0:14:36I 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 cash bets.
▶ 0:15:04I mean, the corruption is staggering. 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 partizan bill to make it harder for american citizens to vote in elections. But that's what they're doing.
▶ 0:15:34And 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. Uh, 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 republicans so-called main street capital access act. Lovely name.
▶ 0:16:01Wall street must have focus group that 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.
▶ 0:16:21Power is supposed to be about helping people, and instead this majority uses uses it to protect the president, to pay off the powerful, and to funnel more money into yet another endless war. The american people deserve a hell of a lot better, and I yield back my time. Speaker 1: thank you very much, Mr. mcgovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record.
▶ 0:16:48And 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. Chairman arrington, I welcome your testimony. Speaker 3: thank you, madam chair. Ranking member. Uh, I agree with Mr. mcgovern. The american people deserve better than what they've gotten for the last year and a half.
▶ 0:17:15But what they've gotten is a democrat party that I don't recognize in my ten years of service. Persistent, habitual, um, never ending obstruction to stop the president from succeeding in advancing the policies and the agenda.
▶ 0:17:39The american people overwhelmingly supported and voted for unilateral, uh, republican leadership in congress, uh, alongside of this president, uh, that has made it difficult to govern. What was unprecedented from my democrat colleagues is now par for the course.
▶ 0:18:02Exhibit 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.
▶ 0:18:21But 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 compromise solution. What was their reasoning?
▶ 0:18:35What was their counteroffer to repeal the 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.
▶ 0:19:04This 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, uh, 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.
▶ 0:19:34They 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 shot homeland security down, and then they defunded cbp. We had to turn it on unilaterally through reconciliation. We didn't get a single vote from democrats on that. But here we are.
▶ 0:20:00And 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 our food supply and safeguard the integrity of our elections. Madam chair.
▶ 0:20:25Um, the obstruction and resistance at all cost 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
▶ 0:20:56Prior 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.
▶ 0:21:21And I presume that the motivation is to placate the left wing socialist base of the party. I have no other answers. So, madam chair and members of the distinguished rules committee, I present to you. Uh. A reconciliation bill that will provide emergency funding for our sons and daughters.
▶ 0:21:48So they have baseline battlefield readiness, emergency funding to provide resilience and strength to our food supply that we all benefit from. And lastly, uh, again, uh, the consent of the governed and a functioning democracy requires integrity and confidence in elections.
▶ 0:22:11And 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 counsel. And I quote, our election was. There is no question congress has a duty to protect our democracy. Well, here's where I agree with her.
▶ 0:22:40We 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. Speaker 1: thank you very much, Mr. harrington. Mr. mcgarvey, you're recognized. Thank you. Welcome to the rules committee. Speaker 4: thank you, chairman fox.
▶ 0:23:10Thank you, ranking member mcgovern. Ashley, thank you for your service. Best of luck in your next chapter. Um, 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. You know, as a candidate, donald trump promised the american people two things I actually agreed with.
▶ 0:23:38He 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.
▶ 0:24:06Three 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.
▶ 0:24:26It is the president's incompetence that has made our world less safe and stable than the day that he started this war, 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 health care, and just about everything else. But here's the thing. It's not happening by accident. These aren't just broken promises.
▶ 0:24:53These are deliberate policy choices by the house republicans. 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 families, health insurance. It took money away from kids and seniors, moms who were just trying to put food on the table.
▶ 0:25:20So they did a second reconciliation bill and the second reconciliation bill. What did it do? It gifted I $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 as bait, families ripped apart, people killed on american streets.
▶ 0:25:44Just this past week, we saw two americans killed by unfit and untrained ice agents. So you think that the third reconciliation bill, this would be the one where they finally do something about affordability for american families? Spoiler alert it's not. The bill is 47 pages long. It doesn't include one single word about lowering costs for the american people.
▶ 0:26:10There 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.
▶ 0:26:39We 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, 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 health care. They said no to food assistance. They said no to lower gas prices.
▶ 0:27:06They 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. As we sit here, we sit in this fancy room and we're talking about rules and process and budgets and reconciliation. We may think that the american people are sitting here watching. They're not they're not talking about reconciliation.
▶ 0:27:36They are at home right now talking about their bills. They're talking about rent. They're talking about health care. 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. And they're asking a fair question. This is a question we should ask ourselves.
▶ 0:27:58The 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. Speaker 1: thank you, Mr. mcgarvey.
▶ 0:28:28Uh, miss fischbach, do you have any questions? Mr. mcgovern? Speaker 2: thank you, madam chair. First of all, let me just say I love your 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. Um, and I'll just say one thing. When you guys want to get things done. I mean, you do, um, you want a tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
▶ 0:28:58I mean, you shove that through added $4.7 trillion to the debt. You get that through. Uh, I wish we could have stopped it, but you got it through. When you wanted to cut medicaid by $1 trillion, you did it in a nanosecond snap by $200 billion, you're going to increase hunger in this country. I mean, I mean, so the idea that, you know, uh, this idea that somehow you can't get anything done, yeah, you do this stuff, you get done, unfortunately, is bad for the american people. But, uh, but everything is somebody else's fault. It's never your fault.
▶ 0:29:29And 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. And history will record that. You were silent as this president ripped off the american people. Uh, I've never seen anything like it. It makes richard nixon look like a boy scout.
▶ 0:29:51But 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 $0.62 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.
▶ 0:30:17You 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? Speaker 3: I do.
▶ 0:30:37Speaker 2: um, 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 to 30 6.2 trillion to 39.5 trillion. Speaker 3: it's a misleading stat because the economy has grown with the cuts that we made on waste, fraud and abuse.
▶ 0:31:06In total, for the first time in a decade, the deficit to gdp has gone down under republican leadership. And this president's. Speaker 2: watch, you disagree with the. Speaker 3: the cbo. That's a direct quote from the cbo. Speaker 2: you disagree with that, that our debt went from, uh, went from 36.2 to 39.5 because I think that's, that's. Speaker 3: we. Speaker 2: have pretty clear. Speaker 3: we have, we have, um, we have liabilities in social security, medicare, we have liabilities across the board that are outpacing our. Speaker 2: Mr. mcgarvey.
▶ 0:31:37Speaker 3: our sources of revenue. Speaker 2: those are accurate numbers. Speaker 4: yes. And in fact, another stat we can look at, um 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. Speaker 2: chairman arrington, isn't it true that you and everybody on the republican side here voted in favor of republican reconciliation bill that is projected to add $4.7 trillion to our nation's debt over the next decade. Speaker 3: not true.
▶ 0:32:06Speaker 2: another $70 billion, uh, that, uh, that provided funding for ice and cbp. Speaker 3: the ice and cbp was simply a replacement of what would have been discretionary funding for ice and cbp when every democrat voted to defund it. Speaker 2: you vote for that. Speaker 3: of course, I wouldn't defund ice and cbp. That's. Yes, sir.
▶ 0:32:27Speaker 2: 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. Speaker 3: Mr.
▶ 0:32:44Mcgovern, ever since I've been here and probably for a hundred years, when we are in conflict and our military needs supplemental resourcing to keep our troops safe, we we 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. Speaker 2: yeah, but you but you said I go back to not paying for. Our spending is not only irresponsible, it's irrational. That's.
▶ 0:33:11We can continue to trust the cost of things that we think are important onto the backs of our kids and our grandkids. That's correct. Question is, how come how can you come before the committee and advocate for spending tens of billions more taxpayer dollars on top of the trillions that you've already added to the deficit? While not requiring any of this? Speaker 3: it's a fair question. Speaker 2: not just the military stuff. The other stuff that none of it is.
▶ 0:33:35Speaker 3: it's a fair question, 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 need to do a better job of that across the board. Speaker 2: was it an emergency to give tax breaks to billionaires and millionaires? Because that was not paid for either? I mean.
▶ 0:34:03Speaker 3: it was, in fact, all right. In fact. Speaker 2: I'm glad. So we just have a disagreement. You think an emergency is a is making sure that millionaires and billionaires get tax cuts and big corporations. I just disagree with that. That's a fundamental values question. Speaker 3: I didn't say that just for the record, although some after a 21% inflation tax would have said a 22% tax hike would be an emergency for their families.
▶ 0:34:27Speaker 2: 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? Yes. 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. Speaker 3: I know that we gave 150 billion to the defense of our country.
▶ 0:34:56Speaker 2: so given that you've said that our nation's debt is such an existential crisis, yes. 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? Speaker 3: no, sir. Because we were so in the hole after four years of of a president that didn't have not just regard for our readiness, but for what our troops were focused on. And in terms of war fighting, that first 100 billion was to make up for four years.
▶ 0:35:25Thank god we put that additional monies to prepare for. Speaker 2: $75 billion that hasn't even 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 star act to the reconciliation bill. This would help combat combat wounded veterans get the full support that they're entitled to. Chairman arrington, would you support making my amendment in order to help these veterans? Speaker 3: we simply unlocked the reconciliation process. Mr.
▶ 0:35:57Mcgovern and you know the process as well as I do. The policies will be meted out by the authorizing committee chairs, not myself. Speaker 2: so you would have no objection for me offering an amendment and hopefully maybe getting advice. Speaker 3: I would simply our focus. Speaker 2: is, if we're not going to pay for this other stuff, the whole issue over the over the veterans bill that we that we republicans pulled last week was a lot of the veterans organizations were upset that you were robbing peter to pay paul.
▶ 0:36:23You were actually taking cutting veterans benefits on one hand, to increase veterans benefits for other groups. On the other hand. So this would this would alleviate that. So that's what we're trying to do. Mr. mcgovern, would you be okay with us trying to do that? Speaker 4: no. In fact, I sit on the veterans committee ranking member mcgovern. I think this is this is something where we actually all agree we should be taking care of our veterans. Instead, they are looking to actually, uh, take things away from veterans who are suffering from tinnitus, veterans who are suffering and they're not willing to pay to help them.
▶ 0:36:52Speaker 2: we'll see what happens later today. Um, I think you'd all agree that affordability and the cost of living, whether it's gas prices or child care costs, are some of the top concerns of the american people. The question is, why does why does this budget resolution not include anything to bring down costs? 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.
▶ 0:37:21So the question is, why does your resolution, why doesn't your resolution instruct any committee to propose legislation that would, for example, lower health care costs or help people who have lost their health care coverage regain it? Speaker 3: uh, 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.
▶ 0:37:48This 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, 100. I'm sorry, $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. Speaker 2: down, it sounds like we're back to the old let's blame joe biden.
▶ 0:38:12But why doesn't your resolution instruct any of the any committee to propose legislation that would lower americans child care costs? Or why doesn't the resolution instruct any committee to propose legislation that would lower americans 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? I mean, I mean, this is kind of the problem in a nutshell. And I'll close with this.
▶ 0:38:38You know, 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 m.o. But when it comes to helping american families, republicans think it would be waste. It would be wasteful spending. I gotta 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. They can't afford their rents, can't afford to buy homes. Child care costs are out of control. Health care costs, order control.
▶ 0:39:06They want to know, why the hell aren't we focused in on that? And instead, we're focused in on, you know, giving the well-off and the well-connected even more. Um, I think people have had it. Um, and I think, I think, 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 responsibilities will fiscal responsibility will oppose it as well. I yield back. Speaker 1: thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Mr. scott, you're recognized. Speaker 5: thank you, madam chair. Mr.
▶ 0:39:36Arrington, um, you know, I personally believe that we won the last election because americans want 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.
▶ 0:40:07Um, has had a tremendous cost to us, but we were secure. We were elected to secure the border and stop the tax increase from the democratic party. That's right. And the democratic party, we stopped their tax increase. We didn't actually reduce the rate for millionaires, am I correct? Like no millionaires tax rate went down. They just didn't get the tax increase that that the democrats wanted them to get. Is that correct?
▶ 0:40:31Speaker 3: 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, etc. Speaker 5: you know, if you're working for tips, um, I ate 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. Um, you know, you're working overtime, you got, you got a nice tax cut.
▶ 0:40:55Our senior citizens are getting a tax credit for on the social security side, because of some budget rules that we have to comply with. Uh, 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? Speaker 3: that's correct.
▶ 0:41:26Speaker 5: and 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%. Yeah. So just factually speaking, if you want more money, you have to grow the gdp of the country.
▶ 0:41:46You don't grow the gdp of the country, taking all of the capital out of the private sector and depositing it in accounts where, you know, fraudsters are able to go get, get it. And, um, and nobody at the state level in certain states, democratic states like minnesota want to do anything about it. That's right. And so the one thing that I would tell you that I, I wish we had done, I think the other thing people wanted us to do was to cut spending.
▶ 0:42:12And 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 cbo or congressional research. Cbo people came out and said, for every dollar you put into fraud prevention, right, it would generate a $7 return on the on the investment. That's correct. Correct? Speaker 3: that's correct.
▶ 0:42:43Because 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, this government. Speaker 5: and of course, the democrats are defending the fraudsters. I mean, that's what 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. Speaker 3: the enhanced covid tax credits for obamacare, that they wanted to shut the government down over. Oh, yeah.
▶ 0:43:14Uh, there were tens of billions, according to gao and cbo and fraud. And some of that was tens of thousands of social security numbers from dead people. Yeah, yeah. Speaker 5: you know, all of that money was going to the insurance carriers. That's correct. Not to the hospitals, correct? That's correct. And so they blame, you know, the challenge of the local the local hospitals are having. And I'm, I'm I'm getting some reports together on, on, on what is actually happening at local hospitals.
▶ 0:43:41But 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. I'm getting together some reports on that, but I just want to get back to some 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.
▶ 0:44:10Um, 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. Speaker 3: 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.
▶ 0:44:36What 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. Speaker 5: 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.
▶ 0:45:02There is no civilian purpose for uranium enrichment beyond 20%. You could say five. But we'll stretch it and say 20. No civilian use beyond 20. It's widely accepted in the international community that you that that iran was far beyond the 20% of enrichment and was continuing to enrich beyond those levels.
▶ 0:45:30Had 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, you know, dirty bomb. They had enough enrichment to do to do. 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. Uh, iran, uh, it's a country run by jihadists.
▶ 0:46:01And I'm glad our president has the balls to do something about it. And with that, madam chair, I yield. Speaker 1: thank you, Mr. scott. Miss scanlon, you're recognized. Speaker 6: thank you. I yield first to the ranking member. Speaker 2: well, thank you. I just want to say that, um, listening to my colleague, Mr. scott, um, you know, I, I think maybe this is the biggest difference between democrats and republicans.
▶ 0:46:24You 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. I will say to you, go to any coffee shop in this country, go to any vfw hall, go to any union hall, you know, 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. Speaker 5: I do that, I see the people out at waffle house, walmart and other places. Mr.
▶ 0:46:52Governor, 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. Speaker 2: well, 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.
▶ 0:47:11They're frightened of a president who 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. And I would also just say one thing on iran, the strait of hormuz was open. Um, and oil prices were coming down before this president launched this war. And now strait is closed, gas prices are going up, which is also an affordability issue. So I'm sorry, you think.
▶ 0:47:40Speaker 5: gas prices are still lower than they would be if kamala harris had been elected? Speaker 2: no, that's that's just that's ridiculous. But anyway, but, uh, but the bottom line is you go, you go down this road of you go down, keep thinking that people are happy and they should be grateful. I will tell you, uh, you know, you you will find out in november. People are sick of this.
▶ 0:47:59There's and by the way, I, you know, when you say that the tax cuts and help people who are rich, I mean, donald trump was up there bragging about the fact that one of his closest friends was able was able to buy a new private jet with the money he saved on the tax cuts. I don't know, I don't know anybody who owns a private jet. Uh, I don't hang around with those people like maybe you guys do.
▶ 0:48:20But 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 think. Speaker 5: this country love this country. Speaker 6: I'm reclaiming my time. Thank you, Mr. scott. Um, I do have to agree with the ranking member. I mean, at a time when the price of gas and groceries and health care keeps climbing, uh, you might think republicans would come to congress with a plan to help working families. Instead, they're back with a third a third partizan budget bill.
▶ 0:48:49And once again, it's completely missing the missing the moment for my constituents. I think for most americans, 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.
▶ 0:49:18I 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. And presumably some portion of that will go to fund pete hegseth obsession with the testosterone levels of members of our military.
▶ 0:49:35Another $10 billion is going to fund republicans 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. 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.
▶ 0:50:04Those things aren't happening at the levels they claim. You know, 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. But back to the main point on this. Not $1 is devoted to lowering the cost of groceries, reducing health care costs or slashing skyrocketing energy prices.
▶ 0:50:30Republicans keep promising to lower costs, but instead they keep shifting the economic burdens to consumers through tariffs, through giveaways, to billionaires and big business. Um, the only kind of welfare they seem interested in is corporate welfare. And boy, are we seeing a lot of that. So apparently there's always more money for war or to clean up some of the economic damage caused by this administration.
▶ 0:50:55If republicans were serious about helping american families, they would be working to actually lower costs, strengthen health care, 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, uh, Mr.
▶ 0:51:19Mcgarvey, I sense that you have some remarks you'd like to add in response to some of the nonsense we've been hearing. Speaker 4: thank you, miss scanlan. 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. Um, 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.
▶ 0:51:47Let's also remember what this administration is labeling as fraud or labeling as abuse. Uh, director vote 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 what you like and what you value. So he said there was fraud in the liheap program, liheap, low income home energy assistance program. Right. But he didn't find the fraud in the program.
▶ 0:52:20He zeroed it out completely. 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. He couldn't answer. Whether it's fraud for every single senior in kentucky who uses this program, it is not a serious attempt.
▶ 0:52:44What 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. 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.
▶ 0:53:05But 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 for the wealthiest americans got over 50% of that. If you make $1 million in america under these tax cuts, by 2027, you will have $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.
▶ 0:53:35What does that actually mean? Because these tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, they are permanent. They are not going anywhere unless we can change it. The no tax on overtime, no tax on tips. It sunsets. They expire after three years. And what are they? Actually, 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. There's also a $25,000 cap in this.
▶ 0:54:03When 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 three years. But if you make a million bucks, you get $100,000. Or 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 there in this bill.
▶ 0:54:33Speaker 6: 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.
▶ 0:54:50I mean, 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 find and prosecute fraud, waste and abuse, and have been doing a really good job at that up until now.
▶ 0:55:05When 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.
▶ 0:55:24And, and finally, um, 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. 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.
▶ 0:55:48They've sent all their folks out to track down, uh, 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. Speaker 1: thank you, miss scanlan. Mr. griffith, you're recognized. Speaker 7: madam chair. Speaker 1: thank you, miss leger. Fernandez, you're recognized.
▶ 0:56:19Speaker 8: hello. Hello. Um, thank you very much. Good to see you, chairman, and good to see you. Uh, ranking, uh, your the ranking member here today. Um, morgan mcgarvey. And thank you for that explanation, uh, about the fact that, uh, it's not really working people. It's not seniors. It's not people who pay taxes who have benefited from the deficit spending.
▶ 0:56:44Um, 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. Uh, and, uh, chairman arrington, you've seen, uh, uh, you know, this chart, I think you and I have discussed this chart before because it shows that, uh, republicans like talking about the deficit.
▶ 0:57:11But 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 a lot under those two. Uh, it went down during clinton, uh, doing, uh, w bush giving up, went down during obama. And then, boy, under trump, it just soared.
▶ 0:57:39Came down a bit under biden. And, uh, now you actually are have the distinction of being able to serve as chairman of the budget committee. Uh, and we'll 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
▶ 0:58:09Deficit spending by republican presidencies, if it ever got passed into law. And what we're hearing is that we're finally maybe some of the, uh, 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 payfors in here. There were no payfors in the 72, $70 billion that we passed last month either. Uh, do you remember by how much trump raised the debt in his first term? Chairman arrington?
▶ 0:58:41Speaker 3: uh, the debt has gone up by too much under presidents in recent times, mainly because of the unfunded liability in entitlements that are on automatic spending. And and just just to be clear, we have a crisis of a balance sheet that has $140 trillion that will be, uh, brought to bear on that balance sheet without the funding to deliver on the promises in those
▶ 0:59:12Entitlements. That's the biggest reason it's increasing on everyone's watch. But no 1 in 10 years. To my colleague and friend from new mexico in ten years, no party, no budget chairman, no president has worked to reduce the deficit to gdp like like the house republicans. And this president and cbo has confirmed that it's over 10%.
▶ 0:59:40And 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 $1 trillion just keeping discretionary spending flat. And it's because we had paltry 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.
▶ 1:00:08That 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, would not pay for. Speaker 8: it was the question was a simple question, which was how much has. How much did president trump increase the deficit? Speaker 3: less, less than joe biden did? And the other democrat control. Speaker 8: not true at all. Uh, it was by $8.4 trillion.
▶ 1:00:32And joe biden actually brought the, uh, he brought it down. So actually, when you look at the numbers and this is the issue, is that when you look at the rhetoric. Speaker 3: what's the source of that charge? Speaker 8: when you look at the rhetoric, uh, will actually what united states treasury, I don't know if you yeah. Speaker 3: I've heard. Speaker 8: of them treasury, but. Speaker 3: yeah. Speaker 8: you can depart from the united states treasury. Speaker 3: if I may, just to. Speaker 8: just to.
▶ 1:01:01Speaker 3: just to fact check that the interest on the debt, which tripled from 350 billion to $1 trillion under president biden because the spending created record 40 year inflation, interest rates soared. And so if you add the extra cost of interest, it's $12 trillion magically. That's the I. Speaker 8: yield the rhetoric of republicans. Speaker 3: it's the facts. Speaker 8: deficit does not match the numbers. And I think that that's the issue that we keep bringing up.
▶ 1:01:28And what are you doing it for? Right. Uh, the $4.7 trillion price tag that the cbo has told us, the last, uh, the first reconciliation cost us the first reconciliation. Um, who are the big beneficiaries? And we heard representative, uh, mcgarvey point that out. They were the millionaires, they were the billionaires.
▶ 1:01:52And we brought amendments in this rules committee to say, hey, uh, how about if we let the middle income tax cuts stay, we extend those and instead say, no tax cuts if you're earning over $1 billion? 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.
▶ 1:02:22And what's happened in the last two weeks. More shootings in the streets, murders, killings in the streets because republicans refused to put any guardrails on. And I think that that's what we're facing here is there is, uh. You celebrate what came out of the one big, beautiful bill. You don't like the name anymore because you change the name.
▶ 1:02:46But what really came out of there is, uh, how many people lost access to medical coverage? Uh, do you do you know that representative mcgarvey. Speaker 4: and people lost access to. Speaker 8: medical coverage after passage of the one big, beautiful bill? Speaker 4: it is thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people. Speaker 8: 5 million people, 5 million people.
▶ 1:03:08And 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. So the people who are losing access to health care, there are working families, right? And instead we want they want more war. And I think that that's the issue that we're concerned about.
▶ 1:03:34And I don't know if you want to talk a little bit more about why these priorities, these budget priorities of the republicans are hurting americans, access to lower to access to health care, and they're doing nothing to lower the cost for everyday americans. Speaker 4: 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 is ann.
▶ 1:03:59Uh, she called my office and she is 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. Um, her health insurance premiums cost $325 a month under the silver plan of the affordable care act.
▶ 1:04:27Because of the republicans 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.
▶ 1:04:49She'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 health care away from people who are trying to make their way every single day, doing it the right way. There are so many stories about this. I had a guy call me just a couple of weeks ago.
▶ 1:05:17His 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.
▶ 1:05:45Speaker 8: and there is nothing in today's proposed budget, uh, reconciliation that addresses any of these issues that you're talking about. Speaker 4: none of this whatsoever. In fact, you know, 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, but we can't argue about is whether or not it's happening. Reconciliation one increased the debt and deficit of this country. Reconciliation two increased the debt and deficit of this country. This is reconciliation three and guess what?
▶ 1:06:15Third time's a charm. They are increasing the debt and deficit of this country once again. 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 cucco provision.
▶ 1:06:39The cucco provision is the fancy republican rules term that they use where you got to pay for what you do. They waive it. Why waive it if you don't, unless you're going to increase the debt or deficit? So it's very clear what they're doing. Speaker 8: uh, and I think that the other thing is we were here last week and they were that they're allocating, they're going to send more money for war. But last week, they were unwilling.
▶ 1:07:07They were unwilling to pay for veterans services for the 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 is no instruction to. The veterans services committee, is there? Speaker 4: our veterans get nothing in this. Speaker 8: bill, so our veterans get nothing out of this bill shows you where their priorities are. And with that, madam chair, I yield back.
▶ 1:07:36Speaker 1: thank you, miss leger fernandez, 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?
▶ 1:08:06Speaker 3: 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 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.
▶ 1:08:34The cost is our sons and daughters can't be safe. And saluting the commander in chief and doing their duty. This is bombs, bullets and battlefield readiness. This is not modernization of the military. That $350 billion request 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 in a bipartisan basis, we would do it.
▶ 1:09:04Speaker 1: and the number one duty of the federal government. Speaker 3: provide for the common defense. Speaker 1: provide for the common defense. Speaker 3: yes, ma'am. Speaker 1: thank you very much. Any further questions of our witnesses on this panel. Seeing none, we thank you both for coming. Speaker 3: they get shorter every reconciliation, madam chair. You. I think we may be wearing Mr. mcgovern down. You're not. Speaker 1: don't count on it. Speaker 3: do not.
▶ 1:09:35Speaker 1: count on wearing Mr. mcgovern down. Speaker 3: no, I know that about this guy. Thank you for the time and opportunity. Speaker 1: thank you both for your good work. We appreciate you coming. Thank you, madam chair.
▶ 1:11:15I now welcome our second panel, chairman, cole, former chairman of this committee. So he's chairman squared up, and I understand that ranking member delauro is on her way up. The two of you represent the appropriations committee. Your full statement will be submitted for the record.
▶ 1:11:41We ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes, and there is ranking member delauro in all her glory. Chairman cole, I welcome your testimony. Speaker 7: thank you very much, madam chair. Uh, chairwoman fox, 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.
▶ 1:12:129770, the continuing appropriations act of 2027. Over the past year, the house appropriations committee has worked diligently to fulfill our article one 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 feat has been accomplished since fiscal year 2020.
▶ 1:12:35As 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 the and related agencies bill and the national security. Department of state and related programs bill.
▶ 1:12:58I'm deeply proud of the work that the committee has done thus far, and I'm appreciative of the support we've received from the rest of our colleagues in this chamber. 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.
▶ 1:13:19The 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 gamesmanship from the left has kept their process at a standstill. 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.
▶ 1:13:47Congress 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.
▶ 1:14:09First, 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.
▶ 1:14:37Stability 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.
▶ 1:14:59This will not only allow congress time to continue our work on full, appropriate, full year appropriations bills through regular order, but will also ensure that the government remains open through the november election and into early december. 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.
▶ 1:15:29Passing 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. Importantly, today's bill also does not contain a single poison pill rider. It's a clean cr fully funding our government.
▶ 1:15:57This 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.
▶ 1:16:26Speaker 1: thank you, chairman cole. Ranking member dolores. Thank you. You're recognized. Thank you, chairman. Speaker 9: and ranking member mcgovern, 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. I want to begin by stating clearly and plainly, democrats do not want a government shutdown.
▶ 1:16:52In 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 republicans 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.
▶ 1:17:21Government operations exclude any poison pills, and it must maintain congress's constitutional authority over spending decisions 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.
▶ 1:17:50Chairman 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.
▶ 1:18:15In 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 prevented. This measure hastily put together with little more than a couple of days of thought.
▶ 1:18:43That 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.
▶ 1:19:06We 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
▶ 1:19:38For 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, border patrol problems aside, chairman cole has put forward a plain bill. Absent controversial writers and containing most of the standard authorities we enact in the stopgap measures.
▶ 1:20:06That'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 this resolution was dropped on us on friday afternoon, without any bipartisan negotiation.
▶ 1:20:34Had we been consulted, there were several provisions we would have pushed for to strengthen the measure and to progress 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.
▶ 1:21:04If 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. I'm deeply concerned about what may be attached to this funding measure through the rule that is passed out of this committee.
▶ 1:21:34There are some republicans who have decided that they will not allow any legislation to be considered under a rule, unless it includes an extremely partizan measure to restrict voting access for millions of american citizens. Under no circumstances will democrats support that measure.
▶ 1:21:53If 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. At minimum, I cannot support this bill without the inclusion of the technical language regarding the border patrol that was agreed on.
▶ 1:22:18It 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. Speaker 1: thank you. Mr.
▶ 1:22:49Michelle fischbach you're recognized. Speaker 10: thank you, madam chair and chairman cole, I think it's I think you mentioned it in your in your opening remarks, but I just wanted to check again and make it make a point of it. How many of the 12 appropriations bills have passed out of your committee? Speaker 7: 12. All 12. Speaker 10: and how many have passed the house? Speaker 7: three. Speaker 10: and how many have passed the senate? Speaker 7: zero.
▶ 1:23:12So 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. Speaker 10: and thank you for pointing it out. I wouldn't have asked the question, but not out of committee, not out of the house or, excuse me, out of the senate. And I mean, senate's not obviously not taking their duties seriously.
▶ 1:23:38If 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 because 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 let 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. And so I appreciate you bringing it forward.
▶ 1:24:04And I, um, you know, it's a pretty simple, uh, resolution, pretty simple piece of legislation. And so I think that, you know, it, it's easy to understand what's going on in it. And so I don't think we need to have, uh, you know, three months to, to, to digest what's going on in this. I understand it and I think that everybody else does too. And so I appreciate you bringing it forward.
▶ 1:24:28And I appreciate the fact that you're taking the responsible approach and making sure that we are able to, um, insist the senate get their work done. Thank you very much. Speaker 7: thank you. Speaker 1: thank you. Mr. Mr. mcgovern, you're recognized. Speaker 2: yeah. 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. Um, and I would, you know, I don't want to prolong this.
▶ 1:24:57I would just I have respect for both the chairman of the ranking member. Um, it just seems to me, based on what Mr. laurel lee just said, that, uh, maybe we could have reached a bipartisan agreement if there was a bipartisan back and forth before this, uh, this was announced. And, um, maybe we still can get to that at some point, but, uh, um, I don't really have any questions. I just, I just wish that this was more of a bipartisan process and maybe we would be, maybe everything would be a little bit different right now, but it is what it is.
▶ 1:25:27And I thank you both for being here and I yield back. Speaker 1: thank you. Mr. Mr. scott, you're recognized. Speaker 5: thank you, madam chair. Uh, I will tell you, it seems to me that the senate is actually controlled by the parliamentarian, uh, not, uh, the republicans over there, but I, I just Mr. cole, I'm looking through the things. I mean, I, I don't see. Any reason for anybody to necessarily be to object to this.
▶ 1:25:56I, like you don't have confidence that bills are going to make it through the house and the senate prior to, uh, the end of the fiscal year. We only have we don't have that many work days until then, to be honest with you. But but I haven't seen the senate take much action on, on anything yet. And so I, I think it's kind of 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.
▶ 1:26:25And while I think it, you know, a shutdown probably works to the advantage of the democrats politically because of the way the press operates and their messaging apparatus, uh, is, is very damaging to the american citizens in our country. And so I intend to vote for it. If you have any other comments that you'd like to to make as the chair, you're welcome to it. Other than that, madam chair, I'm I'm prepared to vote in favor of the continuing resolution. Speaker 1: Mr. cole.
▶ 1:26:50Speaker 7: uh, all I point out is that, uh, look, there's nothing in the bill to be against it. It just simply is a clean cr. And I've always had the philosophy. I don't vote on bills, uh, because of what's not in them. I vote against them or for them on the basis of what is it? There's nothing in here that's remotely controversial.
▶ 1:27:12And look, 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 republicans simply not true because of the filibuster. And that's just the reality. Uh, and, uh, 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 government shutdown.
▶ 1:27:40Frankly, I don't think people on either side of the the partizan 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.
▶ 1:27:59Make 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. Just fund the essential things. We'll have the election. Things can be sorted out. We can come back after that. If the senate were moving, if they'd made as much progress as we have, uh, then again, I would, uh, I'd be happy to, to hope that that would happen, but I just don't see the time for it.
▶ 1:28:29So 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. 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. Uh, but we're going to continue to try and move the regular process along.
▶ 1:28:53But 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. Speaker 1: there's a difference between having a majority and being in control. You yield back. Mr. speaker 5: yes, ma'am. Speaker 1: miss scanlon, you're recognized. Speaker 6: thank you.
▶ 1:29:20Um, 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. Um, they're willing to give up one of congress's most fundamental powers and duties in order to avoid another potential political loss.
▶ 1:29:43Um, just before the election, uh, you know, they're asking us to give a blank check to this administration because they can't manage either their republican caucus or to negotiate, um, actual bipartisan funding bills. 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, um, the end of the year.
▶ 1:30:09Um, 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, you know, whether community health centers or local infrastructure or, uh, we've been able to, um, get additional resources for schools and libraries. All that goes out the window with a continuing resolution. Um, so, so I'm not in favor of this.
▶ 1:30:37I think it is an admission of failure by the republican leadership. Um, I was struck ranking member delauro, about something you said about the continuation of funding without guardrails for ice. Speaker 10: mhm. Speaker 6: at a time when in the last week to ten 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.
▶ 1:31:06Um, all the money that has been sent to ice, uh, amidst promises that they would be deploying, um, 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? Speaker 9: uh, let me be clear. First of all, I just want to say there is there would have been no need to go down a road where there are difficulties here.
▶ 1:31:31As I said, you know, the, uh, the, 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.
▶ 1:31:53What it allows do not with regard to ice, because what they've 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, pl 119-86 zeroed out funding for border patrol. They did it in two ways.
▶ 1:32:12This republican cr carried, uh, omits that prohibition that guaranteed zero for border control. And so 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 of law and in a strong way.
▶ 1:32:41Um, uh, so, and no one has said and by the way, so that you understand the, uh, we discovered that we being the democrats, discovered this technical error and it was an error. I believe that that was an error. But nevertheless, we then, uh, formulated language in a way to fix it so we could move forward.
▶ 1:33:08That was denied because when the bill came forward, um, it is we noticed that problem. We drafted the correction when it came forward on, on, 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.
▶ 1:33:33No reforms, as we have fought for over the last several months. Uh, 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.
▶ 1:33:55So why not fix it so that 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 be this could have been corrected. Um, and so I'm that, that's that, that is it. And I got all the citations and what bill it is and et cetera. Et cetera.
▶ 1:34:24Et cetera. So it emits this language. Uh, and I don't think that we can, um, what is it? Was it ronald reagan who said trust but verify? Uh, we have no way of verifying so that this money would not be used. Speaker 6: when this bill was produced. Yes. You checked it over. Speaker 9: oh, well, we dropped the language. Speaker 6: 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.
▶ 1:34:53And when you asked for corrections, they didn't. Speaker 9: we drafted the language. Speaker 6: that's not good faith negotiation. So thank you, I yield back. Speaker 1: thank you. Thank you, Mr. caleb. Mr. griffith, you're recognized. Speaker 11: Mr.
▶ 1:35:07Chairman, if the senate doesn't act, if we don't get these appropriations bills passed, um, these sections that, uh, the ranking member has just mentioned would not be in the government shutdown period either, would they? Speaker 7: correct.
▶ 1:35:32Speaker 11: 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 it's not just the filibuster, it's the filibuster that's been changed. Uh, you know, if you went to the filibuster before the 70s, you wouldn't have these issues.
▶ 1:35:50But nonetheless, um, but if the, if the, if we take these actions and then through negotiations with the house and the senate and, and these, uh, things that the ranking member wants, which have been agreed to by the, the house previously, that would all be in the appropriations bill. Uh, most likely, would it not? Speaker 7: correct.
▶ 1:36:14Speaker 11: so and if there and there's no reason why, if we pass a a cr to take effect, should we not get appropriations bills and we do pass appropriations bills and the cr would not go into effect. Is that also correct? Speaker 7: that's also correct. Speaker 11: now, let me ask you this, because I, I don't know the answer. If we 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? Speaker 7: that's also correct.
▶ 1:36:44If we actually passed bills and they were signed into law, those would supersede a cr. Speaker 11: 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. And 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.
▶ 1:37:07But if we don't, while members are distracted in october, 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? Speaker 7: that is correct. Speaker 11: and.
▶ 1:37:25And 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, you know, this, that or the other, whether the money for disaster relief is going to actually get get to where it needs to be, whether or not the blue ridge parkway is going to be open in 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? Speaker 7: in my view, it is.
▶ 1:37:57Speaker 11: 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 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? Speaker 7: I think it's the prudent thing to do, given what's happened literally within the last year. I mean, the longest government shutdown in history, followed by the longest partial government shutdown history.
▶ 1:38:27There'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 to public safety, uh, to the functioning of the economy that those things don't. And again, we've watched the democratic, uh, you know, uh, contingent in the senate do that twice already.
▶ 1:38:52So making sure it doesn't happen a third time, we think is the prudent thing to do. Speaker 11: well, and it's prudent notwithstanding. I mean, doesn't matter who does what. We're arguing for our points, uh, vehemently and respectfully, but we can't get an agreement by september 30th. The american people don't have to pay the price. Speaker 7: that's that's exactly the effort here. Speaker 11: I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Appreciate your work. I yield back.
▶ 1:39:23Speaker 1: thank you, Mr. griffiths, for always getting to the heart of the matter. Miss leger. Fernandez, you're recognized. Speaker 8: thank you, madam chair. And, uh, 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. Speaker 10: not talking. Speaker 8: and I've heard the ranking member talk about, can we have a conversation about a cr so that we can work out matters?
▶ 1:39:51Because cr is best if like an appropriations. I always like it when, uh, the two of you come before us and say, well, we worked things out, right? We didn't each get what we wanted, but we work things out. And what I'm here, what I'm hearing today is we were given this bill. We had very time to very little time to look at, and we haven't been able to work things out. Uh, is, is that a good summary of kind of what we're seeing here? Speaker 9: yeah.
▶ 1:40:20I mean, the fact is, is I said at the outset, um, you know, I'm not, I'm not going to get into, uh, you know, everybody's view is about the government shutdown. All I can just say is 20, 79 days to come to a conclusion. I made the very first day, as I said, let's separate out, uh, border security and, and ice and fund. Everybody else took you 79 days to want to do that, to pay these people. You know, you kept talking about it, but you didn't. That aside, we could come to an agreement here.
▶ 1:40:50Why are we not following what we said we would do? Uh, in april of 2026 with regard to the funding of, uh, 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.
▶ 1:41:13But what is contemplated is not providing that fix and saying zero as is in the in the bill for this effort, that that is not a problem. By the way, I might just add. Look, I've talked about the senate a lot and you know what they do or what they don't know.
▶ 1:41:34But I do know that, uh, the, the, the chair and the ranking member there, uh, 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 on the on the on the house side. And again, look, we received this moments ago. How many pages is this?
▶ 1:41:59Some, you know, 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.
▶ 1:42:23Without 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.
▶ 1:42:48Let'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. Uh, that and talk about not a clean cr, that certainly wouldn't be a clean cr. We have no guarantees there.
▶ 1:43:06What comes out of the the committee here, and we could get to a bipartisan resolve of this, uh, if we were to move forward, uh, in, uh, in good faith, uh, it defies imagination that we have now, uh, two months to go, we're going with half ideas and not full knowledge and understanding of what needs to go into a continuing, uh,
▶ 1:43:37Resolution. And, uh, so I'm happy to continue to talk about it. I will say one last word. You know, people talk about, well, let's wait and see. You know, 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.
▶ 1:44:02Let'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 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.
▶ 1:44:30Both 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.
▶ 1:44:59And as I said, we need some assurances here. We need to fix, and we need to be guaranteed that the save act is not going to be part of this part of this effort. Thank you, I yield back. Speaker 8: thank you. I look forward to having a conclusion that has more bipartisan. I look forward to bipartisan conversations moving forward. And with that, I yield back. Speaker 1: thank you, miss leger. Fernandez. I don't see anyone else here, um, available to ask any questions of our witnesses.
▶ 1:45:28I, um, thank you all very much. Thank you for coming and making your positions. Uh, perfectly clear. And thank you very much. And you're excused.
▶ 1:46:16I now welcome our next panel, chairman, style and ranking member morelli, from the house administration committee. Well, I'm still looking for chairman
▶ 1:46:47Style. Speaker 2: I'm sure Mr. morelli could represent both sides. Speaker 1: uh. Speaker 12: trusted to do that. Close.
▶ 1:48:38Speaker 1: I now welcome our next panel chairman, style and ranking member morelli, from the house administration committee. Your full statements will be submitted for the record, and we ask you to summarize your statement in five minutes, chairman style, I welcome your testimony. Speaker 5: chair fox. Thanks for having me. In ranking ranking member mcgovern, uh, members of the committee, thanks for inviting me to testify today in support of h.r. 7008, the stop insider trading act.
▶ 1:49:08I also want to thank, uh, speaker johnson, leader scalise, whip hammer and their teams for their commitment to getting this common sense bill to the floor. I also want to thank a handful of our colleagues who are the front and center of this debate, including, uh, 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.
▶ 1:49:34Uh, 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.
▶ 1:49:57This 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 advance public disclosure at least seven days in advance to the clerk of the house or the secretary of the senate.
▶ 1:50:25The 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 is 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.
▶ 1:50:51However, the disclosure rules lack detail and can be filled. Filed a month after the transaction. 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.
▶ 1:51:21There's a place to do that's called wall street. If you're here in washington, you should be working on behalf of the american people. The reforms to 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. Uh, madam chair, you may have seen the big news over the weekend. Uh, the never ending pasta bowl is back at olive garden. Uh, I used to work at olive garden, so this hit close to home.
▶ 1:51:44Uh, 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 and minnesota, an individual can go to the polls on election day and cast a ballot without providing confirmation, 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.
▶ 1:52:10Our 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 the 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.
▶ 1:52:40I encourage all committee members to support this legislation. I look forward to your questions. I yield back. Speaker 1: thank you. Chairman steel ranking member. Morelli, you're recognized. Speaker 12: 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, uh, to be here and address. Speaker 1: a former member of the committee. Speaker 12: yes, yes. I'm sorry. Yes, of course.
▶ 1:53:06And most importantly, um, madam chair, as I've said repeatedly, house democrats strongly support a stock trading ban for members of congress, and 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.
▶ 1:53:27Rather, 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.
▶ 1:53:54And if republicans were serious about protecting elections, they would not have gutted scissors 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.
▶ 1:54:13Instead, 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.
▶ 1:54:40The bill that 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 rein 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.
▶ 1:55:08Instead, he's enriched himself by billions and billions of dollars, picking winners and losers in the stock market while pocketing the profits. 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.
▶ 1:55:29And 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 all remember the long list of failures.
▶ 1:55:57Republicans attempted to pass the safe act, then the save act part two once again, then the save america act, and now the voter id act. All these bills have the same purposes and the same origins. They aim to eviscerate mail 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
▶ 1:56:29This in a partizan way. The show your papers regimen and regime passed and proposed in this latest iteration will 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.
▶ 1:56:54Republican 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. 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.
▶ 1:57:23And I might just say, and my dear friend and colleague, I often agree with chairman style, but according 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 and a show of good faith. We even retained a grant making provision in the original text.
▶ 1:57:55Not 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 obstruct the committee on house administration to increase the deficit by $10 billion, to impose save act restrictions that have died in the senate. So I'll tell you this much.
▶ 1:58:23It'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, 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. Speaker 1: um, thank you both for your comments.
▶ 1:58:51Um, chairman style. Um, I did mention that the olive garden, um, has now instituted a requirement, um for a vote for id in my opening remarks.
▶ 1:59:08Um we, our friends across the aisle want to sow division by claiming that voter id requirements for voters suppress voting.
▶ 1:59:22Did 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, confirmed that voter id laws have no statistically measurable negative impact on voter participation. Speaker 5: that's correct.
▶ 1:59:49I think that's a really important point. Um, you need an id to board an airplane, open a bank account. I, I obviously make light of the, 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.
▶ 2:00:09Um, and so the notion that somehow photo identification for voting, uh, is a, is a barrier. It's actually the statistics. The statistics just don't support that. If you look at my home state of wisconsin, we have a reasonably robust, uh, photo id bill. I think there's room for improvement. This law does that. Uh, but what we see is continued high voter participation. And I encourage high voter participation. I think that's a good thing.
▶ 2:00:37And I think actually what we will see by requiring photo identification, uh, is people's confidence in our elections to increase. Uh, and the statistics really show when people have confidence in their elections are 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. Um, and so I'm actually of the belief that we will see voter participation increase. Speaker 12: may I? Speaker 1: Mr. murali. Speaker 12: yeah, just respond to it.
▶ 2:01:06I, 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.
▶ 2:01:32You 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 7000 institutions. Um, that would not be the case under this.
▶ 2:01:49This 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 in 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.
▶ 2:02:18Speaker 1: 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 the we passed a law in the state that 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.
▶ 2:02:42Our 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. We then passed another law.
▶ 2:03:01We finally, after about ten years of democrats fighting us tooth and nail in north carolina to keep from having a voter id, all the 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%.
▶ 2:03:29I believe, 82% approval rating that we have id to vote. It is an extraordinarily popular idea. It took us over ten years in north carolina to get it passed over the objections of democrats who who constantly didn't want it. I'm sorry, I yield back. Mr. mcgovern, you're recognized. Speaker 2: well. Thank you.
▶ 2:03:57Uh, I'll let the gentleman answer if he. Speaker 12: 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.
▶ 2:04:24So 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. Speaker 2: right? Which is. Well, let me let me just again say for the record that voting is a constitutional right. It's not a lunch special.
▶ 2:04:52Uh, you have a constitutional right to vote. You don't have a constitutional right to a breadstick or a bowl of pasta. Um, and if you're right to vote is denied, you have lost your voice in our government. So, I mean, these, these analogies are just are happy, happy to yield to the gentleman. Speaker 10: thank you. Speaker 1: um, we also have a right to bear arms, but we have to show an id to buy a gun. Speaker 2: yeah.
▶ 2:05:20Well, I mean I again, I, um we can argue that's a whole separate topic. Uh, madam, madam chair, it is a whole separate topic. No. Happy, happy to say that, 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 listen to this president's speech last week. That's 40 minutes of my life. I'll never get back. It was crazy. It was insane. Um, conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory.
▶ 2:05:49And all of my republican colleagues here just kind of went along to get along or whatever the president says. You know, 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, um, in the minds of the american people that somehow our elections are not safe.
▶ 2:06:11I actually read the garbage that he said he released, uh, the, all the intelligence basically is saying that there's no evidence that there's been any kind of foreign interference in our elections. That kind of the, 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. Well, we don't have to worry about russia or china or anybody else.
▶ 2:06:37Donald 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 style. 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.
▶ 2:07:06The 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? Speaker 5: so there's different ways we want to make sure all individuals can receive an id under supreme court. Speaker 2: I just want to know why, why, why the grant program was deleted. Speaker 5: I was I was getting there, if you'll give me the opportunity to, to respond.
▶ 2:07:31Um, there are multiple ways we want to make sure that everyone can receive an id. Uh, we're also going through a reconciliation process. As you know, this committee had a conversation, I believe on that earlier today. Uh, there are funds now available in the committee on house administration, something that we're looking at. Uh, 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. Speaker 2: but but you could have done it in this bill today. Speaker 5: yeah. There's different avenues how we're.
▶ 2:08:02Speaker 2: looking, I guess. 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. Speaker 5: I don't. Speaker 2: know, and I guess the question is who who asked you? I want to know, like, who asked you to delete this grant program? Speaker 5: I actually, if I can comment, I don't think your previous statements actually accurate. I think if you as we look at the supreme court jurisprudence, uh, if it is required, states to be required to provide the id.
▶ 2:08:29The second question that you asked is we're looking at ways to make sure. Speaker 2: who asked you to delete the grant program? Because it was it was reported out of your committee. It was in the, uh, it was in the it was 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, you. Speaker 5: know, the broad conversation about how we how we ultimately, uh, have all of these pieces of the puzzle work.
▶ 2:08:57We're also working in real time on the reconciliation piece. Speaker 2: 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 like an out now it's not there. And so I'm just trying to understand like why there's going 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.
▶ 2:09:24Speaker 5: well, I was looking at ways to improve and this is part of it. It's part of a broader conversation. Speaker 2: can you give us like a name so we can follow up with somebody to find out like what, what, you know, like why was the I mean, who yeah, who's having this broader conversation? Speaker 5: republicans in the house of representatives. Speaker 2: uh, okay. So all right, so, so you asked, I'm, I'm reading the, your, your letter that you sent to the rules committee. Mhm.
▶ 2:09:47Um, 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 up the grant program. Why do you think your colleagues don't deserve the same opportunity? Speaker 5: obviously, that'll be a decision for you here at the rules committee as to whether or not amendments are allowed. Speaker 2: usually, usually when we get a letter like this from a chair, it says that they asked the rules committee for an appropriate rule.
▶ 2:10:15You actually very a very specific saying that you requested committee grant a closed rule. Speaker 5: I'm of the belief that the bill is ready to be brought to the floor and will pass. Speaker 2: but so. But again. This was in the bill that you introduced that was reported out of committee, that was, you know, published on the rules committee website. You it mysteriously gets taken out. You can't tell us who asked you to take it out or why it's taken out.
▶ 2:10:43Um, and yet you asked you and you, you kind of do something and most chairs don't. Do you know who usually asks 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 would just 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. Um, and I gotta tell you, it just seems to me that this is just another example of all of you guys playing politics.
▶ 2:11:11Uh, and, you know, 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 that was the whole point of this. And, um, and I and, and it's gone and I, and I, I, so I, again, I, 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.
▶ 2:11:39Uh, 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. Um, Mr. morelli, you have submitted a substitute amendment to this legislation. Can you explain your amendment to us and what advantages it has over Mr. steele's bill? Speaker 12: yes, sir. There's actually because there's multiple pieces of of, uh, of the bill that speaker 4: we would make better.
▶ 2:12:04But I also, just to your earlier point about amendments, we would make amendments, and I would like to see an amendment that um, the previous 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, uh, election administrators. They're doing hard work. They're doing it without support from the federal government.
▶ 2:12:33And now this bill takes away what I consider the only redeemable part of the bill. They need support. Uh, they need support whether or not we add all these additional requirements on them or not. Um, but at least it, it would, uh, make the bill better. I mean, it's a bad bill, but it would make it better to be able to provide some resources.
▶ 2:12:55And, you know, the other, the thing that we should note is that would, they would be administered by the elections, um, uh, advisory commission and the ec or the election assistance commission commission and the ec provides resources and support for local, state and local election administrators. The whole point in the president is now fired. So there are no members of the commission at all fired all the remaining ones.
▶ 2:13:23So the commissioners don't exist. The professional staff does. They can continue to do grant making, but I think it says worlds about how the president views us. He continues to try to take guardrails off of the election system so that people will lose confidence. 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.
▶ 2:13:48And 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. Uh, and then we had additional amendments as it relates to, um, the, um, the, the, the, um, program that relates to the, the other part of the bill that that's entirely as it relates to stock trading.
▶ 2:14:15Speaker 5: I'm just surprised that, you know, his requests were totally closed rule, not an appropriate rule. So clearly some. Speaker 4: it may also have to do if I might it also may have to do with amendments that could come forward about other members that mirror the voter id requirements in the various states. And in some states, you can use concealed weapons permits. You can almost always use student ids. If you're trying to control who can vote, you have to make sure that there's no amendments because they might actually pass.
▶ 2:14:41Speaker 5: and just going back to the olive garden pasta bowl example, my understanding that that's you got to put down in addition to an id $100. Um, so I hope we're not trying to do here is kind of institute another poll tax, um, to actually make it, uh, costly for people to vote. And again, I, I, you know, 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 out of committee. It was in the it was the bill published in the in the rules website.
▶ 2:15:11And I 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 how to make it more difficult for people to vote, you know? But I mean, because because we have not yet to hear a good reason why it was taken out of this bill. Um, but, I mean, this is not the way you should be legislating, you know, on elections or protecting people's right to vote or on any of this stuff.
▶ 2:15:38I mean, this is just not the way you should do it. Speaker 4: ma'am, 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 have 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.
▶ 2:16:08Speaker 5: out how that money in the reconciliation bill, if it would ever pass, would be used. I mean, yeah, I mean, this is scary. Um, and this should not be a partizan issue. Um, and not just democrats, but republicans in this chamber who give a damn about integrity and elections ought to be outraged by what's going on. With that, I yield back, chairman. Speaker 3: yields back. Now, recognize the gentleman from georgia? Speaker 8: Mr. scott fitzgerald, I'm just listening to how ridiculous their argument is over not showing a photo id.
▶ 2:16:36I 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 of mine, 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.
▶ 2:17:07That's a different issue though. Um, but I want to get to, uh, the stock issue, you know, chairman style, you and I have had this discussion before, as you know, I, uh, I had my series seven before I got here. I, I look at the bill, I'm going to vote for the bill. I want to, I want to bring up a couple of things, though, that I, I wish we could just do that I think would solve a lot of the problems.
▶ 2:17:36And you and I have had this discussion. I appreciate your time with that. I think 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 1000, 1 to 15,000, 15,000, 1 to 50,000, 50,000, 1 to 100,000, 100,000, 1 to 2, 52, 50 to 500. And it goes all the way up 5 million to 25 million.
▶ 2:18:03Um, you know, sometimes when things get reported in blogs, if you will just say you paid $14,000 for a stock that's 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, pay as little as $1,000 and sold it for as much as $50,000.
▶ 2:18:28And that certainly gives the perception, if that's happening on a regular basis, that there is tremendous amounts of insider trading going on, uh, in the halls of congress. Now, let me be clear about this. There there is at least one member of congress that has been prosecuted for insider trading. Is that correct? Mr. yes. And, uh, but if you if you if you look at this form, you can also go down and you can click other exact amount.
▶ 2:18:53And I just really think if members and I, I don't have much stock, I have less than 10,000 left, I think. Uh, but, you know, 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 were sold and the price that was sold, that it would eliminate a lot of the accusations.
▶ 2:19:20And just wondering if that was discussed, that's not a part of the bill, but, um, I've actually started doing that when I do sell something, sold x at this particular share value. Um, any thoughts on that? Speaker 13: you bring up a great point. When congress passed the stock act 15 years ago, uh, it was largely a disclosure regime. And you correctly note that it gave large bands in which, um, those reports would be made available.
▶ 2:19:51Um, if an individual wants to try to make a persuasion off of returns on any of those given reports, especially, uh, under the, uh, the rules of social media, if you will, uh, one can, 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. This bill before us today, uh, 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.
▶ 2:20:21Insider trading is already illegal, uh, 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. Uh, and so due to the scrutiny that's been placed on buying and selling individual shares of stock, um, I think there's an opportunity to simply put in place a bright line rule that prevents members of congress from doing that.
▶ 2:20:43And in so doing, uh, removing even the appearance of impropriety that an individual was engaged in a trade based on insider information. Speaker 8: so we're saying that you can't buy stock. Speaker 13: individual shares of stock upon being elected to congress. Speaker 8: that's accurate. And so I want to you know, a lot of us have spouses that work. And I want to, you know, if you work for other companies, a lot of times the company 4ok or four one k match may be done in stock in that company.
▶ 2:21:11This bill doesn't prohibit the working spouse from 401 k matches or other things along those lines from from continuing to work at that employer does it. Speaker 13: great question. So the 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.
▶ 2:21:38So if that income is earned in the ordinary course, uh, that is allowed. So if you're, if your spouse works for coca cola, uh, and they give a thousand shares of stock to every, every employee at that pay grade, uh, 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. The focus on this is to prevent an individual member from profiting off of insider information.
▶ 2:22:06So 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 the members inside information. And so we. Speaker 8: allow that 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. Speaker 13: that would be accurate. Speaker 8: okay. And those shares are also disclosed on your financial disclosures. So people could see if.
▶ 2:22:36Speaker 13: you they would be. Speaker 8: um, okay. So one, one of the other areas that, uh, I do have concerns about and I have, 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, um, pay much attention to it. Um, I shouldn't say that, I guess, but it's probably true.
▶ 2:22:59There's not much journalism anymore, uh, out there, but the new washington temptation inside information and a prediction market account. Do. Are we doing anything to. 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? Speaker 3: what was the date on that again? Speaker 8: I'll have to expand it with my eyes like they are july the 16th. Speaker 3: alright, so.
▶ 2:23:30Speaker 8: are we addressing the poly market issue? Uh, in the. Speaker 13: committee on house administration, uh, which, um. Member morgan griffith, your the, the name tag is is off right now. So as I looked right up there, you're not miss chairwoman fox. Uh, martin griffiths joins us on the committee on house administration. We have a separate piece of legislation, uh, addressing that not included in this bill before us today, but I think it's one absolutely worthy of our efforts.
▶ 2:23:58Speaker 8: I absolutely believe that there's probably more potential for abuse there than there is even even in this with proper disclosure, we had we had a member a couple of years ago, um, 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. Speaker 13: I don't know that I recall that, but I could envision that occurring.
▶ 2:24:28Speaker 8: so there was 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. Um. I guess one of my frustrations with this, and again, I support the legislation. I think the ban on buying is, is the, is the right way to go with the solution.
▶ 2:24:55But I guess one of my frustrations with this, and 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. You know, the ones who don't fill out the disclosure are actually the ones that you probably, if they're out, they're the ones that you need to be more worried about. Is that a, would that be a reasonable statement that.
▶ 2:25:20Speaker 13: it's a great question because in a lot of these, uh, broader ethics regimes, it's either a disclosure regime or a prohibition regime. And the stock act, passed 15 years ago was broadly a disclosure regime, which then brings to light the concern, uh, this bill before us today to stop insider trading act has a specific prohibition, which simply removes the, the. Um, even the appearance of inappropriate action.
▶ 2:25:45Speaker 8: this, this bill is, I believe it's well thought in a big step in the right direction. Uh, it the ban is limited to purchasing individual stocks from publicly traded companies. I do worry about private placements and um, the potential with private placements and think that's something we probably need to address in the future. But I, I appreciate your work on this. I look forward to supporting it. And I think it's a broad, broad step in the right direction. Speaker 3: gentleman yields back.
▶ 2:26:13Now, recognize the gentlelady from pennsylvania, miss scanlon, for her time. Speaker 9: thank you. Um, I, I think we are way past the time where we need to be dealing with the fact that, uh, 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, um, government
▶ 2:26:43Information for personal profit, but we've seen it actually occurring in real time and on an increasing basis, particularly with the white house. I mean, it's interesting that our colleagues mentioned that there actually was a member of congress who was prosecuted for insider trading, uh, republican member. But even after the courts held him accountable, he was pardoned by this president.
▶ 2:27:06So we're not seeing the kind of serious attention to preventing this kind of insider trading from 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. And I agree with Mr. scott.
▶ 2:27:35I 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, uh, 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.
▶ 2:28:01And this bill does not, uh, prohibit them from selling the stocks. And that's where the profit is made. Um, and the public notice requirement in this bill is so weak, it wouldn't prevent the kinds of transactions that have already eroded public trust.
▶ 2:28:18Things like a lawmaker unloading health care stocks that then promptly lost value after he voted in the big ugly bill last summer to, uh, to cut medicare funding by billions and billions of dollars.
▶ 2:28:32If our republican colleagues are serious about government accountability, we would have on the floor this week, ranking member morelli'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, uh, congressman chip roy, which at least would
▶ 2:29:03Comprehensively prohibit members of congress, if not the president and vice president, from owning and trading individual stocks. Uh, 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.
▶ 2:29:28And 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. 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 are getting rich off stocks whose value changes based on official government action.
▶ 2:29:55But 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 noncitizen voting. So the corruption is coming from inside the house, but it's the white house, and that's where our attention should be.
▶ 2:30:18Rep morelli, can you talk about why the requirements in the stock bill that republicans have put forward, um, is so inadequate, particularly when it allows them to continue to own and sell stocks? Speaker 4: 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.
▶ 2:30:46So 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 space, you can buy more space stock. So that's publicly traded. Second problem is it doesn't do anything with private sales or private stock. In fact, this isn't a hypothetical.
▶ 2:31:08Members 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 it's been detailed. Um, and in those cases, some cases they've done it with a company that was then purchased by space x, 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 rein in the crypto market whatsoever.
▶ 2:31:38And we know the president and his family have made billions of dollars in the crypto space. The president also purchased warner brothers corporate bonds at a time when warner brothers 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 of trades to acknowledge and disclose them within the time required under the law.
▶ 2:32:04In fact, the president trades stock more than all the members of the house combined, the president of united states. Yet he's not even covered in this bill for reasons. Uh, well, I don't even know for what reasons it it is without realistic explanation why that would happen. And the other thing, which I agree with. Mr. Mr. scott, is the exclusion of the prediction markets is shocking. I mean, we see the abuses being reported every single day.
▶ 2:32:34You know, 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.
▶ 2:32:49We, we we know that it was reported over the weekend that representative leah 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, um, a contract in the prediction markets over whether or not it would be jd vance. And that person profited handsomely from this.
▶ 2:33:13This is to 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. And in many cases, that we do end up profiting from it. And this is this is not that hard to do. There are bills. There's a number that you've referenced.
▶ 2:33:43We could do it in this bill. We 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. Um, and the crypto market participation and prediction markets. Let's give the american people the kind of government they deserve and that they want.
▶ 2:34:05Speaker 9: yeah, it is just unbelievably concerning and, and offensive that, um, folks are supposed to be public servants supposed to be serving the people, not themselves, um, continue to be able to, uh, use information that they obtain as a result of government service in order to profit.
▶ 2:34:26Although 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 $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 advance notice.
▶ 2:34:55I mean, it is a culture of corruption that is truly mind boggling, and we need to put an end to it. Had something else. Speaker 4: just then. 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, you know, 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.
▶ 2:35:26So developing for truth social, where he's going to give inside information to people who will pay 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. It's going to allow that person to sell that information to private investors who will pay him for it.
▶ 2:35:53And we're just going to sit here and go, okay, that's okay. I mean, is anybody in america think that's okay, other than the members of congress who are unwilling to stand up to him? Speaker 9: well, I'd suggest that this congress will say it's okay, but hopefully the next one won't. Thank you. I yield back. Speaker 3: gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman? The other gentleman from georgia, Mr. jack. Speaker 13: thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:36:20Speaker 14: and I want to congratulate my friend, chairman steel, on bringing this legislation before us and the work that you've put into this topic to deliver a really impressive piece of legislation. 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? Speaker 13: well, I think that's that's important to know. We hear a lot from our friends across the aisle 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.
▶ 2:36:48Absolutely nothing. 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 to buy and trade individual shares of stock as they are today.
▶ 2:37:10I 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 ten years. This bill before us is substantive. It works. Uh, it has broad support. Uh, I think we've got an opportunity to make a huge change.
▶ 2:37:30And in folks that choose to vote against, you can go home and explain to their constituents why they think members of congress should be able to buy individual shares of stock, uh, in two on on the other side with photo identification. Uh, this is our opportunity to make sure that all 50 states have photo id when individuals go to the polls. Uh, it's a pretty straightforward, easy concept. Uh, it's popular because it's common sense.
▶ 2:37:55American people understand that we need to have, uh, 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. Speaker 14: thank you very much, Mr. chairman. I just submit, um, not only is is banning stock trading for members of congress wildly, wildly popular, if you poll americans, so too are some of these common sense, um, requirements with respect to voting. So this is this should be a wildly popular bill.
▶ 2:38:24I hope the vote later this week, uh, reflects that. And I will yield back to our distinguished chairman, Mr. griffith. Thank you. Speaker 3: chairman. Yields back. Now, recognize the gentleman from colorado, Mr. noguchi, for his time of questioning. Speaker 15: thank you. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you, chairman and ranking member morelli, for being here and for your testimony, chairman style.
▶ 2:38:49So the name of your bill is the stop insider trading act, correct? That's correct. Okay. You think that's an accurate description of the bill? Yeah. Okay. What does trading mean to you? Speaker 13: the buying and selling for profit. Speaker 15: the buying and selling for profit. I couldn't agree with you more. I look. Webster's dictionary defines it as the business of buying and selling.
▶ 2:39:14This bill, as you said, bans the buying of individual shares of stock. Right? Speaker 13: that's correct. Speaker 15: it does not ban the selling. Speaker 13: it reforms, the selling. Of course, it does. Speaker 15: 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? Speaker 13: I think it's insufficient to describe it that way, that what you said is accurate but misleading. Speaker 15: accurate, misleading. Correct? Yes, it is accurate, accurate.
▶ 2:39:42But 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? Speaker 13: of course, they would have provided a minimum of seven days advance notice. I'm not sure that you could do that in the timeline you just proposed. Speaker 15: that would be legal under this. This isn't a hypothetical.
▶ 2:40:06A republican senator, seven, eight days before nine days before the covid 19 pandemic began in earnest, sold millions, millions of dollars of stock under this bill. That would not be illegal. Right. Speaker 13: but of course, they would provide notice. That's that's the part that you don't want to do. Speaker 15: 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.
▶ 2:40:31You'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. Okay. But for some reason, you've decided that the sale of stocks, individual stocks is completely fine.
▶ 2:40:47But for the notice requirements that you've now imposed on this bill, and 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.
▶ 2:41:14So I'm just I'm trying to understand why you've decided that it's permissible on one end, but not the other. Speaker 13: uh, great. Um, so the focus of the bill is to stop an individual from being able to profit off of insider information so that, that, that core concept of what is the bill's goal, I think is really important. So let's go back to your example of. Speaker 15: oh, go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead please. I want. Speaker 13: so let's go back.
▶ 2:41:41Let'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. The point of the pre disclosure is that it it prevents the individual from able to profit off of that sale because the inside the information is now publicly available. So if an individual was 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. Sure.
▶ 2:42:10Now, providing that information was inside, that's very difficult. I noted that earlier, proving insider illegal inside trades is actually very difficult for the department of justice. So my bill would require that you would provide an advance disclosure of that. That would be, of course, market moving. It mirrors. Speaker 15: just of the of the notion of that you intend to sell the stock, right. That's there's no so. Speaker 13: so so walking through the economics maybe so in. Speaker 15: I understand the example.
▶ 2:42:38I'll reclaim my time here 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 style bill, right? Seven days, I think. What's the notice requirement? Minimum seven. Minimum seven days. Okay.
▶ 2:43:04I don't know that that's necessarily going to draw the scrutiny of anybody in the public domain. And if. Speaker 13: a week from. Speaker 15: now or two weeks from now, well, stock trades are made every day by. Speaker 13: public disclosure would be prima facie evidence of insider trading. Speaker 15: why not. Jurisdiction on the purchase. Speaker 13: the department of justice? Speaker 15: then why not do that on the purchase? Why have you. Speaker 13: because there's no an individual. That's actually a great question, Mr. negus. So what we're looking at is real world situations where individuals enter congress.
▶ 2:43:33So upon entering congress, easy for all of us to agree. There should be no additional purchase of an individual shares 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 an individual who is leaving their private life, who is making reasonable savings for themselves and their family. Maybe they bought 100 shares of coca-cola earlier because we had the gentleman from georgia here, 100 100 shares of coca-cola stock or any other good american company that's working hard.
▶ 2:44:02They're using that to maybe save up for a down payment on a home, their wedding, their child's wedding. Now they have in congress. The question then became, what do we do? How do we think through this and how do we address this? 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.
▶ 2:44:33Speaker 15: I don't, I would just simply say, because I've got limited time, I would say that I. 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. Okay. 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, you know, new paradigm that you've constructed.
▶ 2:45:02I 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. I hear you, you've you've made the. Speaker 13: argument. Speaker 15: you've made the argument. And so I'm sure my gentlemen, 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 it's an accurate argument.
▶ 2:45:20In 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 august 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.
▶ 2:45:48I want to make sure I'm understanding, as a technical matter the ambit of this bill, under this bill, can you purchase crypto holdings? Speaker 13: it makes no changes to the house rules in that regard. Speaker 15: so you can't or you can't. Speaker 13: it makes no changes in this regard. Speaker 15: I don't is it allowed? Speaker 13: those rules still apply. You you today are allowed to buy crypto. Speaker 15: that's it's not a trick question. You're allowed to. Okay. Speaker 13: that's what I'm saying. Speaker 15: individual placements because someone else referenced this previously that there.
▶ 2:46:17Can you do individual purchases of individual placements of stock under this. Speaker 13: individual shares of stock. No. Speaker 15: individual shares no private placements. Yes. Speaker 13: the right the current house rules would apply. Speaker 15: correct. Okay. Right. So if it's easier I'll frame it that way. I'll I'll use. Speaker 13: house rules apply. Speaker 15: okay, fine. Speaker 13: but make clear to people who are listening is there are significant restrictions in place under house rules. I wouldn't want somebody to walk away and think, fine, no other rules apply. Okay.
▶ 2:46:45I want to make sure that they're clear. The current house rule language. Speaker 15: let's use your language. Speaker 13: I think it's more accurate. Speaker 15: under current house rules, members of congress can buy crypto holdings. And under your bill, that does not change, right? Speaker 13: there's no change. Speaker 15: okay. And under current house rules, members of congress can buy stocks through private placements and under your bill. That does not change, right? Speaker 13: no change. Speaker 15: okay. And under current house rules, members of congress can buy stocks or, excuse me, can buy industry specific mutual funds. Right. Speaker 13: that's accurate. Speaker 15: and that does not change under your bill. Speaker 13: does not change. Speaker 15: okay.
▶ 2:47:15And under current house rules, members of congress can buy bonds, right. And under your bill, that does not change. 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. morelli's comment about the prediction markets, I do not understand, and perhaps you can illuminate this.
▶ 2:47:42For me, the house administration committee has jurisdiction over member participation in prediction markets, right? Speaker 13: that's accurate. Speaker 15: okay. You're the chair. Speaker 13: along with others. But yes, we're one of the. Principal jurisdiction. Yes, yes. Speaker 15: 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.
▶ 2:48:11Every republican, every democrat agreed to it. Why can't we? Speaker 13: I we have moved forward legislation. The committee on house administration, on this topic. I look forward to I. Speaker 15: why can't we. 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? Speaker 13: yes. I've been supportive of making restrictions, uh, in the prediction markets. Speaker 15: why isn't it in this bill?
▶ 2:48:40Speaker 13: uh, we have two different pieces of legislation we moved through. Uh, obviously prediction markets are a reasonably new and novel technology available to americans. Speaker 15: it took the senate a day. It's a one page resolution. It literally is a paragraph. It just says members of the senate are banned from participating in. Speaker 13: I'm fully supportive of legislation moving forward, if that's the question. Speaker 15: no, the question is, well, I guess I'll follow up with Mr. morelli and maybe Mr. morelli, I would encourage. I know you've been pushing on this, but maybe we can just write a one page resolution.
▶ 2:49:09We'll just take the senate resolution, go to the floor this week. And apparently, according to Mr. steele, that that would meet with his approval. Or am I wrong? Is that not something that you all have been able to debate in the committee, Mr. morelli? Speaker 4: absolutely. Right. We can have a resolution and have it apply to house members and house family member, members of families of house members, dependents, and do just exactly what the senate did.
▶ 2:49:33The alternative is to do it in a bill which isn't even in front of us, for reasons that completely escaped 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. Speaker 15: I couldn't agree more.
▶ 2:49:57And I would just 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 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 up here on the vote, the what's the save vote act.
▶ 2:50:26Speaker 3: or normally you say you'll get to go on forever and ever because you have less people. But today you have more. Speaker 15: well, I you don't want to tempt me here. Speaker 3: go ahead, if you please. Speaker 15: I very quick question on the save america. I don't recall the reduced version or what what's the what's this new version called that. Speaker 13: american life. Speaker 15: what is it? Isn't it a title of it, voter id law. What? Or section three of the bill.
▶ 2:50:53Okay, 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. Okay. Speaker 13: that's accurate.
▶ 2:51:15Speaker 15: 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. Speaker 13: I don't know if it's the I didn't I've not seen that term, but it's a it's a reasonably good photo id law. Speaker 15: reasonably good photo id law. Under that law, you can use a college id. Mhm. And under your bill you can't. Speaker 13: correct. Speaker 15: yeah.
▶ 2:51:43And 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
▶ 2:52:14Congressman is championing a bill that would tell them that they no longer can do that. I understand that, sure. Speaker 13: great question. Uh, universities across the country, including in my home state, uh, 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, uh, to non-citizens and including illegal immigrants.
▶ 2:52:39Uh, and so this is a standard to say, how do we make sure, uh, 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. Speaker 15: 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 you. Speaker 16: don't think it's. Yeah, I don't think the standard. Speaker 13: to get a student id is nearly as sufficient. Speaker 15: no, no, no, I didn't ask you that. I said the wisconsin law, right.
▶ 2:53:07That 62% of the voters of wisconsin a year and a half ago decided they'd put in the state constitution. Right. That you five minutes ago described as a reasonably fair standard, I'd say, apparently did not meet. Speaker 16: what's definitely. Speaker 15: the muster here at the federal level. Speaker 16: well, speaker 13: sure it is. Speaker 16: the. Speaker 13: wisconsin senate is way better than a lot of other states. I mean, a lot of states have nothing. And the state of minnesota next to my home state, you can vouch for eight people. I think that's disastrous compared. Well, because I don't want to look anything like minnesota.
▶ 2:53:37Speaker 15: I'm saying, why didn't you? You're the wisconsin. Speaker 13: because I actually think we can do better. Yes, I think wisconsin beats most states, no doubt. I'm not uniquely familiar with your home state's, uh, voter voter laws, but I can tell you, in the neighboring states next to wisconsin, we got some disasters on our hands. Speaker 15: how much time do you have under this law? Uh, if you vote provisionally, if you don't have photo id to be able to then ensure that your vote still counts. Um, what's the time. Speaker 13: you read back your reference back to your state law on, on that? Speaker 15: I thought the federal standard, I thought the standard here was three days.
▶ 2:54:09Or is that wrong? Speaker 13: is it? It is three days. I apologize three days. I apologize, apologize three days. 72 hours. If you forget your id, you. Speaker 15: forget your id, you've got 72 hours. Speaker 13: that'd be accurate. Speaker 15: and if you don't do that, then your vote doesn't count, right? Speaker 13: right. You would not have cured your ballot. That's right. Speaker 15: do you know what that time period is in wisconsin? Speaker 13: go ahead. Speaker 15: it's a lot longer. Speaker 13: yeah. We also have we also have early voting.
▶ 2:54:32So an individual here you could could go in and do their early in-person vote, uh, safely in the state of wisconsin. If you forgot it, you could show up day after day after day. Speaker 15: I would just simply say, uh, obviously I'm, 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, uh, you would champion on the one hand, the wisconsin standard and then simultaneously propose a far more exact. In my view.
▶ 2:55:02Speaker 13: if the gentleman give me a time, I'd be happy to answer your question. Speaker 15: we've probably beaten this, uh, this horse to death here. So in any event, I thank you both. Speaker 3: gentleman yields back. Speaker 15: I will yield back. Speaker 3: I now recognize myself and I will beat that horse. Mr. steele, 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? That's right.
▶ 2:55:30So 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? Speaker 13: uh, that's actually I wouldn't say that wisconsin's is flawless. I just say it's better than other states. Speaker 3: 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? That's accurate. There you go.
▶ 2:55:57Now, I got a couple other things because y'all got into talking about some financial stuff that, you know, I'm just a poor boy from southwest virginia and I don't understand it all I gotta tell you, and I'm sure there's some people back home don't know what this is. Now y'all have money and big time in the financial world. Maybe you do. What the heck is a private placement? He said you can privi don't even know what y'all talking about.
▶ 2:56:49Is both, you know, because that's why I was that's what I was worried about, because he it implied that the gentleman implied he wanted to get rid of that. But as you all know, haven't heard me talk about it. I got rid of all my $6,000 worth of stocks when, uh, the previous act was enacted. And, uh, 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, we suddenly want to ban that. I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.
▶ 2:57:19Uh, because that that community pool might not exist if, if I hadn't bought a fair number of shares in it back in 1991. And, um, and I will confess, I sold a share this year, uh, I sold is a loose term. Uh, gave one to my youngest son when he turned 18. Uh, one of the shares that I own.
▶ 2:57:45So 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 the in a number of years as well.
▶ 2:58:07And the idea is to make sure that people have a place to, uh, go swimming, be on the swim team, play water polo, pick up stonegate rules, water polo on sunday nights, that kind of stuff. So let's make sure we're not throwing the baby out with the swimming pool water, so to speak. Uh, 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.
▶ 2:58:35I mean, if somebody wanted to argue about being ten days, okay, maybe ten days is a little bit better. But but, you know, if you own, if you own some stock and you're not a wealthy person and we, 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, uh, this year. And I mean, that was a discussion my wife and I had this morning before I left town is what are we going to do to make sure we get tuition paid and the room and board paid?
▶ 2:59:04And, you know, what's it going to look like in september when we get through paying all the big fees? And what's the monthly outgo 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, and for whatever reasons. But most of the time, most members of congress are not as wealthy as the public thinks we are. And, uh, you got to figure out how you're going to pay for things like college education.
▶ 2:59:33I've got two in 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 traded stocks. Isn't that correct, Mr. chairman? Speaker 2: that's accurate. Speaker 1: yeah, and I think that's appropriate. And I think it's a pretty good idea. Uh, the mutual funds is pretty innocuous too. You can still own the mutual funds.
▶ 3:00:00And, uh, my other son, who's more financially adept perhaps than I am my older one, who's now 20, uh, 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. I said, what is this? He goes, oh, I bought a couple thousand dollars out of my summer earnings last year in the mutual fund. I'm like, oh, great.
▶ 3:00:23I got gotta amend my public disclosure form, uh, to reflect that it's not big money, but, uh, and I think the disclosure is fine, but saying that they can't own or they can't sell, uh, is, uh, I think a little onerous 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. Speaker 2: I appreciate it. Maybe just a couple things to note. And so going back to the the seven day disclosure in how do you get there?
▶ 3:00:52Looking at securities law ten b five one plans, or 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 actually pretty difficult for the doj. That's already illegal for all members and all americans. They it's illegal. They should be held accountable. Doj should prosecute it. It's difficult to prosecute the ten b five one plan on the publicly traded company side. One in large part they're doing is these disclosures.
▶ 3:01:22And what it does is it sets up the evidence to prosecute an insider trading case. So, uh, my, my, our colleague from colorado was referencing this. Uh, and so if an individual made that public announcement seven days in advance, it would be pretty easy to show the timeline. Now. Now let's, let's leave that one given person. So I don't make an accusation that a given person, but let's, let's say an individual member could use a document had inside information on a given topic.
▶ 3:01:51They 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, that disclosure in 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.
▶ 3:02:15And 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.
▶ 3:02:31And so we tried to do is strike the balance to make sure that individuals who have successful private sector careers or whatever that word is, whether or not it's it's successful at young, uh, a local pool and are able to help people swim or maybe you or your spouse, uh, worked at a publicly traded company and that publicly traded company gave stock as part of their compensation. Um, or you used it to save up for either your retirement or, uh, for the education of your child.
▶ 3:02:59Um, it's 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, uh, come to this institution and serve, uh, 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.
▶ 3:03:26If 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 in in specifically in comparison to what I view as disastrous states. 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.
▶ 3:03:54And the state of minnesota has been noted in our committee. You were there at the hearing, uh, Mr. griffith, uh, 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 light hearted comments earlier about the never ending possible. Imagine rolling in to 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.
▶ 3:04:23So I think wisconsin has a pretty good idea what the supreme court has become hyper partizan and hyper liberal. And so thoughtfully, our state assembly and state senate moved through and moved the wisconsin, uh, legislation on photo id into the constitution as a mechanism to prevent our supreme court from driving forward a partizan liberal agenda. Smart move by our colleagues in the state assembly, in state senate.
▶ 3:04:50And so we enshrine that in the constitution. That's good. We don't we don't 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 flagged my concern specifically as it relates to the standards.
▶ 3:05:07So some of our universities are using when issuing a photo id, it's a very different standard, for example, than the state of wisconsin 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, uh, universities to issue photo ids with either limited, uh, documentation or, uh, giving those ids, uh, to non-citizens
▶ 3:05:39Or to illegal immigrants. So I appreciate you giving me the time, Mr. chairman, I yield back. Speaker 1: yeah. And I will I will say this on the going back on the 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, if 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 1 million or 2 million or $5 million of share in the xyz corporation that gives the public notice that they're
▶ 3:06:09Selling maybe out to, to, or that they'll take a look at it or people will take a roll call, will certainly report it if there's a seven day notice. And now that's not happening and it just happens. And then people say, well, I wish I'd known he was going to sell. I'd have sold two anyway. I, I yield back and now recognize the gentlelady from new mexico, miss leger fernandez, for her time. Speaker 3: uh, thank you so very much. And I want to go back to this idea that this is the stop insider trading act.
▶ 3:06:35Uh, and we went over earlier that trading involves both the purchase and the sale. You cannot have trading without the sale. And, uh, 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. Is that did I recall you saying that correctly? Speaker 2: yeah. As it relates to publicly traded company stock. Speaker 3: let's let's go back to the question of do you make a profit when you buy a stock?
▶ 3:07:06Speaker 2: no. Speaker 3: you make a profit. When you do what. Speaker 2: you may. Speaker 3: you sell the stock. Speaker 2: only if you sell for a profit. So you could lose. Speaker 3: to clarify, you could lose, but that's your chance for making a profit. Is the sale of the stock right? That's your chance. And your stock stop insider trading act does not prohibit the sale of stocks. Speaker 2: right. But it prevents you from profiting off of the sale. Speaker 3: no it doesn't. Speaker 2: you can with insider information. I would disagree. Speaker 3: as much as you want.
▶ 3:07:34As 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?
▶ 3:08:04Speaker 4: absolutely requires divestiture. And may I just add the notion that a seven day waiting period. I appreciate, uh, Mr. griffiths comments, but honestly, I don't think of a member of congress who learned that, you know, 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, uh, a month before anybody knows about it.
▶ 3:08:34And I acknowledge it's seven days that, that that does virtually nothing. There's nobody sitting around watching in real time what members of congress are doing respectfully. And there's no way to track that. And, 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, right?
▶ 3:09:01I mean, so that's and by the way, if you already own stock and there's a dividend, you can buy more 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 and the private side, there's no, you know, anything here at all.
▶ 3:09:25Speaker 3: and I think the concern is, uh, my my colleague from pennsylvania referenced it earlier that maybe what you want to do is maybe lose less. Right. And, and, you know, 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 2025, uh, um, the first on nbc. Mr.
▶ 3:09:56Mister chairman, which I seek to enter into the record a week before he voted to significantly cut medicaid by $1 trillion, 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. Speaker 1: without objection. Speaker 3: this your bill would do nothing to have prevented this sale, correct? Speaker 2: I would actually disagree with that. Speaker 3: you disagree with that? Speaker 2: you would do nothing.
▶ 3:10:27I think that's an inaccurate statement of the bill. Speaker 3: okay. So would it have, uh, he would be able to have sold this stock? You would have had to. Speaker 2: you would have provided you would have provided public notice of the sale. Speaker 3: but he would have been able to sell it. It would have not have prevented it might have it might have allowed the world to know before a a newspaper article came out, but it would have still allowed it. Speaker 2: and it depends. It depends on the timeline of that sale. Of course, seven days notice would require seven days to elapse. Speaker 3: all your all your bill does is fill out a form.
▶ 3:11:00And this is the thing. What what the american public is mad and they are mad as hell about is the idea that elected officials, both in congress, in the senate and the white house, are making big bucks, and they are the ones. Speaker 2: that's actually why this bill is so important. It's about ending the profiting off of insider information. So you exactly, you exactly know what they're upset about. And this is what the bill actually accomplishes.
▶ 3:11:28Speaker 3: it does not in the prophet because the prophet is at the sale. And and this does not prevent the sale. You're continued. You are to continue. Speaker 2: you don't believe in market forces. Speaker 3: I'm going to move on. Uh, ranking member. Speaker 4: I just may just make one additional point. Even if you had seven days notice, let's say the press did. No, 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 diversified or it's not likely. You say it's because I learned that the united states government is going to be buying.
▶ 3:11:57I mean, it doesn't disclose anything. You know, it gives, I guess, the press a couple of days if there happened to be following your specific trades and gives them a little bit of a head start on trying to figure out what you were doing. 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 advance time to figure out what was motivating me. I mean, it's a silly cover. Speaker 3: it does give you cover.
▶ 3:12:24And I think the bigger the bigger, bigger, huge, like gaping hole of this bill is that we might have information or we might be, and 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.
▶ 3:12:54Uh, just, uh, truth social, uh, president trump said with regards to nvidia, I've got an all necessary permits. Uh, I'm going this, this company is going to go through. It's great. He never told everybody on truth social that he had bought 200, zero zero 0 to $500,000 of that company's stock.
▶ 3:13:15Uh, and a cnn investigation found that president trump is marketing stocks on truth social after he's purchased shares. Now, chairman steele, your bill doesn't cover the president or the vice president, does it? Speaker 2: is that a question? No, it it is focused on congress, per the jurisdiction of the committee on house administration. Speaker 3: oh, okay.
▶ 3:13:43But 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, and we don't tell him nobody else is going to do it. Is that correct, ranking member? Speaker 4: absolutely.
▶ 3:14:07Speaker 3: and 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. Um, so truth social, uh, I don't know what you thought about that. There was a conversation about it, but I think in the end, chairman steele, uh, you never told us what you thought about having a president give access to wall street.
▶ 3:14:34Uh, early on, paid access for information that could move the market. Do you think that should be allowed? Speaker 2: I haven't read those reports. Speaker 3: okay, well, I'm going to just tell you now, president, 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? Speaker 2: I haven't read the report. I'll read it following the meeting here. Speaker 3: okay. It's interesting.
▶ 3:15:04You know, I will say that, uh, josh hawley, josh hawley actually said that what he thought that the idea that having a president, uh, buy and sell stock and market stock, that there should be a bill that applied to him. And what happened to josh hawley was that president trump came after him.
▶ 3:15:25And I'm just wondering if republicans on the house side are equally afraid, uh, of this president coming after them for actually holding him to a high standard, uh, to any kind of standard with regards to owning and selling stock. But I want to go to another matter and that's this, uh. Section three of the bill, which is like save light, I guess.
▶ 3:15:54Uh, and what strikes me is that there are three forms of id now allowed, and there is no tribal id aloud. Did I miss that? I saw three forms that says state id, uh, military id, um, and. Speaker 2: now there's. Speaker 3: there's. Speaker 2: there's five forms, uh, allowed. Uh, the fifth one being tribal ids, um, issued. I, it'll take me a second to find you the, the legislative text, but it's five forms.
▶ 3:16:25Speaker 3: I'm I'm reading. Uh, okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm glad I asked that because I, I you're welcome. That section, it does cover tribal id. Speaker 2: yeah. Speaker 3: but but the, the other piece of this bill is that right now, right. You have taken away, 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. And it is. I'm going back to that awful analogy.
▶ 3:16:51You all kept turning to, uh, that this is like a bowl of pasta, that you need an id to get a bowl of pasta. And ranking member steele, I'm ranking member morelli, 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 money to go to a restaurant and eat as much as it is right, it's a constitutional right.
▶ 3:17:21And the 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 some a passport, a driver's license or these other things.
▶ 3:17:46And that's why a pot of money that would help people get the photo ids they need would be so essential. And ranking member morelli, you seem to want to add to that. Speaker 4: well, I'll just say this, that I, I think there's a little bit of a conflation of two different things. Voter id is, 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?
▶ 3:18:15The chairman said it's because it doesn't prove citizenship, but that's not the point of voter id at the polls. The 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 prefer that college students not vote. So let's put a number of barriers in front of them. And the id, which clearly proves who they are.
▶ 3:18:43I am john kelly. 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, by the way, if you look even in 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.
▶ 3:19:05Most states allow hunters license or gun permits, or in some cases your utility bills. Um, all you need to do when you go to vote, if you if you're not willing to accept the system that a number of states have, where you have signature analysis and you feel you need to have voter 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.
▶ 3:19:35We've had, I don't know how many hearings I haven't heard anybody bring to us. People who showed id and vouched for to vote when it wasn't them. It simply never happens. This is the only thing that's fascinating about this. In the reconciliation bill, they would give $10 billion, which I'm glad for. 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.
▶ 3:20:05We 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. Speaker 3: 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 par for the course for republicans. And with that, Mr. chair, I yield back. Speaker 1: the gentleman yields back. And I now recognize the gentlelady from indiana. Speaker 5: thank you, Mr.
▶ 3:20:35Chairman. Before I get into my questions about the stop insider trading act, I want to give chairman style an opportunity to respond to some of the, um, concerns that were raised about voter identification, um, chairman style. Is there not also an affidavit option for those that may or may not have ids?
▶ 3:20:55And what else, uh, can you tell us about the ability that this provides to give opportunities to vote while also safeguarding our elections? Speaker 2: you bring up a couple good. You bring up a couple good points. We lay out in this bill in particular, for situations where individuals are voting by mail, uh, that one can go through the process of including the last four digits of social security number, as well, uh, as an affidavit.
▶ 3:21:24Uh, 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. In my home state of wisconsin, uh, 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.
▶ 3:21:54Last year in the state of wisconsin. Was it 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 $1 million. So the state of wisconsin provides that individuals, they can't afford it, uh, recognizing that it's required, uh, 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.
▶ 3:22:24Half $1 million in the state of wisconsin, about 2% of the united states of america. You could run that out nationally and get a pretty good idea, uh, 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. Uh, under supreme court jurisprudence, states would be required to do that.
▶ 3:22:47Um, whether or not the funds come through the expansion of hava grants, whether or not it comes through, uh, reconciliation, whether or not it comes through appropriations, um, we can, we can work that piece out. Uh, 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. I think that's important. As it relates to student id, I think there's a lot of challenges on how some again, not all, but how some universities issue their ids that there are is not strict protocols.
▶ 3:23:16Uh, as it relates to that in comparison to the five ways that we'll offer ids, uh, 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. Um, and so relying on that, obviously, if somebody has a passport, federally issued id, if you will, that's allowed in a tribal id, uh, that being the core concept, I think strengthens the integrity of our photo id requirements.
▶ 3:23:47But again, these are common sense. And I know, uh, some of our colleagues on the left, uh, struggle when we, uh, slightly make fun of all the different reasons and ways that you need an id. 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.
▶ 3:24:17You need to show photo identification to vote. Now, ultimately, I'd love to see the whole broader package go through, uh, with other election reforms, but this is the most basic common sense principle you can imagine. You need photo identification to vote. Uh, in separate, of course, is the legislation that prevents members of congress from profiting off of insider information to stop insider trading act. Speaker 5: thank you. Um, we often hear the democrats say voter fraud is not widespread.
▶ 3:24:46And if 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. Uh, and so it doesn't have to be widespread to disenfranchize voters across the country. Uh, so voter id is a critical component of preventing voter fraud.
▶ 3:25:11Um, because it doesn't have to be widespread to, to threaten the integrity of our, 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, uh, in save america.
▶ 3:25:37Speaker 2: well, we we unquestionably know that there are actors that want to destabilize the us election system. Uh, and so we should be cognizant of that and always working to enhance the integrity inside of our elections. Uh, to your earlier point, um, how many illegal votes or inappropriate votes should we accept? And the obvious answer is zero.
▶ 3:25:58And so you referenced bush v gore, uh, because for all americans, uh, over a certain age, uh, they remember that election, uh, but for you and I, uh, 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.
▶ 3:26:25And so this is when democrats were in control and they were driving forward, uh, trying to take mariannette miller-meeks out of her duly elected position, uh, at that time to try to expand their majority in the house. And so when we know house races, uh, 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.
▶ 3:26:54That is when you recognize how important election integrity is, uh, in narrowly divided house and narrowly divided senate, any movement can actually swing elections. And so making sure that we have this standard nationwide, uh, 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.
▶ 3:27:24And I think that's really important to do in all 50 states, uh, in this bill sets the standard and says, no, you need to have photo identification when you go to the go to the polls and vote in federal elections, it matters. It's important. It's common sense, and it's easy to do. Speaker 5: the house and senate majorities and the presidential election will depend on the integrity of these elections. So I appreciate your work on that. 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 nonpublic information.
▶ 3:27:52Um, however, uh, americans rightly fear that some members of congress may be using sensitive information to benefit their stock portfolios. Uh, congress passed the stop trading on congressional knowledge, the stock act, in 2012. So lawmakers are already prohibited from using nonpublic information for their own financial benefit.
▶ 3:28:19But 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, uh, to to help ensure that members of congress are not able to use their public office for private financial gain. Uh, though we did take an important step, congress did with the stock act more than a decade ago.
▶ 3:28:47It's clear members of congress, though we are subject to the same insider trading laws as every other american under the stock act. Um, more needs to be done on this front, despite the existing safeguards that we have. Uh, the american people remain concerned. It's one of the, the most, um, I would say responses I've received in, in, uh, input to the office asking to support the stop insider trading act.
▶ 3:29:15So this will build on existing ethics laws, strengthening the framework with clear common sense guardrails to increase transparency and accountability. Chairman style. Um, from your perspective, what shortcomings have become apparent since the enactment of the stock act more than a decade ago? Uh, why are additional safeguards necessary? And what new restrictions in this bill will close those loopholes? Speaker 2: uh, thank you very much.
▶ 3:29:44Uh, 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, uh, and the reporting is within bands, uh, that was noted earlier, uh, by our colleague, Mr. scott. Uh, that, that coupled with attention in particular and the social media space, uh, raises a lot of concerns.
▶ 3:30:13The question then began, how do you prevent members of congress from profiting off of this in the first place? What's what's the solution? Recognizing this concern? Well, let's 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, uh, individual shares of stock. The bill accomplishes that goal. It puts in place a blanket rule on the acquisition of individual shares of stock.
▶ 3:30:41It 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. Uh, and it would set up an individuals, uh, case in the event that somebody was still trying to profit off of insider information, uh, to actually be prosecuted and held account to the law, I think this makes meaningful and substantive reforms. Uh, and it's the types of reforms I think we need to pass here in the house.
▶ 3:31:08Speaker 5: it also will ban members of congress and their families from purchasing individual stocks. I think that's critically important. Um, because just because members of congress might be banned, uh, their family members may also yet currently be able to trade on information that may be accessible to members of congress.
▶ 3:31:29Um, and the advance notice on selling those investments, I think is a, is an important step to increase transparency and restore public trust. 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. Uh, the american people deserve confidence that the decisions that we make are guided by what's best for them, not what's benefits personal investment portfolios.
▶ 3:31:57I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, uh, in this committee and on the floor. Thank you. Speaker 6: Mr. norman, do you have any questions? Speaker 1: uh, thank both of you for testifying. You know, there's a lot of questions about this before, brian. You heard it in caucus meeting. I think others, as most of this been resolved in your opinion?
▶ 3:32:23Speaker 2: yeah, I actually think that we have a product, um, that should be able to garner the support of the overwhelming majority of the house. Speaker 1: joe, do you have any comments? Speaker 4: I do have quite a few, but I'll, 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
▶ 3:32:53President. Um, and until that time, we do in this bill doesn't do it, uh, doesn't really even come close to doing it. Then I think we're going to continue to disappoint the american people. Speaker 1: well, we know things that the ordinary public doesn't. We have access to things that people don't. And, uh, hopefully the safeguards, you know, if you're a crook, you can beat any system. It doesn't matter what, but there ought to be rules on it. And, uh, but I didn't get to hear much of your testimony, if any, but I've heard some of the background on it.
▶ 3:33:22But thank you for each of you for taking the time. Speaker 4: I think you can watch it later tonight when you're back in your apartment, if you have a few hours. Okay. Speaker 1: uh, I yield back. Speaker 6: thank you, Mr. chairman. I'm seeing no further members here to ask any questions. I thank our witnesses for being here, and you are excused.
▶ 3:33:57Speaker 1: and come to our. Speaker 7: which was. Thank you. Brian. Thank. Speaker 6: I now welcome our next panel, chairman hill, ranking member waters from the house financial services committee. Speaker 7: thank you. Thank you.
▶ 3:34:36Speaker 6: 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.
▶ 3:35:10Speaker 1: thank you, madam chair. It's a pleasure to be with the rules committee today to talk about h.r. 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.
▶ 3:35:35These institutions are foundational to our financial system, indispensable to our economy, and a unique strength of our country. 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.
▶ 3:35:56For many small businesses, the greatest obstacle to expansion is not a lack of good ideas or hard working 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.
▶ 3:36:15Recently, 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 ten 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.
▶ 3:36:44Unfortunately, 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.
▶ 3:37:04The 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.
▶ 3:37:27This legislation recognizes an important reality that regulation should be tailored to risk requirements designed for the nation's largest and most complex financial institutions 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.
▶ 3:37:59Several 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. This is not about weakening oversight.
▶ 3:38:29It's about making sure that our regulatory framework is efficient, effective and appropriately calibrated, strong financial institutions and vibrant local economies are complementary goals, not competing ones. And the benefits of increased access to capital extend well beyond individual businesses. What small businesses can obtain financing they hire employees, increase wages, invest in their communities and generate greater economic growth.
▶ 3:38:54These investments ripple outward, 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, unnecessary barriers to growth. This legislation does precisely that.
▶ 3:39:23The mainstreet act spurs new bank formation, tackles banking deserts and large 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's size, business model and risk profile, and it provides certainty around regulatory approval of bank mergers and acquisitions.
▶ 3:39:49The 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.
▶ 3:40:09All now, 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 h.r. 6000 955, and I thank the chair and I yield back the balance of my time. Speaker 6: thank you. Chairman hill, ranking member waters, you're recognized.
▶ 3:40:39Speaker 7: thank you very much. Thank you, chair powell. 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 housing act. Oh, there it is now.
▶ 3:41:00Even 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 are even payday lenders, debt collectors and credit bureaus. Unfortunately, that is not the case for the bill before you today, h.r.
▶ 3:41:246955 is a wall street deregulation hiding as a community bank bill. This package is 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 law.
▶ 3:41:48That 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.
▶ 3:42:14Importantly, the nation is grappling with an affordable 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 h.r.
▶ 3:42:366955 would add insult to injury by hampering a future cfpb from issuing new rules, such as reining in debt collectors or abusive medical debt practices. But maybe that is the point.
▶ 3:42:53Furthermore, 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 back capital, liquidity and other rules specifically for those banks.
▶ 3:43:14Nevertheless, this bill lets even more of these large banks escape critical safeguards, risking more failures. 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 the bank. Yes, you can't make this up. There's a provision that will increase the amount individuals can defraud.
▶ 3:43:46Absolutely. At a bank by then. Turn around and obtain subsidized financing from the government for those assets from the failed bank. H.r. 60955. 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.
▶ 3:44:11I 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.
▶ 3:44:27They 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.
▶ 3:44:56Americans for financial reform and other leading consumer group organizations wrote a letter saying, I quote, this radical legislation would compound an already aggressive deregulatory spree.
▶ 3:45:11Taken 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. 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.
▶ 3:45:37Wells 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.
▶ 3:46:02Madam 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. Speaker 6: um, thank you both. I'm going to defer my questions for, um, a little bit. Mr.
▶ 3:46:35Norman, do you have any questions? I'm sorry, Mr. griffin. I should ask Mr. griffin first and then I have no questions. Miss scanlon. Speaker 3: 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 our local economies. But we're concerned because of it.
▶ 3:46:59Instead of advancing targeted reforms to support those institutions, what we have here is bundling together of 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.
▶ 3:47:20Meanwhile, 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, uh, rescinded rules and the gutting of the consumer complaint system.
▶ 3:47:48This bill would go even further by weakening the ability of banking regulators to protect consumers and preserve financial stability. 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.
▶ 3:48:14Instead, once again, this bill asks the american people to take on more financial risk so the banking industry can make more money and face less accountability. So, you know, I'm not in favor of putting the thumb on the scale for billionaires and big businesses and leaving the american people to shoulder the risk.
▶ 3:48:33Um, ranking member waters, after the financial crisis in 2008, uh, congress established a number of regulatory thresholds and supervisory authorities that this bill would change or roll back. Um, 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. Speaker 7: well, thank you, representative scanlon.
▶ 3:49:03I 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.
▶ 3:49:20Uh, 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. 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 are working together.
▶ 3:49:44Our 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. I reference, uh, wells fargo when I spoke just a moment ago, everybody remembers the fake accounts that were set up.
▶ 3:50:15Everybody 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. Wells fargo 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, uh, this kind of work that we have done.
▶ 3:50:42Um, in order to save face, you know, 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.
▶ 3:51:03Speaker 3: 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, uh, overcoming a number of obstacles, not the least of which is always the senate, to get that 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.
▶ 3:51:34Speaker 6: thank you, Mr. scanlon. Mr. norman. Speaker 8: there's one. Thank both of you. Come. This is one of the few times, maxine, I think you're kind of happy with this bill, which is a good thing. Uh, no, I appreciate your bipartisanship. Um, chairman hill, the camels rating has been a subject of a lot of discussion.
▶ 3:51:52I know in my banking days where they felt like it was too much was left up to the whoever was judging the sensitivity, the capital adequacy, the has the appeals process. Is there a time limit? I notice that's in there. If some. 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 any time to get an answer on it?
▶ 3:52:23Speaker 1: I appreciate that, Mr. norman, and let me start out by saying that I couldn't disagree more with the ranking members opening statement on her position on 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. 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.
▶ 3:52:51It'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, uh, in new york, for example. And I can walk through more detail on that as we go through the evening. But let me answer your question, Mr. norman.
▶ 3:53:16Uh, 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 neil bill that was signed into law in the 1990s by president clinton. Uh, that bill said that banks ought to be able to question an exam output in some orderly way to have an ombudsman, uh, to allow them to assess with an independent view whether the bank had been treated fairly or not.
▶ 3:53:45And this was after, uh, really ten 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. Is this a fair process by which people could question and exam output?
▶ 3:54:15I believe that's represented in the bill. And also we've 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. Speaker 8: thank you. Maxine, you have any comment on that? Speaker 7: well, you know, I'm just looking, uh, at what is in this legislation voting for h.r.
▶ 3:54:366955 would add insult to injury by hampering a future cfpb from issuing new rules, such as reining in debt collectors or abusive medical debt practices. But maybe that is the point. Um, 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.
▶ 3:55:04I 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, uh, anymore is just running, uh, you know, their profit margins on beef. And so why is this happening? It is happening because we have an affordability crisis.
▶ 3:55:34We 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 hook.
▶ 3:55:57As 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 hiding big banks, hiding behind legislation, supposedly for community banks. Speaker 8: thank both of you testifying. Appreciate it. I yield back. Speaker 6: thank you, Mr. norman. Miss leger fernandez. Speaker 9: thank you so very much.
▶ 3:56:24Uh, um, madam chair, for recognizing me and for the conversation today. Uh, you know, one of, uh, I'm a big fan of, uh, the consumer financial protection bureau. Um, and I'm also very concerned that what we're seeing is president trump is regularly pardoning fraudsters, uh, who provide tens of thousands, sometimes millions to his campaign or to his family's businesses and so
▶ 3:56:56Forth. 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.
▶ 3:57:13And before president trump took off office, uh, the cfp had returned $21 billion to americans cheated by scammers, $21 billion. Right. And that's their money. That's their money. Um, and, but what we're seeing is that he's taken an ax to this great consumer protection bureau. He's fired staff.
▶ 3:57:42Uh, and, uh, this has cost consumers. And so what does this bill do to protect the consumer financial protection bureau? I mean, it needs protecting now, too, doesn't it? Uh, ranking member waters.
▶ 3:57:55Speaker 7: well, um, you aptly mentioned 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, uh, that the average consumer could lodge a complaint. Well, I want you to know that the consumer financial protection bureau helped millions.
▶ 3:58:22And you just mentioned the return of, uh, of assets and money or 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, uh, 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.
▶ 3:58:50We all everybody knows that I and many of you, we really support the small banks. We really support the community banks. 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. Et cetera. And so we've got to fight against the bill.
▶ 3:59:18I 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 what we have to be aware of. Speaker 9: uh, with that, madam chair, I yield back. Speaker 6: thank you very much.
▶ 3:59:42Uh, chairman hill, I appreciated the comments that you made, having grown up in an extremely rural area, I'm I'm very familiar with, um, how important rural banking is. Um, and I have very strong feelings about how bad dodd-frank has been over the years.
▶ 4:00:04And I'm glad that to see your committee coming in to correct some, some of the problems with dodd-frank. Um. 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.
▶ 4:00:32And, um, 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, on the area.
▶ 4:00:53And 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, D.C. when they do much better. The bank in my community was a very small bank, forever and ever and ever.
▶ 4:01:16The most profitable small bank in the united states for a long time, and did a wonderful job. Um, uh, miss waters, you bring up the beef under lock and key. What about those flash mobs out there in california who came in to the drugstores and the jewelry stores and stole when our economy was at its best in this country? It isn't.
▶ 4:01:46It isn't the economy. It isn't the affordability that makes people thieves. It's bad values on their part. Um, so I thank you both for coming today and bringing this good bill to us. And I look forward to discussing it. Do you have something you'd like to add?
▶ 4:02:11Speaker 1: I'd like to add just because, um, 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, uh, we gave regulatory relief on the suspension calendar, 100% vote in this house by voice to tailor regulatory compliance for banks under $6 billion.
▶ 4:02:35Of the 5000 banks in this country, probably 4500 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, uh, all across the country, 500 community development lenders.
▶ 4:03:04What 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. Speaker 6: I don't believe that at all. I don't believe that that assertion at all.
▶ 4:03:33I appreciate your speaking up. We we need to get. Would you like to get those on the. In the record. Speaker 1: I just would I would just simply say that, uh, there's this bill in no way weakens consumer protection. Uh, 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.
▶ 4:03:59And the same for consumer compliance on fair housing, fair lending, equal opportunity, credit opportunity, all those laws are in place and fully implemented by our supervisors. Speaker 6: so without objection, I can insert those letters. Speaker 1: yeah, without objection. Speaker 6: I'll support um for for this bill and for community banking. I know the community bankers in north carolina and I know how good they are. Speaker 7: madam chair, may I. Speaker 6: well, I'm going to I'm going to recognize Mr. scott. Okay, miss water.
▶ 4:04:32Speaker 10: madam chair, um, I appreciate, uh, the chair and the ranking member being here today. Um, I Mr. hill, do you have any further comments on the bill? I mean, I know I'm from a small town and, uh, regulatory relief for small banks, I think is important. Um. Speaker 1: well, ran one of those small banks before I was in congress. I ran it successfully.
▶ 4:04:57Throughout the financial crisis, our bank grew and was more profitable in the years of the financial crisis and following the financial crisis. And but we were operated in very small rural counties, like ten 000 people in the county in the mississippi delta.
▶ 4:05:11And 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.
▶ 4:05:41And 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. Speaker 6: that's exactly right. Speaker 1: you go back to the gentleman. Speaker 10: I don't I don't do much banking anymore, unfortunately.
▶ 4:06:06Um, 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. Speaker 1: you know, you raise a good point there because I mentioned at the top that six out of ten home construction loans are made by banks under 10 billion. If you ask the biggest banks, uh, in the country, what is your home construction portfolio in arkansas?
▶ 4:06:35And the answer will be none. We don't do that business. Speaker 10: I guess. Speaker 1: and the pandemic exposed that, uh, the biggest banks like bank of america or other I'm not picking on bank of america's, but the largest 5 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 small our main street banks are essential. We don't want to be canada with four banks.
▶ 4:07:03We 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. Speaker 10: I know bb and t and suntrust aren't necessarily your hometown community bank, but they originated that way and kind of kind of bought them and, you know, kind of the the bigger they get, the, the less important you are to them and the less customer service you get out of them.
▶ 4:07:29And so I'll just tell you, the small banks are the ones that, that I very much want to make sure we're taking care of. And I trust you, uh, chairman hill, to do that. And so, um, and, and competition is good for the marketplace because that's where customer service was, will, will succeed with that. Madam chair, I yield. Speaker 6: thank you very much. I thank our witnesses for being here. Uh, we have no other members here to ask questions. So thank you all very much for. Thank you, madam.
▶ 4:07:56Waiting and appreciate your being here. Made a statement about. No. Okay.
▶ 4:08:28Speaker 11: your amendments now. Speaker 6: I now welcome miss spartz, Mr. magaziner and Mr. davidson. Um, miss spartz, you may submit your written testimony and we ask you to keep your remarks to five minutes. Yeah. Pull it close to you, sir.
▶ 4:08:59Speaker 12: okay. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Um, I want to explain why I did this amendment. Actually, this is an issue that came to my attention last week. Uh, it was on the floor when we had discussion about take care of america's veterans act, and there was a lot of confusion that brought us to look at how we want to make sure that we go on to fund the benefits for people. When we go to send them to wars, we're going to send them in the military.
▶ 4:09:29And there was some concerns, you know, to be able to fund the richard starr act, you know, that, uh, you know, we would, um, you know, codify some of the va actions that could potentially could cut benefits for future veterans and current military. So I think, you know, to be fair, I think we need to make sure that if we send people the war, we're going to fund the benefits for them. So the current military. So I thought there was a better solution. I think it should be a bipartisan issue.
▶ 4:09:57So and you know, major, I think most of the committee for what is this act is. So it's kind of fixes in some way loophole. If you are in the military and you're medically discharged, uh, to your combat related matter, you are not there for 20 years. So you cannot get fully to retirement. And for va disability is offset. But what if you got injured in combat? You probably couldn't stay, you know, for 20 years.
▶ 4:10:25So I think it's fair for those people who actually get this injury that they can get theirs. And, uh, I think this act, which is, I think the fiscal of this act, about 9.4 billion, you know, but this is germane to this reconciliation where we're going to be funding, uh, department of war. And that was actually going to provide for military retirement for the retirement pension. Um, I think this is, you know, shouldn't be a partizan issue.
▶ 4:10:53Uh, representative john jefferson van drew and anna paulina luna cosponsor of this amendment. I really appreciate that. And, uh, I know that we're going to be dealing with some offsets later, which is fine, you know, but, uh, we samsung could, uh, be dealing with this situation and whatever they are does really, they can do some efficiencies, they can change some things. You know, if they change something, there are some savings. It still goes to the bottom line to go to our national debt.
▶ 4:11:21So ultimately, if we are going to be saving samsung 20 barry moore dan newhouse will still be ten billions of servants if we just find this particular act, because these people truly deserve to have, you know, full pay for retirement pension compensation. So I think my role is very simple. It just increases that with cbo score. This causes 9.4 billion to be able to, you know, try out treat our veterans and military family.
▶ 4:11:48So this is just adds to the reconciliation as a separate amendment. And, um, seems like it should be not even a partizan issue. I'd appreciate your support. And, and, you know, I think it will also might even be able to save us money. But regardless of what it is, if we send people to fund their benefits when they come back, we have a lot of people serving in the military in tough situations, and we as a country should appreciate that.
▶ 4:12:15And that is the best and brightest of our country that serve our public fight for our public. So I would appreciate bipartisan support of this amendment, and I'm happy to answer any questions. You back. Speaker 6: Mr. magaziner. Speaker 13: thank you, madam chair, and members of the committee. I come before you tonight disappointed but not surprised.
▶ 4:12:40I 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, I worked with a bipartisan group of republican and democratic members, including Mr.
▶ 4:13:04Roy, my 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.
▶ 4:13:25But 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. So let's get one thing straight.
▶ 4:13:40The 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.
▶ 4:14:10And under this bill, members would still be allowed to vote on health care policy, knowing that they own a bunch of health care 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.
▶ 4:14:35In 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.
▶ 4:15:04It's just a political game to them. So I have introduced an amendment that will strike the language of this unserious fake reform bill of 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.
▶ 4:15:33Roy and a lot of other republican members came together with us to introduce last year. 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.
▶ 4:15:47But 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. But over the past year, that has changed dramatically so far in 2026.
▶ 4:16:16And 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 an nvidia stock right before he lifted export controls on nvidia chips. He bought and sold defense stocks when making decisions about the iran war.
▶ 4:16:40He 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. 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.
▶ 4:17:09And I yield back. Speaker 6: thank you very much, miss fedorchuk. You're recognized. Speaker 14: thank you, chairwoman fox and members of the committee. Uh, I appreciate chairman stahl'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.
▶ 4:17:34I, like most americans, believe that only an 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. In fact, my amendment exists because north dakota already meets and in many respects exceeds the legislation.
▶ 4:18:03The 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.
▶ 4:18:36It 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. North dakota has strong safeguards for absentee and mail in voting.
▶ 4:18:54Voters 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 are also include accommodations that work well for tribal communities while maintaining election integrity.
▶ 4:19:15Simply 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 stiles 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 as currently drafted.
▶ 4:19:45Portions 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.
▶ 4:20:00In 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. 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.
▶ 4:20:30We 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. I respectfully ask the committee to make my amendment in order. Thank you. I yield back and look forward to your questions. Speaker 6: thank you. Mr. Mr. davidson, you're recognized. Speaker 11: thank you, madam chairwoman. And thanks to the rules committee for the work you do here.
▶ 4:20:56Um, you know, we have a number of bills that comprise consideration as part of this rule. So I will once again plead that we, uh, 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.
▶ 4:21:27Uh, whereas democrats put it into the base text, wouldn't allow amendments and forced it into law. They've done rule making that made a bad law even worse in practice. But thankfully, the trump administration has a rule in place that minimizes that impact. The power of god that relates to this has 193 co-sponsors. This is broadly supported, and it locks in with the administration's doing what it makes it law.
▶ 4:21:53So I plead with the committee, please make this in order and ideally, just incorporate it into the base text. I think that would be a better way to do it. We also are talking about budget reconciliation again. And look, um, and reconciliation is an important tool. We are in the house, I think, uniformly frustrated by the senate at times, but, uh, we're across our $95 billion on offset. One of the tools on budget reconciliation is to do just that.
▶ 4:22:23One of the points of the budget reconciliation act is to pay for our spending. Sam liccardo is essential to defending freedom. We don't currently have any money, and since we don't have any money, we must cut spending by revenue. Since we aren't cutting spending, uh, we should at least prioritize our spoils. However, that increases the pace of our growth and growth is strong. Uh, our spending is growing even faster. So there.
▶ 4:22:55I'd ask unanimous consent to submit this. For the record. This is just a summary of that. But thank you, madam chairwoman. Well, look, there are easy ways to save money. Uh, conservative groups have provided them for us. Uh, really bad them, uh, through reconciliation. One, reconciliation two. The republican study committee has consolidated them in various other colleagues have worked on this for years. So I have four lines.
▶ 4:23:24One would say $4 trillion on a ten year budget scoring number. And I don't think that's incredibly hard to do. Uh, and I think importantly, this is a budget window that because of our rules, without a ten year window, what happens inside that ten year window in 2032, the social security trust fund quits working, which is the payroll taxes that are collected, uh, become insufficient to cover the payouts.
▶ 4:23:52Now, under current law, as scored on our budget, now 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%. 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.
▶ 4:24:21You know, bad news doesn't get better in time kicking the can down the road. Is it going to make this easier to solve down the road? We should protect social security. I think this would be a good way to do both things. I've got a proposal, a separate amendment, $2.6 trillion. I get a different one. That's a little easier. That's $1.25 trillion. And since we're only asking for 1 to $5 billion worth of new debt, I got one that would save $95 billion, but I wouldn't lock it in every stinkin year. Look, we're bankrupting our country.
▶ 4:24:51It's not compassionate to bankrupt the country. Far down our lives 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 pay for what we fought last week over veterans bill. Care for our veterans is a first order priority, but because of the rules of the house and common sense, we found pay fors.
▶ 4:25:15Now the pay fors created a debate here, and people thought maybe we could find better pay for us. But the principle was, we're going to pay for it. But you're telling me this no, $95 billion request. We don't have to pay for it. I'm offended. Now, lastly, we're talking about, uh, you know, bill that deals with insider trading. And I do object to insider trading, stop insider trading act because insider trading is already illegal. Um, and so I think we're confusing people.
▶ 4:25:44Insider trading is already a crime, but you do get access to a lot of information in congress. I think the ethics rules are easier for people to do the right thing. Um, but passing this law makes sense, but it should make sense for the executive branch and the judiciary branch too. So the amendment that would apply this equally to all six employees and above in the executive branch. So that would include cabinet secretaries, all elected officials in the executive branch and would include, uh, the judiciary branch as well.
▶ 4:26:12So that would make all of my amendments in front of us, give us a chance to represent the people that sent us here to represent them. And I go back. Speaker 6: thank you, Mr. davidson. Um, does any member on our side have any questions? No. Mr. mcgovern. Speaker 15: just briefly, Mr. davidson, I, you know, um, we objected to the your veterans bill because you cut veterans benefits to pay for other veterans benefits.
▶ 4:26:39Um, but if you're going to pay for veterans benefits, then you have to pay for the war. Um, and this doesn't do that. And miss sprouts, I asked chairman arrington, um, here I have an amendment similar to yours on the richard starr 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.
▶ 4:27:01Uh, but I would hope that if your amendment gets blocked, um, that, um, 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. And Mr.
▶ 4:27:19Magaziner and miss, um, uh, fedora, I mean, um, I just so, you know, uh, when chairman style came up to testify, um, he wrote a letter, uh, that's a little different than a lot of other chair, uh, who request rules. They usually request an appropriate rule. Um, but he was pretty clear. Um, he wants a totally closed rule to govern this issue.
▶ 4:27:42Um, and I understand why, because they don't want to expand their, uh, and make more effective the, the stop insider trading act. Um, and I don't know what the problem is, um, with north dakota, uh, but, uh, but the point of the matter is, um, you know, we'll see what happens, but he specifically asked for a totally closed rule. Yeah. Speaker 12: you can I get to clarify? I just want to make sure that, you know, we can try to find a lot of things.
▶ 4:28:08And I think the version that you are on the stretch petition is roughly $90 billion, you know, so let's just find 9 billion to fund. It's ten times more. Let's just find 9 billion to fund. You know what I'm just saying? No, I know, I'm just saying, let's just find one. I'm just saying we can. Let's find 9 billion to truly deal with an issue of combat veterans. You know, not not expand on that. Speaker 15: so. Speaker 12: so would you, would you do something that is a lower amount or not? Not 90 billion. 90 billion is a lot.
▶ 4:28:40Well, we do now. I think we need to do it. We need to find something, not more things, you know. So so. Speaker 15: it sounds like the answer is no. Speaker 12: well, well, your blood is too broad. You know, we need to throw the there was an issue we need to deal, not do more and more. So I think this is the best. Will you support this on the floor. But this version. Speaker 15: are very disappointed. Speaker 12: but very disappointed. It seems like you don't want to support this amendment. You want to have more stuff. So would you support this amendment. Thank you ma'am, would you support this 9.4 billion amendment?
▶ 4:29:09Speaker 15: I have an amendment to make to richard star act in order. Speaker 12: to correct the matter. So you don't support republican amendments? Speaker 15: no, but I'm. Speaker 12: asking the question. The backyard is about this issue. Speaker 15: excuse me. You are in charge. Your party is in charge of this congress and in charge of this committee. If your amendment is not made in order, it is not because for democrats didn't vote for it. It's 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 in order, will you sign the discharge petition so we can have a vote?
▶ 4:29:39And I think your answer is no. And that's. Speaker 12: why you have a different you have a different legislation on that petition. Thank you, Mr. ranking member, but hopefully you can support if it's in order. Speaker 6: Mr. chairman. Speaker 3: thank you. Um, I do want to thank the representative from north dakota for bringing forward the fact that our elections are constitutionally run by the states.
▶ 4:30:00And and the fact that there's some issues with the legislation that's being pressed here, um, and how it would be implemented in the states, I think is really telling Mr. magaziner, I hope that your amendments made in order. I certainly will be, um, voting for it myself, but you seem to have a fair amount of you know, you mentioned there was a lot of bipartisan support and, uh, that's including among members of the rules committee. So hopefully they will follow what they've already sponsored.
▶ 4:30:30Speaker 13: 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. And I think, you know, to ranking member mcgovern's point, you know, the reason that chairman style 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 pretend to.
▶ 4:30:57And 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. Speaker 3: thank you. I yield back. Speaker 6: thank you, miss leger fernandez. Speaker 9: thank you for your amendments. We made many of the same points you did, representative davidson, of where they're willing to, uh, rack up the debt again. And we don't really see them willing to, uh, raise revenue.
▶ 4:31:22And 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. It is, uh, you an earlier today, chairman still said, no, it's enough to just require disclosure of sales. Um, but that's not a ban is it, of. Speaker 13: 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.
▶ 4:31:49And 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 the trader in chief right now, who is the president, who's traded more than every member of congress combined this year?
▶ 4:32:19Speaker 9: outrageous and corruption action. And thank you for your amendments. And with that, madam chair, thank you all for your, uh, coming forward and explaining your amendment. And I yield back. Speaker 6: thank you. Miss fedorchuk, did you have some other comment you wish to make? Speaker 14: uh, no. I just wanted to emphasize that the amendment I'm seeking is very narrow, and it is recognizes that north dakota already meets and exceeds the standards that we're trying to create for the rest of the country, um, of which I strongly support.
▶ 4:32:51Speaker 6: thank you. Speaker 8: madam chair. Speaker 6: yes. Speaker 15: I ask unanimous consent to insert in 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.
▶ 4:33:18By reducing funds authorized for the one big battleship program by 610 million. Speaker 6: 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. Speaker 16: madam chair, I move the committee. Grant h.r. 8800.
▶ 4:33:46The national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2027, a structured rule. The rule waves 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 their respective designees. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of substitute recommended by the committee on armed services now printed in the bill.
▶ 4:34:06An amendment in the nature of 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. 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 in block described in section three and pro forma amendments described in section four.
▶ 4:34:30Each 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 and an opponent shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section four of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rules wave way.
▶ 4:34:56The rule waves all points of order against the amendments printed in part a of the rules committee report or amendments in block described in section three of the rule. The rule provides that the chair of the committee on armed services or his designee may offer amendments in block consisting of further amendments printed in part a of the rules committee report not earlier disposed of. Amendments in block shall be considered as read.
▶ 4:35:16Shall 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 four, the rule, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. The rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services or their respective designees, may offer up to ten 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.
▶ 4:35:46The 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 the bill. An amendment in 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. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended.
▶ 4:36:15The 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 their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h. Con 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.
▶ 4:36:39Under a closed rule, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution 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. The nature of a substitute, consisting of the text of rules committee print 119-37 shall be considered as adopted in the. And the concurrent resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read.
▶ 4:37:04The rule permits the chair of the committee on the budget to offer amendments in the house pursuant to section 30585 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 in the nature substitute recommended by the committee on house administration, now printed in the bill.
▶ 4:37:33An amendment in 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 in. The bill, as amended. Shall be considered as read. 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 the house on house administration or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit.
▶ 4:38:02The 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. In the nature of substitute consisting of the text of rules committee, print 119-35 shall be considered as adopted in. The bill, as amended. Shall be considered as read rule. Waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended.
▶ 4:38:30The 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.
▶ 4:38:58The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations with respective designees. 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 is passed by the house as new matter at the end of h.r. 8800.
▶ 4:39:18Assign 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. Speaker 6: thank you very much, Mr. griffith.
▶ 4:39:45Um, is there um amendment? Yeah. Sorry. Is there any discussion on the motion from the gentleman from virginia? Speaker 15: madam chair, we have several amendments. We're going to try to be quick, but six bills in one rules an awful lot, but I have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 4:40:06I 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 a 60 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 dodd $150 billion last july. They haven't used half of it.
▶ 4:40:33Now they want to send another $60 billion for for the war again without paying for it. But when it comes to helping combat wounded veterans, republicans insist 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. Speaker 6: you've heard the motion from Mr. mcgovern. Is there any further discussion?
▶ 4:41:02Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Speaker 15: aye. Speaker 6: those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have. Speaker 17: it recorded vote. Speaker 6: the clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach. Mr. fischbach. No. Mr. norman, Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern, miss. Scanlon. Miss. Scanlon. Mr. Mr. I miss leger. Fernandez. Miss. Ledger. Fernandez, I.
▶ 4:41:32Madam chair. No. Madam chair, no. Speaker 6: clerk will report the total. Speaker 18: four years. Seven days. Speaker 6: the nos have it the amendments not agreed to further discussion? Speaker 15: I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment number 17 to john rose 113, authored 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.
▶ 4:41:58Communities across the country have been devastated by natural, 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 U.S. who have lost their loved ones, friends and homes, farms and businesses due to natural disasters. I urge a yes vote on my motion, I yield back. Speaker 19: is there further discussion. Speaker 6: on the amendment. Speaker 19: from Mr. mcgovern? Speaker 6: hearing none.
▶ 4:42:25The questions on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. No opinion. The clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy, Mrs. horton, Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Hi. Mr. mcgovern, I miss. Scanlon, miss scanlon, I. Mr. Mr. I miss leger. Fernandez. Miss. Leger. Fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair, no.
▶ 4:42:54Speaker 6: clerk will report the total. Speaker 18: 47 ayes. Speaker 6: the nos. Have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Speaker 15: madam chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Order amendment number 20 to h 113, offered by myself, which would create a point of order requiring that any reconciliation bill resulting from the republicans fiscal year 2027 budget resolution must be fully offset or paid for and must not increase the deficit. Um, and I would urge a yes vote on this. Speaker 6: is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment.
▶ 4:43:24All those in favor signify by saying aye. Speaker 17: aye. Speaker 6: those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair. Speaker 17: roll call. Speaker 6: the clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman, Mr. norman. Mr. roy. Mrs. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. I miss. Scanlon, miss scanlon, I. Mr. negus, Mr. negus, I miss ledger fernandez, miss ledger. Fernandez, I. Madam chair. No, madam chair, no.
▶ 4:43:53Speaker 6: clerk will report the. Speaker 18: total for seven days. Speaker 6: the nos have it the amendments not agreed to. Speaker 17: madam chair. Speaker 15: 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. Uh, because of the big ugly bill republicans enacted last year, over 4 million americans have lost their food benefits, including 1 million kids, all to give massive tax breaks to jeff bezos and other billionaires, other billionaires. And the bill and the cuts haven't even been fully implemented yet.
▶ 4:44:23So I would urge a yes vote on this to to reverse these terrible cuts. Speaker 6: any further discussion on the amendment for Mr. mcgovern? Speaker 10: just a reminder that, madam chair, just a reminder that anybody under the age of 18 or over the age of 64 or 65 and over, or anybody who is medically or psychologically disabled and unable to work was exempt from the work requirements in our bill. Speaker 15: yeah, but they're not exempt from losing their benefits. And many of them are as we speak.
▶ 4:44:53Speaker 6: uh, there's is there further discussion? Hearing none. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Speaker 17: aye. Speaker 6: those opposed? No, no. In the opinion of the nos. Speaker 17: have it, madam chair. Speaker 6: the clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach, Mr. norman, Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Hi. Mr. mcgovern, I miss. Scanlon, miss scanlon, I. Mr. goose, Mr.
▶ 4:45:22Goose, I miss fernandez. Fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair, no. Speaker 6: report. The total. Speaker 18: four days. Seven days. Speaker 6: who knows? Speaker 17: have it. Speaker 15: madam chair. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. 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 a of assaulting law enforcement officers on january 6th, 2021. Madam chair, this is a disgrace.
▶ 4:45:53People who assaulted police officers should not be given compensation for doing so. Last week, acting attorney general blanch testified that 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. Speaker 6: 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. Speaker 17: aye. Speaker 6: those opposed say no.
▶ 4:46:24No opinion. Share the nose. Speaker 17: as for roll call. Speaker 6: clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach, Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. horton. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. I miss. Scanlon, miss scanlon, I. Mr. nunez, Mr. joe neguse. I miss ledger. Fernandez. Fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair, no. Speaker 6: clerk will report the. Speaker 18: four years, seven a's. Speaker 6: the nos. Speaker 17: have it. Madam chair. Speaker 15: I have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 4:46:54I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment number 14 to h.r. 7008. Offered by representative schefsky, which restores grants to states that require photo ids without charge to eligible voters. Speaker 6: is there any further discussion to the amendment for Mr. mcgovern? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Speaker 17: aye. Speaker 6: those opposed say no. No. Any opinion chair? The nos have it the amendment. Speaker 17: ask for roll call.
▶ 4:47:24Speaker 6: clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman, Mr. norman. Mr. roy. Mrs. horton. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. Hi. Miss. Scanlon, miss. Scanlon. Aye. Mr. Mr. hi, Mr. fernandez, miss fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair, no. Speaker 6: clerk will report the total. Speaker 18: 47 ayes. Speaker 6: the nos have it the amendments not. Speaker 17: agreed to. Speaker 15: have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 4:47:53I 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.
▶ 4:48:10I 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. Speaker 6: is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none. The questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Speaker 17: aye. Speaker 6: those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it. Speaker 17: as for roll call.
▶ 4:48:40Speaker 6: the clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach, Mr. norman. Mr. Mr. roy. Mrs. Mrs. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern. I miss. Scanlon, miss. Scanlon, I. Mr. joe neguse. Mr. neguse, I miss. Leger. Fernandez. Fernandez I madam chair. No, madam chair, no. Speaker 6: clerk will report the title. Speaker 18: four years, eight days. Speaker 6: the nos have it the amendments not agreed. Speaker 17: to. Speaker 15: have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 4:49:09I move the committee, make an order and amendment number 232 to h.r. 8800. Offered by representative barrett, which repeals the 1957 a amendment. Speaker 6: you. You've heard the. Is any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Speaker 17: aye. Speaker 6: those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it. Speaker 17: as for roll call. Speaker 6: clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach.
▶ 4:49:40Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy, Mrs. horton, Mrs. hawkins, Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffith. Speaker 17: Mr. griffin. Speaker 18: Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Speaker 17: aye. Speaker 18: Mr. mcgovern. I miss. Scanlon, miss scanlon, I Mr. Mr. joe neguse. I miss leger fernandez. Fernandez I madam chair. No, madam chair, no. Speaker 6: clerk will report the total. Speaker 18: 48 nays. Speaker 6: and those have it.
▶ 4:50:09The amendments not agreed, miss scanlon. Speaker 3: madam chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment ten 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 child care costs by increasing funding for child care and development block grants. Americans are struggling with the cost of living.
▶ 4:50:37This 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 child care, allow parents to stay in the workforce and strengthen our economy by allowing making it easier for americans to raise a family, I yield back. Speaker 6: is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none. The questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Speaker 17: aye. Speaker 6: those opposed say no.
▶ 4:51:08No. I'd ask in the opinion chair the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed. Speaker 3: I'd ask for a roll call. Speaker 6: the clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach, Mr. norman, Mr. romano. Mr. roy. Mrs. Mrs. horton. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern, I miss scanlon, I miss scanlon, I Mr. joe neguse. Mr. I miss fletcher fernandez. Fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair, no. Speaker 6: clerk will report the total. Speaker 18: 48 nays.
▶ 4:51:39Speaker 6: and the nos. Have it the amendments not agreed to. Miss scanlon, you're recognized. Speaker 3: madam chair. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an 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.
▶ 4:52:08I'm disappointed that our republican colleagues voted against lowering costs of child care 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. Speaker 6: thank you. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment.
▶ 4:52:39All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Miss scanlon, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. and Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. Mrs. Mr. Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern, I miss I miss scanlon, I Mr. Mr. I miss. Leger fernandez. Fernandez I madam chair. No.
▶ 4:53:11Madam chair. No. Speaker 6: report to total. Speaker 18: 48 days. Speaker 6: the nos. Have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Miss scanlon, you recognized. Speaker 3: I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment number 12 to h. John rose 113.
▶ 4:53:24Offered 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 child care.
▶ 4:53:53Then 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. Um, it's a lifeline for families. And I would urge a yes vote on my amendment, I yield back. Speaker 6: any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. No. Independent chair, the request.
▶ 4:54:23Speaker 3: a. Speaker 6: roll call. Miss scanlon, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. Mrs. no. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. I miss miss scanlon, I. Mr. Mr. I miss. Leger. Fernandez. Leger. Fernandez I madam chair. No. Madam chair, no. Speaker 6: clerk will report the total. Speaker 18: four days. Eight days. Speaker 6: the nos have it the amendments not agreed to.
▶ 4:54:52Miss scanlon, you're recognized. Speaker 3: I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment two to hr 7008, offered by representative morelli. The amendment would strike the text and replace it with the text of h.r. 6731, the restore trust in 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.
▶ 4:55:19We've already discussed these bills, um, at length, but if we're going to have 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. Um, if we're going to be serious about fighting corruption, we should pass this bill. Speaker 6: is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none. The questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. No.
▶ 4:55:49In the opinion of the nos. Have it members agreed to. The clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach, Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. Mrs. no. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. Miss scanlon, miss. Scanlon, I. Mr. Mr. I miss. Leger. Fernandez. Miss. Leger. Fernandez. I. Madam chair. No. Madam chair, no.
▶ 4:56:18Speaker 6: clerk will report the total. Speaker 18: 48 nays. Speaker 6: miss scanlon, you're recognized. Speaker 3: thank you. I have one more amendment. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment five to hr 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 cosponsored by representative roy. Um, several members of the committee here are co-sponsors of it, including representatives langworthy and norman.
▶ 4:56:48Um, you know, this would strike the underlying bill. And, uh, well, 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. Um, 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.
▶ 4:57:18Speaker 6: is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Speaker 17: aye. Speaker 6: those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of chair the nose. Speaker 3: and ask for a roll call. Vote. Speaker 6: the clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. Mrs. fischbach. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. Mrs. no. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern, I. Miss.
▶ 4:57:49Scanlon, scanlon. I. Mr. Mr. I miss. Leger. Fernandez. Miss. Leger. Fernandez. I. Madam chair. No. Madam chair, no. Speaker 6: clerk will report the total. Speaker 18: four yeas, eight days. Speaker 6: the nos. Have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Madam chair. Miss leger fernandez, you're recognized. Speaker 9: I have a amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment number 13 to h con resolution 113.
▶ 4:58:09Offered by myself, which would add budget reconciliation instructions requiring republicans to fully offset any deficit increase in the 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 republicans big, beautifully ugly bill raising the corporate tax rate,
▶ 4:58:40Imposing a minimum tax on billionaires or 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. Speaker 6: is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. The clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach, Mr. norman. Mr.
▶ 4:59:12Norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. horton. Mrs. hudson. No. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. I miss. Scanlon, miss. Scanlon, I. Mr. Mr. I Mr. fernandez. Fernandez, I, madam chair. No. Madam chair. No. Speaker 6: clerk will report the total. Speaker 18: four yeas, eight nays. Speaker 6: the nos. Have it. The amendment is not agreed to, madam. Mr. fernandez. Speaker 20: I have an amendment. Speaker 9: to the rule. I move the committee. Strike.
▶ 4:59:41Section 11 of the resolution provides that in the engrossment of h.r. Eight 880 800, the clerk shall add the text of the save america act as passed by the house. Uh, 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 the zombie voter suppression effort once and for all.
▶ 5:00:04So I suggest we strike that from the nda allow the nda to move forward, uh, on its merits or not. And with that, madam chair, I yield back. Speaker 6: is there a further discussion on the amendment from miss leger fernandez? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. In the no. In the opinion chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Okay.
▶ 5:00:33The clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mr. Mrs. fischbach. Norman. Mr. norman. Mr. roy, Mrs. hodgkin. Mrs. houchin. No. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. I miss. Scanlon, miss scanlon, I. Mr. Mr. I miss. Leger. Fernandez. Fernandez. I madam chair. No. Madam chair, no. Speaker 6: clerk will report the. Speaker 18: total 48 nays.
▶ 5:01:04Speaker 6: 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. Aye. Those opposed say no. Speaker 17: no. Speaker 6: in the opinion chair, the ayes have it. The motions. Speaker 17: agreed to a roll call. Speaker 6: the clerk will call the roll. Speaker 18: Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach. Hi. Mr. norman. Mr. norman, I, Mr. roy, Mrs. horton. Mrs. horton I, Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy, I.
▶ 5:01:35Mr. scott, Mr. scott. I. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin I. Mr. jack. Mr. jack I. Mr. mcgovern. No. Mr. mcgovern. No. Miss. Scanlon, miss. Scanlon. No. Mr. Mr. no. Mr. fernandez. Fernandez. No. Madam chair, madam chair, I. Speaker 6: the clerk will report the total. Speaker 18: eight years for nays. Speaker 6: ayes have it. The motion to report agreed to. I'll be managing the rule for the majority. Speaker 15: meet me. Speaker 17: for the meeting. Speaker 6: the dynamic duo again. The.
▶ 5:02:03Without objection, the meeting is adjourned.