YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Rules Committee Hearing H.R. 7008, H.R. 6959, H.R. 8884, H.R. 8800, H.R. 9770 , H. Con. Res. 113

Rules Committee Hearing H.R. 7008, H.R. 6959, H.R. 8884, H.R. 8800, H.R. 9770 , H. Con. Res. 113 — Transcript

by HouseRules · 49,702 words · 7,700 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

5:47Good afternoon. The committee will come
5:49to order. Without objection, the chair
5:51is authorized to declare recess at any
5:54time. Before we begin, I want to take a
5:56moment to recognize Ashley Anderson,
6:00um, a member of the majority staff on
6:02the committee who'll be leaving at the
6:04end of this month.
6:06Ashley started in Congress in 2017 with
6:09Martha Msali, then went on to work for
6:12Mr. Russianthaler, Miss Miller Meeks,
6:15and then came to the rules committee as
6:17policy director for Chairman Burgess in
6:202024.
6:22Ashley, it's been a pleasure to work
6:24alongside you and we'll certainly miss
6:26you here at the rules committee. All of
6:29us are rooting for you in this new and
6:31exciting chapter of your career.
6:39You look entirely too happy.
6:46Uh now we turn to the business before
6:49us. Today the rules committee is
6:52convening to consider four measures.
6:54HR6955,
6:56HR70008,
6:59Honra 113, and HR 9770.
7:04HR6955,
7:06the Main Street Capital Access Act,
7:09would tailor bank regulations based on
7:12the size of the financial institution to
7:15spur local bank formation and to empower
7:18community lenders. When the DoddFrank
7:21Act was signed into law, community and
7:24midsize banks were unnecessarily
7:26subjected to a regulatory structure
7:30designed for large complex financial
7:32institutions.
7:34This caused a ripple effect throughout
7:36communities across the nation. Local
7:39lending was suffocated and the American
7:42people were the ones most affected.
7:44HR6955
7:46ensures community lenders can focus on
7:49serving families, small businesses, and
7:52local economies, making life more
7:54affordable for Americans, and empowering
7:57Main Street. HR70008,
8:00the Stop Insider Trading Act, would
8:03prohibit members of Congress, their
8:05spouses, or dependent children from
8:08purchasing stocks that are publicly
8:10traded. Additionally, this legislation
8:13would require members of Congress to
8:16disclose publicly each intended sale of
8:20stocks with the clerk of the House prior
8:24to its sale. Further, should any
8:27infractions occur, the House Ethics
8:29Committee would issue a fee,
8:33a fine to the offending member equal to
8:38$2,000
8:40or 10% of the value of the covered
8:43investment, whichever is greater, plus
8:47the net gain realized from the sale.
8:53In addition, this legislation aims to
8:55restore trust in our election systems by
8:59implementing a common sense requirement
9:01of showing a valid photo ID to vote in
9:04federal elections. 24 states already
9:08require photo ID to be presented prior
9:11to voting. Heck, you even need to
9:13present a photo ID to utilize the Olive
9:16Garden neverending pasta pass.
9:2080% of the American people believe
9:23showing photo ID at the polls makes
9:25sense. It's beyond time to make this
9:28simple first step to securing our
9:30election system. H Conres 13, the
9:34concurrent resolution on the budget for
9:37fiscal year 2027
9:39unlocks the very first step in advancing
9:42our third reconciliation package under
9:45the House Republican majority. This
9:48concurrent resolution covers three
9:50issues of paramount importance.
9:53Providing additional resources for
9:55baseline readiness so that the men and
9:58women of the armed forces are given the
10:01tools they need to carry out their
10:04missions successfully.
10:06securing American elections, an issue
10:09that the American people remain very
10:12attuned to and support through and
10:15through and supporting our nation's
10:18farmers and ensuring that our nation's
10:21food supply and food security remain as
10:23strong as they can possibly be. I look
10:26forward to the forthcoming testimony of
10:28our colleagues on why advancing this
10:31first step of our third reconciliation
10:34measure is so important. Finally, we
10:37turn to HR 9770,
10:40the continuing resolution that would
10:42fully fund the federal government
10:44through December 4th of this year. The
10:47House has been working diligently to
10:49pass standalone appropriations bills
10:52consistent with regular order. While we
10:55remain optimistic about the work of
10:57Chairman Cole and our colleagues in this
10:59process, that does not mean we should
11:02blind ourselves to the reality of the
11:05timeline ahead of us. We will likely
11:08need some kind of short-term extension
11:11to keep some, if not all, of our
11:14government open past the end of the
11:16fiscal year. Providing a buffer to
11:19continue our article one duties of
11:21funding the government is prudent,
11:24responsible, and necessary.
11:27I note that Democrats supported
11:30virtually all of the current funding
11:32levels for agencies. They should do so
11:35again to responsibly ensure that an
11:39unnecessary collapse in government
11:41functions will not occur this fall.
11:45Unfortunately, if passed as prologue,
11:48our Democrat colleagues may very well
11:50once again prove themselves incapable of
11:54supporting the continuity of government
11:56given their previous shutdown antics. I
11:59hope that is not the case today. We have
12:02the obligation to advance funding
12:05immediately so that the government does
12:07not bear the brunt once more of
12:10political gamesmanship
12:12and obstruction spurred by our
12:14colleagues across the aisle. With that,
12:17I now yield to the ranking member for
12:19any comments he wishes to make.
12:22>> Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and let me
12:23begin by saying that I want to associate
12:25myself with your kind words about
12:27Ashley's uh service to this committee.
12:30Um, and we wish her nothing but the best
12:32in her next chapter. Um, and um, you
12:36know, the people who serve on the
12:37staffing of the rules committee work
12:39awfully long hours. Um, um, probably
12:42more than any other committee. Uh, and
12:44we don't thank them enough, but I wish
12:45you all the best, Ashley. And now, uh,
12:48Madame Chair, there's a lot, uh, before
12:50us today, including two bills that we
12:53already considered three weeks ago. uh
12:55they are back on the agenda because
12:57Republican leaders sent everyone home
12:59before bringing these bills to the floor
13:01since they didn't have the votes to pass
13:03their own rule. So now we're doing it
13:06all over again. And then there are a few
13:09new things before us today. First, a a
13:11budget proposal that in that includes
13:14733 billion for Donald Trump's new
13:17neverending war in Iran that Congress
13:20already voted to end. A12 billion dollar
13:23band-aid for farmers who are hurting,
13:25which I would say is a pretty big
13:27admission that Trump's tariff policies
13:29have devastated American farmers. And of
13:32course, uh, $10 billion to indulge the
13:34president's insane election conspiracy
13:37theories. I don't know how many of you
13:39watched his speech last Thursday, but it
13:41was both wacky and scary. Wacky because
13:44it was one conspiracy theory after
13:45another. Scary because this guy's
13:47actually sitting in the Oval Office. Uh
13:50together, this budget framework outlines
13:52nearly $100 billion dollar, that's
13:56billion with a B, in funding with zero
13:59payforce.
14:01Even Republicans know this thing is a
14:03dud. One Republican said, and I quote,
14:06$95 billion in new deficit spending, no
14:09offsets, and not one provision to lower
14:12the cost of living. End quote. Other
14:14Republican members have called it quote
14:15dead on arrival. There's also a
14:18continuing resolution to keep the
14:19government open. The funding deadline is
14:21months away and Republicans are already
14:23admitting they cannot finish their work.
14:25Instead, they're trying to punt our work
14:27until December 4th. We also have before
14:30us the stop insider trading act. I
14:34absolutely support a ban on
14:35congressional stock trading. You
14:37shouldn't be able to use public power
14:38for private profit. I agree with that
14:41100%.
14:43But the idea that this Republican
14:45Congress has suddenly seen the light is
14:47a joke. The net worth of Donald Trump
14:50and his family have grown on a scale
14:52without precedent. We just found out his
14:55own teleprompter operator has been
14:57illegally cashing in on Kelshi bets. I
15:01mean, the corruption is staggering. And
15:03now the president wants to sell early
15:06access to his market moving social media
15:09post to those who can afford it. This
15:12president and this Republican party are
15:14rotten to the core and corrupt through
15:16and through. This is a nice little game
15:19they're playing, bringing the stock
15:20trading ban to the floor and attaching
15:22it to, get this, an unrelated partisan
15:25bill to make it harder for American
15:27citizens to vote in elections. But
15:29that's what they're doing. And it's a
15:31game to them. It's all a game. If they
15:33cared about corruption, they could have
15:35banned stock trading 18 months ago. uh
15:38and they could have brought a bill to
15:39the floor to address the blatant,
15:41brazen, shocking corruption at the White
15:43House. Instead, we get this totally
15:46inadequate and insufficient bill, which
15:48they know is dead on arrival in the
15:50Senate. And finally, there's Republican
15:53so-called Main Street Capital Access
15:56Act. Lovely name. Wall Street must have
15:59focus grouped it. This bill makes bank
16:02mergers easier, regulators weaker, and
16:05oversight looser. What could possibly go
16:08wrong? Republicans run the House. They
16:10run the Senate and the White House. What
16:13they lack is any idea on how to use it
16:15to make people's lives better. Power is
16:18supposed to be about helping people. And
16:20instead, this majority uses uses it to
16:23protect the president, to pay off the
16:26powerful, and to funnel more money into
16:28yet another endless war. The American
16:31people deserve a hell of a lot better.
16:34And I yield back my time.
16:36Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern.
16:39Without objection, any prepared
16:41statements that our witnesses may have
16:43will be included in the record. I now
16:46welcome our panel, Chairman Arrington
16:48and Representative McGarvey from the
16:51House Budget Committee. Your full
16:53statements will be submitted for the
16:55record and we ask that you summarize
16:58your statement in five minutes. Chairman
17:00Arrington, I welcome your testimony.
17:02Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member.
17:05Uh, I agree with Mr. McGovern. The
17:08American people deserve better than what
17:09they've gotten for the last year and a
17:11half.
17:13But what they've gotten is a Democrat
17:17party that I don't recognize in my 10
17:19years of service.
17:21persistent habitual
17:25um neverending obstruction
17:30to stop the president from succeeding in
17:33advancing the policies and the agenda.
17:36The American people overwhelmingly
17:38supported
17:40and voted for unilateral
17:44uh or uh Republican leadership in
17:46Congress uh alongside of this president.
17:50uh that has made it difficult to govern.
17:53What was unprecedented from my Democrat
17:56colleagues is now par for the course.
18:01Exhibit A, the first shutdown of the
18:05entire federal government
18:07over a clean CR. It's the first time
18:10it's ever happened from my Democrat
18:12colleagues. Both parties have
18:13participated in these uh shutdowns. I
18:16will readily concede that. But the first
18:18time a clean CR was rejected
18:22just to keep the the government funding
18:24at the last year's funding levels until
18:27we could meet out a compromised
18:30solution. What was their reasoning? What
18:33was their counter offer? to repeal the
18:37the program integrity measures that we
18:40put in place in the big beautiful bill
18:41to stop waste, fraud, and abuse to
18:44prevent people not eligible, illegal, or
18:46people who are able to work and not
18:48working siphoning money off of the
18:50safety net programs that are there for
18:52our most vulnerable Americans. It was
18:55the longest shutdown in history before
18:58the next Democrat shutdown. This time it
19:01was shutting down the Department of
19:03Homeland Security after we had agreed
19:06four corners on funding the government.
19:09They shut down Homeland. They handcuffed
19:12our border patrol agents from protecting
19:14our borders. They uh they basically shut
19:18down our coast guardsmen from defending
19:20our ports. SISA agents from defending
19:23our critical infrastructure against
19:25being hacked.
19:28For over 70 days, they held the American
19:31people's security hostage until we used
19:34a reconciliation bill to break the
19:36obstruction
19:38and fund ICE and CBP because they
19:41defunded it. To be clear, they shut
19:44Homeland Security down and then they
19:46defunded ICE and CBP. We had to turn it
19:49on unilaterally through reconciliation.
19:52We didn't get a single vote from
19:53Democrats on that. Now, here we are in
19:57the long train of obstruction abuses
20:01to do something
20:04before November as the window closes
20:07that is not just meaningful. It is
20:09important, it is critical, it is urgent,
20:12support our troops,
20:15strengthen our our food supply, and
20:18safeguard the integrity of our
20:21elections. Madame Chair, um
20:25the obstruction and resistance at all
20:28cost and on on all fronts goes beyond
20:32shutdowns.
20:34for the first time in 65 years or what
20:37is at least 65 years of a tradition of
20:39bipartisan support for the NDAA National
20:42Defense Authorization Act that are the
20:44policies that undergard our entire
20:46United States National Defense have been
20:49held up in the Senate by the Democrats.
20:52Prior to that, based on a temporary
20:55personnel decision of the president,
20:57they held up FISA 702, a critical
21:01security tool for our intelligence
21:04community to stop Chinese espionage, to
21:08stop terrorism, to stop drug
21:10trafficking. This is
21:14this new shameful era of obstruction.
21:18And I presume that the motivation is to
21:21plate the left-wing mandami socialist
21:25base of the party. I have no other
21:26answers.
21:28So, madame chair and members of the
21:32distinguished rules committee, I present
21:35to you uh
21:39a reconciliation bill that will provide
21:42emergency funding for our sons and
21:43daughters so they have baseline
21:46battlefield readiness.
21:48Emergency funding to provide resilience
21:52and strength to our food supply that we
21:55all benefit from. And lastly, uh again,
21:59uh the consent of the governed and a
22:02functioning democracy requires
22:05integrity and confidence in elections.
22:09And I will quote former Speaker Nancy
22:12Pelosi in 2017 after the 2016 election
22:17based on the
22:20phony Russia collusion that was debunked
22:23later by an independent council.
22:26And I quote, "Our election was hijacked.
22:29There is no question Congress has a duty
22:33to protect our democracy." Well, here's
22:36where I agree with her. We have a duty
22:38to protect our democracy. And when half
22:40the country has little to no confidence
22:43in the outcome of our elections because
22:45we don't have basic safeguards like a
22:47photo ID, I I think it is incumbent upon
22:50us to act and act uh with purpose and
22:53with urgency. And with that, I yield.
22:57>> Thank you very much, Mr. Arrington. Mr.
23:00McGarvey, you're recognized. Thank you.
23:03Welcome to the rules committee.
23:05>> Thank you, Chairwoman Fox. Thank you,
23:06Ranking Member McGovern. Ashley, thank
23:08you for your service. Best of luck in
23:10your next chapter. Um, I'm here on
23:12behalf of Ranking Member Bole and House
23:14Budget Committee Democrats to talk about
23:16what is actually in this bill and I
23:18think importantly, what is not. But
23:20first, I want to start off with
23:21something that my colleague, Chairman
23:23Arrington, addressed. And he addressed
23:25the need for people to work together.
23:27Let me talk about that for just a
23:28second. You know, as a candidate, Donald
23:31Trump promised the American people two
23:33things I actually agreed with. He said
23:35no more foreign wars and that he would
23:38lower costs on day one. Here's the
23:42thing. Those weren't just empty,
23:45worthless campaign promises. They've
23:48become actual and dangerous lies. More
23:51than 18 months since he took office, we
23:53are fighting a foreign war in Iran. 17
23:56American service members are dead.
24:00Three were killed just this past
24:01weekend. One was 19 years old.
24:04three more Americans dead after Donald
24:07Trump declared a total and complete
24:09victory in the war that he started.
24:14This war has cost us American lives.
24:16This war has cost us tens upon tens of
24:19billions of dollars and we are getting
24:21nothing in return. It is the president's
24:23incompetence that has made our world
24:25less safe and stable than the day that
24:27he started this war. And because of
24:29Trump's war, because of Trump's tariffs,
24:32and because of this lap dog Republican
24:34Congress, families in Louisville,
24:36Kentucky, and across this country are
24:38paying more than ever for groceries, for
24:40rent, utilities, for health care, and
24:42just about everything else. But here's
24:44the thing, it's not happening by
24:46accident. These aren't just broken
24:49promises. These are deliberate policy
24:51choices by the House Republicans. Let's
24:54look at the first Republican
24:55reconciliation bill. We're on the third
24:57one right now. first Republican
24:58reconciliation bill, the one big
25:00beautiful bill, as everyone called it.
25:01It gave massive tax cuts to billionaires
25:04and the wealthiest corporations while
25:06taking trillions of dollars away from
25:09American families health insurance. It
25:11took money away from kids and seniors,
25:14moms who are just trying to put food on
25:16the table. So, they did a second
25:18reconciliation bill. And the second
25:20reconciliation bill, what did it do? It
25:22gifted ICE $70 billion. That was on top
25:25of the already $140 billion that they
25:28gave them the year before. And what is
25:30this money going toward? 55 deaths in
25:33ICE custody since Donald Trump took
25:35office. Kids used as bait, families
25:38ripped apart, people killed on American
25:40streets. Just this past week, we saw two
25:43Americans killed by unfit and untrained
25:46ICE agents. So, you think that the third
25:49reconciliation bill, this would be the
25:51one where they finally do something
25:54about affordability for American
25:55families. Spoiler alert, it's not. The
26:00bill is 47 pages long. It doesn't
26:03include one single word about lowering
26:06costs for the American people. There is
26:07not one word in here about
26:09affordability. Instead, Republicans use
26:12this to add nearly a hundred billion
26:14dollars to the debt and deficit of this
26:16country to fund the most unpopular war
26:18in American history.
26:21But back to the original comments by the
26:23chairman about working together. We do
26:24want to work on things that I think are
26:26broadly popular. During the budget
26:27committee markup, Democrats offered 14
26:30common sense amendments to try to make
26:31this into a bill that does anything to
26:35help families. We tried to reverse cuts
26:37to Medicaid and SNAP. We tried to lower
26:40health insurance premiums, repeal
26:41Trump's tariff taxes, stop taxpayer
26:44dollars from funding an unauthorized war
26:46on more ICE brutality.
26:49I offered an amendment to make sure that
26:50the taxpayers would not be forced to pay
26:52for Donald Trump's ballroom. What
26:55happened? Republicans rejected every
26:57single amendment. They said no to
26:59healthcare. They said no to food
27:01assistance. They said no to lower gas
27:02prices. They said no to ending the
27:04president's corruption. But for Donald
27:07Trump's foreign war, here we are. And
27:09House Republicans are happy to open the
27:11checkbook. This is a budget of broken
27:14promises. It puts American people last.
27:18As we sit here, we sit in this fancy
27:20room and we're talking about rules and
27:22process and budgets and reconciliation.
27:26We may think that the American people
27:28are sitting here watching. They're not.
27:30They're not talking about
27:31reconciliation. They are at home right
27:33now talking about their bills. They're
27:35talking about rent. They're talking
27:36about healthcare. They're talking about
27:37groceries. They're talking about gas
27:39prices. They are sitting here wondering
27:42what they're going to do about utilities
27:44and prescription drugs and why their
27:46paychecks don't go as far as they used
27:48to. And they're asking a fair question.
27:53This is a question we should ask
27:54ourselves. The American people are
27:55asking this question. Why can
27:57Republicans always find money for
27:59billionaires and wars, but never for the
28:03rest of us?
28:05because that's who they serve. The
28:07budget committee Democrats are ready to
28:09work with anyone who is serious about
28:11lowering costs and making life easier
28:13for the American people. This bill does
28:16neither. I urge my colleagues to reject
28:18this bill and thank you and I yield
28:20back.
28:22>> Thank you, uh, Mr. McGarvey. Uh, Miss
28:25Fishbach, do you have any questions?
28:28Mr. McGovern.
28:30>> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, first
28:31of all, let me just say I got I I love
28:33you Republicans. You don't take
28:34responsibility for anything. I mean, you
28:37control the House, you control the
28:38Senate, you control the White House. I
28:40think you control the Supreme Court, and
28:42nothing is your responsibility. Boy, it
28:44must be nice to live that way. Um, and I
28:47I'll just say one thing. When you guys
28:49want to get things done, I mean, you do.
28:52Um, when you wanted tax cuts for
28:53millionaires and billionaires, I mean,
28:55you shoved that through. Added $4.7
28:57trillion to the debt. You get that
28:58through. Uh, I wish we could have
29:00stopped it, but you got it through. When
29:02you wanted to cut Medicaid by a trillion
29:04dollars, you did it in a nancond. SNAP
29:07by $200 billion, you're going to
29:09increase hunger in this country. I mean,
29:11I mean, so the idea that uh, you know,
29:14uh, this idea that somehow you can't get
29:16anything done. Yeah, you do. The stuff
29:18you get done, unfortunately, is bad for
29:20the American people, but uh, but
29:22everything is somebody else's fault.
29:24It's never your fault. Um, and don't
29:26even get me going on corruption or on
29:28fraud or waste or abuse. I'm looking at
29:30what's happening in the White House
29:31right now and the silence of the entire
29:34Republican conference. I mean, that that
29:36that is complicity. That is complicity.
29:38And history will record that you were
29:40silent as this president ripped off the
29:43American people. I've never seen
29:44anything like it. It makes Richard Nixon
29:46look like a boy scout. But Chairman
29:48Arrington, in 2024, you came before this
29:51committee and you said, quote, "At a
29:53time when our national debt is
29:54approaching 35 trillion, we are adding
29:56almost $8 billion to the debt every day,
29:59and we pay 62 cents on every dollar just
30:01to service the debt. We must lead
30:03Congress toward a path of fiscal
30:05responsibility. The trajectory is
30:07unsustainable and is arguably the
30:10biggest threat facing our nation." End
30:12quote. You ended your remarks by saying,
30:14and I quote, "Not paying for our
30:16spending is not only irresponsible, it
30:18is irrational. We cannot continue to
30:20thrust the costs of things we think are
30:23important onto the backs of our kids and
30:25grandkids." End quote. Chairman
30:27Arrington, do you still believe that our
30:29debt is one of the biggest threats
30:31facing our nation?
30:32>> I do. Um, so Chairman Arrington, can you
30:35affirm the basic fact that since January
30:3820th, 2025, since President Trump and
30:41the Republicans assumed full control of
30:43government, the national debt has
30:45increased by $3.3 trillion from 362 36.2
30:50trillion to 39.5 trillion.
30:53It's a misleading stat because the
30:56economy has grown uh with the cuts that
30:59we made on waste, fraud, and abuse. In
31:02total, for the first time in a decade,
31:04the deficit to GDP has gone down under
31:07Republican leadership and this
31:09president's watch.
31:09>> You disagree with the figure?
31:11>> The CBO, that's a direct quote from the
31:13CBO.
31:14>> You disagree with the that our debt went
31:16from uh went from 36.2 2 to 39.5 because
31:20I think that's that's
31:21>> we have pretty clear
31:22>> we have we have un we have liabilities
31:26>> in social security Medicare we have
31:29liabilities across the board that are
31:31outpacing our
31:32>> Mr. McGarvey
31:33>> are sources of revenue.
31:34>> Those are accurate numbers.
31:35>> Yes. And in fact, another stat we can
31:37look at, um, the debt of this country
31:40from George Washington through Bill
31:42Clinton was about $5.7 trillion. The
31:45debt from George W. Bush and Donald
31:47Trump alone is nearly double that.
31:49>> Chairman Arington, isn't it true that
31:50you and everybody on the Republican side
31:52here voted in favor of a Republican
31:54reconciliation bill that is projected to
31:57add $4.7 trillion to our nation's debt
32:00over the next decade?
32:01>> Not true. another $70 billion uh that uh
32:04that provided funding for ICE and CBP.
32:07>> The ICE and CBP was simply a replacement
32:11of what would have been discretionary
32:13funding for ICE and CBP when every
32:16Democrat voted to defund it.
32:17>> Did you vote for that?
32:19>> Of course, I wouldn't defund ICE and
32:21CBP.
32:23Can you confirm that the plain text of
32:25the budget resolution before us right
32:28now instructs committees to propose
32:30legislation that would increase the
32:32deficit by as much as $95 billion with
32:36no requirement that it be paid for.
32:39Mr. McGovern,
32:42ever since I've been here and probably
32:44for a hundred years, when we are in
32:46conflict and our military needs
32:48supplemental resourcing to keep our
32:50troops safe, we we we have never offset
32:54it. And the $200 billion that you and
32:56your colleagues gave to Ukraine, that
32:59was not offset. So, I don't expect we
33:00should do this any differently.
33:02>> Yeah. But you but you said I go back to
33:04not paying for our spending is not only
33:06irresponsible, it's irrational. That's
33:08>> we can continue to thrust the cost of
33:10things that we think are important onto
33:12the backs of our kids and our great
33:13grandkids. I think that's correct. The
33:14question is how come how can you come
33:16before the committee
33:17>> and advocate for spending tens of
33:19billions more taxpayer dollars on top of
33:22the trillions that you have already
33:23added to the deficit while not requiring
33:25any of this?
33:26>> It's a fair question.
33:27>> Not not just the military stuff and
33:28other stuff. Why that none of it is is
33:30paid for? It's a fair question and I
33:32think we have to ask ourselves as a
33:34Congress why we provide emergency
33:37funding supplemental appropriations for
33:40emergencies
33:41because those emergencies require
33:43expeditious action a and b if we don't
33:45act we'll spend a lot more money. Now
33:48that doesn't mean we shouldn't budget
33:50for emergencies. We needed to do a
33:52better job of that across the board.
33:53>> Was it an emergency to give tax breaks
33:55to billionaires and millionaires? Cuz
33:56that was not paid for either. I mean
33:59>> it was in fact.
34:00>> Okay. All right. Well, I'm glad. So, we
34:01we just have a disagreement. You think
34:03an emergency is a is making sure that
34:06millionaires and billionaires get tax
34:08cuts and big corporations. Um I I just
34:10disagree with that. That's a fundamental
34:12values question.
34:13>> I didn't say that. Just for the record,
34:15although some after a 21% inflation tax
34:19would have said a 22% tax hike would be
34:21an emergency for their families.
34:22>> Yeah. Your budget resolution instructs
34:24the Armed Services Committee to increase
34:25the deficit by as much as $60 billion in
34:28order to use taxpayer dollars to cover
34:30more of the cost of the president's war
34:31in Iran. Are you aware that Republicans
34:34gave the Department of Defense an extra
34:36$150 billion last July? Yes.
34:38>> And according to the Trump
34:39administration's own numbers, more than
34:41half of that money, $75.7 billion, has
34:44yet to be spent or even obligated.
34:47I
34:47>> I I know that we gave 150 billion to the
34:50defense of our country. Right. So given
34:52that you've said that our nation's debt
34:54is such an exit existential crisis,
34:56wouldn't you agree that it is
34:57irresponsible to spend another $60
35:00billion in taxpayer dollars on Trump's
35:02war when you already have $75 billion
35:05available?
35:06>> No, sir. Because we were so in the hole
35:08after four years of of a president that
35:11didn't have not just regard for our
35:14readiness, but for what our troops were
35:16focused on in in terms of war fighting.
35:19That first hundred billion was to make
35:21up for four years. Thank God we put that
35:23additional monies to prepare for
35:25>> $75 billion. It hasn't even been
35:27obligated yet. I've also submitted an
35:29amendment um that I hope to offer in the
35:30rules committee uh later tonight to use
35:33$13 billion out of that $60 billion to
35:36add the major Richard Star Act to the
35:38reconciliation bill. This would help
35:40combat combat wounded veterans get the
35:42full support that they're entitled to.
35:44Chairman Arrington, would you support
35:46making my amendment in order to help
35:47these veterans?
35:49>> We simply unlock the reconciliation
35:52process, Mr. McGovern, and you know the
35:54process as well as I do. The policies
35:57will be meed out by the authorizing
35:59committee chairs, not myself. So,
36:00>> but you would have no objection for me
36:02offering an amendment and and hopefully
36:04maybe getting a bicep. I would simply
36:06our our focus
36:07>> because if we're not going to pay for
36:08this other stuff, the whole issue over
36:10the over the veterans bill that we that
36:13we that Republicans pulled last week was
36:15a lot of the veterans organizations were
36:16upset that you were robbing Peter to pay
36:18Paul. You were actually taking cutting
36:20veterans benefits uh on on one hand to
36:23increase veterans benefits for other
36:25groups on the other. And so this would
36:26this would alleviate that. So that's
36:28what we're trying to do. Miss McGovery,
36:29would you be okay with us trying to do
36:31that?
36:32>> No. In fact, I sit on the veterans
36:34committee uh ranking member of govern.
36:35And I think this is this is something
36:37where we actually all agree we should be
36:38taking care of our veterans. Instead,
36:40they are looking to actually uh take
36:43things away from veterans who are
36:44suffering from tonitis, veterans who are
36:46suffering and and they're not willing to
36:47pay to help them.
36:48>> So, we we'll see what happens later
36:49today. Um I think you'd all agree that
36:51affordability and the cost of living, uh
36:53whether it's gas prices or child care
36:54costs are some of the top concerns of
36:56the American people. The question is,
36:58why does why does this budget resolution
37:00not include anything to bring down
37:02costs? I mean, you don't have to just
37:04take my word for it. On July 15th, a
37:06Republican congresswoman from South
37:08Carolina described your budget as quote,
37:10$95 billion in new deficit spending, no
37:13offsets, and not one provision to lower
37:16the cost of living. End quote. So the
37:17question is why does your resolution why
37:20doesn't your resolution instruct any
37:21committee to propose legislation that
37:24would for example lower health care
37:26costs or help people who have lost their
37:28health care coverage regain it?
37:31>> Uh I would say that the first step in
37:34unwinding the cost of living crisis that
37:37was created by the failed policies of
37:39your party was to stop the wild reckless
37:43unbridled spending. This administration
37:45continues, by the way, a whole of
37:47government assault on fraud. Not on
37:50domestic energy producers, but on fraud.
37:52And we cut, like I said, 100, I'm sorry,
37:56$1.6 trillion in waste. We put progrowth
37:59policies that gave us a 3.8 and a 4.3
38:03growth rates before you shut the
38:05government down.
38:06>> It sounds like we're back to the old
38:07let's blame Joe Biden. But why doesn't
38:09your resolution instruct um any of the
38:12any committee to propose legislation
38:14that would lower Americans child care
38:16costs? Or why doesn't the resolution
38:18instruct any committee to propose
38:19legislation that would lower Americans
38:22housing or rent costs? Or why doesn't
38:23your resolution instruct any committee
38:25to propose legislation that would lower
38:27gas prices uh for Americans energy
38:29bills? I mean I mean this is kind of the
38:32problem in a nutshell. And I'll close
38:33with this. You know, when it comes to
38:35war and tax cuts for wealthy uh and big
38:37corporations, you guys trip over
38:39yourselves to spend tax dollars with no
38:41offsets. This is your MO. But when it
38:44comes to helping American families,
38:46Republicans think it would be waste. It
38:48would be wasteful spending. I got to
38:50tell you, I still do in-person town
38:52halls. I don't know about you, but I do.
38:54And all people want to talk about is the
38:56high cost of living. They can't afford
38:58their rents. Can't afford to buy homes.
39:00Child care costs are under control.
39:02Healthcare costs are under control. They
39:03want to know why the hell aren't we
39:04focused in on that? Uh and instead we're
39:07focused in on, you know, giving the
39:09welloff and the well-connected even
39:11more. Um I think people have had it. Um
39:13and I think uh I think I think that's
39:15one of the reasons why you're going to
39:16see every Democrat oppose this. Uh and I
39:19hope some Republicans who care about
39:20fiscal responsibilities will fiscal
39:22responsibility will oppose it as well. I
39:24I yield back.
39:26>> Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mr. Scott,
39:28you're recognized.
39:30>> Thank you, Madame Chair.
39:33Mr. Arrington, u you know, I personally
39:37believe that we won the last election
39:41because Americans want us to secure the
39:43border and stop the tax increase. I mean
39:46the millions upon millions of people
39:49that were allowed to come into
39:53uh this country unchecked in
39:56intentionally unchecked by the Biden
39:58administration at at the behest of the
40:00Democrat socialist movement um has had a
40:04tremendous cost to us. But we we were
40:06secure we we were elected to secure the
40:08border and stop the tax increase from
40:10the Democratic party.
40:11>> That's right. and the Democratic party,
40:14we we stopped their tax increase. We
40:16didn't actually reduce the rate for
40:17millionaires. Am I correct? Like no
40:19millionaires tax rate went down. They
40:22just didn't get the tax increase that
40:24the that the Democrats wanted them to
40:25get. Is that correct?
40:26>> Well, the 92% of the American people who
40:28are working people, I would suggest 92%
40:31that take a standard deduction actually
40:33got another tax break as did working
40:37people who work overtime, work for tips,
40:39etc. you know, if you're working for
40:41tips, uh, I ate at Waffle House on a
40:43regular basis. Not as fancy as some of
40:44the places most members eat at, but I
40:46enjoy Waffle House with my family. Um,
40:49you know, you're working overtime, you
40:51got you got a nice tax cut. Our senior
40:53citizens are getting a tax credit for on
40:56on the social security side because of
40:58some budget rules that we have to comply
41:01with. Uh, that's the way that was done.
41:04But we were elected to secure the border
41:05and stop the tax increase that the
41:06Democrats wanted. And the end result is
41:08stopping the tax increases and this
41:10doesn't get talked about enough I don't
41:11believe but my understanding according
41:14to CBO
41:15tax revenue in the United States is
41:17higher than it's ever been in the
41:18history of the country. Is that correct?
41:20That's correct. And and actually and you
41:23may not exactly know this number but I
41:25looked it up. Revenue for 2026 is 17.5%
41:30of GDP.
41:32The 50-year average is 17.3%.
41:36>> Yeah. So just factually speaking, if you
41:38want more money, you have to grow the
41:42GDP of the country. You don't grow the
41:44GDP of the country taking all of the
41:46capital out of the private sector and
41:48depositing it in accounts where, you
41:51know, fraudsters are able to go get get
41:54it. And um and nobody at the state level
41:57in certain states, Democratic states
41:58like Minnesota, want to do anything
42:00about it.
42:00>> That's right. And so the one thing that
42:02I would tell you that I I wish we had
42:03done, I think the other thing people
42:05wanted us to do was to cut spending. And
42:06it's pretty clear to me that if you look
42:08at the fraud that is occurring
42:09throughout the United States
42:12that simply stopping the people that
42:16should not be getting assistance from
42:18stealing assistance or dollars I should
42:20say from the US government. I mean my
42:23understanding is CBO came out the other
42:25was it CBO or Congressional Research
42:28people came out and said for every
42:30dollar you put into fraud prevention
42:32>> right
42:32>> it would generate a $7
42:35>> return on on the investment. Is that
42:37correct?
42:38>> That's correct because we have $500
42:40billion according to GAO on the high
42:43side but hundreds of billions for sure
42:46>> in fraud leaking out every year of this
42:49this government. And and of course the
42:51Democrats are defending the fraudsters.
42:53I mean that's that's what's happening.
42:55They don't want us to cut spending. We
42:57we could get all of the cuts that we
42:59wanted simply by getting rid of the
43:00fraud in this country. I believe at
43:02least the vast majority of them.
43:04>> The enhanced COVID tax credits for
43:06Obamacare that they wanted to shut the
43:09government down over.
43:09>> Oh yeah.
43:10>> Uh that there were tens of billions
43:12according to GAO and CBO in fraud. And
43:15some of that was tens of thousands of
43:17social security numbers from dead
43:19people. Yep. Yep. You know, all of that
43:23money was going to the insurance
43:24carriers.
43:25>> That's correct.
43:26>> Not to the hospitals. Correct.
43:27>> That's correct.
43:28>> And and so they blame, you know, the
43:30challenge of the local that local
43:31hospitals are having. And I'm I'm I'm
43:33getting some reports together on on on
43:36what is actually happening at local
43:38hospitals. But the fact of the matter is
43:39Medicare Advantage plans aren't paying
43:41their claims and other things. and and
43:43because of the way the Democrats have
43:44done things, there's no mechanism to
43:46force these gargantuan insurance
43:48carriers to actually pay the claims that
43:50they owe the local hospitals. I'm
43:51getting together some reports on that,
43:52but I just want to get back to some some
43:55basics. I mean, the fact of the matter
43:56is we're elected to secure the border
43:58and stop the tax increase. We did that.
44:00They can scream Dem that that
44:02billionaires got a lower tax rate and
44:04all of that. It's just nonsense. Um but
44:08the the main thing is
44:11with regard to the economy, the
44:12taxpayers need to understand tax
44:14revenues are higher than they've ever
44:16been in the history of the country. Yes,
44:18sir. Yes, sir. And if you're going to
44:21bend the curve on the debt to GDP, which
44:24is the measure of our fiscal health,
44:26which we have lowered, the deficit is
44:28the input to the debt and that's gone
44:30down for the first time in a decade. You
44:32have to do two things. what we did to
44:34root out waste and fraud and save money
44:36and progrowth policies that ignite the
44:39growth that we've seen. As I've said, 1%
44:42over CBO's projections gives us 3
44:45trillion in deficit reduction. The the
44:46final thing I want to say is is about uh
44:49the war with Iran.
44:51Every president, whether they be
44:52Democrat or Republican, has recognized
44:55the threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear
44:58weapon.
44:59There is no civilian purpose for uranium
45:03enrichment beyond 20%.
45:06You could say five, but we'll stretch it
45:08and say 20. No civilian use beyond 20.
45:12It's widely accepted
45:14in the international community that you
45:16that that Iran was far beyond the 20% of
45:21enrichment and was continuing to enrich
45:25beyond those levels. Had President Trump
45:29not done what he did, Iran would have
45:31had a nuclear weapon within a short
45:34period of time. And they already had the
45:36ability to make, you know, dirty B. They
45:39had enough enrichment to do to do um
45:44to create a tremendous amount of damage
45:45throughout the world. And the fact of
45:46the matter is the majority of terrorism
45:48throughout the world, Iran has something
45:49to do with, whether it be sponsoring
45:51with intelligence or with weapons. Uh
45:54Iran uh is a country run by jihadists.
45:57I'm glad our president has the balls to
45:59do something about it. With that, Madam
46:00Chair, I yield.
46:02>> Thank you, Mr. Scott. Miss Scanland,
46:06you're recognized.
46:07>> Thank you. I'd yield first to the
46:09ranking member.
46:10>> Well, thank you. I I just want to say
46:12that um listening to my colleague, Mr.
46:15Scott, um you know, I I I think maybe
46:18this is the biggest difference between
46:20Democrats and Republicans. You think
46:22that people in this country should be
46:24happy, that they should be grateful for
46:26all that they received under Republican
46:28leadership and under the leadership of
46:30Donald Trump, I will say to you, go to
46:32any coffee shop in this country, go to
46:34any VFW hall, go to any union hall, you
46:36know, go to any workplace and talk to
46:38regular people about what's on their
46:40mind and they will tell you the issue of
46:42affordability is front and center.
46:43>> I do that. I see them at them at Waffle
46:46House, Walmart, and other places. Mr.
46:47Govern Americans I know recognize how
46:50blessed they are to live in this country
46:52and do not want a socialist takeover
46:55like the Democratic party has allowed.
46:57>> Well, and they don't want a fascist
46:58takeover by the Republican party either.
47:00You want to go down that road? I'll go
47:01down that road. All right. As we inch
47:03toward authoritarianism, you know what?
47:05People are sick of that, too. They're
47:06frightened of a president who whose ego
47:09is so fragile that he can't admit he
47:11lost an election and and promotes all
47:13this wacky propaganda that scares the
47:16hell out of the average voter, including
47:18a lot of Republicans. And I would also
47:20just say one thing on Iran. The straight
47:21of Hormuz was open um and oil prices
47:25were coming down before this president
47:27launched this war and now straight is
47:30closed. Gas prices are going up, which
47:32is also an affordability issue. So I'm
47:35sorry. You think
47:36>> gas prices are still lower than they
47:38would be if Kla Harris had been elected.
47:40>> No, that's that's just but that's
47:42ridiculous. But anyway, but uh but the
47:44bottom line is you go you go down this
47:46road of you going keep thinking that
47:48people are happy and they should be
47:49grateful. I will tell you uh you know
47:52you you will find out in November people
47:54are sick of this. There's and by the way
47:56uh you know when you say that the tax
47:58cuts didn't help people who are rich. I
47:59mean, Donald Trump was up there bragging
48:01about the fact that one of his closest
48:02friends was able was able to buy a new
48:05private jet with the money he saved on
48:07the tax cuts. I don't know. I don't know
48:09anybody who owns a private jet. Uh I I
48:11don't hang around with those people like
48:13maybe you guys do, but the bottom line
48:15is that average working people in this
48:17country feel they're getting screwed and
48:19they've had it and they want to know why
48:21we're not focused more like a laser beam
48:23on the issues of affordability. I go
48:24backless country. Love this country.
48:27>> Reclaiming my time. Thank you, Mr.
48:29Scott. Um, I do have to agree with the
48:32ranking member. I mean, at a time when
48:34the price of gas and groceries and
48:36health care keeps climbing, uh, you
48:39might think Republicans would come to
48:40Congress with a plan to help working
48:42families. Instead, they're back with a
48:44third, a third partisan budget bill. And
48:47once again, it's completely missing the
48:50missing the moment for my constituents.
48:52I think for most Americans, this budget
48:55resolution paves the way for nearly $95
48:58billion to be added to the deficit.
49:01That's on top of the trillions that have
49:03already been added by this
49:04administration through its misguided tax
49:07cuts and the prior reconciliation bills.
49:09Look, more than 70 billion would
49:12bankroll the president's illconceived,
49:15senseless war. I mean, that's the
49:16monetary damage on top of the deaths
49:18that we're already seeing. It is the
49:20most unpopular war in American history
49:23and presumably some portion of that will
49:25go to fund Pete Hex's obsession with the
49:27testosterone levels of members of our
49:30military. Another $10 billion is going
49:33to fund Republicans wild goose chase of
49:35a voter suppression bill, the SAVE Act,
49:38that would restrict access to the ballot
49:40for millions of Americans with
49:42provisions that even Republicans
49:45acknowledge are unlikely to survive
49:47Senate reconciliation rules. It's
49:50interesting to hear our Republican
49:51colleagues try to justify that bill.
49:54They don't say that it's necessary to
49:56actually prevent election fraud or even
49:59voting by non-citizens because that's
50:01not true. Those things aren't happening
50:02at the levels they claim. No, what they
50:04say is that the bill is necessary
50:06because Americans are concerned about
50:08the security of our elections. Well, of
50:11course they are. The president's been
50:12lying to them about that for nearly a
50:14decade.
50:16But back to the main point on this, not
50:18$1 is devoted to lowering the cost of
50:20groceries, reducing health care costs,
50:23or slashing skyrocketing energy prices.
50:26Republicans keep promising to lower
50:28costs, but instead they keep shifting
50:30the economic burdens to consumers
50:33through tariffs, through giveaways to
50:35billionaires and big business. Um, the
50:38only kind of welfare they seem
50:40interested in is corporate welfare. And
50:42boy, are we seeing a lot of that. So
50:45apparently there's always more money for
50:47war or to clean up some of the economic
50:49damage caused by this administration. If
50:51Republicans were serious about helping
50:53American families, they would be working
50:55to actually lower costs, strengthen
50:58health care, invest in our communities
51:00through housing, through child care,
51:01through all the things that Americans
51:04actually need rather than golden
51:06ballrooms and ripped up reflecting pools
51:09and golden arches and all the other crap
51:11that keeps getting proposed by this
51:13administration. So, uh, Mr. Mr.
51:15McGarvey, I I sense that you have some
51:19remarks you'd like to add in response to
51:21some of the nonsense we've been hearing.
51:23>> Thank you, Miss Scan. I I appreciate
51:25your remarks. I wanted to go to some of
51:27the things that Mr. Scott addressed
51:29specifically about fraud and about the
51:32actual budget and the tax cuts
51:34themselves. Um, we all agree, right?
51:37Let's get rid of the fraud. Let's get
51:39rid of fraud. Let's get rid of fraud.
51:40Let's get rid of waste. Let's get rid of
51:42abuse. Let's also remember what this
51:44administration is labeling as fraud or
51:47labeling as abuse. Uh director vote came
51:50in front of our committee, Mr. Chairman,
51:52and he answered our questions because
51:54the thing about a budget is you can talk
51:57about things all you want. In a budget,
51:58it's actually written down what you what
52:00you like and what you value. So he said
52:03there was fraud in the lie heap program.
52:06Lie HEP low uh income home energy
52:08assistance program, right?
52:11But he didn't find the fraud in the
52:15program. He zeroed it out completely.
52:18There over a 100,000 seniors in Kentucky
52:21who rely on this program to keep their
52:24homes warm in the winter. And right now
52:27when it is blazing hot in Kentucky, to
52:30keep it cool in summer, this can be life
52:32or death. He he couldn't answer whether
52:34it's fraud for every single senior in
52:37Kentucky who uses this program. It is
52:40not a serious attempt. What they're
52:42trying to do is find little offsets that
52:45impact the people who are our neighbors
52:47who live in our areas every single day.
52:49And they're trying to cut those so that
52:51they can pave the way for the wealthy
52:54tax cuts that they have put in place.
52:55Now, Mr. Scott, I'm from Kentucky. I
52:58love Waffle House. In fact, if they
53:00serve bourbon, I don't think I'd ever
53:01leave.
53:03But what you need to do is explain the
53:05tax cuts to the people at Waffle House
53:07the next time you're there. Because in
53:08this budget, there were $4.7 trillion in
53:12tax cuts. The wealthiest Americans got
53:14over 50% of that. If you make a million
53:17in America under these tax cuts, by
53:202027, you will have $100,000
53:24more in your pocket. But let's look at
53:26what we did for the people who work at
53:27Waffle House. There is no tax on
53:29overtime. There is no tax on tips. What
53:32does that actually mean? Because these
53:34tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans,
53:36they are permanent. They're not going
53:38anywhere unless we can change it. The no
53:40tax on overtime, no tax on tips, it
53:42sunsets. They expire after 3 years. And
53:45what are they actually? If the person at
53:47Waffle House doesn't want to have a tax
53:49on their tips, what do they now have to
53:50do under this bill? They have to itemize
53:52their deductions. They itemize their
53:54deductions. It sunsets after 3 years.
53:57There's also a $25,000 cap in this. When
54:00you itemize your deductions on tips, you
54:03actually lose the $15,000 standard
54:05deduction you get right now. This is no
54:07tax on $9,900
54:10worth of tips for three years. But if
54:12you make a million bucks, you get a
54:13$100,000. Or if you're a low-income
54:15senior, they're zeroing out your
54:17programs. They're taking food off the
54:18table. They're making health insurance
54:20less and less affordable for every
54:22single American. And that's the numbers
54:25and the impact that are in this bill.
54:29>> Thank you. I I appreciate that and and
54:32it just gs me every time our colleagues
54:35start talking about fraud when the
54:38actions of this administration show that
54:40that is not the focus or at least not
54:43the focus with respect to the people who
54:45are committing massive fraud. I mean, if
54:47you just look at the fact that the
54:49administration has canned most of the
54:51inspectors general whose job it is to
54:54actually investigate and find and
54:56prosecute fraud, waste, and abuse, and
54:58have been doing a really good job at
55:00that up till now. When you look at the
55:02pardons that this administration has
55:04made for corporate tycoons who have
55:07defrauded Americans out of billions of
55:10dollars and then they get a get out of
55:12jail free pass which also removes their
55:15obligation to repay the seniors and the
55:19veterans and the folks who were
55:20defrauded and and finally um I guess in
55:24addition to that you see the folks
55:25who've had their charges dropped when
55:27they've made sizable donations to either
55:29the president's campaign funds or his
55:31library or one of his Golden Ballrooms
55:34or something like that. And then
55:35finally, you just look at the front page
55:37of the Wall Street Journal today, which
55:39says Justice Department pulls back on
55:42pursuing corporate crime. They've sent
55:44all their folks out to track down uh day
55:48workers at Home Depot. And they are not
55:51going after corporate crime. They're not
55:52going after drug traffickers. They're
55:54not going after human traffickers. and
55:56they're sure as heck not going after
55:58folks in our government who are
56:00defrauding the American people. So, I
56:02thank you for your work on this and I
56:04yield back.
56:05>> Thank you, Miss Scandlin. Mr. Griffith,
56:07you're recognized.
56:10>> Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez.
56:13You're recognized.
56:15>> Hello. Hello. Um, thank you uh very
56:17much. Uh, good to see you, chairman, and
56:20good to see you uh ranking uh um you're
56:23the ranking member here today. uh uh
56:26Margaret McGarvey and thank you for that
56:27explanation uh about the fact that uh
56:32it's not really working people, it's not
56:34seniors, it's not people who pay taxes
56:37who have benefited from the deficit
56:40spending um that we have seen the
56:43Republicans engage in in the last uh 18
56:47months. And that's really what's key
56:49here is this is deficit suspending.
56:52deficits spending uh and uh Chairman
56:55Arrington you've seen uh uh you know
56:59this chart I think you and I have
57:02discussed this chart before because it
57:04shows that
57:06uh Republicans like talking about the
57:08deficit
57:10but really what Republicans like doing
57:12is increasing the deficit and every year
57:17every presidency under Reagan HW Bush
57:20the deficit went up not by under those
57:22two. Uh it went down during Clinton uh
57:25during uh W Bush. It went up went down
57:30during Obama and then boy under Trump it
57:34just soared. came down a bit under Biden
57:38and uh now you actually are have the
57:42distinction of being able to serve as
57:44chairman of the budget committee uh and
57:48will be able to retire and claim as one
57:50of I think your accomplishments that you
57:53have added to that deficit spending and
57:57this bill before us
58:01is going to add to that legacy of
58:05deficit spending by Republican
58:07presidencies if it ever got passed into
58:10law. And what we're hearing is that
58:12we're finally maybe some of the uh they
58:16call them hardliners. I don't know what
58:17the right name for it is, but people who
58:19say it's not good to do deficit spending
58:21are saying, "Wait a minute, there's no
58:22pay fors in here. There were no pay fors
58:26in the 7270 billion that uh we passed
58:29last month either." Uh do you remember
58:32by how much Trump raised the debt in his
58:34first term, Chairman Arrington?
58:37>> The debt has gone up by too much under
58:40uh presidents in recent times mainly
58:43because of the unfunded liability in uh
58:47entitlements that are on automatic
58:49spending. And and just just to be clear,
58:52we have a crisis of a balance sheet that
58:56has $140 trillion that will be uh
59:01brought to bear on that balance sheet
59:03without the funding to deliver on the
59:06promises in those entitlements. That's
59:08the biggest reason it's increasing on
59:10everyone's watch. But no one in 10 years
59:14to my colleague and friend from New
59:15Mexico. In 10 years,
59:19no party, no budget chairman,
59:23no president has worked to reduce the
59:26deficit to GDP like like the House
59:30Republicans and this president. And CBO
59:33has uh confirmed that it's over 10%. And
59:37it's because we reduced wasteful
59:39spending by $2.5 trillion. It's because
59:43of the fiscal responsibility act that we
59:46forced Democrats to the table to
59:48negotiate and have saved to date a half
59:50a trillion dollars just keeping
59:53discretionary spending flat. And it's
59:55because we had poultry growth at a 1.8
59:59in the last quarter of President Biden.
1:00:01We had a 3.8 and 4.3 growth rate. That
1:00:04is tremendous. That is until Democrats
1:00:07shut the government down to expand a
1:00:09fraudridden COVID era program that they
1:00:11said was temporary that would cost $130
1:00:13billion with no pay.
1:00:15>> Arrington was uh the question was a
1:00:17simple question um which was how much
1:00:19has how much did President Trump
1:00:21increase the deficit
1:00:23>> less less than Joe Biden did and under
1:00:25Democrat control.
1:00:26>> Actually not true at all. Uh it was by
1:00:29$8.4 4 trillion dollars and Joe Biden
1:00:32actually brought the uh he brought it
1:00:35down. So actually when you look at the
1:00:37numbers and this is the issue is that
1:00:40when you look at the rhetoric
1:00:41>> what's the source of that chart
1:00:42>> when when you look at the rhetoric uh
1:00:44we'll actually
1:00:46>> what
1:00:47>> United States Treasury I don't know if
1:00:48you've
1:00:50heard of United States Treasury but yeah
1:00:52from the United States Treasury
1:00:54>> if I may just
1:00:56fact check
1:00:57>> the the interest on the debt which
1:01:00tripled okay from 350 billion to a
1:01:02trillion dollars under President Biden
1:01:04because the spending
1:01:06created record 40-year inflation.
1:01:08Interest rates soared. And so if you add
1:01:10the extra cost in interest, it's $12
1:01:12trillion magically.
1:01:14>> That's the issue that the rhetoric of
1:01:17Republicans
1:01:18>> the deficit does not match the numbers.
1:01:21And I think that that's the issue that
1:01:24we keep bringing up. And what are you
1:01:27doing it for? Right.
1:01:29uh the $4.7 trillion price tag that the
1:01:33CBO has told us the last uh the first
1:01:36reconciliation cost us the first
1:01:38reconciliation
1:01:40uh who are the big beneficiaries and we
1:01:43heard Representative uh McGarvey point
1:01:45that out they were the millionaires they
1:01:48were the billionaires and we brought
1:01:50amendments in this rules committee to
1:01:52say hey uh how about if we let the
1:01:55middle income tax cuts stay we extend
1:01:58those and instead say no tax cuts if
1:02:01you're earning over a billion dollars.
1:02:03They said no. How about over 500
1:02:05million? They said no. Republicans
1:02:08continuously
1:02:09tell us where their priorities are. And
1:02:12the last $700 billion was for ICE.
1:02:18And what's happened in the last two
1:02:20weeks?
1:02:21More shootings in the streets, murders,
1:02:25killings in the streets.
1:02:27Republicans refuse to put any guard
1:02:29rails on. And and I think that that's
1:02:32what we're facing here is there is uh
1:02:36you celebrate what came out of the one
1:02:39big beautiful bill. You don't like the
1:02:40name anymore because you changed the
1:02:42name, but what really came out of there
1:02:44is uh how many people lost access to
1:02:48medical co coverage? Uh do you do you
1:02:51know that Representative McGarvey?
1:02:53How many people lost access to
1:02:55>> to medical coverage after passage of the
1:02:57one big beautiful bill?
1:02:58>> It is thousands upon thousands upon
1:03:01thousands of people.
1:03:02>> Five million people. 5 million people.
1:03:05And if we actually took what they intend
1:03:08to spend on war, we could extend the
1:03:11Affordable Care Act tax credits for I
1:03:15think it's three years. So the people
1:03:19who are losing access to health care,
1:03:23they're are working families, right? And
1:03:26instead we want they want more war. And
1:03:28I think that that's the issue that we're
1:03:30concerned about. And I don't know if you
1:03:32want to talk a little bit more about why
1:03:35these priorities, these budget
1:03:37priorities of the Republicans are
1:03:39hurting Americans access to lower to act
1:03:42to healthcare and they're doing nothing
1:03:44to lower the cost for everyday
1:03:46Americans.
1:03:47>> Yeah. I mean,
1:03:49the stories that are coming into our
1:03:51offices, they're real and they're
1:03:52heart-wrenching. I had a woman from
1:03:54Louisville, Kentucky. Her name's an uh
1:03:57she called my office and she is she
1:04:01works two jobs. One of them she owns her
1:04:03own business. Her husband also is an
1:04:05independent contractor. They have a
1:04:0719-year-old son who lives at their home
1:04:09while trying to go to the University of
1:04:11Louisville because he's disabled.
1:04:13Her health insurance premiums cost $325
1:04:17a month under the silver plan of the
1:04:20Affordable Care Act.
1:04:23because of the Republicans's actions in
1:04:25these budget bills, her premiums are
1:04:27going up to $1,275
1:04:29a month. She talked about the fact that
1:04:32she can't sleep at night, that she gets
1:04:34short of breath when she thinks about
1:04:36it, that her son is still required to go
1:04:38to specialists multiple times per year,
1:04:41doesn't know if she's going to be able
1:04:42to pay for it. She's doing everything
1:04:45right.
1:04:47She's playing by the rules,
1:04:50but the policy decisions coming out of
1:04:53the House Republicans and coming out of
1:04:54the Trump administration, they are
1:04:57giving millions of dollars to the
1:04:59richest corporations and people in this
1:05:01country and they are yanking health care
1:05:03away from people who are trying to make
1:05:06their way every single day doing it the
1:05:08right way. There are so many stories
1:05:11about this. I had a guy call me just a
1:05:12couple of weeks ago. His health
1:05:13insurance premiums gone up by $1,000.
1:05:16This doesn't mention the fact that
1:05:18already in Louisville, a birthing center
1:05:19has announced it's going to close. That
1:05:21the Le Specialty Clinic was at the verge
1:05:23of closure because of the Medicaid cuts
1:05:26that are going into effect. This is
1:05:28going to impact the Kentucky Hospital
1:05:30Association. This is not some flaming
1:05:32liberal group. By the way, they have
1:05:34projected that 35 rural hospitals in
1:05:37Kentucky could close because of these
1:05:40Medicaid cuts. And there is nothing in
1:05:43today's proposed budget uh uh
1:05:46reconciliation that addresses any of
1:05:49these issues that you're talking about.
1:05:50Correct.
1:05:50>> None of this whatsoever. In fact, you
1:05:52know, I was listening to the chairman.
1:05:55He can argue all he wants to about
1:05:56whether it's a good thing uh to increase
1:05:59the debt or deficit of this country.
1:06:00What we can't argue about is whether or
1:06:01not it's happening. Reconciliation one,
1:06:04increase the debt and deficit of this
1:06:06country. Reconciliation two, increase
1:06:07the debt and and deficit of this
1:06:09country. This is reconciliation three.
1:06:11And guess what? Third times a charm.
1:06:13They are increasing the debt and deficit
1:06:14of this country once again. And just
1:06:16look at the numbers. It's right here
1:06:17because it's a budget. 60 billion
1:06:20deficit increase for armed services. $13
1:06:22billion deficit increase for
1:06:23intelligence. 12 billion deficit
1:06:25increase for agriculture. A10 billion
1:06:28deficit increase for House
1:06:29Administration. And again, just look at
1:06:31the language. Don't believe me. Look at
1:06:33the language in the bill. They wave the
1:06:35Cutco provision. The cut coat provision
1:06:38is the fancy Republican rules term that
1:06:40they use for you got to pay for what you
1:06:42do. They wave it. Why wave it if you
1:06:46don't unless you're going to increase
1:06:47the debt or deficit. Um so it's very
1:06:50clear what they're doing. Uh, and I
1:06:52think that the other thing is we were
1:06:54here last week and they were they're
1:06:57they're they're allocating they're going
1:06:59to send more money for war,
1:07:01>> but last week they were unwilling they
1:07:04were unwilling to pay for veterans
1:07:07services for the benefits that veterans
1:07:11need without a pay for. But they're
1:07:14going to spend this money without a pay
1:07:16for. I think we should prioritize our
1:07:18veterans. And there is no instruction to
1:07:22the veteran services committee, is
1:07:23there?
1:07:24>> Our veterans get nothing in this bill.
1:07:25>> So our veterans get nothing out of this
1:07:27bill. Shows you where their priorities
1:07:29are. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield
1:07:31back.
1:07:32>> Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez.
1:07:35Chairman Arrington,
1:07:37this resolution is about security.
1:07:41Funding our armed services to protect
1:07:43our national security. funding our
1:07:45nation's farmers to protect food
1:07:47security and funding measures to protect
1:07:50election security.
1:07:53What would be the cost if we fail in our
1:07:56constitutional duty to protect America's
1:08:00security?
1:08:02Madam Chair, I can't imagine if our
1:08:05troops could hear the conversation about
1:08:08pay fors that every Democrat on this
1:08:10committee has supported supplemental
1:08:14funding for Ukraine, for Taiwan, for
1:08:16Israel, and now they're they're taking
1:08:20exception with emergency funding for our
1:08:23troops in conflict right now on the
1:08:27front lines, risking their lives. So,
1:08:30let me tell you the cost. The cost is
1:08:33our sons and daughters can't be safe in
1:08:37saluting the commander-in-chief and
1:08:39doing their duty. This is bombs,
1:08:41bullets, and battlefield readiness. This
1:08:43is not modernization of the military,
1:08:47the 350 billion requests that the
1:08:49president submitted for modernization.
1:08:51That's not what this is. It's emergency
1:08:53supplemental. And if I thought we could
1:08:56work that out in a bipartisan basis, we
1:08:59would do it.
1:09:00>> And the number one duty of the federal
1:09:03government,
1:09:03>> provide for the common defense.
1:09:05>> Provide for the common defense.
1:09:06>> Yes, ma'am.
1:09:06>> Thank you very much.
1:09:09>> Any further questions of our witnesses
1:09:13on this panel?
1:09:15Seeing none, we thank you both for
1:09:18coming.
1:09:18>> They get shorter every reconciliation.
1:09:20Madam Chair,
1:09:23>> I I think we may be wearing Mr. McGovern
1:09:25down.
1:09:26>> You're not
1:09:27>> Don't count on it. Do not
1:09:28>> heavy.
1:09:30>> Do not count on wearing Mr. McGovern
1:09:32down.
1:09:33>> No, I know that about this guy. Thank
1:09:35you for the time and opportunity.
1:09:37>> Thank you both for your good work. We
1:09:39appreciate you coming. Thank you.
1:11:11I now welcome our second panel,
1:11:15Chairman Cole, former chairman of this
1:11:18committee. So, he's chairman squared.
1:11:22Uh, and I understand that ranking member
1:11:26Delloro is on her way. Um, the two of
1:11:31you represent the appropriations
1:11:33committee.
1:11:34Your full statement will be submitted
1:11:37for the record. We ask that you
1:11:40summarize your statement in five
1:11:42minutes. And there is good. How you
1:11:44doing?
1:11:44>> Ranking member Delloro
1:11:47>> in all her glory.
1:11:49Chairman Cole, I welcome your testimony.
1:11:54>> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Uh,
1:11:57Chairwoman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern,
1:11:59members of the Rules Committee, I
1:12:01appreciate very much the opportunity to
1:12:03testify today. I come before you today
1:12:06on HR 9770, the Continuing
1:12:09Appropriations Act of 2027.
1:12:12Over the past year, the House
1:12:13Appropriations Committees worked
1:12:15diligently to fulfill our Article One
1:12:17duties. Last month, we completed our
1:12:20markup process for fiscal year 2027,
1:12:23reporting all 12 bills out of the full
1:12:26committee by June 24th. It's the
1:12:28earliest date this feat has been
1:12:30accomplished since fiscal year 2020. As
1:12:33of today, the full house of
1:12:36representatives has also passed three of
1:12:38these bills across the floor, including
1:12:40the military construction and veterans
1:12:42affairs bill, the Agriculture, Rural
1:12:45Development, Food and Drug
1:12:46Administration bill, and the and related
1:12:48agencies bill, uh, and the National
1:12:51Security Department of State and Related
1:12:54Programs Bill. I'm deeply proud of the
1:12:56work that the committee's done thus far
1:12:58and I'm appreciative of the support
1:13:00we've received from the rest of our
1:13:02colleagues in this chamber.
1:13:04Unfortunately, current circumstances in
1:13:06the Senate make clear that Congress as a
1:13:09whole is unlikely to complete the full
1:13:11appropriations process by the start of
1:13:13the fiscal year. The fact remains that
1:13:16our friends and colleagues across the
1:13:18Rotunda have yet to report any
1:13:20appropriations bills out of the Senate
1:13:22Appropriations Committee. Despite good
1:13:24faith efforts and reasonable
1:13:26negotiations, political gamesmanship
1:13:29from the left has kept their process at
1:13:31a standstill. While I've not given up
1:13:34hope that we can enact at least some
1:13:36appropriations bills before the start of
1:13:38the fiscal year, I'm also realistic and
1:13:41I acknowledge the reality on the ground.
1:13:44Congress will need to enact a continuing
1:13:46resolution of some sort prior to
1:13:49September 30th to avoid a government
1:13:51shutdown at the start of the fiscal year
1:13:542027.
1:13:55Every member in this room is only too
1:13:58aware of what transpired over the last
1:14:00year. The threat of a shutdown is not
1:14:03only real, it's happened twice in the
1:14:05last 12 months. First, Senator Schumer
1:14:08and Senate Democrats plunged the nation
1:14:10into the longest government shutdown in
1:14:12history last October. Not to be outdone,
1:14:16they then later pushed the Department of
1:14:18Homeland Security into the longest
1:14:20partial shutdown in American history.
1:14:23Both of these shutdowns were
1:14:24unnecessary, reckless, and
1:14:26irresponsible. It would be equally
1:14:29reckless and irresponsible to repeat the
1:14:31same mistake at the end of this fiscal
1:14:34year. Stability is necessary, which is
1:14:37why the House is moving early and taking
1:14:39the step of putting today's bill
1:14:41forward. HR 9770, the Continuing
1:14:45Appropriations Act 2027, will put in
1:14:49place a continuing resolution keeping
1:14:51the government open and operating
1:14:53through December 4th of 2026.
1:14:56This will not only allow Congress time
1:14:58to continue our work on full appropri
1:15:00fully year appropriations bills through
1:15:03regular order, but will also ensure that
1:15:05the government remains open through the
1:15:07November election and into early
1:15:09December. Some may ask why it is
1:15:12necessary that we take this bill up in
1:15:14July. I would simply state that it's
1:15:17never too early to do the right thing.
1:15:19The right thing for this body and for
1:15:21the American people is to make sure that
1:15:23the government remains funded and
1:15:25remains open. Passing this bill now
1:15:28ensures that we, the House, have taken
1:15:31this important step prior to the August
1:15:33district work period. There will be no
1:15:36question about where the House stands.
1:15:38We stand squarely with our constituents
1:15:40who overwhelmingly want to keep the
1:15:42government open and providing services
1:15:45to them. Importantly, today's bill also
1:15:48does not contain a single poison pill
1:15:50writer. It's a clean CR fully funding
1:15:53our government. This includes our
1:15:55military and defense needs, support for
1:15:58our veterans, and critical services for
1:16:00our constituents like roads, parks,
1:16:03child care, water projects,
1:16:05infrastructure improvements, scientific
1:16:08research, job training, and countless
1:16:10others. I look forward to continuing the
1:16:13FY2027
1:16:15appropriations process in the coming
1:16:17months. I thank each of you for your
1:16:19time and I look forward to your
1:16:20questions.
1:16:22>> Thank you, Chairman Cole, Ranking Member
1:16:24Dellores. Thank you. You're recognized.
1:16:27>> Thank you, Chairwoman Fox and Ranking
1:16:29Member McGovern and members of the
1:16:31committee. Uh good afternoon to all of
1:16:33you. It's great to be here alongside my
1:16:35friend Chairman Cole to discuss the stop
1:16:38gap funding measure released on Friday
1:16:40afternoon.
1:16:42I want to begin by stating clearly and
1:16:44plainly, Democrats do not want a
1:16:47government shutdown. In a perfect world,
1:16:50the months remaining between now and
1:16:52September 30th would be ample time to
1:16:55fund the government um on a bipartisan
1:16:58basis through the appropriations process
1:17:02one bill at a time. However, given
1:17:05Republicans refusal to write bipartisan
1:17:07bills in either the House or Senate, a
1:17:10continuing resolution is necessary. If I
1:17:13am going to support a continuing
1:17:15resolution, it needs to continue
1:17:17government operations, exclude any
1:17:20poison pills, and it must maintain
1:17:22Congress's constitutional authority over
1:17:25spending decisions. At this time, the
1:17:28continuing resolution released on Friday
1:17:31does not meet that standard. The final
1:17:35Homeland Security bill passed unopposed
1:17:38in April, unopposed. was by a voice vote
1:17:41by including a provision to remove all
1:17:45funding for the Border Patrol. Chairman
1:17:49Co's bill does not continue that
1:17:52agreement, giving the Trump
1:17:54administration permission to use
1:17:56billions provided by this bill to fund
1:18:00border patrol without any substantial
1:18:03reforms to how that agency operates.
1:18:06It's a clear line in the sand that
1:18:09Democrats have drawn for months. In
1:18:12recent weeks, immigration agents have
1:18:15shot and killed residents in Maine and
1:18:18Texas, neither of whom were the target
1:18:22of enforcement operations, highlighting
1:18:25the urgent need for dramatic reforms to
1:18:29protect our communities from further
1:18:31violence. We have also been prevented
1:18:34this measure hastily put together with
1:18:37little more than a couple of days of
1:18:38thought. That is not the way to govern.
1:18:42The majority has not made time to gather
1:18:45information from our colleagues in the
1:18:47executive branch to identify any
1:18:50potentially critical anticipated needs,
1:18:53let alone anything that may come to
1:18:54light over the next couple of months,
1:18:57especially as we head into the heart of
1:19:00wildfire season and approach hurricane
1:19:03season. We are putting the cart before
1:19:05the horse by considering this
1:19:06legislation without understanding the
1:19:09full scope of what is needed to continue
1:19:12operations through December 4th. As a
1:19:16matter of fact, we have just received a
1:19:19lengthy proposed list of anomalies from
1:19:23the White House, but the process has
1:19:26made no time for us to evaluate these
1:19:31proposals. And this bill does not
1:19:33account for anything that is in these
1:19:36these proposals. And the chairman and I
1:19:38both know we go through these with a
1:19:40fine tooth comb to see what is flexible
1:19:43and what isn't flexible. What are the
1:19:45needs that have to be met?
1:19:48Border Patrol problems aside, Chairman
1:19:51Cole has put forward a plain bill absent
1:19:54controversial writers and containing
1:19:57most of the standard authorities we
1:19:59enact in these stop gap measures. That's
1:20:02a welcome change from most of the
1:20:04regular bills that have come to the
1:20:06floor this summer. But we still do not
1:20:08have all of the information that we
1:20:11need. We still have two months before
1:20:14the end of the fiscal year and should
1:20:16not rush through an incomplete funding
1:20:18extension. We ought to wait for the
1:20:20information that we need to get it right
1:20:23the first time. This resolution was
1:20:26dropped on us on Friday afternoon
1:20:29without any bipartisan negotiation. Had
1:20:33we been consulted, there are several
1:20:34provisions we would have pushed for to
1:20:36strengthen the measure and to progre and
1:20:39to protect congressional prerogatives,
1:20:41including the reversal of a proposed
1:20:43federal rule from the Office of
1:20:45Management and Budget that allows
1:20:47political appointees in the Trump
1:20:49administration to unilaterally block or
1:20:52terminate grant funding if they deem it
1:20:55not sufficiently in line with the
1:20:58president's policy priorities. If we had
1:21:01been brought in before the bill was
1:21:02released, we could be here touting a
1:21:04bipartisan agreement with a plan to
1:21:07fully fund the government for the next
1:21:09fiscal year before the end of this
1:21:11Congress. Instead, we are scrambling to
1:21:14jam through a one-sided stop gap measure
1:21:173 days before everyone leaves for the
1:21:21August recess. I'm deeply concerned
1:21:24about what may be attached to this
1:21:26funding measure through the rule that is
1:21:28passed out of this committee. There are
1:21:31some Republicans who have decided that
1:21:33they will not allow any legislation to
1:21:36be considered under a rule unless it
1:21:38includes an extremely partisan measure
1:21:41to restrict voting access for millions
1:21:44of American citizens. Under no
1:21:47circumstances will Democrats support
1:21:49that measure. If the position of my
1:21:52friends across the aisle is that that
1:21:54they will shut down the government
1:21:56unless we severely restrict American
1:21:58citizens voting access, I invite them to
1:22:01make that case to the public and see how
1:22:03the public responds in November. At
1:22:06minimum, I cannot support this bill
1:22:08without the inclusion of the technical
1:22:11language regarding the border patrol
1:22:14that was agreed on. It was agreed on as
1:22:17a bipartisan overwhelming voice vote in
1:22:20April until we are certain that the
1:22:23Republicans will not use this
1:22:25legislation to advance their voter
1:22:28suppression measure. Beyond that, the
1:22:31decision to pursue this path without any
1:22:33bipartisan negotiations gives me serious
1:22:37reservations in moving forward. I'm
1:22:39happy to answer the committee's
1:22:40questions. I thank you and I yield back.
1:22:43Thank you, Miss Laura. Miss Fishbach,
1:22:45you're recognized.
1:22:47>> Thank you, Madam Chair, and um Chairman
1:22:49Cole, I think I think you mentioned it
1:22:51in your um in your opening remarks, but
1:22:53I just wanted to check again and make it
1:22:56make a point of it. How many of the 12
1:22:59appropriations bills have passed out of
1:23:01your committee?
1:23:02>> 12. All 12.
1:23:03>> And how many have passed the House?
1:23:05>> Three.
1:23:06>> And how many have passed the Senate?
1:23:07>> Zero. So
1:23:09>> that includes obviously out of
1:23:10committee, not just out of the Senate
1:23:12itself, but the Senate Appropriations
1:23:15Committee hasn't gotten a single bill
1:23:16done yet. And I think it's pretty
1:23:18unlikely they're going to get them done
1:23:20between now and September 30th.
1:23:22>> And and thank you for pointing it out. I
1:23:24wouldn't have asked the question, but
1:23:25not out of committee, not out of the
1:23:26House or excuse me, out of the Senate.
1:23:29And I mean, the Senate's not obviously
1:23:31not taking their duty seriously if if
1:23:34they are not even um taking up the ones
1:23:37we've sent and doing anything. And so I
1:23:40think this is the only responsible thing
1:23:42to do because like you said, they're
1:23:43probably not going to do anything before
1:23:45September 30th. It's unlikely that they
1:23:47will. And I think that to avoid a
1:23:49shutdown and let allow them more
1:23:53opportunity to get their work done and
1:23:54take it seriously, I think this is a
1:23:56necessary thing that we need to do. And
1:23:59uh so I appreciate you bringing it
1:24:00forward. And I um you know, it's a
1:24:03pretty simple uh resolution, pretty
1:24:06simple piece of legislation. And so I
1:24:08think that um you know, it it's easy to
1:24:10understand what's going on in it. And so
1:24:13I don't think we need to have uh you
1:24:15know three months to to uh to digest
1:24:18what's going on in this. I understand it
1:24:20and I think that everybody else does
1:24:22too. And so I appreciate you bringing it
1:24:24forward and I appreciate the fact that
1:24:26you're taking the responsible approach
1:24:28and making sure that we are able to um
1:24:31insist the Senate get their work done.
1:24:33Thank you very much.
1:24:34>> Thank you.
1:24:35>> Thank you, Mr. Fishbach. Mr. McGovern,
1:24:37you're recognized.
1:24:37>> Yeah. You know, let me just first of all
1:24:39say that I want to remind my colleagues
1:24:41that the Senate is controlled by the
1:24:43Republican party and Susan Collins is
1:24:45the chair of the
1:24:46>> Appropriations Committee over there. So
1:24:48maybe there's a need for some change. Um
1:24:51and I would, you know, I don't want to
1:24:52prolong this. I would just I have
1:24:54respect for both the chairman and the
1:24:56ranking member. Um it just seems to me
1:24:58based on what M. Deloro just said that
1:25:01uh maybe we could have reached a
1:25:04bipartisan agreement if there was a
1:25:05bipartisan back and forth before this uh
1:25:08this was announced and um maybe we still
1:25:11can get to that at some point. But uh um
1:25:13I don't really have any questions. I
1:25:15just I just wish that this was more of a
1:25:17bipartisan process and maybe we would be
1:25:19maybe everything would be a little bit
1:25:20different right now, but it is what it
1:25:22is and I thank you both for being here
1:25:24and I yield back.
1:25:25>> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Scott. You're
1:25:28recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh I
1:25:31would tell you it seems to me that the
1:25:33Senate's actually controlled by the
1:25:34parliamentarian
1:25:36uh not uh the Republicans over there.
1:25:40But I I just Mr. Cole looking through
1:25:42the things. I mean,
1:25:43>> how's that?
1:25:45>> I don't see
1:25:48any reason for anybody to necessarily be
1:25:51to object to this. I like you don't have
1:25:54confidence that bills are going to make
1:25:57it through the House and the Senate.
1:25:58prior to
1:26:00uh the end of the fiscal year.
1:26:03We only have we don't have that many
1:26:06work days until then to be honest with
1:26:08you, but but I haven't seen the Senate
1:26:09take much action on on anything yet. And
1:26:12so I I think it's kind of smart to go
1:26:15ahead and take the potential chaos of a
1:26:18shutdown off of the table because of the
1:26:19amount of damage that it does to the
1:26:21American citizens. And while I think it,
1:26:23you know, a shutdown probably works to
1:26:24the advantage of the Democrats
1:26:25politically because of the way the press
1:26:27operates and their messaging apparatus,
1:26:30uh, is it's very damaging to the
1:26:32American citizens in our country. And so
1:26:35I intend to vote for it. If you have any
1:26:37other comments that you'd like to to
1:26:38make as the chair, you're welcome to it.
1:26:40Other than that, Madam Chair, I'm I'm
1:26:42prepared to vote in favor of the
1:26:43continuing resolution.
1:26:45>> Mr.
1:26:46Uh, all I'd point out is that u, look,
1:26:50there's nothing in the bill to be
1:26:52against it. It just simply is a clean
1:26:55CR. And I've always had the philosophy.
1:26:57I don't vote on bills uh because of
1:26:59what's not in them. I vote against them
1:27:03or for them on the basis of what is in
1:27:05them. There's nothing in here that's
1:27:06remotely controversial. And look, we've
1:27:09been through the two longest shutdowns
1:27:12in American history. the longest
1:27:13shutdown of full government which
1:27:15Senator Schumer and Senate Democrats
1:27:17sprung on us and to say they control by
1:27:20the Republicans simply not true because
1:27:23of the filibuster and that's just the
1:27:25reality. Uh and uh I don't want to go
1:27:28through that again. I don't want the uh
1:27:30final part of the campaign this year to
1:27:34be fought over a government shutdown.
1:27:36Frankly, I don't think people on either
1:27:37side of the the partisan divide should
1:27:40want that. They should want to be
1:27:42fighting on the issues. I promise you
1:27:44this, if we shut down the government
1:27:46come September 30th, that will be the
1:27:48issue that dominates politics in the
1:27:51next few years. We're just trying to
1:27:52take that off the table for both sides.
1:27:55Make sure that there's certainty in
1:27:57funding the government, that we don't
1:27:59have another one of these situations
1:28:01where we have lines at airports because
1:28:03two TSA agents aren't being paid for or
1:28:07any of those sorts of things. Just fund
1:28:08the essential things. we'll have the
1:28:11election, things can be sorted out. We
1:28:13come back after that. If the Senate were
1:28:15moving, if they had made as much
1:28:17progress as we have, uh then again, I
1:28:20would uh I'd be happy to to hope that
1:28:23that would happen, but I just don't see
1:28:25the time for it. So, let's remove the
1:28:28possibility of a government shutdown now
1:28:31through the election. Have enough time
1:28:33when we finish that election to come
1:28:35back and make some appropriate
1:28:36decisions. In the meantime, we want to
1:28:38keep working on appropriations bills. I
1:28:40hope we keep bringing them to the floor.
1:28:42I know the House has lots of things to
1:28:44consider. Uh but uh we're going to
1:28:47continue to try and move the regular
1:28:48process alone, but we want to take away
1:28:52the possibility of a shutdown between
1:28:54now and the election because again,
1:28:55we've seen that happen twice in this
1:28:58Congress already uh generated by the
1:29:00Senate and I'm not willing to risk a
1:29:02third time if we can avoid that.
1:29:06There's a difference between having a
1:29:08majority and being in control. You you
1:29:10yield back, Mr.
1:29:11>> Yes, ma'am.
1:29:13>> Miss Kandlin, you're recognized.
1:29:15>> Thank you. Um I hate to say it, but it
1:29:19feels like this continuing resolution is
1:29:22an admission of failure, not by our
1:29:24brilliant appropriators, but by House
1:29:27Republican leadership.
1:29:29um they're willing to give up one of
1:29:31Congress's most fundamental powers and
1:29:34duties in order to avoid another
1:29:37potential political loss um just before
1:29:40the election. Uh you know, they're
1:29:42asking us to give a blank check to this
1:29:45administration because they can't manage
1:29:47either their Republican caucus or to
1:29:50negotiate
1:29:52um actual bipartisan funding bills. So,
1:29:54I think it's an insult to the
1:29:56appropriations committee because I know
1:29:57they continue to do good work on even
1:29:59under duress, but it's a failure of
1:30:02Congress to be doing this months before
1:30:05um the end of the year. Um and it also
1:30:08robs the House of the ability to direct
1:30:11funding to our districts where we know
1:30:13we need it. it robs every member of the
1:30:15ability to highlight, you know, whether
1:30:18community health centers or local
1:30:20infrastructure or uh we've been able to
1:30:24um get additional resources for schools
1:30:26and libraries, all that goes out the
1:30:28window with a continuing resolution. Um
1:30:32so so I'm not in favor of this. I think
1:30:34it is an admission of of failure by the
1:30:37the Republican leadership. Um, I was
1:30:39struck, ranking member Delore, about
1:30:41something you said about the
1:30:43continuation of funding without
1:30:45guardrails for ICE
1:30:48>> at a time when in the last week to 10
1:30:51days, we've seen two more killings of
1:30:54people on American streets under very,
1:30:56very questionable circumstances
1:30:59when we're still seeing a failure to
1:31:01have clear rules about use of force. um
1:31:04all the money that has been sent to ICE
1:31:07uh amidst promises that they would be
1:31:09deploying um body cams for people to
1:31:11wear to remove some of these questions.
1:31:14We're not seeing that. But now we're
1:31:15supposed to give them more money. Is
1:31:17that what this bill would do?
1:31:18>> Let let me be clear. First of all, I I
1:31:21just want to say there is there would
1:31:22have been no need to go down a road
1:31:25where there are difficulties here. As I
1:31:27said, you know, you know, the um the
1:31:30some of the provisions that are in the
1:31:31bill are fine, which we could all agree
1:31:34to, but the issue is that the Republican
1:31:37continuing resolution, it does not
1:31:40include
1:31:42all of the sections of the fiscal year
1:31:452026 Homeland Security Appropriations
1:31:49Act. what it allows you, not with regard
1:31:51to ICE, because what they said is that
1:31:54there was no money that goes to ICE, but
1:31:56they have failed to put in what the
1:32:00agreement was, the funding agreement,
1:32:02PL119-86,
1:32:05zeroed out funding for border patrol.
1:32:08They did it in two ways. This Republican
1:32:10CR carry
1:32:13omits
1:32:14that prohibition that guaranteed zero
1:32:18for border patrol. And so that gives the
1:32:22administration the flexibility to fund
1:32:24border patrol with the money that has
1:32:27been provided to CBP because we did
1:32:29provide money to CBP to carry out its it
1:32:33its functions uh uh in in a in a in a in
1:32:37a strong way. Um uh so and no one has
1:32:40said and and by the way so that you
1:32:42understand the uh uh uh we discovered
1:32:47that we being the Democrats discovered
1:32:49this technical error uh and it was an
1:32:52error. I I I I I believe that that was
1:32:55an error but nevertheless we then
1:33:00formulated language in the way to fix it
1:33:04so we could move forward. that was
1:33:07denied because when the bill came
1:33:08forward um uh it it it is we noticed
1:33:12that problem. We drafted the correction.
1:33:15When it came forward on on on Saturday,
1:33:18Republicans did not make the technical
1:33:20corrections in the bill that was
1:33:22introduced on Saturday. So they made a
1:33:25choice to allow the CR to potentially
1:33:29fund Border Patrol. no reforms as we
1:33:33have fought for over the last several
1:33:36months. Uh and quite frankly, as I say,
1:33:40this piece
1:33:42was passed on the floor of the House
1:33:46bipartisan in April by virtue of a voice
1:33:50vote. So why not fix it? So th this
1:33:53would allow them to potentially fund
1:33:56Border Patrol on top of the $90.7
1:34:00billion dollar that CBP has already
1:34:03received through reconciliation and
1:34:06that's largely for border patrol
1:34:08operations. This could be this could
1:34:11have been corrected. U and so I
1:34:15that's that that is it. And I got all
1:34:17the citations and what bill it is etc
1:34:20etc etc. So it emits this language. Uh
1:34:24and I don't think that we can um what is
1:34:28it? Was it Ronald Reagan who said trust
1:34:31but verify? Uh we have no way of
1:34:33verifying
1:34:35>> that this money will not be used
1:34:37>> when this bill was produced.
1:34:38>> Yes.
1:34:39>> You checked it over
1:34:41the process of verifying that it didn't
1:34:44have anything that was different than
1:34:46what had been previously agreed to. You
1:34:48found that there were things that were
1:34:49different and when you asked for
1:34:50corrections they didn't have
1:34:52>> we drafted the language.
1:34:53>> That's not good faith negotiation. So
1:34:56>> thank you. I yield back.
1:34:58>> Thank you Miss Kan. Mr. Griffith you're
1:35:01recognized.
1:35:03>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, if
1:35:07the Senate doesn't act, if we don't get
1:35:09these appropriations bills passed,
1:35:15um
1:35:17these sections that u the ranking member
1:35:21has just mentioned would not be in the
1:35:23government shutdown period either, would
1:35:25they?
1:35:25>> Correct.
1:35:27And
1:35:29if we do the CR
1:35:32now, which I will tell you I think is
1:35:33the responsible thing to do based on
1:35:35past actions on the Senate side. And
1:35:37it's it's not just the filibuster, it's
1:35:39the modern filibuster that's been
1:35:40changed. Uh you know, if you went to the
1:35:43filibuster before the 70s, you wouldn't
1:35:45have these issues. But nonetheless,
1:35:48um, but if the if the if we take these
1:35:51actions and then
1:35:54through negotiations with the House and
1:35:56the Senate and and these uh things that
1:36:00the ranking member wants, which have
1:36:01been agreed to by the by the House
1:36:03previously, that would all be in the
1:36:05appropriations bill uh most likely,
1:36:08would it not?
1:36:08>> Correct.
1:36:10So, and if there and there's no reason
1:36:12why if we pass a a CR to take effect,
1:36:15should we not get appropriations bills
1:36:17and we do pass appropriations bills,
1:36:18then the CR would not go into effect. Is
1:36:20that also correct?
1:36:21>> That's also correct.
1:36:22>> Now, let me ask you this, cuz I I don't
1:36:24know the answer. If we approve, if we
1:36:26approve, let's say the House and the
1:36:28Senate get together and we approve six
1:36:30of the 12 or so appropriations bills,
1:36:33does the CR only go into effect for the
1:36:36remaining areas that weren't approved?
1:36:38That's also correct. If we actually
1:36:40passed bills and they were signed into
1:36:43law, those would supersede a CR.
1:36:45>> So, this is kind of like
1:36:48buying that life insurance policy when
1:36:50you have children. You hope you aren't
1:36:52going to die, but if you do, you want
1:36:54them taken care of.
1:36:56>> And am I correct that this is kind of
1:36:57like saying, okay, we're going to have
1:36:59this policy here. We hope we get it all
1:37:01done by September 30th. But if we don't,
1:37:05while members are distracted in October,
1:37:08going off campaigning or trying to
1:37:10campaign for both the House and the
1:37:11Senate,
1:37:13then we don't have to worry about the
1:37:15government shutting down and not doing
1:37:16the things that the American people
1:37:18wanted to do. Is that my understanding?
1:37:20>> That is correct. And and has it been
1:37:22your experience in your district as it
1:37:24has been in mine that of all the issues
1:37:26we fight about up here having the
1:37:28government shut down and having people
1:37:30worrying about whether or not there's
1:37:33going to be you know this that or the
1:37:35other whether the money for disaster
1:37:38relief is going to actually get get to
1:37:39where it needs to be whether or not the
1:37:41Blue Ridge Parkway is going to be open
1:37:43in your district may not be asking about
1:37:44the Blue Ridge Parkway but similar
1:37:46functions like that. These are the
1:37:48things that people care about the most.
1:37:49Isn't that true? In my view it is.
1:37:52>> And so what we're doing here is we're
1:37:54trying to do the responsible thing
1:37:56recognizing that in the past there have
1:37:58been issues and problems. We're just
1:38:01trying to make sure that that government
1:38:03moves smoothly as we move forward and
1:38:05then we can negotiate all those things.
1:38:07If we can get these appropriations bills
1:38:09passed, that's fabulous, is it not?
1:38:11>> I think it's the prudent thing to do
1:38:13given what's happened literally within
1:38:15the last year. I'm in the longest
1:38:17government shutdown in history followed
1:38:20by the longest partial government
1:38:22shutdown history. There's nothing in
1:38:24this bill that's remotely offensive to
1:38:27anyone. It just simply continues things
1:38:30and make sure we can have an election,
1:38:32sort these things out, but not shut down
1:38:34the government with all the risk to
1:38:36public safety uh to the functioning of
1:38:39the economy. Get those things done. And
1:38:41and again, we've watched the Democratic
1:38:43uh you know, contingent in the Senate do
1:38:46that twice already. So, making sure it
1:38:49doesn't happen a third time, we think is
1:38:51the prudent thing to do.
1:38:53>> Well, and it's prudent notwithstanding.
1:38:55I mean, doesn't matter who does what. It
1:38:58just makes sure that if we're if we're
1:39:00negotiating points and we're arguing for
1:39:02our points
1:39:04um vehemently and respectfully, but we
1:39:07can't get an agreement by September
1:39:0830th, the American people don't have to
1:39:10pay the price.
1:39:11>> That's that's exactly the effort here.
1:39:14>> I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr.
1:39:15Chairman. Appreciate your work. I yield
1:39:17back.
1:39:19>> Thank you, Mr. Griffith, for always
1:39:20getting to the heart of the matter. Miss
1:39:23Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized.
1:39:25>> Thank you, Madam Chair, and uh hello,
1:39:27Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I would
1:39:29note that uh in the short hearing that
1:39:32we've had so far, uh we've had
1:39:34Republicans mention repeatedly over and
1:39:36over and over again, shut down, shut
1:39:38down, shut down.
1:39:39>> We're not talking about
1:39:40>> uh and I've heard the ranking member
1:39:42talk about can we have a conversation
1:39:44about a CR so that we can work out
1:39:47matters. U because a CR uh is best like
1:39:51an appropriations. I I always like it
1:39:53when uh the two of you come before us
1:39:55and say, "Well, we worked things out,
1:39:57right? We didn't each get what we
1:39:59wanted, but we worked things out." And
1:40:00what I'm hear I'm hearing today is
1:40:04>> we were giving this bill. We had very
1:40:07time to very little time to look at. We
1:40:10haven't been able to work things out. Uh
1:40:12and is is that a good summary of kind of
1:40:14what we're seeing here?
1:40:16I I mean the fact is is as I said at the
1:40:18outset u you know I'm not I'm not going
1:40:21to get into uh you know everybody's view
1:40:24is about the government shutdown. All I
1:40:26can just say it took you 79 days to come
1:40:28to a conclusion I made the very first
1:40:30day is to say let's separate out uh uh
1:40:34border security and and and ICE and fund
1:40:36everybody else. Took you 79 days to want
1:40:39to do that to pay these people. You know
1:40:41you kept talking about it but you
1:40:42didn't. That aside, we could come to an
1:40:45agreement here. Why are we not following
1:40:49what we said we would do uh in April of
1:40:532026 with regard to the funding of uh
1:40:59ICE which is there and the technical
1:41:02error I don't believe anybody did this
1:41:05with malice of forethought. I think it
1:41:08was a technical error, but what is
1:41:11contemplated is not providing that fix
1:41:14and saying zero as is in the uh in in
1:41:19the bill for this. That that is not a
1:41:21problem. By the way, I I might just add,
1:41:23look,
1:41:25I I've talked about the Senate a lot and
1:41:28you know what what they do or what they
1:41:29don't know, but I do know that uh the
1:41:32the the chair and the ranking member
1:41:34there uh uh Chair Collins and ranking
1:41:38member Murray have talked about coming
1:41:40to a bipartisan conclusion on where we
1:41:43go to a CR, which is not the case on the
1:41:46uh uh on the on the on the House side.
1:41:49And again, look, we received this
1:41:52moments ago. How many pages is this?
1:41:55Some, you know, 20 pages of anomalies
1:42:00from the White House which have not been
1:42:03reviewed or gone through about what that
1:42:06means. For instance, the OM proposal for
1:42:09section 8, you need language to address
1:42:13funding shortfalls and to maintain the
1:42:16current services for public housing.
1:42:19agencies. Without the anomaly, public
1:42:22housing authorities would have
1:42:24insufficient funds to maintain
1:42:26assistance for tens of thousands of
1:42:29households. Shouldn't we take the time
1:42:32to find out whether or not we can get
1:42:34this right on the first go round? All
1:42:38we're simply asking for is to take a
1:42:41look at the technical fix that's needed.
1:42:43Let's make sure that the appropriations
1:42:46bill is not going to be loaded down with
1:42:49the SAVE act
1:42:51as we saw with the state and foreign
1:42:53operations bill. Uh that and talk about
1:42:57not a clean CR that certainly wouldn't
1:42:59be a clean CR. We have no guarantees
1:43:02there of what comes out of the the the
1:43:04the committee here. And we could get to
1:43:07a bipartisan resolve of this uh if we
1:43:12were to to move forward uh in uh in in
1:43:15in in good faith. Uh
1:43:18it defies imagination that we have now
1:43:22uh two months to go. We're going with
1:43:24half ideas and not full knowledge and
1:43:28understanding of what needs to go into a
1:43:31continuing uh re resolution and uh so
1:43:35happy to continue to talk about it. I I
1:43:37I will say one last word. You know
1:43:39people talk about well let's wait and
1:43:42see. You know, very clearly there hasn't
1:43:45been any level of trust
1:43:50built up by this administration. Let's
1:43:53take a look at recisions. Let's take a
1:43:56look at empowerments. Let's take a look
1:43:58at reconciliation.
1:44:00Let's take a look at a rule now at OM
1:44:02says no longer are we going to provide
1:44:04grants across all agencies. Not only
1:44:08they're not going to be based on merit
1:44:10or peer-reviewed with regard to science,
1:44:12but they're going to go through a a
1:44:14filter, a political filter with
1:44:16political appointees who know jack about
1:44:20what is in some of these bills, and they
1:44:22will make the decision as to where
1:44:24federal dollars are going to go. Both
1:44:27sides of the aisle should be so offended
1:44:30by that because we come to a conclusion.
1:44:33We win some, we lose some, but we come
1:44:35to a conclusion on a bipartisan basis of
1:44:38what our constituents have said that
1:44:40they want these dollars for and we pass
1:44:43the bills biccameal bipartisan.
1:44:46President signs the bill and then it
1:44:48gets reversed. Hell no. That cannot be
1:44:52the case on both sides of the aisle. We
1:44:54cannot go forward. And as I said, we
1:44:56need some asurances here. We need the
1:44:58fix and we need to be guaranteed that
1:45:00the Save Act is not going to be part of
1:45:02this part of this effort. Thank you. I
1:45:05yield back.
1:45:05>> Thank you. I look forward to having a
1:45:07conclusion that has more bipartisan I
1:45:10look forward to your bipartisan
1:45:12conversations moving forward. And with
1:45:13that, I yield back.
1:45:14>> Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez.
1:45:17I don't see anyone else here um
1:45:21available to ask any questions of our
1:45:24witnesses. I um thank you all very much
1:45:27for coming and uh making your positions
1:45:31uh perfectly clear. Um thank you very
1:45:35much and you're excused.
1:46:12I now welcome our next panel, Chairman
1:46:15Style and Ranking Member Morelli from
1:46:18the House Administration Committee.
1:46:40Well, I'm still looking for chairman
1:46:43style.
1:46:44>> I'm sure Mr. Morelli could represent
1:46:46both sides.
1:46:52Nice
1:46:56close.
1:48:34I now welcome our next panel, Chairman
1:48:37Style and Ranking Member Morelli from
1:48:39the House Administration Committee. Your
1:48:42full statements will be submitted for
1:48:44the record and we ask you summarize your
1:48:46statement in five minutes. Chairman
1:48:49Style, I welcome your testimony.
1:48:51>> Chair Fox, uh, thanks for having me in.
1:48:54Ranking ranking member McGovern, uh,
1:48:56members of the committee, thanks for
1:48:57inviting me to testify today in support
1:49:00of HR78,
1:49:02the Stop Insider Trading Act. I also
1:49:05want to thank uh Speaker Johnson, Leader
1:49:08Scaliz, Whip Hemer, and their teams uh
1:49:10for their commitment to getting this
1:49:11common sense bill to the floor. Also
1:49:14want to thank uh a handful of our
1:49:16colleagues who are at the front and
1:49:17center of this debate, including uh your
1:49:20colleague on this committee, uh Chip
1:49:22Roy, as well as Brian Fitzpatrick, Tim
1:49:24Burchett, Anna Paulina Luna, and others,
1:49:26uh for their feedback and support
1:49:29throughout the process. Uh before the
1:49:31committee today is a rules committee
1:49:34print which combines the stop insider
1:49:37trading act with another common sense
1:49:39measure the committee has advanced the
1:49:41voter ID act. Together these bills will
1:49:43clean up Congress and strengthen
1:49:45election integrity. I'll begin uh by
1:49:48discussing the second section first
1:49:50which addresses lawmaker stock trading.
1:49:54This section ensures that lawmakers
1:49:56cannot use their position to profit off
1:49:59insider information they may garner uh
1:50:01while serving in Congress. Under the
1:50:03bill, members of Congress, their
1:50:04spouses, their dependent children are
1:50:07prohibited from purchasing securities
1:50:09issued by publicly traded companies. To
1:50:12sell a stock, members are required to
1:50:14provide advance public disclosure at
1:50:16least 7 days in advance to the clerk of
1:50:18the House or the Secretary of the
1:50:20Senate. The penalties uh associated with
1:50:23violations are steep. Members will be
1:50:25assessed a fine equal to $2,000 or 10%
1:50:28of the value of the transaction,
1:50:30whichever is greater. In addition,
1:50:32violators must forfeit any realized
1:50:34gains from a profitable sale.
1:50:37Legislation, I believe, is critical to
1:50:38restoring public trust in this
1:50:40institution. Nearly 15 years ago,
1:50:42Congress passed the Stock Act, which
1:50:44required lawmakers to publicly disclose
1:50:46stock trades. However, uh the disclosure
1:50:49rules lack detail and can be fil filed a
1:50:53month after the transaction. This
1:50:56coupled with increased attention to
1:50:58members trades, in particular by social
1:50:59media accounts, has fueled public
1:51:01frustration. I believe it's time we just
1:51:04stop allowing members to buy new stock.
1:51:06Doing so removes the appearance of
1:51:08impropriy altogether. Americans should
1:51:11be confident that lawmakers are working
1:51:12for them, not for their stock
1:51:14portfolios. Someone wants to go trade
1:51:16stocks for a living, there's a place to
1:51:17do that. called Wall Street. If you're
1:51:18here in Washington, you should be
1:51:19working on behalf of the American
1:51:21people. The reforms in the Stop Insider
1:51:23Trading Act are common sense, and I
1:51:25think that's actually why they're so
1:51:26overwhelmingly popular. Now, let me turn
1:51:28to the third section of bill, uh, the
1:51:29voter ID section. Uh, Madam Chair, you
1:51:32may have seen, uh, the big news over the
1:51:33weekend. Uh, the neverending pasta bowl
1:51:36is back at Olive Garden. I used to work
1:51:39at Olive Garden, so this hit close to
1:51:41home. uh but to safeguard the integrity
1:51:43of their pasta program, Olive Garden, as
1:51:45you may have seen, implemented photo ID
1:51:48requirements. However, in jurisdictions
1:51:50across the country from Illinois and
1:51:52California and Minnesota, an individual
1:51:54can go to the polls on election day and
1:51:56cast a ballot without providing
1:51:58confirmation
1:51:59without providing confirmation of their
1:52:01identity. In other words, Madam Chair,
1:52:03we're protecting our bread sticks more
1:52:04than our ballots in jurisdictions across
1:52:06this country. Our voter ID act
1:52:08implements common sense election
1:52:10integrity measures to require voters to
1:52:13show photo ID when casting a ballot in
1:52:16federal elections. This is another
1:52:18common sense policy and again I think
1:52:20that's why it's so popular with American
1:52:22people. 24 states require photo ID to
1:52:25vote. This bill makes the same that
1:52:27standard and takes it nationwide. Today
1:52:30we have a real opportunity to clean up
1:52:32Washington and increase Americans
1:52:34confidence in our election. I encourage
1:52:37all committee members to support this
1:52:38legislation. I look forward to your
1:52:40questions. I yield back.
1:52:42>> Thank you, Chairman Style. Ranking
1:52:44member Morelli, you're recognized.
1:52:46>> Thank you very much, Madame Chair, to
1:52:49you and to ranking member McGovern and
1:52:51to all my uh esteemed colleagues. It's
1:52:54always nice to be back in the rules
1:52:55committee. So, thanks for the
1:52:56opportunity to uh to be here and address
1:52:59>> and former member of the committee.
1:53:01>> Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes, of course.
1:53:03Most importantly, um, Madam Chair, as
1:53:06I've said repeatedly, House Democrats
1:53:08strongly support a stock trading ban for
1:53:11members of Congress, we also support a
1:53:13ban on the president, the vice
1:53:15president, and federal judicial officers
1:53:18from trading individual stock as well.
1:53:21But none of that is before us today.
1:53:23Rather, this bill is a crude combination
1:53:25of two completely unrelated bills. the
1:53:28so-called Stop Insider Trading Act and
1:53:30the Voter ID Act, the latter of which is
1:53:34already a crude reformulation of at
1:53:37least three other failed Republican
1:53:39voter suppression proposals. If
1:53:42Republicans were serious about ending
1:53:44stock trading by government officials,
1:53:46they would not have attached a
1:53:48subsection of the Save America Act as a
1:53:50poison pill. And if Republicans were
1:53:53serious about protecting elections, they
1:53:55would not have gutted CISA's election
1:53:58security unit. They would actually fund
1:54:01the work of election workers across the
1:54:03country instead of indulging the
1:54:05president's almost childlike obsession
1:54:08with the 2020 election. Instead, they
1:54:11echo his criticisms of state and local
1:54:13election administrators, both
1:54:15Republicans and Democrats, who
1:54:16patriotically and without favor do the
1:54:19unglamorous work of securing our
1:54:20democracy. Turning to the bill before
1:54:23us, I'll address both measures
1:54:24individually. Neither of them deserves
1:54:27passage. First, the so-called Stop
1:54:29Insider Trading Act. This bill would in
1:54:32fact allow members of Congress to
1:54:34continue to own and trade individual
1:54:36stocks. The bill would let members of
1:54:38Congress keep every single share of
1:54:40stock they currently own. The bill would
1:54:42allow members to liquidate their
1:54:43holdings at any time, profiting off
1:54:46years of ballooning investment
1:54:48portfolios. There is no divestature
1:54:50required under this bill. And crucially,
1:54:53the bill does nothing to rein in the
1:54:55unprecedented, absurd, and deeply
1:54:58offensive corruption currently taking
1:54:59place in the White House. Donald Trump
1:55:02promised a booming economy and no new
1:55:04wars. Instead, he's enriched himself by
1:55:07billions and billions of dollars,
1:55:08picking winners and losers in the stock
1:55:10market while pocketing the profits. I
1:55:13welcome any chance for us to consider
1:55:15legislation to end insider trading in
1:55:18Washington, including at the White
1:55:20House. But again, that is not what this
1:55:22bill does. So, we'll have to wait even
1:55:24longer for real progress. And when House
1:55:26Democrats regain Gavvels in November
1:55:28after this uh bill inevitably and
1:55:30justifiably fails to become law and we
1:55:33finally ban stock trading by Congress,
1:55:35by the president, and by the Supreme
1:55:37Court. Now to address the second fully
1:55:39distinct part of this bill, voter ID
1:55:41act.
1:55:43I have to have to say uh in the words
1:55:45supposedly of Yogi Barah, this feels
1:55:48like deja vu all over again. We will all
1:55:50remember the long list of failures.
1:55:52Republicans attempted to pass the Save
1:55:54Act, then the Save Act part two once
1:55:57again, then the Save America Act, and
1:55:59now the Voter ID Act. All these bills
1:56:02have the same purposes and the same
1:56:04origins. They aim to eviscerate male
1:56:07voting, needlessly burden millions of
1:56:09eligible American voters, and further
1:56:11President Trump's obsession with
1:56:13undermining our elections in aid of
1:56:15Republican party priorities and
1:56:18Republican politicians. Not to further
1:56:20the aims of this republic, not to assist
1:56:23our democracy, but to do this in a
1:56:25partisan way. The show your papers
1:56:27regimen and regime passed and proposed
1:56:30in this latest iteration would be more
1:56:33restrictive than any in the country
1:56:36currently in use anywhere, including in
1:56:38states like Texas and Florida, those
1:56:41liberal bastions of voting rights. In
1:56:43fact, several Republican officials have
1:56:45appropriately criticized provisions of
1:56:47this bill as burdensome and potentially
1:56:50illegal. Republican Ohio Governor Dwyn
1:56:53recently vetoed an anti- vote by mail
1:56:57bill almost identical to this one,
1:56:59noting its restrictions would quote
1:57:01would not discourage fraud, would not
1:57:04add any real security, and would create
1:57:06an additional and significant burden for
1:57:09Ohioans to vote by mail. As I've said
1:57:11before, I support voter identification,
1:57:14but despite its name, the Voter ID Act
1:57:16is not a voter identification bill. It's
1:57:19a voter suppression act. And uh I might
1:57:22just say and my dear friend and
1:57:25colleague who I often agree with uh
1:57:27Chairman Style, but equating an endless
1:57:29pasta bowl at a chain Italian restaurant
1:57:32with the fundamental constitutional
1:57:34right to vote I think indicates how
1:57:36seriously we're taking this matter. In
1:57:38our markup committee, Democrats offered
1:57:40a reasonable voter identification
1:57:42provision as an amendment to this bill.
1:57:45And a show of good faith, we even
1:57:47retained a grant-making provision in the
1:57:49original text. Not only did Republicans
1:57:52reject our amendment, but they stripped
1:57:54out the grant-making provision in
1:57:55advance of today's rule. That's right.
1:57:58Republicans remove the only slightly
1:58:00redeemable quality of this otherwise
1:58:03very bad bill. Simultaneously, in a
1:58:06different vehicle, Republicans would
1:58:08instruct the Committee on House
1:58:10Administration to increase the deficit
1:58:12by 10 billion dollars to impose Save Act
1:58:15restrictions that have died in the
1:58:17Senate. So, I'll tell you this much.
1:58:18It's notable the majority has agreed to
1:58:2010 billion as a new baseline for federal
1:58:23support for election administrators. I'm
1:58:25going to remind people of that and I
1:58:27look forward to a more effective, more
1:58:29secure use for that level of funding uh
1:58:32over the next year. But in the face of
1:58:33these two destructive bills, I would ask
1:58:35my colleagues to show some courage,
1:58:37oppose these foolish measures. And with
1:58:39that, I thank you for the time and I'll
1:58:41yield back.
1:58:44>> Um, thank you both for your comments.
1:58:48Um,
1:58:50Chairman Style, um, I did mention that
1:58:54the Olive Garden, um, has now instituted
1:58:58a requirement, um, for vote for, uh, ID
1:59:02in my opening remarks. Um,
1:59:06we our friends across the aisle
1:59:10want to sew division by claiming that
1:59:13voter ID requirements for voters
1:59:17suppress voting. Did the largest study
1:59:20on this question conducted by the
1:59:23nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic
1:59:26Research, which tracked 1.6 6 billion
1:59:30data points over an 8-year period
1:59:34confirm that voter ID laws have no
1:59:38statistically measurable negative impact
1:59:41on voter participation.
1:59:44>> Yeah, that that's correct. I think
1:59:45that's a really important point. Um, you
1:59:50need an ID to board an airplane, open a
1:59:53bank account. I I obviously make light
1:59:55hard of the uh the Olive Garden
1:59:58requiring photo ID. There's events that
2:00:01our colleagues on the other side of the
2:00:02aisle host that require a photo uh ID to
2:00:05get in. Um and so the notion that
2:00:09somehow photo identification uh for
2:00:13voting uh is a uh is a barrier. It's
2:00:17actually the statist the statistics just
2:00:20don't support that. that if you look at
2:00:21my home state of Wisconsin, we have a
2:00:22reasonably robust uh photo ID bill. I
2:00:25think there's room for improvement. This
2:00:26law does that. But we what we see is
2:00:29continued high voter participation and I
2:00:31encourage high voter participation. I
2:00:32think that's a good thing. And I think
2:00:34actually what we will see by requiring
2:00:36photo identification uh is people's
2:00:39confidence in our elections to increase.
2:00:41Uh and this the statistics really show
2:00:43us when people have confidence in their
2:00:44elections are actually more likely to
2:00:45participate. There's a lot of data that
2:00:47came out of the state of Georgia after
2:00:48Georgia passed their state uh election
2:00:50integrity legislation. Um and so I'm
2:00:52actually of the belief that we will see
2:00:54uh voter participation increase.
2:00:57>> May May I
2:01:00>> Mr. Morelli?
2:01:01>> Yeah, just respond to it. I I don't
2:01:04think that we face such profound
2:01:07differences in belief around voter ID
2:01:10requirements. My state doesn't have a
2:01:13photo ID. We do signature analysis as is
2:01:15done in many states. But let's just
2:01:17assume for a moment that we could get
2:01:20together and decide that we have a
2:01:21national standard. I I would say that
2:01:24for instance in North Carolina, I know
2:01:26you're well uh acquainted with it. You
2:01:29can uh register to vote and vote with a
2:01:32driver's license even if it's expired
2:01:34for a year or less, a public assistance
2:01:36program ID card, a student ID or staff
2:01:39ID from a list of over 7,000
2:01:42institutions. um that would not be the
2:01:45case under this. This would be a much
2:01:47more restrictive voter ID law that you
2:01:49attempt to pass then is in the state of
2:01:52North Carolina, in the state of South
2:01:53Carolina, in the state of Florida, in
2:01:55the state of Texas. As I said, places
2:01:58that have placed a premium on voter ID
2:02:00and support this, but the bill before
2:02:02the House that you're considering today
2:02:04is far more restrictive and many of
2:02:06those IDs, those forms of ID would no
2:02:09longer be allowed under federal law. I
2:02:11would urge you to take a look at that.
2:02:14>> Well, I wasn't going to bring up North
2:02:15Carolina, but since you have brought up
2:02:17North Carolina, I would say to you that
2:02:20we passed a const we we passed a law in
2:02:23the state, the Republicans passed a law
2:02:25in the state of North Carolina with no
2:02:27Democrat support to have um voter ID.
2:02:33that was challenged in court by a
2:02:36Democrat member of our con our Supreme
2:02:39Court
2:02:41stopped that from going through till it
2:02:44was approved.
2:02:46We passed a constitutional amendment
2:02:49supported by 61% of the people in the
2:02:53state that was challenged by Democrats.
2:02:56We then passed another law. We finally
2:02:59after about 10 years of Democrats
2:03:03fighting us tooth and nail in North
2:03:07Carolina to keep from having a voter ID.
2:03:12All that people say to me all the time
2:03:14is why do the Democrats fight voter ID?
2:03:20Could it be that they want to cheat?
2:03:22People do not understand why. It's an
2:03:2580%
2:03:27I believe 82%
2:03:29approval rating that we have ID to vote.
2:03:33It is an extraordinarily popular idea.
2:03:37It took us over 10 years in North
2:03:40Carolina to get it passed over the
2:03:42objections of Democrats who who
2:03:46constantly didn't want it.
2:03:50>> I I yield back. Mr. McGovern, you're
2:03:52recognized.
2:03:53>> Well, thank you. Uh let I I'll let the
2:03:57gentleman answer if he
2:03:58>> Well, yeah. The only thing I would say
2:04:00uh and I appreciate is that the question
2:04:03is first of all, voting is not a
2:04:06privilege. It's a right in America. And
2:04:08I know the president always refers to it
2:04:10as a privilege. It's not. Maybe drinking
2:04:12beer is a privilege. Maybe getting a
2:04:14bottomless bowl of pasta is a privilege.
2:04:16They're not rights. This is a right. All
2:04:19of the other rights flow from it. So,
2:04:21you want to make sure I think and I
2:04:24think many people would agree that as
2:04:26long as you're in a position to provide
2:04:27ID that proves who you are, why is it
2:04:30such a restrictive list? Why are student
2:04:32IDs no longer allowed? Virtually every
2:04:34state that has some form of photo ID
2:04:36allows the state university to issue a
2:04:38student ID. This bill wouldn't allow it,
2:04:40>> right? Which is
2:04:42>> Well, let me let me just again say for
2:04:44the record that voting is a
2:04:46constitutional right. It's not a lunch
2:04:48special. uh you have a constitutional
2:04:51right to vote, you don't have a
2:04:52constitutional right to a bread stick or
2:04:55or a bowl of pasta. Um and if your right
2:04:58to vote is denied, you have lost your
2:05:00voice in our government. So I mean the
2:05:02these these analogies are are just are
2:05:06>> happy happy to yield to the gentleman.
2:05:08>> Thank you. Um we also have a right to
2:05:10bear arms, but we have to show an ID to
2:05:15buy a gun.
2:05:15>> Yeah. Well, I mean I again I um we can
2:05:19argue that's a whole separate topic. Uh
2:05:22madam madam chair, it is a whole
2:05:24separate topic. No, have you have you
2:05:25said but I just want to say on the issue
2:05:27of voting rights and voting integrity,
2:05:29my Republican colleagues and this
2:05:31administration have absolutely no
2:05:33standing. I mean I I listened to this
2:05:36president's speech last week as 40
2:05:38minutes of my life I'll never get back.
2:05:40It was crazy. It was insane.
2:05:43um conspiracy theory after conspiracy
2:05:45theory and all of my Republican
2:05:48colleagues here just kind of went along
2:05:50to get along. Well, whatever the
2:05:51president says, you know, I I get it. He
2:05:53can't stand the fact that he lost the
2:05:552020 election. I know his ego is
2:05:57fragile, but we're just going to let him
2:05:58say whatever he wants and let him create
2:06:02doubt um in the minds of the American
2:06:05people that somehow our elections are
2:06:06not safe. I read actually read the
2:06:08garbage that he said he released uh the
2:06:11the the all the intelligence basically
2:06:14is saying that there's no evidence that
2:06:16there's been any kind of foreign
2:06:18interference or uh in in our elections
2:06:20that kind of the the the tool that
2:06:22foreign governments have is to try to
2:06:24create the impression that they may have
2:06:26um influenced our election as a way to
2:06:28discourage people from voting. Well, we
2:06:30don't have to worry about Russia or
2:06:32China or anybody else. Donald Trump's
2:06:34doing it all by himself. All because his
2:06:36ego can't stand the fact that he lost an
2:06:39election. And now my Republican friends
2:06:41are bending over backwards trying to do
2:06:43whatever they can to make it more
2:06:44difficult for people to vote. Chairman
2:06:46Style, the introduced version of your
2:06:48voter ID bill included a grant program
2:06:52to help states provide eligible voters
2:06:54with free voter ID cards. Your committee
2:06:58reported a version of your bill that
2:06:59also included this grant program. The
2:07:03bill published on the rules committee
2:07:04website also included this grant
2:07:07program. Then for some reason a new
2:07:10version was published that deleted this
2:07:13grant program. Why?
2:07:14>> So there's different ways that we want
2:07:16to make sure all individuals uh can
2:07:18receive a an ID uh under Supreme Court.
2:07:21>> I just want to know why why why the
2:07:23grant program was deleted.
2:07:24>> I I was I was getting there if you'll
2:07:26give me the the the opportunity to to
2:07:28respond. Um there there are multiple
2:07:31ways we want to make sure that everyone
2:07:32can receive an ID. Uh we're also going
2:07:35through a reconciliation process as you
2:07:36know this committee had a conversation I
2:07:38believe on that earlier uh today. Uh
2:07:41there are funds now available uh in the
2:07:43committee on house administration
2:07:44something that we're looking at. Uh but
2:07:46under the Supreme Court everyone is
2:07:48allowed to get an ID uh if it is so
2:07:50determined that it's needed uh as it
2:07:52will be under this legislation.
2:07:53>> But but you could have done it in this
2:07:55bill today.
2:07:55>> Yeah. There's different avenues of how
2:07:56we're
2:07:57>> looking at I I guess I mean so without
2:07:58this grant program if a state does not
2:08:00provide IDs for free people without the
2:08:03specific forms of ID required by your
2:08:05bill will have to pay in order to simply
2:08:08vote.
2:08:08>> I don't know
2:08:09>> and I guess the question is who who
2:08:10asked you I want to know like who asked
2:08:12you to delete this grant program.
2:08:14>> I I actually if I can comment I don't
2:08:16think your previous statement is
2:08:17actually accurate. Uh I think if you as
2:08:19we look at the Supreme Court juristp
2:08:21prudence uh if if it is required states
2:08:23to be required to provide the ID
2:08:26the second question that you asked is
2:08:28we're looking at ways to make sure
2:08:30>> who asked you to delete the grant
2:08:31program because it it had broad
2:08:32conversations. It was reported out of
2:08:34your committee. It was in the uh it was
2:08:36in in the it was p it was in the bill.
2:08:38It was published on the rules committee
2:08:40website. So somebody just recently had
2:08:41asked you to take this out. I'm just
2:08:43curious who was it? Was it the speaker?
2:08:45Was it Trump? Was it who?
2:08:47>> No, there are broad conversations about
2:08:49how we how we ultimately uh have all of
2:08:51these pieces of the puzzle work. We're
2:08:53also working in real time on the
2:08:54reconciliation piece.
2:08:55>> But why why was it taken out? I'm just
2:08:58trying to understand why it was taken
2:08:59out. You had it in your original bill.
2:09:01It was in the bill that you reported out
2:09:03of your committee. It was in the um bill
2:09:05published on the rules website. So like
2:09:08now now it's not there. And so I'm just
2:09:10trying to understand like why there's
2:09:12got to be a reason why somebody asked
2:09:14you to do it. So I want I just want to
2:09:16know who asked you to take it out and I
2:09:18want to know why.
2:09:19>> We're always looking at ways to improve
2:09:20and finesse bills part of it's part of a
2:09:22broader conversation.
2:09:24>> Can you give us like a name so we can
2:09:26follow up with somebody to find out like
2:09:28what what you know like why was I mean
2:09:31>> who Yeah. Who's having this broader
2:09:33conversation?
2:09:34>> Rep Republicans in the House of
2:09:36Representatives.
2:09:37>> Okay. So All right. So So you asked the
2:09:40I'm reading the your your letter that
2:09:43you sent to the rules committee.
2:09:44>> Mhm. Um, and you're asking the rules
2:09:46committee for a closed rule on this
2:09:48bill, meaning that you don't want any
2:09:50amendments to be even considered. Yet,
2:09:53you got a chance to amend this bill at
2:09:55the last minute by taking out the grant
2:09:56program. Why do you think your
2:09:58colleagues don't deserve the same
2:09:59opportunity?
2:10:00>> Obviously, that'll be a decision for you
2:10:01here at the rules committee as to
2:10:02whether or not amendments are allowed.
2:10:04>> You usually usually when we get a letter
2:10:06like this from a chair, it it says that
2:10:08they ask the rules committee for an
2:10:10appropriate rule. you um actually very
2:10:12are very specific saying that you
2:10:15request the committee grant a closed
2:10:16rule.
2:10:17>> Yeah. I'm of the belief that the bill is
2:10:18ready to be brought to the floor will
2:10:19pass.
2:10:20>> But so but you again
2:10:23you you this was in the bill that you
2:10:27introduced that was reported out of your
2:10:28committee that was you know published on
2:10:31the rules committee website. You it it
2:10:34mysteriously gets taken out. You can't
2:10:36tell us who asked you to take it out or
2:10:38why it's taken out. Um, and yet you ask
2:10:41you and you you kind of do something
2:10:43that most chairs don't do, you know, who
2:10:45usually ask for an appropriate rule. You
2:10:47ask for a closed rule, I guess, so that
2:10:49nobody could try to put it back in or to
2:10:51amend this in any other way. I would
2:10:53just I I just don't understand why your
2:10:55colleagues don't deserve the same
2:10:57opportunity that you had to be able to
2:10:59remove something that again made it
2:11:00through your committee. Um, and and and
2:11:03I I got to tell you, it just seems to me
2:11:04that this is just another example of all
2:11:07of you guys playing
2:11:09politics uh and you know and the reason
2:11:12why this matters is that these grants
2:11:15could have made it so the people without
2:11:17these ideas could get them. I mean that
2:11:19that was the whole point of this and um
2:11:22and I and and it's gone and I and and I
2:11:25I so I again I
2:11:28I don't even know what the hell you guys
2:11:30are trying to do but it's certainly not
2:11:31trying to preserve the integrity of
2:11:32elections or to get more people to vote.
2:11:35uh you're trying to make it so that
2:11:36people will be frustrated and can't
2:11:39vote. Uh and again, I think that goes
2:11:40against what this country is about. Uh
2:11:43Mr. Melli, you've submitted a substitute
2:11:44amendment to this legislation. Can you
2:11:46explain your amendment to us and what it
2:11:49advantages it has over Mr. Styles bill?
2:11:52>> Yes. So there's actually because there's
2:11:54multiple pieces of of uh of the bill
2:11:58that we would make better, but I I also
2:12:01just to your earlier point about uh
2:12:05amendments, we would make amendments and
2:12:07I would like to see an amendment that um
2:12:10the previous the that we revert to at
2:12:12least the portion of the bill that had
2:12:14the grant making. So my amendment would
2:12:16restore the grants. I think it was the
2:12:18only redeemable part of this bill would
2:12:21be to give resources to local uh
2:12:24election administrators. They're doing
2:12:25hard work. They're doing it without uh
2:12:27support from the federal government. And
2:12:29now this bill takes away what I consider
2:12:32the only redeemable part of the bill.
2:12:35They need support. Uh they need support
2:12:37whether or not we add all these
2:12:38additional uh requirements on them or
2:12:41not. Um but at least it uh it would uh
2:12:46make the bill better. I mean it's a bad
2:12:48bill but it would make it better to be
2:12:50able to provide some resources. And you
2:12:53know the other the the thing that we
2:12:55should note is that would they would be
2:12:57administered by the elections um um
2:13:00advisory commission and the EAC or the
2:13:02elections assistance commission
2:13:05and the EAC provides resources and
2:13:08support for local state and local
2:13:11election administrators. The whole point
2:13:13and the president is now fired. So there
2:13:15are no members of the commission at all.
2:13:18Fired all the remaining ones. So the the
2:13:20the commissioners don't exist. The
2:13:22professional staff does. They could
2:13:24continue to do grant making, but I think
2:13:25it says um worlds about how the
2:13:28president views us. He continues to try
2:13:30to take guard rails off of the election
2:13:33system so that people will lose
2:13:35confidence. And I appreciate your
2:13:36comments about the president's speech
2:13:38the other night. I mean, the president's
2:13:40the one who took apart and and
2:13:43eliminated the election security unit of
2:13:45SISA. And then he talks about the
2:13:47challenges uh facing uh our local
2:13:50administrators and vulnerabilities.
2:13:52Well, you're the one who's making it
2:13:53worse, not better. So, the grants would
2:13:55be one. Uh and then we have additional
2:13:58amendments as it relates to um the um uh
2:14:02the the um the um program that relates
2:14:05to the the um other part of the bill
2:14:08that that's entirely as it relates to
2:14:10stock trading. I'm just surprised that,
2:14:12you know, there's a request for a
2:14:14totally closed rule, not an appropriate
2:14:15rule. So clearly some thought
2:14:18>> Well, it may also have to do, if I
2:14:19might, it also may have to do with
2:14:20amendments that could come from forward
2:14:22by other members that mirror the voter
2:14:24ID requirements in the various states.
2:14:26In some states, you can use concealed
2:14:28weapons permits. You can almost always
2:14:30use student IDs. If you're trying to
2:14:32control who can vote, you have to make
2:14:34sure that there's no amendments because
2:14:36they might actually pass. And just going
2:14:37back to the Olive Garden Pashka Bowl
2:14:39example, my understanding that that's
2:14:41that you got to put down in addition to
2:14:43an ID $100. Um, so I hope what we're not
2:14:47trying to do here is kind of institute
2:14:49another pole tax um to actually make it
2:14:52uh costly for people to vote. And again,
2:14:55I I I you know, I asked the question
2:14:56about the grant program. Again, it was
2:14:58in the bill that you introduced. It was
2:15:00in the bill that you reported out of
2:15:01committee. It was in the p it was the
2:15:03bill published in the in the rules
2:15:04website and can't get an answer why it
2:15:07was removed. Can't get an answer who
2:15:08actually asked you to remove it. I I
2:15:10guess there's some backroom deal going
2:15:12on and some back room in the capital
2:15:14here trying to figure out how to how to
2:15:16make it more difficult for people to
2:15:17vote, you know, but I because because
2:15:21this I we we have not yet to hear a good
2:15:23reason why it was taken out of this
2:15:24bill. Uh but I mean this is not the way
2:15:28you should be legislating, you know, on
2:15:31elections or protecting people's right
2:15:33to vote or on any of this stuff. I mean
2:15:35this is just not the way you should do
2:15:37it.
2:15:37>> May ma'am, if I might just make one
2:15:39other additional point. I this bill is
2:15:41not going to pass the Senate. I think
2:15:43everyone in this room, anybody who's in
2:15:45the capital knows that. But you could
2:15:47have you could find yourself in a
2:15:49position, let's say this did pass,
2:15:50president signed it, but the
2:15:52reconciliation didn't happen, which is
2:15:53also highly dubious. You could end up
2:15:56having this bill with no money in it. So
2:15:58efforts to provide people with free
2:16:00voter ID, any of that would be without
2:16:02any resources to be able to
2:16:04>> no idea how that money in the
2:16:05reconciliation bill, if it would ever
2:16:07pass, would be used.
2:16:08>> I mean, yeah. I mean, this is scary. Um,
2:16:12and and this should not be a partisan
2:16:14issue. Um, and not just Democrats, but
2:16:16Republicans in this chamber who give a
2:16:18damn about integrity in elections ought
2:16:21to be outraged by what's going on. With
2:16:23that, I yield back.
2:16:25>> Gentleman yields back now. Recognize the
2:16:27gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott. Mr.
2:16:29>> Chair, and I'm just listening to how
2:16:31ridiculous their argument is over not
2:16:33showing a photo ID. I literally showed a
2:16:36photo ID to buy Sudafed over the last
2:16:38couple of weeks, and they actually scan
2:16:39the back of the ID to make sure that you
2:16:42can buy it. I also showed an ID to pick
2:16:44up uh some prescriptions for another
2:16:46family of mine, member of mine the other
2:16:48day. And you know what? The people who
2:16:50were working behind the counter knew
2:16:51exactly who I was because we've been
2:16:54doing business there for a long, long
2:16:56time. Although with PBM's conducting
2:16:59themselves the way that they do, not
2:17:00sure how much longer those
2:17:01independenties are able to survive.
2:17:03That's a different issue though. Um but
2:17:06I want to get to uh the stock issue. You
2:17:10know, Chairman Sty, you and I have had
2:17:12this discussion before, as you know, I
2:17:16uh
2:17:18I had my series 7 before I got here. I I
2:17:21I look at the bill. I I'm going to vote
2:17:23for the bill. I want to I want to bring
2:17:26up a couple of things though that I I
2:17:28wish we could just do that I think would
2:17:31solve a lot of the problems. And you and
2:17:34I have had this discussion. I appreciate
2:17:36your time with that. I think I think the
2:17:38issue that leads to the confusion
2:17:40is the range
2:17:43on the trade. So when you go and we fill
2:17:46out our disclosures, you have a range of
2:17:48101 to 15,000, 15,0001 to 50,000,
2:17:5150,0001 to 100,000, 100,0001 to 250, 250
2:17:55to 500, and it goes all the way up 5
2:17:58million to 25 million. Um, and you know,
2:18:02sometimes when things get reported in
2:18:05blogs, if you will, just say you paid
2:18:08$14,000 for a stock, that's falls in the
2:18:111 to 15,000 range. And if you sold it
2:18:13for 16,000, it falls in the 15 to 50.
2:18:16And so sometimes when they do their
2:18:18calculation, they'll say paid as little
2:18:20as $1,000 and sold it for as much as
2:18:23$50,000. And it certainly uh gives the
2:18:27perception if that's happening on a
2:18:29regular basis that there is tremendous
2:18:31amounts of insider trading going on uh
2:18:33in the halls of Congress. Now, let me be
2:18:35clear about this. There there is at
2:18:36least one member of Congress that has
2:18:38been prosecuted for insider trading. Is
2:18:39that correct? Mr.
2:18:41>> Yes.
2:18:42>> And uh but if you if you if you look at
2:18:45this form, you can also go down and you
2:18:47can click other exact amount. And I just
2:18:51really think if members and I I don't
2:18:54have much stock. I have less than 10,000
2:18:57left, I think. Uh but you know I really
2:19:02think if we simply put
2:19:05the number of shares that were purchased
2:19:07and the price that was purchased at or
2:19:10the number of shares that were sold and
2:19:12the price that was sold at it would
2:19:14eliminate a lot of the
2:19:18accusations
2:19:19and just wondering if that was
2:19:20discussed. That's not a part of the
2:19:22bill, but
2:19:24um I've actually started doing that when
2:19:26I do sell something sold X at this
2:19:29particular share value. Um any thoughts
2:19:32on that? You you you bring up a great
2:19:34point. When Congress passed the stock
2:19:36Act 15 years ago, uh it was largely a
2:19:39disclosure regime and you correctly note
2:19:42that it gave large bans in which um
2:19:45those reports would be made available.
2:19:47Um, if an individual wants to try to
2:19:50make a persuasion off of returns on any
2:19:52of those given reports, especially uh
2:19:54under the uh the the rules of social
2:19:57media, if you will, uh, one can one can
2:19:59sometimes tell a story that's
2:20:00inaccurate. I think that's a broader
2:20:02challenge with how the reporting regime
2:20:04under the stock act operates. This bill
2:20:07before us today uh, is a little bit more
2:20:09laser focused in the aspect of insider
2:20:12trading. You correctly noted a member of
2:20:14Congress was held accountable for
2:20:16insider trading. insider trading is
2:20:17already illegal uh and should be
2:20:19prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
2:20:21law. I think one of the challenges we
2:20:23see is prosecuting insider trading is
2:20:25actually really difficult. Uh and so due
2:20:29to the scrutiny that's been placed on
2:20:31buying and selling individual shares of
2:20:33stock, um I think there's an opportunity
2:20:35to simply put in place a bright line
2:20:37rule that prevents members of Congress
2:20:38from doing that and in so doing uh
2:20:42removing even the appearance of
2:20:43impropriy that an individual uh was
2:20:45engaged in a trade based on insider
2:20:47information.
2:20:47>> So we're saying that you can't buy stock
2:20:50>> individual shares of stockual upon upon
2:20:53being elected to Congress. That's
2:20:54accurate. And so I want to, you know, a
2:20:56lot of us have spouses that work and I
2:20:58want to, you know, if you work for um
2:21:02companies, a lot of times the company
2:21:0440k or 401k match may be done in stock
2:21:07in that company. This bill doesn't
2:21:10prohibit the working spouse from 401k
2:21:14matches or other things along those
2:21:16lines from from
2:21:20continuing to work at that employer.
2:21:22>> Does it? Great question. So the the
2:21:25spouse of a member as well as dependent
2:21:28children are restricted under this as it
2:21:30relates to buying and selling shares.
2:21:32The exception that you correctly note is
2:21:34what we call the spousal exception. So
2:21:36if that income is earned in the ordinary
2:21:38course um that is allowed. So if your if
2:21:41your spouse works uh for Coca-Cola uh
2:21:44and they give a thousand shares of stock
2:21:46to every every employee at that paygrade
2:21:48u your spouse would be able to earn
2:21:50that. And again, that goes back to the
2:21:52core concept here. The the focus on this
2:21:54uh is not to prevent ownership of
2:21:56private assets. Sure. The focus on this
2:21:58is to prevent an individual member from
2:22:00profiting off of insider information. So
2:22:02if it's through the ordinary course of
2:22:03their business, almost by definition,
2:22:05your spouse is not engaged in a a trade
2:22:09based on inside information garnered
2:22:11from the the members inside information.
2:22:15So we allow
2:22:16>> that. If your grandparents started a
2:22:17company that then got bought and bought
2:22:19again and ended up with shares of a
2:22:22company, you're not forced to liquidate
2:22:24them. You just can't buy more shares.
2:22:26Correct.
2:22:26>> That would be accurate.
2:22:28>> Okay. And those shares are also
2:22:29disclosed on your financial disclosure
2:22:31so people could see if you
2:22:32>> they would be.
2:22:33>> Um Okay. So, one one of the other areas
2:22:39that uh I do have concerns about and I
2:22:42have I'd like to submit for the record
2:22:45actually a Wall Street Journal article
2:22:46and if it wasn't the Wall Street Journal
2:22:48I wouldn't um pay much attention to it.
2:22:53Um I shouldn't say that I guess but it's
2:22:56probably true. There's not much
2:22:57journalism anymore uh out there, but the
2:23:00new Washington temptation inside
2:23:03information and a prediction market
2:23:05account. Do are we doing anything to And
2:23:09Mr. Chair, I'd like to submit for the
2:23:11record that Wall Street Journal article
2:23:12just as we're having this discussion.
2:23:14Are we doing anything?
2:23:15>> What was the date on that again?
2:23:18>> I'll have to expand it with my eyes like
2:23:21they are.
2:23:22>> July the 16th.
2:23:23>> All right. without
2:23:26>> are we addressing the poly market issue
2:23:29>> uh in the committee on house
2:23:30administration uh which um um
2:23:35member Morgan Griffith you're you're the
2:23:37the name tag is is off right now so as I
2:23:39looked right up there you're not Miss
2:23:41Chairwoman Fox uh Morgan Griffith joins
2:23:44us on the committee of house
2:23:45administration we have a separate piece
2:23:47of legislation uh addressing that not
2:23:49included in this bill before us today
2:23:52but I think it's one absolutely worthy
2:23:53of our
2:23:54>> I absolutely believe that there's
2:23:55probably more potential for abuse there
2:23:57than there is even even in this with
2:23:58proper disclosure. We had we had a
2:24:00member a couple of years ago um that
2:24:06when their spouse was going before
2:24:08Senate confirmation,
2:24:10it was revealed that um there had been a
2:24:14fairly significant trade that had not
2:24:16been reported. Do you remember what I'm
2:24:18talking about? I'm not going to call the
2:24:19member, but
2:24:20>> I I don't know that I I recall that, but
2:24:22I could envision that occurring.
2:24:24>> So, there was there was a member of the
2:24:25House who was going through the
2:24:27confirmation process and then they went
2:24:30through an audit because of the Senate
2:24:32confirmation process and in that
2:24:35comparison, they found a trade that had
2:24:37not been disclosed. Um,
2:24:42I I guess one of my frustrations with
2:24:44this and and again, I support the
2:24:45legislation. I think the ban on buying
2:24:47is is the is the right way to go with
2:24:49the solution. But I guess one of my
2:24:51frustrations with this and I had another
2:24:53member and they were being very critical
2:24:54of a Republican who had bought a bunch
2:24:55of stocks. I'm like, well, how do you
2:24:56know they bought the stocks?
2:25:00Because they filled out the disclosure.
2:25:03You know, the ones who don't fill out
2:25:04the disclosure are actually the ones
2:25:06that you probably if if if they're out
2:25:08there, the ones that you need to be more
2:25:10worried about. Is that a would that be a
2:25:13reasonable statement that
2:25:15>> it it's a great question because in a
2:25:17lot of these uh broader ethics regimes
2:25:19it's either a disclosure regime or a
2:25:21prohibition regime and the stock act uh
2:25:24passed 15 years ago was broadly a
2:25:27disclosure regime which then brings to
2:25:28light the concern uh this bill before us
2:25:32today the stop insider trading act has a
2:25:34specific prohibition which simply
2:25:36removes the the um even the appearance
2:25:40of inappropriate action Th this this
2:25:42bill is is I believe it's well thought
2:25:44and a big step in the right direction.
2:25:46Uh it the ban is limited purchasing
2:25:49individual stocks from publicly traded
2:25:51companies. I do worry about private
2:25:53placements and um the potential with
2:25:57private placements and think that's
2:25:58something we probably need to address in
2:26:00the future. But I I appreciate your work
2:26:02on this. I look forward to supporting it
2:26:03and I think it's a broad broad step in
2:26:05the right direction.
2:26:08>> Gentleman yields back now. rec recognize
2:26:10the gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss
2:26:11Scandlin, for her time.
2:26:13>> Thank you. Um I I think we are way past
2:26:17the time where we need to be dealing
2:26:19with the fact that uh the public is
2:26:22broadly mistrustful of members of
2:26:25Congress or the president or the vice
2:26:28president dealing in the stock market
2:26:30because it has not just provided the
2:26:32appearance of impropriy or the
2:26:35appearance of using um government
2:26:39information for personal profit, but
2:26:41we've seen it actually occurring in real
2:26:44time and on an increasing basis,
2:26:46particularly with the White House. I
2:26:48mean, it's interesting that our
2:26:49colleagues mentioned that there actually
2:26:52was a member of Congress who was
2:26:54prosecuted for insider trading, a
2:26:56Republican member, but even after the
2:26:59courts held him accountable, he was
2:27:00pardoned by this president. So, we're
2:27:03not seeing the kind of um serious
2:27:07attention to preventing this kind of
2:27:10essentially insider trading from from
2:27:13occurring. And the American people have
2:27:14had it. They are fed up with it.
2:27:17Congress needs to enact a comprehensive
2:27:19ban on members of Congress as well as
2:27:22the president, the vice president, and
2:27:25members of their families from owning or
2:27:27trading individual stocks are having
2:27:29other financial dealings. And I agree
2:27:31with Mr. Scott. I know he's leaving now,
2:27:33but I agree that we should also be
2:27:35dealing with this with the prediction
2:27:37markets. But unfortunately, the bill
2:27:40that our colleagues are putting on the
2:27:42floor uh this week doesn't do any of
2:27:44that. The bill only pre uh prohibits
2:27:47members of Congress from purchasing
2:27:50additional stocks. Now, I have never
2:27:52traded stocks myself, but it's my
2:27:54understanding that the way you make
2:27:56money is when you sell the stocks. And
2:27:58this bill does not uh prohibit them from
2:28:02selling the stocks. And that's where the
2:28:03profit is made. Um, and the public
2:28:06notice requirement in this bill is so
2:28:08weak, it wouldn't prevent the kinds of
2:28:11transactions that have already eroded
2:28:13public trust. Things like a lawmaker
2:28:16unloading health care stocks that then
2:28:19promptly lost value after he voted in
2:28:22the big ugly bill last summer to uh to
2:28:26cut Medicare funding by billions and
2:28:28billions of dollars. If our Republican
2:28:30colleagues are serious about government
2:28:32accountability, we would have on the
2:28:34floor this week ranking member Morelli's
2:28:37resolve restore trust in government act
2:28:40which establishes a comprehensive ban on
2:28:42stock ownership and trading for members
2:28:45of Congress, the president and the vice
2:28:47president or as a backup have the
2:28:50restore trust in Congress act co-led by
2:28:53our rules colleague uh Congressman Chip
2:28:56Roy which at least would comprehensively
2:28:59prohibit members of Congress, if not the
2:29:02president and vice president, from
2:29:04owning and trading individual stocks. Uh
2:29:07instead, after 18 months of
2:29:09unprecedented selfdealing and personal
2:29:12enrichment by members of the Trump
2:29:14administration, Republicans are choosing
2:29:17to ignore the most significant conflicts
2:29:19of interest in government while
2:29:21advancing legislation that barely
2:29:23scratches the surface. And if that
2:29:25weren't enough, they've combined this
2:29:27with this completely unrelated voter ID
2:29:31bill, which doesn't actually deal with
2:29:34any actual voter fraud, but instead
2:29:37suppresses votes. So, we got to get this
2:29:39straight. Republicans are refusing to
2:29:41address this problem that actually
2:29:43exists. The president, his family, and
2:29:45some members of Congress getting rich
2:29:48off stocks whose value changes based on
2:29:51official government action. But instead,
2:29:53they're pushing the SAVE Act, a bill
2:29:55that would prevent hundreds of thousands
2:29:58of American citizens from voting in
2:30:01order to satisfy the president's
2:30:02obsession about fictitious non-citizen
2:30:06voting. So, the corruption is coming
2:30:09from inside the House, but it's the
2:30:10White House, and that's where our
2:30:12attention should be. Rep. Morelli, can
2:30:15you talk about why the requirements in
2:30:18the stock bill that Republicans have put
2:30:21forward um is so inadequate,
2:30:23particularly um when it allows them to
2:30:26continue to own and sell stocks?
2:30:30>> Yeah, thanks. And I think you did a
2:30:32great job of summarizing. I mean,
2:30:33there's several problems with this bill.
2:30:35First of all, it does not require
2:30:36divestature. You can still own stocks.
2:30:39You can sell them. You're not required
2:30:40to sell them at a particular time. So
2:30:41you can wait until the appropriate time
2:30:44when it benefits you to sell the stock
2:30:46and it also allows you to buy additional
2:30:48stock of those companies that provide
2:30:50you with a dividend. So if you get a
2:30:52dividend from SpaceX, you can buy more
2:30:54SpaceX stock. So that's publicly traded.
2:30:58Second problem is it doesn't do anything
2:31:00with private sales or private stock. In
2:31:02fact, this isn't a hypothetical. members
2:31:04of the House are trading in private
2:31:07stock, making massive profits from
2:31:09stocks in privately traded companies
2:31:11with federal contracts. It's happened.
2:31:14It's been highlighted. It's been it's
2:31:15been detailed. Um, and in those cases,
2:31:18some cases, they've done it with a
2:31:20company that was then purchased by
2:31:23SpaceX, a publicly traded company. So,
2:31:25you can make a lot of money still. So,
2:31:26you don't have to divest public stocks.
2:31:28You can own private stocks and continue
2:31:30to trade in those. does nothing to re in
2:31:32the crypto market whatsoever. And we
2:31:34know the president and his family have
2:31:36made billions of dollars in the crypto
2:31:38space. Uh the president also purchased
2:31:41Warner Brothers corporate bonds at a
2:31:44time when Warner Brothers in the middle
2:31:45of merger talks right now over which the
2:31:49president's FCC will ultimately be able
2:31:52to make decisions. The president also
2:31:53failed on thousands
2:31:56of of trades to acknowledge and disclose
2:31:59them within the time required under the
2:32:01law. In fact, the president trades stock
2:32:03more than all of the members of the
2:32:05house combined. The president of the
2:32:07United States yet he's not even covered
2:32:09in this bill for reasons uh well, I
2:32:11don't even know for what reasons. It it
2:32:12it it is without realistic explanation
2:32:16why that would happen. And the other
2:32:18thing which I agree with Mr. Scott is
2:32:21the exclusion of the prediction markets
2:32:25is shocking. I mean, we see the abuses
2:32:28being reported every single day. You
2:32:31know, whether it's things about
2:32:33contracts or military strikes or some
2:32:37foolish things like when the White House
2:32:39press secretary is going to stop her
2:32:40press conferences to the minute and find
2:32:43that some people can trade on that. We
2:32:46we we know that it was reported over the
2:32:49weekend that Representative Luna shared
2:32:52with someone that JD Vance was going to
2:32:54be chosen as vice president because she
2:32:56had inside information and she passed it
2:32:58along to someone with the express
2:33:00purpose of putting down a um a contract
2:33:04in the prediction markets over whether
2:33:06or not it would be JD Vance and that
2:33:08person profited handsomely from this.
2:33:10This is to to the point you made. If we
2:33:13have any hope of restoring trust, the
2:33:16American people in our government, we
2:33:18have to stop doing the things the
2:33:20president, the vice president, members
2:33:22of Congress, and the judiciary have to
2:33:24stop doing things where the public feels
2:33:27there's inside information that we have
2:33:29access to and many cases that we do and
2:33:32are profiting from it. And this is this
2:33:34is not that hard to do. There are bills,
2:33:37there's number that you've referenced.
2:33:39We could do it in this bill. We'd need
2:33:41to take out this save America act
2:33:44provisions which don't deserve to be in
2:33:46this bill, but we could change this but
2:33:48require divestature and private stock
2:33:51trades um and the crypto market
2:33:53participation and prediction markets.
2:33:56Let's give the American people the kind
2:33:58of government they deserve and that they
2:34:00want.
2:34:01>> Yeah. I it is just unbelievably
2:34:05concerning and and offensive that um
2:34:09folks are supposed to be public
2:34:10servants, supposed to be serving the
2:34:13people, not themselves. Um continue to
2:34:16be able to uh use information that they
2:34:19obtain as a result of government service
2:34:22in order to profit. Although we did see
2:34:25a new twist on that this week when the
2:34:28president announced that he will sell
2:34:30access to his truth social posts. If you
2:34:34can pay $100,000 or so, you will get
2:34:37early access to government action that
2:34:41will then move the market. So it is
2:34:44literally paytoplay. If you pay off the
2:34:46president's social media media company,
2:34:48you're going to be able to make more
2:34:50money because you'll have advanced
2:34:51notice. I mean it is a culture of
2:34:54corruption that is truly mind-boggling
2:34:58and we need to put a an end to it. Had
2:35:00something else.
2:35:00>> Well just then the president is somehow
2:35:03under the idea that if you do things
2:35:07openly publicly it makes them okay. So
2:35:10if he told you he was going to rob your
2:35:11bank in the middle of the day and you
2:35:15know filmed it while he was robbing your
2:35:17bank that somehow that's no longer a
2:35:19crime because he told you he was going
2:35:20to do it. So developing for truth social
2:35:22where he's going to give inside
2:35:24information to people who will pay
2:35:26significant amount of money. So you're
2:35:28only doing it for economic advantages.
2:35:30There's no other reason to have the app.
2:35:32But think about this. In the 21st
2:35:35century, the United States Congress is
2:35:37going to sit and allow the president of
2:35:38the United States who makes market
2:35:41making decisions every single hour. It's
2:35:44going to allow that person to sell that
2:35:46information to private investors who
2:35:49will pay him for it. And we're just
2:35:51going to sit here and go, "Okay, that's
2:35:53okay." I mean, does anybody in America
2:35:56think that's okay other than the members
2:35:58of Congress who are unwilling to stand
2:36:00up to him?
2:36:01>> Well, I'd suggest that this Congress
2:36:02will say it's okay, but hopefully the
2:36:04next one won't. Thank you. I yield back.
2:36:08>> Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize
2:36:09the the other gentleman from from
2:36:12Georgia, Mr. Jack.
2:36:14>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
2:36:16congratulate my friend Chairman Style on
2:36:19bringing this legislation before us and
2:36:21the work that you put into this topic to
2:36:23deliver a really impressive piece of
2:36:25legislation. I'm curious, could you
2:36:26explain to this committee from your
2:36:28perspective what are people voting
2:36:29against when they vote against this
2:36:31legislation this week?
2:36:32>> Well, I I think that's that's important
2:36:34to know. We hear a lot from our friends
2:36:36across what they would do if they were
2:36:38in charge. They were in charge and they
2:36:40didn't bring any of this. So, tell you
2:36:43you got a pretty good idea what they're
2:36:44going to do. absolutely nothing. This
2:36:46bill in front of us is an opportunity to
2:36:48ban members of Congress from buying
2:36:51individual shares of stock. And when
2:36:53this comes to this committee for a vote
2:36:55to give us a rule if we're successful, I
2:36:58think we will be, we'll be on the floor.
2:37:00And if members vote against it, they're
2:37:01allowing members to to buy and trade uh
2:37:04individual shares of stock as they are
2:37:06today. I think this is our opportunity
2:37:08actually for the most comprehensive and
2:37:11important um piece of ethics reform in
2:37:15the House that we've seen probably over
2:37:1610 years. Uh this bill before us uh is
2:37:20substantive. It works. Uh it has broad
2:37:22support. Uh and I think we got an
2:37:24opportunity to make a huge change and
2:37:26and folks that choose to vote against it
2:37:27can go home and explain to their
2:37:30constituents why they think members of
2:37:31Congress should be able to buy uh
2:37:33individual shares of stock. Um, and two
2:37:36on on the other side with photo
2:37:38identification. Uh, this is our
2:37:40opportunity to make sure uh that all 50
2:37:42states have photo ID when individuals go
2:37:45to the polls. Uh, it's a pretty
2:37:46straightforward, easy concept. Uh, it's
2:37:49popular because it's common sense.
2:37:51American people understand that we need
2:37:52to have uh basic common sense election
2:37:55integrity. and you either support
2:37:57election integrity or you think that you
2:37:59should just be able to walk in as they
2:38:00do in the state of Minnesota and vouch
2:38:03for up to eight people uh to cast their
2:38:05ballot. Thank you very much, Mr.
2:38:07Chairman. I just submit um not only is
2:38:10is banning stock trading for members of
2:38:11Congress wildly wildly popular. If you
2:38:13poll Americans, so too are some of these
2:38:15common sense um requirements with
2:38:17respect to voting. So, this is this
2:38:19should be a wildly popular bill. I hope
2:38:21the vote later this week uh reflects
2:38:24that and I will yield back to our
2:38:27distinguished chairman, Mr. Griffith.
2:38:29Thank you.
2:38:29>> Gentleman yields back now recognizes
2:38:31gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Noose for
2:38:33his time of questioning.
2:38:35>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
2:38:37Thank you, Chairman Style and Ranking
2:38:39Member Morelli, uh for being here and
2:38:41for your testimony. Chairman Style, so
2:38:45the name of your bill is the Stop
2:38:48Insider Trading Act, correct? That's
2:38:50correct.
2:38:51>> Okay.
2:38:53You think that's an accurate description
2:38:54of the bill?
2:38:55>> Yeah.
2:38:56>> Okay. What does trading mean to you?
2:38:59>> The buying and selling for profit.
2:39:01>> The buying and selling for profit. I
2:39:04couldn't agree with you more. I look
2:39:06Webster's dictionary defines it as the
2:39:08business of buying and selling. This
2:39:11bill, as you said, bans the buying of
2:39:15individual shares of stock. Right.
2:39:17>> That's correct.
2:39:18>> It does not ban the selling. It it
2:39:20reforms the selling. Of course, it does
2:39:22not ban the selling, right? You're
2:39:25allowed to sell as much stock as you
2:39:27would like as a member of Congress under
2:39:29this bill. Is that wrong?
2:39:31>> I think it's insufficient to describe it
2:39:33that way. That what you said is
2:39:34accurate, but misleading.
2:39:35>> It's accurate. Yes. Correct. Yes, it is
2:39:37accurate. Accurate. There's a Republican
2:39:40senator who decides that they're going
2:39:42to sell millions of dollars of stock the
2:39:45week before the CO 19 pandemic begins in
2:39:48earnest. That's legal under your bill,
2:39:52right?
2:39:52>> Of course, they would have provided a
2:39:54minimum of 7 days advanced notice. I'm
2:39:56not sure that you could do that in the
2:39:57timeline you just proposed.
2:39:58>> And that would be legal under this. This
2:40:01isn't a hypothetical. A Republican
2:40:03senator
2:40:04seven, eight days before nine days
2:40:07before the CO 19 pandemic began in
2:40:10earnest sold millions millions of
2:40:12dollars of stock under this bill. That
2:40:15would not be illegal, right?
2:40:16>> But of course, they would provide
2:40:17notice. That's that's the part that you
2:40:19don't want to discuss.
2:40:19>> I understand the notice, but here's what
2:40:21I don't understand why you don't Hold
2:40:23on. I'll give you a chance to explain
2:40:24this.
2:40:25>> You could defend it on the merits.
2:40:26You've clearly decided that the buying
2:40:28of stock,
2:40:30right, is a practice that you don't
2:40:32believe should be permitted by members
2:40:33of Congress. I agree.
2:40:35>> Okay.
2:40:36>> But for some reason, you've decided that
2:40:38the sale of stocks, individual stocks,
2:40:42>> is completely fine, but for the notice
2:40:44requirements that you've now imposed in
2:40:46this bill. And I don't quite understand
2:40:48that disconnect because there are many
2:40:50bills, many bills that have been
2:40:52introduced, including a bill I
2:40:54introduced
2:40:56seven years ago with Chip Roy
2:40:58>> and other members of this body that has
2:41:00140 co-sponsors on it that would ensure
2:41:03that the sale and the purchase of stocks
2:41:07is banned. And this bill does not do
2:41:10that. So, I'm just I'm trying to
2:41:12understand why you've decided that it's
2:41:14permissible on one end but not the
2:41:15other.
2:41:18>> Great. Um, so the focus of the bill is
2:41:20to stop an individual from being able to
2:41:23profit off of insider information.
2:41:26So, that that that core concept of what
2:41:28is the bill's goal, I think, is really
2:41:31important. So, let's go back to your
2:41:32example of an
2:41:33>> Oh, yeah. Go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead.
2:41:35>> Go, please.
2:41:36So, so let's go back let's go back to
2:41:37the example of an individual that made a
2:41:39significant sale prior to the pandemic
2:41:41because I think that's actually a very
2:41:42relevant discussion point
2:41:44>> inside of this. The point of the the
2:41:46pre-disclosure is that you it it
2:41:49prevents the individual from able to
2:41:51profit off of that sale because the
2:41:53inside the information is now publicly
2:41:56available. So, if an individual is in a
2:41:57leadership role, say they're the chair
2:41:59of the intelligence committee of the
2:42:00House or the Senate, that individual may
2:42:03have information leading up to a
2:42:04pandemic. Sure.
2:42:05>> Now, proving that information was
2:42:07inside, that's very difficult. I had
2:42:09noted that earlier. Proving insider
2:42:11illegal inside trades is actually very
2:42:13difficult for the Department of Justice.
2:42:15So, my bill would require that you would
2:42:18provide an advanced disclosure of that.
2:42:20That would be of course market moving.
2:42:22It mirrors
2:42:22>> scale
2:42:24>> just of the of the notion of that you
2:42:26intend to sell this stock,
2:42:27>> right? That's
2:42:28>> Yeah, there's no
2:42:29>> So, so walk you through the economics
2:42:31maybe. So, in
2:42:32>> No, I understand the example. Well, I
2:42:34I'll reclaim my time here because I I
2:42:35want to give you ample opportunity here.
2:42:37If you're the chairman of the Intel
2:42:38Committee and today you come across
2:42:43information that compels you to sell
2:42:48$500,000 worth of stock in a particular
2:42:51company that you own.
2:42:54>> You make that disclosure under the style
2:42:56bill, right? 7 days, I think. What's the
2:42:58notice requirement?
2:42:59>> Minimum seven.
2:42:59>> Minimum seven days. Okay. I I don't know
2:43:03that that's necessarily going to draw
2:43:04the scrutiny of anybody in the public
2:43:06domain and if now or two weeks from now
2:43:10well stock trades are made every day by
2:43:12>> me well you know public disclosure would
2:43:14be primaascia evidence of insider
2:43:16trading subject to the
2:43:17>> jurisdiction on the purchase
2:43:18>> department of justice
2:43:20>> then why not do that on the purchase why
2:43:21have you
2:43:22>> because there's no individ that's
2:43:24actually a great question Mr. goose. So
2:43:26what we're looking at is real world
2:43:28situations where individuals enter
2:43:29Congress. So upon entering Congress,
2:43:31easy for all of us to agree there should
2:43:33be no additional purchase of an
2:43:34individual share of stock. I think
2:43:36that's actually reasonably
2:43:37straightforward. You have made the
2:43:38choice to become a member of Congress.
2:43:40That's an obligation that we're placing
2:43:42upon you. An individual who is leaving
2:43:44their private life, who is making
2:43:46reasonable savings for themselves and
2:43:48their family, maybe they bought a 100
2:43:50shares of used Coca-Cola earlier because
2:43:52we had the gentleman from Georgia here.
2:43:53hundred 100 shares of Coca-Cola stock or
2:43:56any other good American company that's
2:43:58working hard. They're using that to
2:43:59maybe save up for down payment on a
2:44:02home, their wedding, their child's
2:44:03wedding. Now, they arrive in Congress.
2:44:05The question then became, what do we do?
2:44:07How do we think through this and how do
2:44:08we address this? We share the goal of
2:44:10preventing that individual from
2:44:11benefiting off of any insider
2:44:13information. Of course, if an individual
2:44:15was leading up to a major global event
2:44:18and that individual's trade was noticed
2:44:20in advance rather than after one, that
2:44:23would most likely be market moving such
2:44:25that the profit would be removed, thus
2:44:27preventing the individual from
2:44:29>> I don't I would just simply say because
2:44:30I've got limited time, I would say that
2:44:33I while I understand
2:44:36that there are members of your caucus
2:44:37and and frankly members of the
2:44:40Democratic caucus as well who have
2:44:42concerns about investment of stocks that
2:44:44they already own. Okay, I understand
2:44:47that that's a concern that's been
2:44:49expressed by some members. And so in so
2:44:51far as you're trying to address that
2:44:52concern, you've adopted this, you know,
2:44:56par new paradigm that you've
2:44:57constructed.
2:44:58>> I would just say that that's the reason
2:45:00and that it's not this argument. I just
2:45:03don't think that it's intellectually
2:45:04consistent. So I I hear you. I you
2:45:06you've made the argument. you've made
2:45:08the argument and so yeah, I'm sure my
2:45:09gentleman's my colleagues on the other
2:45:10side of the aisle will give you more
2:45:12time if you'd like. But I just don't
2:45:14think that that's an accurate argument.
2:45:15In my view, 140 members of this body,
2:45:19Republicans and Democrats have clearly
2:45:23unambiguously said we should ban the
2:45:26sale or purchase of stocks. Period. Full
2:45:30stop. And there's a bill by one of the
2:45:32members of this committee, this august
2:45:35committee, the rules committee, and I
2:45:36look forward to making an amendment to
2:45:38this bill that you've proposed to
2:45:40perhaps consider substituting Mr. Royy's
2:45:42bill, which would accomplish what I've
2:45:44described. I want to make sure I'm
2:45:46understanding as a technical matter the
2:45:48ambit of this bill.
2:45:51Under this bill, can you purchase crypto
2:45:54holdings?
2:45:55>> It makes no changes to the House rules
2:45:57in that regard.
2:45:57>> So, you can't or you can? It makes no
2:45:59changes in this regard.
2:46:00>> I don't rule still apply. You You today
2:46:03are allowed to buy crypto if you so
2:46:05chose. It's not a trick question. You're
2:46:06allowed to.
2:46:07>> That's what I was saying.
2:46:08>> Individual placements. Can someone else
2:46:10reference this previously that there
2:46:12>> can you do individual purchase of
2:46:14individual placements of stock under
2:46:16this?
2:46:17>> Individual shares of stock? No.
2:46:19>> Individual shares? No. Private
2:46:21placements? Yes.
2:46:23>> The right the current house rules would
2:46:25apply.
2:46:26>> Correct. Okay. So I if it's easier I'll
2:46:29frame it that way. I'll I'll use
2:46:30>> current house rules apply.
2:46:31>> Okay fine.
2:46:32>> But there I what I want to make clear to
2:46:34people who are listening is there are
2:46:35significant restrictions in place under
2:46:37house rules. I wouldn't want somebody to
2:46:38walk away and think that no other rules
2:46:40apply. I want to make sure that they're
2:46:42clear that currently let's use your
2:46:44language.
2:46:44>> I think it's more accurate.
2:46:45>> Under current house rules members of
2:46:47Congress can buy crypto holdings. And
2:46:49under your bill that does not change.
2:46:51Right.
2:46:51>> There's no change.
2:46:52>> Okay. And under current house rules
2:46:53members of Congress can buy stocks
2:46:55through private placements. And under
2:46:57your bill, that does not change, right?
2:46:59>> No change.
2:46:59>> Okay. And under current house rules,
2:47:01members of Congress can buy stocks uh
2:47:03with or excuse me, can buy industry
2:47:05specific mutual funds, right?
2:47:07>> That's accurate.
2:47:08>> And that does not change under your
2:47:09bill.
2:47:09>> Does not change.
2:47:10>> Okay. And under current House rules,
2:47:12members of Congress can buy uh bonds,
2:47:14right?
2:47:15>> Mhm.
2:47:15>> And under your bill, that does not
2:47:17change. We
2:47:17>> still buy bonds. And there are countless
2:47:19other pieces of legislation that members
2:47:21of Congress have introduced, myself
2:47:23included, that would ban all of what I
2:47:27just described. That is the point. I
2:47:30would say with respect to Mr. Melli's
2:47:32comment about the prediction markets, I
2:47:34I do not understand and perhaps you can
2:47:37illuminate this for me.
2:47:40The House Administration Committee has
2:47:41jurisdiction over member participation
2:47:44in prediction markets,
2:47:45>> right?
2:47:46>> Is that accurate?
2:47:47>> Okay. You're the chair
2:47:48>> along with others. But yes,
2:47:49>> but you got principal jurisdiction.
2:47:51>> Yes. Yes.
2:47:51>> You're in charge. Okay.
2:47:54Four months ago, the United States
2:47:55Senate on a bipartisan basis on a voice
2:47:58vote
2:48:00took action and said, "You know what?
2:48:03No senator in this body is allowed to
2:48:06make bets on prediction markets." Every
2:48:08Republican, every Democrat agreed to it.
2:48:11Why can't we?
2:48:12>> I I we have moved forward legislation in
2:48:14the committee and House administration
2:48:16on this topic.
2:48:17to I'd be
2:48:19>> Why can't we I'm I'm saying this
2:48:20happened in April. We could do a onepage
2:48:22resolution. We could just literally cut
2:48:24and paste the Senate resolution and we
2:48:26could pass it tomorrow.
2:48:28>> Will you help us with that?
2:48:30>> Yeah. So, I I've been supportive of
2:48:32making restrictions uh in the prediction
2:48:34market space.
2:48:35>> Why isn't it in this bill?
2:48:36>> Uh we have two different pieces of
2:48:37legislation we moved through. Obviously,
2:48:40prediction markets are reasonably new
2:48:41and novel technology available to
2:48:43American people.
2:48:43>> It took the Senate a day. It's a
2:48:46one-page resolution. It literally is a
2:48:48paragraph. It just says members of the
2:48:49Senate are banned from participating in
2:48:51>> I'm fully supportive of my legislation
2:48:53moving forward if that's the question.
2:48:55>> No, the question is can Well, I guess
2:48:57I'll follow up with M. Melli and maybe
2:48:59Mr. Melli, I would encourage I I know
2:49:00you've been pushing on this, but maybe
2:49:02we can just write a one-page resolution.
2:49:05We'll just take the Senate resolution,
2:49:06go to the floor this week, and
2:49:08apparently, according to Mr. Style, that
2:49:10that would meet with his approval. Am I
2:49:12wrong? Is that not something that you
2:49:14all have been able to debate in the
2:49:16committee, Mr. Morell?
2:49:17>> Well, no. You're absolutely right. We
2:49:19can do by resolution
2:49:21and have it apply to House members and
2:49:23House family member members of families
2:49:25of House members, dependent, and do just
2:49:28exactly what the Senate did. The
2:49:30alternative is to do it in a bill which
2:49:31isn't even in front of us for reasons
2:49:33that completely escape my uh
2:49:36understanding. There should be a
2:49:37provision in this bill. As bad as this
2:49:39bill is, how would you not include the
2:49:41prediction markets? But yes, to your
2:49:43point, we could do a resolution. Doesn't
2:49:44have to pass the Senate. Doesn't have to
2:49:46have the president sign it. We can do a
2:49:48resolution pertaining simply to the
2:49:50House. We should do that today.
2:49:51>> I couldn't agree more. And I would just
2:49:54I would hope uh that the majority
2:49:56Republican House would perhaps emulate
2:50:00what your colleagues in the upper
2:50:02chamber did under John Thun and simply
2:50:05say instead of the delay and the
2:50:06dilatory tactics and everything else,
2:50:08we're just going to ban it. and you'll
2:50:10certainly have my support and I suspect
2:50:11you have a lot of Democrats who would
2:50:12agree with you. I do want to talk about
2:50:14uh very briefly because the chair has
2:50:16indulged me. So, um here on the vote the
2:50:20what's it called? The save vote act.
2:50:22>> And normally you say you all get to go
2:50:23on forever and ever because you have uh
2:50:26less people but today you have more.
2:50:28>> Well, I you don't want to tempt me here.
2:50:30If you may quick please. I very quick
2:50:33question on the uh save America what I
2:50:36don't know if we're call the reduced
2:50:37version or what what's the what's this
2:50:40new version called that
2:50:41>> save America
2:50:44>> what is isn't there a title of it the
2:50:45voter ID or what
2:50:48>> or section three of the bill okay so my
2:50:53understanding
2:50:55is that in Wisconsin the voters approved
2:51:00by constitutional amendment, essentially
2:51:04a cotification of the voter ID law that
2:51:07had already been on the books in
2:51:08Wisconsin. Right.
2:51:09>> Okay,
2:51:10>> that's accurate.
2:51:11>> And National Conference of State
2:51:13Legislators has described Wisconsin's
2:51:16constitutional measure, which is the
2:51:18same as the statutory measure, as the
2:51:20most restrictive in the country. I don't
2:51:22know if you've seen that, but I
2:51:23>> I don't know if it's the I didn't I've
2:51:25not seen that term, but it's a it's a a
2:51:27reasonably good photo ID law. reasonably
2:51:29good photo ID law.
2:51:32Under that law, you can use a college
2:51:34ID.
2:51:36>> And under your bill, you can't.
2:51:38>> Correct.
2:51:39>> And I'm trying to understand why. If
2:51:43that, as you said, reasonably good
2:51:45standard is good enough for your
2:51:48constituents and the people that you
2:51:49represent in Wisconsin. There are plenty
2:51:52of constituents of yours at a variety of
2:51:55different colleges and universities that
2:51:56you represent that
2:51:59right now comply with what has been
2:52:02described by others as the most strict
2:52:04voter ID law in the country by using
2:52:07their college ID, but their congressman
2:52:10is championing a bill that would tell
2:52:12them that they no longer can do that. I
2:52:15understand that.
2:52:16>> Sure. Great question. uh universities
2:52:18across the country including in my home
2:52:20state uh issue IDs to non-citizens issue
2:52:23IDs to illegal immigrants as many states
2:52:26do many of them blue states the state
2:52:28next to me the state of Illinois issues
2:52:30driver's licenses for example uh to
2:52:32non-citizens and including illegal
2:52:34immigrants uh and so this is a standard
2:52:37to say how do we make sure uh that we
2:52:39are pro protecting the integrity of our
2:52:42elections and we believe the best way to
2:52:44do that uh is through the forms of ID is
2:52:47listed in the bill.
2:52:48>> So the Wisconsin standard really isn't
2:52:49the reasonable I think the word you used
2:52:51was reasonably good standard. That
2:52:52doesn't sound like I mean it sounds like
2:52:54>> I don't think it's I Yeah, I don't think
2:52:55the standard to get a student ID is
2:52:57nearly as sufficient.
2:52:58>> No, no, no. I didn't ask you that. I
2:52:59said the Wisconsin law
2:53:02>> that 62% of the voters of Wisconsin a
2:53:05year and a half ago decided they'd put
2:53:08in the state constitution that you five
2:53:11minutes ago described as a reasonably
2:53:13fair standard apparently did not meet.
2:53:15Well, it's definitely
2:53:16>> the muster here at the federal level.
2:53:18>> Well, sure. It it's the Wisconsin Senate
2:53:20is way better than a lot of other
2:53:21states. I mean, a lot of states have
2:53:22nothing in the state of Minnesota next
2:53:24to my own state. You can vouch for eight
2:53:26people. I think that's disastrous
2:53:28compared. Well, because I don't want to
2:53:29look anything like Minnesota.
2:53:31>> I'm saying, why didn't you? You're the
2:53:32Wisconsin.
2:53:33>> Because I don't I actually think we can
2:53:34do better. Yeah. So, I think Wisconsin
2:53:35beats most states. No doubt. I'm not
2:53:38uniquely familiar with your home state's
2:53:39uh uh photo or voter laws, but I can
2:53:43tell you in my the neighboring states
2:53:44next to Wisconsin, we got some disasters
2:53:45on our hands.
2:53:46>> How much time do you have under this law
2:53:48uh if you vote provisionally if you
2:53:50don't have photo ID to be able to then
2:53:53ensure that your vote still counts? Um
2:53:56what's the time?
2:53:57>> You'd reference back You'd reference
2:53:58back to your state law on on that.
2:54:01>> I thought the federal standard I thought
2:54:02the standard here was 3 days or is that
2:54:04wrong?
2:54:04>> Is it? Oh, it is 3 days. I apologize.
2:54:06Three days. I apologize. 3 days.
2:54:08>> 72 hours.
2:54:09>> Right. So, if you forget your ID,
2:54:10>> you forget your ID. You got 72 hours.
2:54:13>> That'd be accurate.
2:54:14>> And if you don't do that, then your vote
2:54:15doesn't count.
2:54:17>> Right.
2:54:18>> Right. You would not have cured your
2:54:19ballot. Correct. That's right.
2:54:20>> Do you know what that time period is in
2:54:23Wisconsin?
2:54:24>> Go ahead.
2:54:25>> It's a lot longer.
2:54:26>> Yeah. We also have we also have many
2:54:28weeks of early voting. So, an individual
2:54:31could could go in and do their early
2:54:33in-person vote safely in the state of
2:54:36Wisconsin. If you forgot it, you could
2:54:37show up day after day after day. I would
2:54:39just simply say uh obviously I'm I
2:54:42believe Colorado has a gold standard,
2:54:44but if it's good enough for the people
2:54:46of Wisconsin, I'm just again don't
2:54:48really understand why uh you would
2:54:51champion on the one hand the Wisconsin
2:54:53standard and then simultaneously propose
2:54:56a far more exact in my view.
2:54:58>> If the gentleman will give me a time,
2:54:59I'd be happy to answer the question.
2:55:00Yeah, you don't want to hear the answer.
2:55:01>> Probably beaten this uh this horse to
2:55:03death here. So in any event, I thank you
2:55:05both.
2:55:05>> Gentleman yields back.
2:55:06>> I will yield back. And now I recognize
2:55:08myself and I will beat that horse.
2:55:14Mr. Style, is it not true that the
2:55:16individual states while they have
2:55:19sovereignty under the United States of
2:55:21America do not represent everybody in
2:55:24the nation?
2:55:26>> That's right. So Wisconsin has a great
2:55:29standard for Wisconsin,
2:55:32but that doesn't necessarily mean that
2:55:34we want Wisconsin student IDs changing
2:55:38federal policy. Isn't that accurate?
2:55:41>> That's accurate. I I wouldn't say that
2:55:43Wisconsin is flawless. I just say it's
2:55:44better than other states.
2:55:46>> State legislature says it's the best of
2:55:47the states. That doesn't mean it's the
2:55:49best that the United States can do for
2:55:50its federal elections. Am I not
2:55:52>> That's accurate. There you go. Now, I
2:55:54got a couple other things cuz y'all got
2:55:56into talking about some financial stuff
2:55:58that you know, I'm just a poor boy from
2:56:00Southwest Virginia and I don't
2:56:02understand it all. I got to tell you,
2:56:04and I'm sure there's some people back
2:56:05home don't know what this is. Now, y'all
2:56:07that have money and are big time in the
2:56:10financial world, maybe you do. What in
2:56:11the heck is a private placement? He said
2:56:14you you can still do private placements.
2:56:16I don't even know what y'all talking
2:56:17about. Yeah, it's not not something I
2:56:18engage in, but under the house rules,
2:56:20individuals can own a host of different
2:56:23private assets.
2:56:25>> All right. I don't know what a but what
2:56:26is a private placement? He said you can
2:56:29buy
2:56:29>> You could ask your colleague to describe
2:56:31private placement per his question if
2:56:32he'd like. Maybe Mr. Morelli can answer.
2:56:35He seems terminology.
2:56:36>> No, I think there's just private
2:56:37offerings from companies that are not
2:56:39publicly traded but are privately issued
2:56:42private stock.
2:56:44>> All right. And so, as as both of you
2:56:46know, because that's what that's what I
2:56:48was worried about
2:56:49>> because he it implied that the gentleman
2:56:52implied he wanted to get rid of that,
2:56:54but as you all know, having heard me
2:56:56talk about it, I got rid of all my
2:56:58$6,000 worth of stocks when uh the
2:57:01previous act was enacted. And
2:57:04u the only thing I have is a small
2:57:08swimming pool entity that I have a
2:57:10ownership interest in. And if that's a
2:57:12private placement and we suddenly want
2:57:14to ban that, I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa,
2:57:15wait a minute. Uh because that that
2:57:18community pool might not exist if if I
2:57:21hadn't bought a fair number of shares in
2:57:24it back in 1991. And um and I will
2:57:28confess I sold a share this year.
2:57:32Uh sold is is a loose term. Uh gave one
2:57:36to my youngest son when he turned 18.
2:57:40um one of the shares that I own. So I
2:57:44understand there may be people doing
2:57:45big-time stuff, but there's also a lot
2:57:47of people if that's a private placement.
2:57:48There's a lot of people who are doing
2:57:50things in their community where they've
2:57:52got a little community pool or some
2:57:54other thing that's more I mean it makes
2:57:56money some years. We might even make
2:57:59money this year, but we didn't make
2:58:00money in the in a number of years as
2:58:02well. And the idea is to make sure that
2:58:04people have a place to uh go swimming,
2:58:07be on the swim team, play water polo,
2:58:11pick up Stonegate rules water polo on
2:58:13Sunday nights, that kind of stuff. So,
2:58:15let's make sure we're not throwing the
2:58:17baby out with the swimming pool water,
2:58:19so to speak. Uh, that would be my
2:58:21concern. But I didn't know exactly what
2:58:23you're talking about. Now I do, and I
2:58:25appreciate that. The other thing on the
2:58:27sales, and I think the seven days, Mr.
2:58:29Chairman, is probably a pretty good
2:58:30idea. Yeah. I mean, if somebody want to
2:58:31argue about being in 10 days, okay,
2:58:33maybe 10 days is a little bit better,
2:58:35but but you know, if you own if you own
2:58:38some stock and you're not a wealthy
2:58:40person, and we we've been going through
2:58:42some of this, not with stock, but with
2:58:44other assets, trying to figure out how
2:58:47are we going to pay for that college
2:58:48education uh this year. And I mean, that
2:58:51was a discussion my wife and I had this
2:58:53morning before I left town is what are
2:58:55we going to to make sure we get
2:58:57tuition paid and the rooming board paid?
2:58:59and you know what's it going to look
2:59:00like in September when we get through
2:59:02paying all the big fees and what's the
2:59:04monthly outgoing to be and and so to say
2:59:06that a member who comes to Congress gets
2:59:08elected and comes to Congress and has a
2:59:11portfolio
2:59:13can't make a decision to sell that stock
2:59:17and and for whatever reasons but most of
2:59:19the time most members of Congress are
2:59:21not as wealthy as the public thinks we
2:59:23are and uh you got to figure out how you
2:59:27going to pay for things like college
2:59:28educ education. I've got two in coming
2:59:30up on August 18th. I'll have two in
2:59:33college at the same time and we're
2:59:35trying to figure out how to juggle all
2:59:37that. Now, as I said, we don't have the
2:59:39publicly traded stocks, and this bill
2:59:42just deals with those publicly traded
2:59:44stocks. Isn't that correct, Mr.
2:59:45Chairman?
2:59:46>> That's accurate.
2:59:47>> Yeah. And uh I I think that's
2:59:49appropriate, and I think it's a pretty
2:59:50good uh idea. Uh the mutual funds is
2:59:54pretty innocuous, too. you can still own
2:59:56the mutual funds. And uh my other son
2:59:59who's more financially adept perhaps
3:00:01than I am, my older one who's now 20 uh
3:00:04apparently, and we've got to change our
3:00:06financial forms because apparently I he
3:00:09got a statement the other day in the
3:00:10mail and I saw it. I said, "What is
3:00:11this?" He goes, "Oh, I bought a couple
3:00:14thousand dollars out of my summer
3:00:15earnings last year in a mutual fund."
3:00:17I'm like, "Oh, great. I got to got to
3:00:19amend my public disclosure form uh to
3:00:22reflect that. It's not big money, but
3:00:24and I think the disclosure is fine, but
3:00:27saying that they can't own or they can't
3:00:28sell uh is u I think a little ownorous
3:00:33and would discourage good people from
3:00:35running for Congress. Is there anything
3:00:36else you wanted to add as we've had
3:00:38these discussions going on now for good
3:00:40while?
3:00:41>> I I appreciate it. Maybe just uh a
3:00:43couple things to note. And so going back
3:00:46to the the 7-day disclosure and how do
3:00:48you get there? looking at securities
3:00:51law, 10B51 plans are how publicly traded
3:00:53companies uh manage their senior leaders
3:00:56who by definition have inside
3:00:57information on their company. And so, as
3:00:59I noted earlier, actually enforcing
3:01:02insider trading violations actually
3:01:05pretty difficult for the DOJ. That's
3:01:06already illegal for all members and all
3:01:08Americans. They It's illegal. They
3:01:09should be held accountable. The DOJ
3:01:10should prosecute it. It's difficult to
3:01:12prosecute. The 1051 plan on the publicly
3:01:15traded company side, what in large part
3:01:17they're doing is these pre-disclosures.
3:01:19And what it does is it sets up the
3:01:21evidence to prosecute an insider trading
3:01:24case. So my my my our colleague from
3:01:28Colorado was referencing this. Uh and so
3:01:30if an individual made that public
3:01:33announcement 7 days in advance, it would
3:01:35be pretty easy to show the timeline. Now
3:01:38now let's let's leave that one given
3:01:39person so I don't make an accusation on
3:01:41that given person. But let's let's say
3:01:43an individual member could you could
3:01:45document had inside information on a
3:01:47given topic. They provide a 7-day notice
3:01:50that they're going to make this sale.
3:01:53They then go and make the sale and then
3:01:54the evidence is pretty clear that
3:01:57individual engaged in insider trading.
3:01:59That disclosure and that point in time
3:02:02actually gives great leverage to the
3:02:04Department of Justice to hold an
3:02:06individual accountable. It's more
3:02:08difficult under the current scenario
3:02:10because you don't see where that
3:02:11timeline is. And so the reason publicly
3:02:14traded companies put these plans in
3:02:16place for their executives is to root
3:02:18out and prevent individuals from making
3:02:22insider information trades which are
3:02:25illegal and should be prevented. And so
3:02:27what we tried to do is strike the
3:02:28balance to make sure that individuals
3:02:30who have successful private sector
3:02:32careers and whatever that word is,
3:02:34whether or not it's it's successful that
3:02:36you own uh a local pool and are able to
3:02:38help people swim or uh maybe you or your
3:02:40spouse uh worked uh at a publicly traded
3:02:43company and that publicly traded company
3:02:45gave uh stock as part of the
3:02:47compensation. Um or you used it to save
3:02:50up for uh either your retirement or uh
3:02:53for the education of your child. um is
3:02:56of the belief that we want to make sure
3:02:58that those individuals are encouraged
3:02:59and able to come to Congress in the same
3:03:01way we can have farmers and veterans uh
3:03:03come to this institution and serve. Uh
3:03:06once you're here, you can't acquire new
3:03:08and additional individual shares of
3:03:10stock. I think that's a reasonable
3:03:11restriction to put in place. But the
3:03:13core of this bill is it prevents members
3:03:15of Congress from being able to profit
3:03:17off of insider information by putting in
3:03:19place a bright line rule. That is really
3:03:22important. If I can just quickly go back
3:03:24on the photo ID in my home state of
3:03:26Wisconsin because I think it's relevant.
3:03:28Wisconsin, as I noted, has a reasonably
3:03:30good photo ID bill. I don't think it's
3:03:32perfect. I think it's reasonably good.
3:03:34Now, I think it's reasonably good in in
3:03:36specifically in comparison to what I
3:03:39view as disastrous states. And in
3:03:41Wisconsin, we can look across a river
3:03:43and across a state line and see a pair
3:03:46of really bad examples. Illinois to our
3:03:48south, Minnesota to our west. in the
3:03:50state of Minnesota. It's been noted in
3:03:52our committee. You were there at the
3:03:53hearing. Uh Mr. Griffith, uh about how
3:03:57in Minnesota, not only do you not need a
3:03:59photo ID, an individual can come to the
3:04:01polls and vouch for up to eight other
3:04:04people to vote. We were making
3:04:07light-hearted comments earlier about the
3:04:09never-ending pasta bowl. Imagine rolling
3:04:11in to your local Olive Garden and
3:04:13vouching for eight other people at your
3:04:16table that they too are who they say
3:04:17they are. Nobody thinks that's rational.
3:04:20So, I think Wisconsin has a pretty good
3:04:21idea. We have a Supreme Court that's
3:04:23become hyperartisan and hyper liberal.
3:04:26And so, thoughtfully, our state assembly
3:04:28and state senate uh moved through and
3:04:31moved the Wisconsin uh legislation on
3:04:35photo ID into the constitution as a
3:04:38mechanism to prevent our Supreme Court
3:04:41from driving forward a partisan liberal
3:04:43agenda. Smart move uh by our colleagues
3:04:45in the state assembly in state senate.
3:04:48And so we enshrine that in the
3:04:49Constitution. That's good. We don't we
3:04:51don't I don't want our state to look
3:04:53like Minnesota or Illinois, Mr.
3:04:54Chairman. And so that said, I think
3:04:57there's room for improvement. And I I
3:04:59flagged my concern specifically as it
3:05:02relates to the standards some of our
3:05:06universities are using when issuing a
3:05:08photo ID. It's a very different
3:05:09standard, for example, than the state of
3:05:11Wisconsin's Department of Transportation
3:05:13has when issuing a a driver's license or
3:05:16a stateisssued ID. I think we are best
3:05:19served we move to that higher standard
3:05:21uh rather than uh the lower standard
3:05:23allowing uh universities to issue uh
3:05:27photo IDs with either limited u
3:05:29documentation or uh giving those IDs uh
3:05:33to non-citizens or to illegal
3:05:35immigrants. So, I appreciate you giving
3:05:36me the time, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield
3:05:38back.
3:05:38>> Yeah. And well, I will say this on the
3:05:40going back on the stock issue.
3:05:43I think one of the nice things about the
3:05:447-day rule and and everything you said
3:05:47was accurate, but one of the things I
3:05:48like about it is if if a wealthy member
3:05:50of Congress, more likely to be a
3:05:53senator, but still a wealthy member of
3:05:55Congress suddenly said, "I'm going to
3:05:57sell a million or two million or$5
3:05:59million of the share in the XYZ
3:06:01corporation." That gives the public
3:06:04notice that they're selling. Maybe I
3:06:05ought to, too. or that they'll take a
3:06:07look at it or people will take a roll
3:06:09call will certainly report it if there's
3:06:11a seven-day notice and now that's not
3:06:13happening and it just happens and then
3:06:14people say well I wish I'd known he was
3:06:16going to sell out I'd have sold too
3:06:17>> anyway I I yield back and now recognize
3:06:20the gentle lady from New Mexico Leisure
3:06:22Fernandez for her time
3:06:23>> uh thank you so very much and I want to
3:06:25go back to this idea that this is the
3:06:27stop insider trading act uh and we went
3:06:31over earlier that trading involves both
3:06:35the purchase and the sale. You cannot
3:06:37have trade in without the sale. And uh
3:06:40chairman, you said that the purpose of
3:06:42this was to make sure that Congress
3:06:46people don't make a profit off of
3:06:49information we get here from serving. Is
3:06:51that did I recall you saying that
3:06:53correctly?
3:06:53>> Yeah. As it relates to publicly traded
3:06:55company stocks.
3:06:55>> Let's let's go back to the question of
3:06:57do you make a profit when you buy a
3:07:00stock?
3:07:01>> No.
3:07:02>> You make a profit when you do what? You
3:07:05may
3:07:06>> you sell the stock
3:07:07>> only if you sell for a profit.
3:07:09>> So you could lose to clarify you could
3:07:11lose but that's your chance for making a
3:07:13profit is the sale of the stock. Right.
3:07:15>> That's your chance
3:07:16>> and your stock stop insider trading act
3:07:19does not prohibit the sale of stocks.
3:07:23>> Right. But it prevents you from
3:07:24profiting off of the sale.
3:07:25>> No it doesn't. You can
3:07:26>> with insider information. I would
3:07:28disagree as much as you want. As long as
3:07:30you own that stock you can profit. And
3:07:32that's where Democrats are going is that
3:07:35we should not Congress people if you
3:07:38make the choice to come here. There
3:07:41should be a vehicle for you to be able
3:07:43to of individual stocks. That's what the
3:07:46bill that Joe Nagus and Chip Roy
3:07:49introduced. That's what the bill that we
3:07:50have presented. That's what the bill
3:07:53that Democrats offered as an alternative
3:07:56does. Is that correct, ranking member?
3:08:00>> Absolutely. requires divestature. And
3:08:02and may I just add the notion that a
3:08:057-day waiting period and I appreciate uh
3:08:07Mr. Griffith's comments, but honestly, I
3:08:10don't think of a member of Congress who
3:08:13learned that, you know, it's likely
3:08:15maybe Boeing instead of Northro Grum was
3:08:17going to get a military contract and
3:08:19they owned Northro Grumman and wanted to
3:08:21get rid of their stock before that was
3:08:23acknowledged. Saying I sold $10,000
3:08:27worth of stock uh a month before anybody
3:08:30knows about it and I acknowledge it 7
3:08:32days. That that that does virtually
3:08:34nothing. There's nobody sitting around
3:08:36watching in real time what members of
3:08:38Congress are doing respectfully. And
3:08:41there's no way to track that. And and to
3:08:44your point, you only make the money if
3:08:46you sell at a price that's higher than
3:08:48what you bought it at. So you can only
3:08:50make the money. And it's true, you can
3:08:51lose money, too. But you get to control
3:08:54the timing of when that happens if
3:08:56you're not required to divest, right? I
3:08:58mean, so that's and by the way, if you
3:09:02already own stock and there's a
3:09:05dividend, you can buy more of that. So
3:09:07the notion that you can't buy is not
3:09:09true. Now it is more narrow, but the
3:09:11buying, holding, and selling of stock is
3:09:15still allowed under this on the public
3:09:17side. On the private side, there's no
3:09:18they, you know, they haven't done
3:09:20anything here at all.
3:09:21>> Right. And I think the concern is uh uh
3:09:23uh my my colleague from Pennsylvania uh
3:09:26referenced it earlier that maybe what
3:09:28you want to do is maybe lose less,
3:09:30right? And and you know, here's the
3:09:33article that said that when you're going
3:09:36to be making these big decisions about
3:09:39what happens. We had a colleague that a
3:09:41week before he voted to significantly
3:09:43cut Medicaid and I'm quoting from an
3:09:45article here dated 112025
3:09:49of um the first on NBC m uh Mr. Chairman
3:09:53which I'd seek to enter into the record
3:09:55a week before he voted to significantly
3:09:57cut Medicaid by a trillion dollars. This
3:10:01representative dumped six figures worth
3:10:04of stock in a quartet of companies that
3:10:07managed nearly half of all Medicaid
3:10:10enrolles in the country. Now, chairman,
3:10:13>> without objection,
3:10:14>> this your bill would do nothing to have
3:10:16prevented this sale. Correct?
3:10:19>> I would actually disagree with that.
3:10:20>> You disagree with that?
3:10:22>> You
3:10:22>> it would do nothing. I think that's an
3:10:24inaccurate statement of the bill.
3:10:26>> Okay. So, would it have uh he would be
3:10:28able to have sold this stock? You would
3:10:30have had to give
3:10:31>> you would have provided you would have
3:10:32provided public notice of the sale,
3:10:35>> but he would have been able to sell it.
3:10:37It would not have prevented it. It might
3:10:39have it might have allowed the world to
3:10:40know before a a newspaper article came
3:10:43out, but it would have still allowed it.
3:10:45And
3:10:46>> well, it depends. It depends on the the
3:10:48timeline of that sale. Of course, seven
3:10:49days notice would require seven days to
3:10:51elapse.
3:10:51>> All your all your bill does is fill out
3:10:54a form. And this is the thing. What con
3:10:57what the American public is mad and they
3:11:00are mad as hell about is the idea that
3:11:04elected officials both in Congress, in
3:11:07the Senate, and the White House are
3:11:10making big bucks and they are the ones.
3:11:14>> That's actually why this bill is so
3:11:15important. It it's it's about ending the
3:11:17profiting off of insider information. So
3:11:19you exactly you exactly nailed what
3:11:21they're upset about and this is what the
3:11:22bill actually accomplishes.
3:11:24>> The profit. It does not end the profit
3:11:25because the profit is at the sale and
3:11:27none and this does not prevent the sale.
3:11:28You're continued you are allowed to
3:11:30>> only if you don't believe in market
3:11:31forces.
3:11:32>> I'm gonna move on ranking me.
3:11:34>> May I just may I just make one
3:11:35additional point? Even if you had 7 days
3:11:37notice, let's say the press did know
3:11:39that came and said, "Hey, we realize
3:11:41that you sold all your stock in some
3:11:43company,
3:11:45you're going to say it's because I was
3:11:47diversifying or it's not likely you're
3:11:49going to say it's because I learned that
3:11:51the United States government is going to
3:11:53be buying. I mean, it doesn't disclose
3:11:55anything. Yeah. It gives, I guess, the
3:11:57press a couple of days if they happen to
3:11:58be following your specific trades and
3:12:01gives them a little bit of a head start
3:12:02on trying to figure out what you were
3:12:04doing. But let's be clear, no one is
3:12:07going to say because I had information
3:12:09which led me to sell. But the good news
3:12:11is I did it for seven days, so it gives
3:12:13you some advanced time to figure out
3:12:15what was motivating me.
3:12:17>> It gives you cover. All it does is give
3:12:19you cover. And I think the bigger the
3:12:21bigger bigger huge like gaping hole of
3:12:25this bill is that we might have
3:12:28information or we might be and in this
3:12:30instance going to be one of hundreds of
3:12:33votes. The reality is there is a man and
3:12:37there will always be a man and hopefully
3:12:39someday a woman who can move markets
3:12:41much bigger than any one of us and that
3:12:43is the president of the United States.
3:12:46And this bill does not cover that at
3:12:48all. and and we know that this is
3:12:50happening. Uh
3:12:53just uh truth social uh President Trump
3:12:56said with regards to Nvidia, I've got an
3:12:58allnecessary permit. Uh I am going this
3:13:01this company's going to go through. It's
3:13:04great. He never told everybody on True
3:13:06Social that he had bought $200,000 to
3:13:08$500,000 of that company stock. Uh, and
3:13:13a CNN investigation found that President
3:13:15Trump is marketing stocks on Truth
3:13:19Social after he's purchased
3:13:24shares. Now, Chairman Steel, your bill
3:13:28doesn't cover the president or the vice
3:13:30president,
3:13:32>> does it?
3:13:33>> Is that a question? No, it it is focused
3:13:35on Congress per the jurisdiction of the
3:13:37Committee on House Administration.
3:13:39>> Oh, okay. But we have jurisdiction.
3:13:41Congress has jurisdiction and we are the
3:13:45only ones who can say the president
3:13:48should not be purchasing or selling
3:13:50stock because he controls the market.
3:13:54Congress is the one and we don't tell
3:13:56him nobody else is going to do it. Is
3:13:58that correct ranking member?
3:14:02>> Absolutely. and and earlier we had a
3:14:05conversation about uh the fact that
3:14:08President Trump has now said that he's
3:14:10going to sell early access to Wall
3:14:13Street uh on so Truth Social. Uh I don't
3:14:18know what you thought about that. There
3:14:20was a conversation about it, but I think
3:14:21in in the end, uh, Chairman Steel, uh,
3:14:24you never told us what you thought about
3:14:27having a president give access to Wall
3:14:30Street, uh, early on, paid access for
3:14:33information that could move the market.
3:14:35Do you think that should be allowed?
3:14:37>> I haven't read those reports.
3:14:39>> Okay. Well, I'm going to just tell you
3:14:41now. President President Trump has said
3:14:43that he would uh provide early access to
3:14:46Wall Street to Truth Social. so that
3:14:49they would be able to make decisions
3:14:51about what's happening. Do you think
3:14:53that that is appropriate behavior for a
3:14:54president?
3:14:55>> I I haven't read the reports. I I'll
3:14:56read it following the meeting here.
3:14:59>> Okay. It's interesting, you know, uh I
3:15:02will say that uh Josh Harley Josh Holly
3:15:05actually said that what he thought that
3:15:06the idea that having a president uh buy
3:15:10and sell stock and market stock that
3:15:12there should be a bill that applied to
3:15:15him.
3:15:16And what happened to Josh Holly was that
3:15:19President Trump came after him. And I'm
3:15:22just wondering if uh Republicans on the
3:15:25House side are equally afraid
3:15:28uh of this president coming after them
3:15:31for actually holding him to a high
3:15:34standard uh to any kind of standard with
3:15:37regards to owning and selling stock.
3:15:41But I want to go to another matter and
3:15:44that's this uh
3:15:48section three of the bill which is like
3:15:50save light I guess. Uh and what strikes
3:15:53me is that there are three forms of ID
3:15:56now allowed and there is no tribal ID
3:15:59allowed. Did did I miss that? I saw
3:16:02three forms. It says state ID, uh
3:16:04military ID, uh and
3:16:08>> now there's passport. There's five forms
3:16:11uh allowed. Uh the fifth one being
3:16:13tribal IDs um issued.
3:16:17>> I I could it'll take me a second to find
3:16:18you the the legislative text, but it
3:16:20it's five forms.
3:16:21>> I'm I'm reading uh Okay. Thank you. I'm
3:16:24sorry. I'm glad I asked that because I I
3:16:26had that section. It does retal ID.
3:16:29>> Yep. But but the the other piece of this
3:16:31bill is that right now right you have
3:16:35taken away you have taken away the money
3:16:37that would allow states that would help
3:16:40states and you keep shaking your head
3:16:42but it's not in this bill and it is I'm
3:16:46going back to that awful analogy you all
3:16:49kept turning to of that this is like a
3:16:52bowl of pasta that you need an ID to get
3:16:54a bowl of pasta and and ranking member
3:16:55Steel you I ranking member Morela you
3:16:58spoke so eloquently
3:16:59about voting is not pasta. Voting is not
3:17:03a privilege. It's not a privilege. It's
3:17:06not something you do when you have
3:17:07enough money. When you have enough money
3:17:10to be able to go to a restaurant and eat
3:17:12as much pasta as you want.
3:17:15It is a right. It's a constitutional
3:17:17right. And our problem is that a lot of
3:17:20people do not have enough money to be
3:17:23able to own a passport. They do not have
3:17:26enough money to be able to own a car and
3:17:29have a driver's license. They do not
3:17:31have the kinds of money that allows them
3:17:34to easily access some of a a passport, a
3:17:40a driver's license or these other
3:17:41things. And that's why a pot of money
3:17:44that would help people get the photo IDs
3:17:47they need would be so essential.
3:17:50And ranking member Morali, you seem to
3:17:52want to add to that. Well, I just say
3:17:54this that I I I think there's a little
3:17:56bit of a conflation of two different
3:17:58things. Voter ID, as I understand it, is
3:18:02to prove to a poll watcher that you are
3:18:06who you say you are. That's all. So, why
3:18:09would student ID not be acceptable? The
3:18:12chairman said it's because it doesn't
3:18:13prove citizenship. But that's not the
3:18:15point of voter ID at the polls. the
3:18:17vote, the point of voter ID, as I
3:18:19understand it, photo ID, is to simply
3:18:22prove who you are. You're already
3:18:24registered to vote. That's already done.
3:18:26And so, this makes it harder. And I
3:18:29think it's because honestly, they'd
3:18:32prefer that college students not vote.
3:18:35So, let's put a number of barriers in
3:18:37front of them. And the ID, which clearly
3:18:39proves who they are. I am Joe Morelli.
3:18:41Here's my ID. It says it right here. I
3:18:43go to the University of Wisconsin. and I
3:18:45go to the state university of New York.
3:18:47I go to the University of New Mexico.
3:18:49That's all I am who I am. And by the
3:18:51way, if you look even in in in places
3:18:55like every state literally allows
3:18:57student ID because it's a way of proving
3:18:59who you are. Universities issue them.
3:19:01That's a pretty basic thing. Most states
3:19:04allow hunter's license or gun permits or
3:19:08in some cases your utility bills. Um,
3:19:12all you need to do when you go to vote,
3:19:14if you if you're not willing to accept
3:19:16the system that a number of states have
3:19:18where you have signature analysis and
3:19:20you feel the need to have photo ID, why
3:19:23would you limit the number of photo ID
3:19:26possibilities which simply allow you to
3:19:29prove who you say you are? And by the
3:19:31way, I don't know, we've had I don't
3:19:33know how many hearings I haven't heard
3:19:35anybody bring to us people who showed ID
3:19:39and vouched for to vote when it wasn't
3:19:41them. I mean, it simply never happens.
3:19:43This is the other thing that's
3:19:44fascinating about this. In the
3:19:45reconciliation bill, they would give $10
3:19:48billion, which I'm glad for. I mean, we
3:19:51should be giving money to local
3:19:52administrators, but a portion of that is
3:19:55intended to help facilitate this. But
3:19:58we'd spend billions of dollars on
3:20:00something that isn't even a problem. We
3:20:01have plenty of problems in this country
3:20:03that actually could use some resources
3:20:04to help go to address them. This is not
3:20:07one of them.
3:20:09>> One of our problems is corruption. And
3:20:11the what we're seeing in this bill is it
3:20:13doesn't address corruption. It just
3:20:14makes voting a little harder. And that
3:20:17seems part of the for the course for
3:20:18Republicans. And with that, Mr. Chair,
3:20:20uh I yield back.
3:20:24>> Gentleman yields back. And now recognize
3:20:28the gentle lady from Indiana.
3:20:30>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get
3:20:32into my uh questions about the Stop
3:20:35Insider Trading Act, I want to give
3:20:37Chairman Style an opportunity to respond
3:20:40to some of the um concerns that were
3:20:43raised about voter identification. Um
3:20:46Chairman Style, is there not also an
3:20:49affidavit option for those that may or
3:20:51may not have IDs? And what else uh can
3:20:55you tell us about the uh ability that
3:20:57this provides to give opportunities to
3:21:00vote while also safeguarding our
3:21:02elections?
3:21:03>> You bring up a couple good
3:21:04>> you bring up uh a couple good points. We
3:21:07lay out in this bill in particular uh
3:21:09for situations where individuals are
3:21:11voting by mail. Uh that one can go
3:21:14through the process of including your
3:21:16last four digit social security number
3:21:17as well uh as um an affidavit. uh what
3:21:21we want to make sure is that everybody
3:21:23is able and eligible to vote. Uh which
3:21:25builds on the previous point which I
3:21:26think is important to go back to which
3:21:28is about the need for some individuals
3:21:30who may not have resources to obtain a
3:21:33free ID. In my home state of Wisconsin,
3:21:36uh the Department of Transportation
3:21:37estimates uh that the cost of issuing an
3:21:40IED uh knowing that the employees and
3:21:43equipment is already there, the the cost
3:21:45of issuing uh an ID for an individual
3:21:47who can't afford one is a little less
3:21:49than $5 in the neighborhood of $4.50.
3:21:52last year uh in the state of Wisconsin
3:21:54or was it two years ago if my memory
3:21:55serves me correctly roughly a h 100,000
3:21:58people uh in the state of Wisconsin
3:22:00obtained an ID uh without payment
3:22:02costing the state less than half a
3:22:05million dollars. So the state of
3:22:07Wisconsin provides that to individuals
3:22:09that can't afford it uh recognizing that
3:22:11it's required uh to vote in the state of
3:22:14Wisconsin. Then the question becomes how
3:22:16do we pay for that? The total cost in in
3:22:17a federal concept is reasonably dim to
3:22:20minimous. Half a million dollars in the
3:22:21state of Wisconsin, about 2% of the
3:22:23United States of America. You'd run that
3:22:25out nationally and get a pretty good
3:22:26idea. Uh few million dollars to make
3:22:28sure everybody has it. If an individual
3:22:30doesn't have an ID in the United States,
3:22:32a state issued ID, it's really important
3:22:34to help that individual get that. So,
3:22:35I'm I'm a big supporter of making sure
3:22:37uh that states are doing that. Uh under
3:22:40Supreme Court juristp prudence, states
3:22:42would be required to do that. um whether
3:22:44or not the funds come through the
3:22:45expansion of Hava grants, whether or not
3:22:47it comes through uh reconciliation,
3:22:50uh whether or not it comes through
3:22:51appropriations, um we can we can work
3:22:54that piece out. Uh but I think
3:22:56ultimately to make sure that individuals
3:22:58who if there are individuals who can't
3:22:59afford a state ID, we should help them
3:23:01get that. I think that's important as it
3:23:02relates uh to student IDs. I think
3:23:04there's a lot of challenges on how some
3:23:06again not all but how some universities
3:23:09issue their IDs that there are is not
3:23:11strict protocols uh as it relates to
3:23:14that in comparison to the five ways that
3:23:18we allow for IDs. Uh we all recognize
3:23:20that every state issues their uh state
3:23:23ID or state driver's license
3:23:24differently. We respect that difference,
3:23:26but we all respect that it's a robust
3:23:28and secure process. Um and so relying on
3:23:31that obviously uh if somebody has a
3:23:33passport federally issued ID if you will
3:23:36that's allowed in a tribal ID. U that
3:23:38being the core concept I think
3:23:40strengthens the integrity uh of our
3:23:42photo ID requirements. Uh but again
3:23:44these are common sense and I know uh
3:23:46some of our colleagues on the left uh
3:23:48struggle when we uh slightly make fun of
3:23:50all the different reasons and ways uh
3:23:53that you need an ID. The point is you
3:23:55need it for almost everything. So
3:23:58goodness gracious, if you need an ID for
3:24:00everything, let's just put the standard
3:24:01in place. Do you need a photo ID to vote
3:24:03so we don't have folks going to the
3:24:05polls voting in federal elections in the
3:24:07state of Minnesota this November where
3:24:09one person walks in and vouches for
3:24:11eight other people. The standard needs
3:24:13to be set. You need to show photo
3:24:15identification to vote. Now, ultimately,
3:24:17I'd love to see the whole broader
3:24:18package go through uh with other
3:24:21election reforms, but this is the most
3:24:24basic common sense principle you can
3:24:26imagine. and you need photo
3:24:28identification to vote. Uh in separate,
3:24:30of course, is legislation uh that
3:24:32prevents members of Congress from
3:24:33profiting off of insider information,
3:24:35the Stop Insider Trading Act.
3:24:37>> Thank you. Um we often hear the
3:24:39Democrats say voter fraud is not
3:24:41widespread and we look only to Bush
3:24:44vGore and the closeness of that
3:24:47presidential election and and to
3:24:49understand and we see it every day in
3:24:51our elections. In my own hometown, we
3:24:53had a city council race that came down
3:24:55to three votes. Uh and so it doesn't
3:24:59have to be widespread to disenfranchise
3:25:02uh voters across the country. Uh so
3:25:05voter ID is a critical component of
3:25:07preventing voter fraud. Um because it
3:25:10doesn't have to be widespread to to uh
3:25:12threaten the integrity of our of our
3:25:15elections in the United States. How
3:25:17concerned are you with the president's
3:25:18most recent um report of China's
3:25:21influence in our elections and the uh
3:25:23urgent need to pass not just the uh
3:25:26voter identification uh provisions in
3:25:28the stop insider trading act but also uh
3:25:31in Save America.
3:25:33>> Well, we we unquestionably know that
3:25:35there are actors that want to
3:25:36destabilize the US election system. Uh
3:25:40and so we should be cognizant of that
3:25:41and always working to enhance the
3:25:43integrity inside of our elections. Uh to
3:25:46your earlier point, um how many illegal
3:25:50votes or inappropriate votes should we
3:25:53accept, right?
3:25:54>> And the obvious answer is zero. And so
3:25:56you you referenced Bush vGore uh because
3:25:59for all Americans uh over a certain age,
3:26:02uh they remember that election. Uh but
3:26:06for you and I uh not too far from our
3:26:08home state, Marinette Miller Meeks in
3:26:10the state of Iowa won her congressional
3:26:12seat by six votes. The Democrat who lost
3:26:16that race challenged that challenges
3:26:19come before the committee on house
3:26:20administration. And so this is when
3:26:22Democrats were in control and they were
3:26:25driving forward uh trying to take
3:26:27Marinette Miller Meeks out of her
3:26:29dulyeleed position uh at that time to
3:26:33try to expand uh their majority in the
3:26:36House.
3:26:36>> And so when we know House races uh
3:26:39because we have 435 house races a year,
3:26:42there's more data points. We know how
3:26:44close some of these races are. many
3:26:47aren't called and decided for weeks
3:26:50after the election. That is when you
3:26:52recognize how important election
3:26:54integrity is. Uh in narrowly divided uh
3:26:58house and narrowly divided Senate, any
3:27:00movement can actually swing elections.
3:27:02And so making sure that we have this
3:27:04standard nationwide uh that we know
3:27:07individuals are showing photo
3:27:09identification when they go to the polls
3:27:11matters. that we know that the members
3:27:13that come from, for example, the state
3:27:15of Minnesota are the duly elected
3:27:17members, that there wasn't shenanigans
3:27:19in those elections. And I think that's
3:27:20really important to do in all 50 states.
3:27:22Uh, and this bill sets the standard and
3:27:25says, "No, you need to have photo
3:27:26identification when you go to the go to
3:27:28the polls and vote in federal elections.
3:27:30It matters. It's important. It's common
3:27:32sense, and it's easy to do."
3:27:33>> That the House and Senate majorities uh
3:27:35in the presidential election will depend
3:27:37on the integrity of these elections. So,
3:27:39I appreciate your work on that. And then
3:27:41turning to the Stop Insider Trading Act,
3:27:44members of Congress are elected to serve
3:27:45their constituents and the American
3:27:47people, not profit from non-public
3:27:50information. Um, however, uh, there
3:27:55Americans rightly fear that some members
3:27:56of Congress may be using sensitive
3:27:59information to benefit their stock
3:28:01portfolios. Uh, Congress passed the Stop
3:28:04Trading on Congressional Knowledge, the
3:28:07stock Act in 2012. Uh so lawmakers are
3:28:10already prohibited from using non-public
3:28:13information for their own uh financial
3:28:15benefit, but many Americans, including
3:28:17me, remain concerned that the Stock Act
3:28:20is in insufficient uh and that we must
3:28:23implement stronger measures, which
3:28:25brings me to the Stop Insider Trading
3:28:27Act, which I appreciate your leadership
3:28:29on. I'm a proud co-sponsor of this bill
3:28:32uh to to help ensure that members of
3:28:34Congress are not able to use their
3:28:35public office for private financial
3:28:37gain. Uh though we did take an important
3:28:40step uh Congress did with the stock act
3:28:42more than a decade ago, it's clear
3:28:44members of Congress um though we are
3:28:47subject to the same insider trading laws
3:28:49as every other American under the stock
3:28:51act um more needs to be done on this
3:28:55front despite the existing safeguards
3:28:57that we have. Uh the American people
3:29:00remain concerned. It's one of the the
3:29:02most um I would say responses I've
3:29:05received in in uh input to the office
3:29:09asking to support the stop insider
3:29:11trading act. So this will build on
3:29:13existing ethics laws strengthening the
3:29:16framework with clear common sense guard
3:29:18rails to increase transparency and
3:29:20accountability. Chairman Style, um from
3:29:23your perspective, what shortcomings have
3:29:25become apparent since the enactment of
3:29:28the stock act more than a decade ago? uh
3:29:31why are additional safeguards necessary
3:29:33and what new restrictions in this bill
3:29:37will close those loopholes?
3:29:39>> Uh thank thank you very much. Uh you
3:29:41note uh the stock act passed about 15
3:29:44years ago and what it does and does not
3:29:47uh require. One of the challenges that
3:29:49we see with the stock act is because the
3:29:52reporting is 30 days after the fact uh
3:29:55and the reporting is within bans uh that
3:29:58was noted earlier uh by our colleague uh
3:30:01Mr. Scott. Uh that that coupled uh with
3:30:05attention in particular in the social
3:30:07media space uh raises a lot of concerns.
3:30:10The question then began how do you
3:30:11prevent members of Congress from
3:30:14profiting off of this in the first
3:30:15place? what's what's the solution? Uh
3:30:18recognizing this concern, well, let's
3:30:20let's prevent members from profiting off
3:30:22of any insight information they gain and
3:30:24let's make a bright line rule uh that
3:30:26you can't trade. You can't continue to
3:30:28buy and sell uh individual shares of
3:30:31stock. The bill accomplishes that goal.
3:30:33It puts in place a blanket rule on the
3:30:35acquisition of individual shares of
3:30:37stock. It provides 7 days, minimum 7
3:30:39days advanced notice uh for the sale
3:30:41that provides the public uh notice of
3:30:44any sale. It would gut the ability to
3:30:46profit from that and it would set up an
3:30:48individual's uh case in the event that
3:30:52somebody was still trying to profit off
3:30:53of insider information uh to actually be
3:30:56prosecuted and held account to the law.
3:30:58I think this makes meaningful and
3:30:59substantive reforms. Uh and it's the
3:31:01types of reforms I think we need to pass
3:31:03here in the House.
3:31:04>> It also uh will um ban members of
3:31:07Congress and their families from
3:31:09purchasing individual stocks. I think
3:31:11that's critically important. Um because
3:31:14just because members of Congress might
3:31:16be banned, uh their family members may
3:31:19also yet currently be able to trade on
3:31:22information that may be accessible to
3:31:24members of Congress. Um and the advanced
3:31:27notice on selling those investments, I
3:31:30think, is a is an important step to
3:31:32increase transparency and restore public
3:31:34trust. I think this is a musto. I hope
3:31:37we'll get this bill through uh across
3:31:39the finish line. Again, Mr. Chairman, I
3:31:41want to thank you for your tremendous
3:31:43leadership on this issue. Uh the
3:31:46American people deserve confidence that
3:31:47the decisions uh that we make are guided
3:31:49by what's best for them, not what
3:31:51benefits personal investment portfolios.
3:31:54I hope my colleagues will support this
3:31:56legislation uh in this committee and on
3:31:58the floor. Thank you,
3:32:03>> Mr. Norman. Do you have any questions?
3:32:07Uh, thank thank both of you for
3:32:10testifying. You know, there was a lot of
3:32:12questions about this before, Brian. You
3:32:14heard it in caucus meeting and I think
3:32:15others. Has most of this been resolved
3:32:18in your opinion?
3:32:19>> Yeah, I actually think that we have a
3:32:21product um that should be able to garner
3:32:23the support of the overwhelming majority
3:32:24of the House.
3:32:27>> Joe, you have any comments? Well, I do
3:32:30have quite a few, but I'll uh I'll
3:32:32simply say this that I think at the end
3:32:34of the day, if we want Americans to
3:32:36trust us, if they want to have faith
3:32:38that the decisions we're making are in
3:32:39their interests, that we need to get to
3:32:42a point where we ban the ownership of
3:32:46individual stock by members of Congress,
3:32:47by the president, by the vice president.
3:32:50Um, and until that time that we do, and
3:32:52this bill doesn't do it, uh, doesn't
3:32:54really even come close to doing it, then
3:32:55I think we're going to continue to
3:32:57disappoint the American people.
3:32:59Well, we know things that the ordinary
3:33:01public doesn't. We have access to things
3:33:04that people don't. And hopefully the
3:33:06safeguards, you know, if you're a crook,
3:33:08you can beat any system. It doesn't
3:33:10matter what, but there ought to be rules
3:33:11on it. And but I didn't get to hear much
3:33:14of your testimony, if any, but I've
3:33:15heard some of the background on it. But
3:33:17thank you for each of you for taking the
3:33:19time.
3:33:19>> I think you can watch it later tonight
3:33:21when you're back in your uh apartment if
3:33:23you have a few hours. Okay.
3:33:29Uh, yield back.
3:33:30>> Thank you, Mr. Norman. Um, seeing no
3:33:33further members here to ask any
3:33:37questions, I thank our witnesses for
3:33:39being here. And you are excused.
3:33:54>> Come.
3:33:58Which one?
3:33:59>> Thank you.
3:34:00>> Thank
3:34:05you.
3:34:07>> I now welcome our next panel, Chairman
3:34:10Hill, Ranking Member Waters from the
3:34:13House Financial Services Committee.
3:34:32Your full statements will be submitted
3:34:34for the record and we ask that you
3:34:37summarize your statement in five
3:34:39minutes.
3:34:47>> Chairman Hill,
3:34:49I welcome your testimony.
3:35:06Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure
3:35:07to be with the rules committee today to
3:35:10talk about HR6955,
3:35:13which is the Main Street Capital Access
3:35:15Act that was introduced by myself along
3:35:18with the chair of our subcommittee, Andy
3:35:20Bar of Kentucky.
3:35:25Since becoming chairman of the
3:35:26committee, I've made it a priority to
3:35:27restore strength and vitality to
3:35:29America's community banks. These
3:35:31institutions are foundational to our
3:35:33financial system, indispensable to our
3:35:36economy, and a unique strength of our
3:35:39country. The legislation before you is
3:35:41about one simple idea. Let's help
3:35:43community lenders make it easier for
3:35:45small businesses and entrepreneurs to
3:35:47access the capital they need to grow,
3:35:50hire workers, and strengthen Main Street
3:35:52America. For many small businesses, the
3:35:55greatest obstacle to expansion is not a
3:35:58lack of good ideas or hard-working
3:36:00employees, but it's access to financing.
3:36:03Community banks and credit unions remain
3:36:05the backbone of small business lending
3:36:07across the country, particularly in
3:36:09rural communities and in smaller cities.
3:36:12Recently during our debates about
3:36:14comprehensive housing policy that the
3:36:16ranking member and I were engaged in,
3:36:19you heard me say time and time again
3:36:22that six out of 10 home construction
3:36:24loans come from our community banks
3:36:26under $10 billion.
3:36:29Our community banks and their credit
3:36:30unions uh they know their customers.
3:36:32They understand local markets and
3:36:34they're often willing to finance
3:36:35businesses that larger institutions
3:36:38overlook.
3:36:39Unfortunately, over time, outdated
3:36:41regulatory requirements have made it
3:36:43increasingly difficult for those
3:36:45community focused institutions to deploy
3:36:47their capital efficiently. Compliance
3:36:50costs have risen dramatically and
3:36:52resources that could otherwise be used
3:36:54to make loans instead have been uh
3:36:56devoted to navigating unnecessary
3:36:59regulatory burdens.
3:37:02The Main Street Capital Access Act takes
3:37:04meaningful steps to modernize these
3:37:06requirements while preserving the safety
3:37:08and soundness of our financial system.
3:37:10It removes barriers that unnecessarily
3:37:12restrict the flow of capital to local
3:37:14businesses without compromising our
3:37:17strong supervisory framework that
3:37:20protects consumers and maintains
3:37:22confidence in our banking system. This
3:37:24legislation recognizes an important
3:37:26reality
3:37:28that regulation should be tailored to
3:37:30risk.
3:37:32Requirements designed for the nation's
3:37:34largest and most complex financial
3:37:36institutions should not automatically
3:37:38apply in the same manner to
3:37:39community-based lenders whose business
3:37:42model is centered on relationship
3:37:44banking and serving local communities.
3:37:46By improving the regulatory environment
3:37:48for these smaller institutions, we
3:37:50expand opportunities for small
3:37:51businesses that depend on them.
3:37:54Several times this year, uh, Congress
3:37:57has, uh, taken on a strong bipartisan
3:38:00basis votes and passed this kind of
3:38:03concept of tailored regulatory
3:38:05compliance based on business size and
3:38:07complexity. This approach means that
3:38:09greater access to financing for
3:38:12manufacturers looking to purchase new
3:38:13equipment, family-owned restaurants
3:38:15seeking to open a second location,
3:38:17farmers investing in new technology, and
3:38:19entrepreneurs starting businesses right
3:38:22along all of our main streets. This is
3:38:24not about weakening oversight. It's
3:38:27about making sure that our regulatory
3:38:28framework is efficient, effective, and
3:38:31appropriately calibrated. Strong
3:38:33financial institutions and vibrant local
3:38:35economies are complimentary goals, not
3:38:38competing ones. And the benefits of
3:38:40increased access to capital extend well
3:38:42beyond individual businesses. When small
3:38:44businesses can obtain financing, they
3:38:46hire employees, increase wages, invest
3:38:48in their communities, and generate
3:38:50greater economic growth. These
3:38:52investments ripple outward, supporting
3:38:54suppliers, creating new opportunities,
3:38:56and strengthening local tax bases that
3:38:58fund schools, infrastructure, and
3:39:01essential public services. At a time
3:39:03when many many small businesses continue
3:39:05to face inflationary pressures, higher
3:39:07borrowing costs, and economic
3:39:09uncertainty, Congress should be looking
3:39:11for practical bipartisan ways to remove
3:39:14unnecess unnecessary barriers to growth.
3:39:17This legislation does precisely that.
3:39:20The Main Street Act spurs new bank
3:39:22formation, tackles banking deserts, and
3:39:25lowers significant barriers for new
3:39:27banks. It reforms the bank supervisory
3:39:30process to make it more transparent. The
3:39:32bill brings common sense tailoring back
3:39:34to bank regulation based on an
3:39:37institution size, business model, and
3:39:39risk profile. And it provides certainty
3:39:42around regulatory approval of bank
3:39:45mergers and acquisitions. The bill
3:39:47improves bank resolution framework in a
3:39:49way that protects depositors, promotes
3:39:51greater competition, and allows smaller
3:39:53banks to meaningfully participate in the
3:39:56bidding process for the assets of a bank
3:39:58that has failed. It helps banks attract,
3:40:01retain, and enhance their funding
3:40:03sources to better serve American
3:40:05families and business. All in all, in my
3:40:07view, the Main Street Capital Access Act
3:40:10reflects the principle that federal
3:40:11policy should encourage responsible
3:40:14lending, promote economic opportunity,
3:40:16and ensure that our community financial
3:40:18institutions can continue to serve the
3:40:20businesses and families that rely on
3:40:22them every day. I urge my colleagues to
3:40:24support HR6955,
3:40:26and I thank the chair, and I yield back
3:40:28the balance of my time.
3:40:30>> Thank you, Chairman Hill. Ranking member
3:40:33Waters, you're recognized.
3:40:34>> Thank you very much. Uh, thank you, Cher
3:40:37Fox. We all care about community banks
3:40:40and credit unions. For that reason, I
3:40:42was pleased to work with Chair Hill on a
3:40:45package of community bank provisions
3:40:47included in our landlord marked housing
3:40:51bill, the 21st Century Road to Housing
3:40:53Act. Oh, there it is. Now, even though
3:40:57Trump refused to sign it, that
3:40:59legislation has become the law of the
3:41:01land. And those provisions help
3:41:04community lenders and not mega banks,
3:41:08big tech, payment apps, or even payday
3:41:12lenders, debt collectors, and credit
3:41:15bureaus. Unfortunately, that is not the
3:41:18case for the bill before you today.
3:41:21HR6955
3:41:23is a Wall Street deregulation hiding as
3:41:27a community bank bill. This package is
3:41:30made up of 24 Republican bills with just
3:41:33two Democratic bills. Tomorrow, Madame
3:41:36Chair, we mark the 16th anniversary of
3:41:39the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and
3:41:42Community Protection Act becoming law.
3:41:46That law was passed in response to the
3:41:492008 financial crisis when in case my
3:41:54Republican colleagues have forgotten,
3:41:57millions of Americans lost their jobs,
3:41:59their homes, and their life savings. But
3:42:02this package ignores those lessons and
3:42:05rolls back a long list of safeguards and
3:42:08oversight of the largest banks.
3:42:10Importantly, the nation is grappling
3:42:13with an affordable affordability crisis
3:42:17and surge in financial scams and fraud
3:42:20costing consumers tens of billions of
3:42:23dollars. This is all made worse because
3:42:27Trump has shut down the Consumer
3:42:30Financial Protection Bureau. Voting for
3:42:32HR6955
3:42:34would add insult to injury by hampering
3:42:38a future CFPB from issuing new rules
3:42:42such as reigning in debt collectors or
3:42:44abusive medical debt practices. But
3:42:48maybe that is the point. Furthermore,
3:42:51Madame Chair, this bill ignores the
3:42:53lessons from the failure of Silicon
3:42:55Valley Bank and other regional banks
3:42:58just three years ago. These large re
3:43:02regional banks failed after Congress
3:43:05rolled back capital, liquidity, and
3:43:08other rules specifically for those
3:43:10banks. Nevertheless, this bill lets even
3:43:14more of these large banks escape
3:43:17critical safeguards, risking more
3:43:20failures. In fact, the sponsors of this
3:43:23bill were so zealous uh to raise
3:43:26thresholds, they increase one threshold
3:43:29that will add bad actors who commit
3:43:32fraud against a bank. Yes, you can't
3:43:34make this up. There's a provision that
3:43:37will increase the amount individuals can
3:43:40defraud
3:43:42absolutely
3:43:44at a bank by then turn around and obtain
3:43:49subsidized financing from the government
3:43:52for those assets from the fail bank.
3:43:54HR6955
3:43:56also falls well short of what we know
3:43:59can be done on a bipartisan basis to
3:44:02promote, preserve, and enhance access to
3:44:05banking services for Main Street
3:44:07communities. I have a letter led by the
3:44:11National Community Reinvestment
3:44:13Coalition and signed by organizations
3:44:16all over the country including Alabama,
3:44:20Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
3:44:23Utah.
3:44:25They are opposed because the bill would
3:44:28quote sharply
3:44:31limit monopoly and competition review
3:44:34for mergers involving roughly 96% of all
3:44:39banks
3:44:43compress merger review and sideline
3:44:46community evidence and weaken fair
3:44:50lending accountability. Americans for
3:44:53Financial Reform and other leading
3:44:55consumer group organization wrote a
3:44:58letter saying, I quote,
3:45:01"This radical legislation would compound
3:45:05an already aggressive deregulatory
3:45:08spree. Taken together, these changes
3:45:11would be more damaging uh than the sum
3:45:15of their parts, leaving the financial
3:45:18system dramatically weaker and more
3:45:20vulnerable to instability and crisis,
3:45:23quote unquote. Now, Republicans made a
3:45:26few technical changes at the request of
3:45:28Trump regulators, but let me give you
3:45:31another example of what they didn't
3:45:33change. Wells Fargo, which many of you
3:45:36may remember created millions of fake
3:45:39consumer accounts and has been the
3:45:41subject of countless enforcement actions
3:45:44for consumer harm like discrimination
3:45:47and anti-money laundering deficiencies
3:45:51would have a new tool to delay future
3:45:54enforcement actions even when consumers
3:45:57have been harmed. Madam Chair, instead
3:45:59of letting Wall Street put Americans and
3:46:03our economy at risk again, we should be
3:46:06working together to address the
3:46:08affordability crisis caused by Trump's
3:46:10failed economic policies and endless war
3:46:14with Iran. So,
3:46:17I urge members to oppose this bill, and
3:46:19I yield back the balance of my time.
3:46:23Um, thank you both. I'm going to defer
3:46:27my questions for um a little bit. Mr.
3:46:30Norman, you have any question? I'm
3:46:32sorry, Mr. Griffith. I should ask Mr.
3:46:34Griffin first. No,
3:46:35>> I have no questions.
3:46:36>> No questions.
3:46:38>> Miss Scandlin.
3:46:40>> Thank you. I I think we agree America
3:46:42needs a strong financial system that
3:46:45supports community banks and credit
3:46:47unions and small businesses because
3:46:49they're the backbones of our our local
3:46:52economies. But we're concerned because
3:46:55of instead of advancing targeted reforms
3:46:57to support those institutions, what we
3:46:59have here is bundling together of the
3:47:02largest package of banking and Wall
3:47:05Street deregulation since the 2008
3:47:08financial crisis. And it's just
3:47:11pretending to say that this is going to
3:47:12help Main Street instead of mega banks.
3:47:16Meanwhile, President Trump has spent the
3:47:18last year and a half dismantling the
3:47:20Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
3:47:23the agency that actually does protect
3:47:26families from predatory financial
3:47:28practices. So, we know the president's
3:47:30actions have already cost American
3:47:32consumers an estimated $19 billion
3:47:36in dismissed enforcement cases, pardon
3:47:39frauders, uh, rescended rules, and the
3:47:42gutting of the consumer complaint
3:47:44system. This bill would go even further
3:47:47by weakening the ability of banking
3:47:49regulators to protect consumers and
3:47:52preserve financial stability. I mean, if
3:47:55our Republican colleagues were serious
3:47:57about supporting Main Street, they would
3:47:59work across the aisle on targeted
3:48:01reforms that strengthen community banks
3:48:03without weakening the safeguards that
3:48:06protect consumers and taxpayers and the
3:48:09economy. Instead, once again, this bill
3:48:12asks the American people to take on more
3:48:14financial risk so the banking industry
3:48:17can make more money and face less
3:48:20accountability.
3:48:21So, you know, I'm not in favor of
3:48:24putting the thumb on the scale for
3:48:25billionaires and big businesses and and
3:48:27leaving the American people to shoulder
3:48:29the risk. Um, ranking member Waters,
3:48:33after the financial crisis in 2008, uh,
3:48:36Congress established a number of
3:48:38regulatory thresholds and supervisory
3:48:41authorities that this bill would change
3:48:43or roll back. Um, can you explain why
3:48:46those guardrails exist and what could
3:48:48happen if regulators lose the tools they
3:48:51need to identify problems before they
3:48:54become crises? And I think you mentioned
3:48:56some California banks. Well, thank you
3:48:58uh Representative Scolan. I just want to
3:49:01say in the way that you have described
3:49:04your concerns, that's exactly what is
3:49:07happening with this bill. As a matter of
3:49:09fact, I do believe that we have to be
3:49:12concerned about members who say that
3:49:16they support community banks. uh but
3:49:19really um they are using this as a way
3:49:23to hide uh the deregulatory efforts that
3:49:27have been made by uh some members on the
3:49:30opposite side of the aisle. And to tell
3:49:32you the truth, I think that with all of
3:49:35the good work that we have done uh with
3:49:37the big housing bill, Mr. Hill and I
3:49:40working together, a bipartisan effort.
3:49:43This will hurt some of what we've
3:49:46accomplished in making sure uh that we
3:49:49get rid of deregulatory work uh by many
3:49:53of those who would like to see the big
3:49:55banks uh continue uh to have more power
3:49:59and more control than they should. I
3:50:01referenced uh Wells Fargo uh when I
3:50:05spoke just a moment ago. Everybody
3:50:08remembers the fake accounts that were
3:50:10set up. Everybody knows we worked very
3:50:13hard. We worked so hard we were able to
3:50:16undo those who sat on the board and the
3:50:19CEO uh at one point so that we could try
3:50:22and clean up uh what was happening in
3:50:25Wells Fargo. Well, Wells Fargo really
3:50:28doesn't mind. It is a cost of doing
3:50:30business. We don't want our banks uh to
3:50:34be able uh to undermine um this kind of
3:50:38work that we have done um in order to uh
3:50:42say face you know for the big banks. And
3:50:44so this bill does not do uh what I think
3:50:48some will think it does in terms of
3:50:52support for community banks. In fact, I
3:50:55think will undermine much of the work
3:50:57that we have done. Well, I I do want to
3:51:00take the opportunity to thank Chairman
3:51:02Hill and yourself for the the incredible
3:51:04work you did in putting together the
3:51:06bipartisan housing bill and uh
3:51:09overcoming a number of obstacles, not
3:51:10the least of which is always the Senate
3:51:13to get that get that passed and
3:51:15hopefully start providing more housing
3:51:17options for Americans because I'm sure
3:51:19you hear as I do all the time how much
3:51:22housing problems are just driving uh so
3:51:24much of what's going on in our
3:51:26community. So, thank you for your work
3:51:28on that. I yield back.
3:51:30>> Thank you, Miss Kim. Mr. Norman,
3:51:33>> it's one of I thank both of you for
3:51:35coming. This is one of the few times,
3:51:36Maxine, I think you're kind of happy
3:51:38with this bill, which is a good thing.
3:51:40Uh, no, I appreciate your
3:51:42bipartisanship. Um, Chairman Hill, the
3:51:46camel's rating has been a subject of a
3:51:48lot of discussion. I know in my banking
3:51:51days where they felt like it was too
3:51:53much was left up to the whoever was
3:51:56judging the sensitivity, the capital
3:51:59adequacy, the
3:52:01>> has the appeals process is there a time
3:52:03limit? I noticed that's in there. If
3:52:05some if if a examiner is not fair and
3:52:10doesn't have the ratings that they feel
3:52:12is there adequate time for the appeal
3:52:15process and is there ending time to get
3:52:17an answer on it? I appreciate that, Mr.
3:52:20Norman. And let me start out by saying
3:52:22that I couldn't disagree more with the
3:52:25ranking membmber's opening statement on
3:52:27her positioning of this bill. This bill
3:52:28is aimed at the heart of America's
3:52:31consumer banking companies, our
3:52:33community lenders. There's nothing in
3:52:35this bill that's going to benefit the
3:52:37biggest banks in the country. In fact,
3:52:39to the contrary, this bill makes our
3:52:41local community banks and our small
3:52:43regional banks much more competitive
3:52:46with those big global Wall Street banks.
3:52:48It's just a fact. In fact, this bill
3:52:51allows them to now compete dramatically
3:52:53for both deposits and for resolution of
3:52:57banks when they fail so that these
3:52:59failed banks don't automatically go in
3:53:01the hands of one of the biggest banks
3:53:03headquartered in uh in New York, for
3:53:06example. And I can walk through more
3:53:08detail on that as we go through the the
3:53:10evening. But let me answer your
3:53:12question, Mr. Norman. Uh Don Regal, a
3:53:14Democratic senator from Michigan in the
3:53:161990s, said that one of the biggest
3:53:18frustrations he heard from his
3:53:20constituents in the Regal Neo bill that
3:53:23was signed into law in the 1990s by
3:53:25President Clinton. Uh that bill said
3:53:28that banks ought to be able to question
3:53:31an exam output in some orderly way to
3:53:34have an ombbudsman uh to allow them to
3:53:37assess with an independent view whether
3:53:40that bank had been treated fairly or
3:53:41not. And this was after uh really 10
3:53:45tumultuous years in the economy in the
3:53:471980s where a lot of banks failed all
3:53:49across the country and a lot of savings
3:53:51and loans failed. But the government
3:53:53never really fully implemented that. And
3:53:55so in this bill we have a provision that
3:53:58allows I think for a much more fair
3:54:00examination process that we got
3:54:03technical assistance from the regulators
3:54:05and from bankers. Is this a fair process
3:54:08by which people could question an exam
3:54:11output? I believe that's represented in
3:54:12the bill and also we facilitate in the
3:54:15bill that if they're not satisfied
3:54:16through that process they can go to
3:54:17federal court of course which is every
3:54:19citizen's right.
3:54:21>> Okay. Thank you Max. You have any
3:54:23comment on that? Well, you know, I'm
3:54:26just looking uh at what uh is in this
3:54:30legislation. Voting for HR6955
3:54:33would add insult to injury by hampering
3:54:37a future CFPB from issuing new rules
3:54:41such as reigning in debt collectors or
3:54:43abusive medical debt practices. But
3:54:46maybe uh that is the point. Um, I guess
3:54:49all that I'm saying when I point to
3:54:52Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is
3:54:55there's still a lot of work to be done
3:54:58uh to help our constituents. I want to
3:55:01tell you something I just read uh on the
3:55:04plane coming out.
3:55:06Walmart is putting beef under lock and
3:55:11key uh because the thievery that is
3:55:14going on by people who can't afford the
3:55:16increased price of beef uh anymore is
3:55:20just ruining um you know their profit
3:55:23margins on beef. And so why is this
3:55:26happening? It is happening because we
3:55:29have an affordability crisis. We need to
3:55:32be paying attention to what we do to
3:55:34protect our consumers. The Consumer
3:55:37Financial Protection Bureau is there to
3:55:41make sure uh that our big agencies who
3:55:44have so much power are not working on
3:55:47behalf of just big banks but on behalf
3:55:50of small banks. We can't excuse them. We
3:55:53can't let them off the hook. As a matter
3:55:55of fact, if you really want to do
3:55:57something for community banks, separate
3:56:00big banks from community banks in a real
3:56:03way instead of hiding big banks hiding
3:56:06behind legislation supposedly for
3:56:09community banks.
3:56:10>> Well, thank thank both of you
3:56:12testifying. Appreciate it. I yel back.
3:56:15>> Thank you, Mr. Norman. Miss Leisure
3:56:17Fernandez.
3:56:18Uh thank you so very much uh um madam
3:56:22chair for recognizing me and and for the
3:56:24conversation today. Uh you know one of
3:56:27uh I'm a big fan of uh the consumer
3:56:31financial protection bureau. Um, and I'm
3:56:34also very concerned that what we're
3:56:36seeing is President Trump is regularly
3:56:38pardoning fraudsters
3:56:41uh who provide tens of thousands,
3:56:44sometimes millions to his campaign or to
3:56:49his family's uh businesses and so forth.
3:56:52But who's standing up and fighting for
3:56:55consumers? Who's fighting for working
3:56:58families? who's fighting for the people
3:57:00who are holding those credit cards, who
3:57:02are seeing those big banks gouge them.
3:57:05And uh that has in the past been the
3:57:08Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus.
3:57:10And uh before President Trump took off
3:57:14uh office, uh the CFPB had returned $21
3:57:19billion
3:57:21to Americans cheated by scammers. $21
3:57:23billion,
3:57:25>> right?
3:57:25>> And that's their money. That's right.
3:57:27>> That's their money. Um, and but what
3:57:30we're seeing is that he's taken an axe
3:57:33to this great consumer protection
3:57:36bureau. He's fired staff. Uh, and uh,
3:57:40this has cost consumers. And so, what
3:57:43does this bill do to protect the
3:57:45Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? I
3:57:47mean, it needs protecting now, too,
3:57:48doesn't it? Uh, ranking member Waters.
3:57:51Well, um you aptly mentioned the
3:57:54Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
3:57:56which many of us have fought so hard, uh
3:57:59to have someplace for our consumers, uh
3:58:01to register their complaints. Prior to
3:58:04the Consumer Financial Protection
3:58:06Bureau, there was no place really in
3:58:09government uh that uh the average
3:58:11consumer uh could lodge a complaint.
3:58:14Well, I want you to know that the
3:58:16Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
3:58:18helped millions. and you just mentioned
3:58:20uh the return of uh of assets and money
3:58:24or whatever uh that our consumers were
3:58:26able to experience. And so if we don't
3:58:29have a consumer financial protection
3:58:31bureau, those people who are been
3:58:34treated badly, who have been ripped off,
3:58:36uh who have been taken advantage of
3:58:40really don't have anywhere to go. And so
3:58:43we've got to look out really for the
3:58:45consumer banks. We all, everybody knows
3:58:48that I and many of you, we really
3:58:51support the small banks. We really
3:58:54support the community banks. We wouldn't
3:58:56do anything uh to undermine the
3:58:59community banks, but this bill does
3:59:02that. It really undermines their ability
3:59:05to have a voice, uh to have someone
3:59:08that's going to speak up for them when
3:59:10they have been defrauded, etc., etc. And
3:59:13so, we've got to fight against the bill.
3:59:16I know some people will be tricked and
3:59:18they'll think that they'll be happy in
3:59:20community banks. Not true. And so I'm
3:59:23hopeful that we're able to get the
3:59:24message out so that people will
3:59:26understand like you do exactly what we
3:59:29have to be aware of.
3:59:32>> Uh with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
3:59:35>> Thank you very much. Uh Chairman Hill, I
3:59:39appreciated the comments that you made.
3:59:41Having grown up in an extremely rural
3:59:45area,
3:59:46I'm I'm very familiar with um how
3:59:50important rural banking is. Um
3:59:54and I have very strong feelings about
3:59:58how bad DoddFrank has been over the
4:00:01years. And I'm glad that to see your
4:00:04committee coming in
4:00:07to correct some some of the problems
4:00:11with DoddFrank.
4:00:13Um
4:00:16I I
4:00:18don't think that this hides the
4:00:20deregulatory
4:00:22effort on the part of Republicans. I
4:00:24think I'm we're very proud of the
4:00:26deregulatory efforts that we're putting
4:00:28out there and um what I am growing up
4:00:34again in a rural area, I'm quite
4:00:36familiar with how banks know how to make
4:00:39decisions because they know the people,
4:00:42they know the area, they can make a lot
4:00:45of great decisions based on on the area.
4:00:49And frankly, I get a little put out with
4:00:53the people who want to help us poor
4:00:55rural people
4:00:57whose institutions just can't get along
4:01:00without big regulations from Washington
4:01:03DC when they do much better. The bank in
4:01:08my community was a very small bank
4:01:12forever and ever and ever. the most
4:01:15profitable small bank in the United
4:01:18States for a long time and did a
4:01:21wonderful job.
4:01:23Um,
4:01:25uh, Miss Waters, you bring up the beef
4:01:28under lock and key.
4:01:30What about those flash mobs out there in
4:01:33California who came into the drugstores
4:01:36and the jewelry stores and stole when
4:01:38our economy was at its best in this
4:01:42country? It isn't it isn't the economy.
4:01:45It isn't the affordability that makes
4:01:48people thieves.
4:01:51It's bad values on their part.
4:01:55Um so I thank you both for coming today
4:01:58and bringing this good bill to us and I
4:02:02look forward to m
4:02:04>> discussing it. Do you have something
4:02:06you'd like to add? I'd like to add just
4:02:08because u a couple things that this bill
4:02:11is completely tailored to small banks.
4:02:15Just a few weeks ago on the House floor
4:02:17on the suspension calendar
4:02:20uh we gave regulatory relief on the
4:02:23suspension calendar 100% vote in this
4:02:26house by voice to tailor regulatory
4:02:30compliance for banks under $6 billion.
4:02:34of the 5,000 banks in this country,
4:02:36probably 4,500 of them are under $6
4:02:39billion. And it's precisely that theme
4:02:42that is in this bill. So, first of all,
4:02:45this bill is absolutely written and
4:02:48tailored to uh small community banks,
4:02:50both rural and urban. And if it's not,
4:02:53then why did the Opportunity Finance
4:02:55Network
4:02:56uh all across the country represent 500
4:02:58community development lenders? What
4:03:00about the National Bankers Association
4:03:02of African-American Banks? What about
4:03:05the CDFI Coalition of Urban, Rural, and
4:03:08Native Communities uh nationwide and the
4:03:11Community Development Bankers
4:03:13Association? All support this bill
4:03:16strongly because it has that balance in
4:03:18it. And then this assertion that this is
4:03:22weakening consumer protection or
4:03:24consumer laws. Nothing could be further
4:03:25from the case.
4:03:26>> I don't believe that at all. I I don't
4:03:28believe that has that assertion at all.
4:03:31>> I appreciate your speaking up. We
4:03:34>> we need to get Would you like to get
4:03:36those on the in the record?
4:03:37>> Well, I just would I would just simply
4:03:38say that there's this bill in no way we
4:03:41uh weakens consumer protection. Uh the
4:03:46laws on safety and soundness like if you
4:03:48want to stop a bank from unsafe or
4:03:50unsound activity are fully uh able to be
4:03:53implemented in this statute. And the
4:03:56same for consumer compliance on fair
4:03:58housing, fair lending, equal uh
4:04:00opportunity, uh credit opportunity. All
4:04:02those laws are in place and fully
4:04:04implementable by our supervisors.
4:04:06>> Well, without objection, I can insert
4:04:09those letters.
4:04:09>> Yeah, without objection of support um
4:04:12for for this bill and for community
4:04:15banking. I know the community bankers in
4:04:18North Carolina and I know how good they
4:04:20are.
4:04:20>> Madam Chair, may I
4:04:22>> Well, I'm going to int I'm going to
4:04:23recognize Mr. Scott.
4:04:25>> Okay,
4:04:26>> Miss Water.
4:04:28>> Madam Chair, u I appreciate um
4:04:34the chair and the ranking member being
4:04:36here today. Um
4:04:38Mr. Hill, do you have any further
4:04:40comments on the bill? I mean, I know I'm
4:04:42from a small town and uh regulatory
4:04:45relief with small banks, I think, is
4:04:47important.
4:04:49Well, I ran one of those small banks
4:04:51before I was in Congress. I ran it
4:04:53successfully throughout the financial
4:04:54crisis. Our bank grew and was more
4:04:56profitable in the years of the financial
4:04:59crisis and following the financial
4:05:00crisis and but we were operated in very
4:05:03small rural counties like 10,000 people
4:05:05in the county in the Mississippi Delta.
4:05:08And I know that I spent more time
4:05:10worried about the next compliance exam
4:05:12or hiring the next compliance officer
4:05:14than I did than hiring the next loan
4:05:16officer because of the one-sizefits-all
4:05:21approach on consumer compliance and
4:05:24safety and soundness laws. And what we
4:05:26do here is without comp uh compromising
4:05:29compliance or compromising safety and
4:05:31soundness, we tailor it to the business
4:05:33mission, size and complexity of the
4:05:36institution. And I think this will
4:05:38really help particularly small rural
4:05:40institutions. I was just in the
4:05:41chairwoman's state earlier today with a
4:05:44group of small uh banks from around
4:05:47North Carolina and and they explained to
4:05:49me how they thought this would benefit
4:05:51them specifically in that regard. And if
4:05:53they are better off then their customers
4:05:55are better off.
4:05:56>> That's exactly right.
4:05:58>> You go back to the gentleman.
4:05:59>> I I don't I don't do much banking
4:06:01anymore unfortunately. Uh, but I look
4:06:04forward to the day when I'm back in
4:06:06business and banking again. And I look
4:06:08forward to walking into a small
4:06:09community bank where they know me and I
4:06:11know them and I'm not just a number like
4:06:12you are with a Bank of America or one of
4:06:16those big boys.
4:06:16>> You know, you raised a good point there
4:06:18because I mentioned at the top that six
4:06:21out of 10 home construction loans are
4:06:22made by banks under 10 billion.
4:06:25>> If you ask the biggest banks uh uh in
4:06:28the country, what is your home
4:06:29construction portfolio in Arkansas? And
4:06:31the answer will be none. We don't do
4:06:33that business.
4:06:34>> A as well.
4:06:35>> And the pandemic exposed that uh the
4:06:38biggest banks like Bank America or other
4:06:40I'm not picking on Bank Americas but the
4:06:42largest five to 10 banks have a credit
4:06:45requirement and a credit box that
4:06:47doesn't facilitate reaching out to a lot
4:06:50of small rural entrepreneurial or local
4:06:52farm or local businesses. And that's why
4:06:54small our main street banks are
4:06:56essential. We don't want to be Canada
4:06:59with four banks. We want to have a
4:07:01diverse in size and diverse in location
4:07:04financial system. This bank, this bill,
4:07:06the Main Street Bill, will aid Main
4:07:08Street, not Wall Street and help achieve
4:07:10that.
4:07:10>> I know BB&T and Sunrust weren't
4:07:12necessarily your hometown community
4:07:15bank, but they originated that way and
4:07:17kind of kind of bought them. And, you
4:07:18know, kind of the bigger they get, the
4:07:21the less important you are to them and
4:07:23the less customer service you get out of
4:07:25them. And so I I'll just tell you the
4:07:27the small banks are the ones that that I
4:07:29very much want to make sure we're taken
4:07:31care of and I trust you, Chairman Hill,
4:07:33to do that. And so um and and
4:07:36competition is good for the marketplace.
4:07:38Y
4:07:38>> because that's where customer service
4:07:40will will succeed. With that, Madam
4:07:42Chair, I yield.
4:07:43>> Thank you very much. I thank our
4:07:45witnesses for being here. We have no
4:07:47other members here to ask questions. So,
4:07:50thank you all very much for patient
4:07:52waiting
4:07:54>> and uh
4:07:56appreciate your being here.
4:08:03>> I need a statement about
4:08:07>> No. Okay, never mind.
4:08:24doing amendments. Now
4:08:25>> I now welcome Miss Sparts, Mr.
4:08:28Magaziner, and Mr. Davidson.
4:08:42Um,
4:08:43>> Miss Sparts, you may submit your written
4:08:45testimony and we ask you to keep your
4:08:47remarks to five minutes.
4:08:51>> Yeah. Pull it close to you. So,
4:08:55>> okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
4:08:58Um, I want to explain why I did this
4:09:00amendment. Actually, that's an issue
4:09:03that came to my attention last week. uh
4:09:06it was on the floor when we had
4:09:08discussion about take care of America's
4:09:11veterans act and there was a lot of
4:09:13confusions and variety of ways to look
4:09:15at how we want to make sure that we
4:09:18going to fund the benefits for people
4:09:21when we go to send them to wars we're
4:09:22going to send them in the military and
4:09:24there was some concerns you know to be
4:09:26able to fund the Richard Star Act you
4:09:29know that uh you know we would um you
4:09:32know codify some of the VA actions that
4:09:36could potentially could cut benefits for
4:09:38future veterans and current military. So
4:09:40I think you know to be fair I think we
4:09:43need to make sure is that if we send
4:09:44people to war we're going to fund the
4:09:46benefits for them. So including the
4:09:48current military so I think there is a
4:09:50better solution. I think it should be
4:09:52bipartisan issue. So and you know major
4:09:55Richard I think most probably committee
4:09:57familiar what is this act is so it's
4:09:59kind of fixes in some way loophole if
4:10:01you are uh in the military and you're
4:10:03medically discharged uh and to your
4:10:06combat related military you are not
4:10:08there for 20 years so you cannot get
4:10:10fully full military retirement and full
4:10:13VA disabilities offset but ultimately if
4:10:16you got injured in combat you probably
4:10:18couldn't stay you know for 20 years so I
4:10:21think it's fair for those people who
4:10:23actually get this injury is that they
4:10:25can get both and uh I think this act
4:10:28which is I think the fiscal of this act
4:10:31about 9.4 4 billion, you know, but this
4:10:34is germaine to this reconciliation where
4:10:36we're going to be funding uh department
4:10:39of war and uh that's who is actually
4:10:42going to provide for military retirement
4:10:44uh full military retirement pension. Um
4:10:47I think this is you know shouldn't be a
4:10:49partisan issue. Uh Representative Jen
4:10:52Jeffrew and Anna Paulina Lunat
4:10:54sponsoring this amendment. I really
4:10:56appreciate that and uh I know that we're
4:10:59going to be dealing with some offsets
4:11:01later which is uh fine you know but uh
4:11:04we something could uh be dealing with
4:11:06this situation and whatever VA does
4:11:09really they can do some efficiencies
4:11:11they can change some things you know if
4:11:12they change something there are some
4:11:14savings it still goes to the bottom line
4:11:16to go to our national debt so ultimately
4:11:18if VA is going to be saving something 20
4:11:21billion you know 19 billion roughly so
4:11:23we'll still be 10 billions of savings if
4:11:26we just fund this particular act because
4:11:28these people truly deserve to have you
4:11:30know full pay through retirement pension
4:11:33and compensation. So I think my
4:11:34amendment is very simple. It just
4:11:36increases that what CBO score said. It
4:11:38cost us 9.4 billion to be able to you
4:11:41know treat treat our veterans and
4:11:43military fairly. So and this is just
4:11:46adds to the reconciliation as a separate
4:11:49amendment and um you know seems like it
4:11:51should be not even a partisan issue. I'd
4:11:53appreciate your support and in the long
4:11:56run, you know, I think it will al might
4:11:58even be able to save us money. But
4:12:00regardless what it is, if we send people
4:12:02to war, we should find the benefits when
4:12:04they come back. We have a lot of heroic
4:12:06people serving in the military in tough
4:12:07situations and we as a country should
4:12:10appreciate that. And I believe there's
4:12:12the best and brightest of our country
4:12:13that save our republic, fight for our
4:12:16republic. So I would appreciate
4:12:18bipartisan support of this amendment and
4:12:20happy to answer any questions. yield
4:12:22back.
4:12:24>> Mr. Magaziner.
4:12:29>> Thank you, Madam Chair and members of
4:12:31the committee. I come before you tonight
4:12:34disappointed but not surprised. I came
4:12:37to Congress to fight corruption, to stop
4:12:40bribes, to get dark money out of our
4:12:42elections, to ban members of Congress
4:12:45from profiting off their positions by
4:12:48trading on inside information. And for a
4:12:51brief moment, I thought we might
4:12:52actually get it done this year. I worked
4:12:55with a bipartisan group of Republican
4:12:57and Democratic members, including Mr.
4:13:00Roy, my my co-lead, to write a strong
4:13:03bill to ban stock trading in Congress
4:13:06once and for all. We introduced our
4:13:09bipartisan bill, the Restore Trust in
4:13:11Congress Act, with strong support from
4:13:14both sides of the aisle and the support
4:13:16of the American people who are disgusted
4:13:19by the corruption in Washington.
4:13:22But instead of letting us vote on that
4:13:24bill, the Republican majority is playing
4:13:28political games because they don't want
4:13:30change, because they want politicians to
4:13:33continue to get rich off of their
4:13:35positions. So, let's get one thing
4:13:37straight. The so-called stock trading
4:13:40ban that the House Republicans are
4:13:42pushing today would still allow members
4:13:44of Congress to trade stocks, to sell
4:13:48unlimited amounts at any time with
4:13:51insider knowledge, just like some former
4:13:54members sold stocks before the CO 19
4:13:57pandemic because they knew what was
4:13:59coming before everybody else did. That
4:14:01would still be allowed under this bill
4:14:03that's being pushed to the floor today.
4:14:06And under this bill, members would still
4:14:08be allowed to vote on healthc care
4:14:10policy knowing that they own a bunch of
4:14:12healthcare stocks, would still be
4:14:13allowed to vote on defense policy,
4:14:16knowing that they own defense company
4:14:17stocks, on AI policy, knowing that they
4:14:20own the stocks of those same AI
4:14:22companies. This bill would do nothing to
4:14:24end the conflicts of interest in order
4:14:28to make Congress work for the American
4:14:29people and not just the insiders. In
4:14:32addition, the Republican leadership has
4:14:34combined their bad bill with a
4:14:38completely unrelated and controversial
4:14:41bill about election administration.
4:14:44So, whatever you think about that issue,
4:14:46whatever you think about voter ID, the
4:14:49decision to combine the two into one
4:14:52bill rather than allow separate votes
4:14:55shows that the Republican majority
4:14:57doesn't really want any of this to pass.
4:14:59It's just a political game to them. So,
4:15:03I have introduced an amendment that will
4:15:05strike the language of this unserious
4:15:08fake reform bill that the Republican
4:15:10leadership has put in front of us and
4:15:12replace it with the language from the
4:15:15bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress
4:15:18Act. A real ban on members of Congress
4:15:22owning and trading stocks with no
4:15:24gimmicks and no exceptions. the same
4:15:27exact bipartisan language that Mr. Roy
4:15:29and a lot of other Republican members
4:15:32came together with us to introduce last
4:15:34year. That is the better bill because it
4:15:36actually bans stock trading as opposed
4:15:39to the one that the leadership is trying
4:15:41to jam through today which does not and
4:15:42everybody knows it. But there's one
4:15:45other thing that we must do. When we got
4:15:49our bipartisan group together and we
4:15:51started working on the Restore Trust in
4:15:54Congress Act, there wasn't a lot of talk
4:15:56then about the president trading stocks
4:15:58because up until that point, President
4:16:01Trump, for all of his many faults, had
4:16:04not been an active stock trader while in
4:16:07office. But over the past year, that has
4:16:10changed dramatically.
4:16:12So far in 2026, and listen to this, so
4:16:15far in 2026,
4:16:17President Trump has traded more stocks
4:16:20than every member of Congress combined
4:16:24based on the public filings. He bought
4:16:27Nvidia stock right before he lifted
4:16:29export controls on Nvidia chips. He
4:16:33bought and sold defense stocks when
4:16:35making decisions about the Iran war. He
4:16:37even bought stocks of the parent company
4:16:40of the UFC right before the UFC fights
4:16:43on the White House lawn. No stock
4:16:46trading ban is complete if it doesn't
4:16:48also include the president of the United
4:16:51States. So in addition to fully banning
4:16:53stock trading in Congress, my amendment
4:16:56also will ban stock trading by the
4:16:58president, the vice president, and the
4:17:00Supreme Court. Let's root out corruption
4:17:02everywhere. That is what the American
4:17:04people want and deserve for us to do.
4:17:07And I yield back.
4:17:09>> Thank you very much, Miss Pedorch.
4:17:12You're recognized. Thank you, Chairwoman
4:17:15Fox and members of the committee. Uh I
4:17:17appreciate Chairman Styles leadership on
4:17:19this legislation and I support all the
4:17:22goals of this legislation. I have
4:17:24amendment before you that deals
4:17:26specifically and narrowly with some of
4:17:28the voter ID provisions in this bill. I
4:17:32like most Americans believe that only uh
4:17:35eligible American citizens should vote
4:17:37in our elections. Requiring voters to
4:17:40present photo ID is a common sense way
4:17:43to do that. Americans deserve confidence
4:17:46that every legal vote is counted and
4:17:48only legal votes are counted. My
4:17:50amendment fully supports that objective.
4:17:54In fact, my amendment exists because
4:17:56North Dakota already meets and in many
4:17:58respects exceeds the legislation, the
4:18:01election integrity standards this bill
4:18:04is designed to establish. North Dakota
4:18:07is the only state in the nation that
4:18:08does not require voter registration.
4:18:11Instead, for more than 70 years, we've
4:18:13relied on a different system that
4:18:16emphasizes continuous voter verification
4:18:18rather than voter registration. Because
4:18:21of that system, North Dakota is exempt
4:18:24from the National Voter Registration
4:18:26Act. Our system already requires voters
4:18:29to present photo ID before voting. It
4:18:32verifies citizenship and residency
4:18:34through official state records. Our
4:18:37Secretary of State continuously updates
4:18:39our voter eligibility using information
4:18:41on residency changes, deaths, and other
4:18:44eligibility records maintained by the
4:18:46state. North Dakota has strong
4:18:49safeguards for absentee and mail-in
4:18:51voting. Voters must verify their
4:18:54identity before receiving and casting a
4:18:56ballot, and our election administrators
4:18:59maintain secure chain of custody
4:19:01procedures throughout the absentee
4:19:03ballot voting process. Our election laws
4:19:06are also include accommodations that
4:19:08work well for tribal communities while
4:19:10maintaining election integrity. Simply
4:19:13put, North Dakota has developed a system
4:19:15that is tailored to our state, protects
4:19:18the integrity of our elections, and has
4:19:20worked su successfully for decades. The
4:19:24concerns raised by our secretary of
4:19:26state is not with the purpose of
4:19:28chairman styles bill. We support its
4:19:30purpose. The concern is that the bill
4:19:32amends the Help America Vote Act in ways
4:19:35that assume every state has a voter
4:19:37registration system. As currently
4:19:40drafted, portions of this bill expand
4:19:42requirements that are common practices
4:19:45for voter registration. This includes
4:19:48collection of social security numbers,
4:19:50use of military IDs and voter affidavit,
4:19:54and other procedures that simply don't
4:19:56exist in North Dakota.
4:19:59In the opin opinion of the Secretary of
4:20:01State of North Dakota, those changes
4:20:03would weaken North Dakota's election
4:20:05integrity by requiring us to move away
4:20:07from the system that already exceeds the
4:20:10objectives Congress is trying to achieve
4:20:12today. My amendment is narrow. It does
4:20:15not weaken voter ID requirements. It
4:20:18does not weaken election integrity. It
4:20:21does not create a loophole. It simply
4:20:23preserves North Dakota's long-standing
4:20:25election system. We should avoid
4:20:27unintentionally replacing one of the
4:20:29strongest election integrity systems in
4:20:31the country with requirements that were
4:20:33never designed for a state without voter
4:20:36registration. I respectfully ask the
4:20:38committee to make my amendment in order.
4:20:41Thank you. I yield back and look forward
4:20:42to your questions.
4:20:44>> Thank you, Miss Fedoric.
4:20:46Mr. Davidson, you're recognized.
4:20:49>> Uh, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and
4:20:50thanks to the rules committee for the
4:20:52work you do here. Um, you know, we have
4:20:54a number of bills that comprise
4:20:56consideration as part of this rule. So,
4:20:58I will once again plead that we uh fix a
4:21:02problem, an unconstitutional and
4:21:04ineffective surveillance uh tool called
4:21:08the Corporate Transparency Act.
4:21:09Democrats installed it in the FY2021
4:21:13National Defense Authorization Act. And
4:21:15for some reason, Republicans want to
4:21:17unilaterally disarm and not include even
4:21:20the ability to consider this as an
4:21:22amendment. Uh whereas Democrats put it
4:21:24into the base text, wouldn't allow
4:21:25amendments, and forced it into law.
4:21:28They've done rulemaking that made a bad
4:21:30law even worse in practice. But
4:21:32thankfully, the Trump administration uh
4:21:35has a rule in place that minimizes that
4:21:38impact.
4:21:40The bill I've got that relates to this
4:21:42has 193 co-sponsors. This is broadly
4:21:45supported and it locks in what the
4:21:47administration's doing, but it makes it
4:21:49law. So, I plead with the committee,
4:21:51please make this in order and ideally
4:21:54just incorporated into the base text. I
4:21:56think that would be a better way to do
4:21:57it. We're also talking about budget
4:21:59reconciliation again. And look, um,
4:22:04you know, reconciliation is an important
4:22:05tool. We are in the House, I think
4:22:07uniformly, frustrated by the Senate at
4:22:10times, but uh we're requesting $95
4:22:13billion unoffset.
4:22:16One of the tools in budget
4:22:17reconciliation is to do just that. One
4:22:19of the points of the budget
4:22:20reconciliation act is to pay for our
4:22:23spending.
4:22:25Sound money is essential to defending
4:22:26freedom. We don't currently have sound
4:22:28money. And since we don't have sound
4:22:30money, we must cut spending and grow
4:22:32revenue. Since we aren't cutting
4:22:35spending, uh we should at least
4:22:37prioritize our spending so that we avoid
4:22:39increases that outpace our revenue
4:22:41growth. And while our revenue growth is
4:22:43strong, um our spending is growing even
4:22:47faster. So there there I'd ask unanimous
4:22:52consent to submit this for the record.
4:22:55This is just a summary of that. But
4:22:56>> without objection,
4:22:57>> thank you, Madam Chairwoman. But look,
4:23:00there there are easy ways to save money.
4:23:03Uh conservative groups have provided
4:23:05them for us. Uh we debated them uh
4:23:08through reconciliation one,
4:23:10reconciliation two. The Republican study
4:23:13committees consolidated them and various
4:23:15other uh colleagues have worked on this
4:23:17for years. So I have four amendments.
4:23:20One would save $4 trillion on the
4:23:2310-year budget scoring window. And I
4:23:26don't think that's incredibly hard to
4:23:28do. Uh, and I think importantly, look,
4:23:31this is a budget window that because of
4:23:32our rules, we lay out a 10-year window.
4:23:35Well, what happens inside that 10-year
4:23:37window? In 2032,
4:23:39the Social Security trust fund quits
4:23:42working, which is the payroll taxes that
4:23:44are collected uh become insufficient to
4:23:47cover the payouts. And under current
4:23:49law, as scored in our budget and all of
4:23:51our CBO scores that go from 2032 and
4:23:54beyond, they assume under current law
4:23:56that we're going to cut spending on
4:23:58social security by 20%. Now, I don't
4:24:00believe a future Congress is going to do
4:24:01that, but I think it's irresponsible for
4:24:03us to put a budget out that pretends
4:24:05that that would even happen. So this
4:24:08first amendment creates a mandate that
4:24:10all savings, all of the savings that we
4:24:13get from budget reconciliation would go
4:24:15into that social security fund because
4:24:17it protects it. You know, bad news
4:24:19doesn't get better with time. Kicking
4:24:20the can down the road isn't going to
4:24:21make this easier to solve down the road.
4:24:24We should protect social security. And I
4:24:25think this would be a good way to do
4:24:27both things. I've got a related
4:24:29proposal, a separate amendment, $2.6
4:24:31trillion. I got a different one that's a
4:24:33little easier. That's $1.25 trillion.
4:24:36And since we're only asking for $95
4:24:38billion worth of new debt, I got one
4:24:41that would save $95 billion, but it
4:24:43would lock it in every stinking year.
4:24:45Look, we're bankrupting our country.
4:24:47It's not compassionate to bankrupt the
4:24:49country. $5 foot longs are $12. Houses
4:24:53have gone up 80% and payroll tax,
4:24:55payroll wages have not gone up like
4:24:57that. And it's because we're spending
4:24:59too much money. So regardless of how
4:25:02important it is, we paid for we we we
4:25:04fought last week over a veterans bill.
4:25:06Caring for our veterans is a first order
4:25:08priority, but because of the rules of
4:25:10the house and common sense, we found pay
4:25:12fors. Now, the payfors created a debate
4:25:16uh here and people thought maybe we
4:25:17could find better pay fors, but the
4:25:19principle was we're going to pay for it.
4:25:20But you're telling me this new $95
4:25:23billion request we don't have to pay
4:25:24for? I I'm offended. Now, lastly, we're
4:25:28talking about uh, you know, a bill that
4:25:30deals with insider trading. And I I do
4:25:33object to calling it insider trading,
4:25:35stop insider trading act, because
4:25:36insider trading is already illegal. Um,
4:25:39and and so I think we're confusing
4:25:41people. Insider trading is already a
4:25:43crime. But you do get access to a lot of
4:25:45information in Congress. I think the
4:25:46ethics rules already steer people to do
4:25:48the right thing. Um, but passing this
4:25:50law makes sense, but it should make
4:25:52sense for the executive branch and the
4:25:54judiciary branch, too. So I have an
4:25:56amendment that would apply this equally
4:25:58to all SCES employees and above in the
4:26:00executive branch. So that would include
4:26:02cabinet secretaries, all elected
4:26:03officials in the executive branch and
4:26:05would include uh the judiciary branch as
4:26:08well. So I'd plead with you to make all
4:26:10of my amendments in order. Let's give us
4:26:12a chance to represent the people that
4:26:13sent us here to represent them. And I
4:26:15yield back.
4:26:17>> Thank you, Mr. Davidson.
4:26:20Um does any member on our side have any
4:26:24questions?
4:26:27Mr. McGover, ju
4:26:28>> just briefly, Mr. Davis and I, you know,
4:26:30um we objected to the um your veterans
4:26:32bill because you cut veterans benefits
4:26:34to pay for other veterans benefits. U
4:26:36but if you're going to pay for a
4:26:38veterans benefits, then you ought to pay
4:26:39for the war. Um and this doesn't do
4:26:41that. And Mr. Spartz, uh I asked
4:26:43Chairman Arrington, um here I have an
4:26:45amendment similar to yours on the
4:26:46Richard Star Act whether he'd be open to
4:26:49allowing us to make that in order. and I
4:26:51got a blank stare. So, I don't know
4:26:53whether he was having a moment or
4:26:55whether he was just trying not to answer
4:26:57the question. Uh, but I would hope that
4:26:59if your amendment gets blocked um that
4:27:03um that you will sign the discharge
4:27:05petition because otherwise I don't see
4:27:07how we're ever going to get a vote on
4:27:08it. So, I hope that you'll sign the
4:27:10discharge petition if they block your
4:27:11amendment. Otherwise, this is all talk.
4:27:13And Mr. the magazine or Miss um uh
4:27:17Fedorich. I mean um just so you know uh
4:27:20when Chairman Style came up to testify
4:27:23um he wrote a letter uh that's a little
4:27:26different than a lot of other chair uh
4:27:28who request rules. They usually request
4:27:30an appropriate rule. Um but he was
4:27:33pretty clear um he wants a totally
4:27:36closed rule uh to govern this uh issue.
4:27:39Um, and I understand why because they
4:27:42don't want uh to expand their uh and
4:27:45make more effective the this stop
4:27:47insider trading act. Um, and I don't
4:27:49know what what the problem is um with
4:27:52North Dakota. Uh, but uh but the point
4:27:55of matter is um you know we'll see what
4:27:57happens but he specifically asked for a
4:27:59totally closed rule. Yeah.
4:28:00Okay. To clarify, I just want to make
4:28:02sure that you know we can try to fund a
4:28:05lot of things and I think the version
4:28:07that you have on the charge position is
4:28:08roughly $90 billion. You know, so let's
4:28:10just find 9 billion to fund. It's 10
4:28:13times more. Let's just find 9 billion to
4:28:15fund. You know what I'm just saying?
4:28:17Make your
4:28:18>> No, I No, I'm just saying let's just
4:28:20find what I'm just saying. We can let's
4:28:22find 9 billion to truly deal with an
4:28:24issue of combat veterans. You know, not
4:28:27not expanded that. But if they don't
4:28:28make an amendment in order for
4:28:30>> Would you would you do something that is
4:28:31a lower amount or not? Not not 90
4:28:33billion. 90 billion is a lot.
4:28:34>> Unfortunate the ventures will be very
4:28:36difficult.
4:28:36>> No, we do. No, I think we need to do if
4:28:38we need to fund something, not more
4:28:39things, you know. So,
4:28:41>> so
4:28:41>> it sounds like the answer is no.
4:28:43>> Well, well, your bill is too broad, you
4:28:45know. We need to truly deal with an
4:28:47issue, we need to deal, not do more and
4:28:48more. So, I think this is a bill. So,
4:28:50will you support this on the floor? That
4:28:52this version
4:28:53>> veterans are are very disappointed. No,
4:28:55they're very disappointed because it
4:28:56seems like you don't want to support
4:28:57this amendment. You want to have more
4:28:59stuff. So, would you support this
4:29:00amendment,
4:29:02>> ranking member, would you support this
4:29:049.4 billion amendment?
4:29:05>> I have an amendment to make the Richard
4:29:07Star Act in order.
4:29:08>> So, you only support Democrat
4:29:09amendments. You don't support Republican
4:29:10amendments.
4:29:11>> No, I but I
4:29:12>> seems like we should be bipartisan on
4:29:14this issue.
4:29:14>> Excuse me. You are in charge. Your party
4:29:17is in charge of this Congress and in
4:29:19charge of this committee. If your
4:29:20amendment is not made in order, it is
4:29:22not because four Democrats didn't vote
4:29:23for it. is because all of these
4:29:25Republicans voted against it. So the
4:29:28that's the issue and all I'm saying to
4:29:29you is if they don't make your amendment
4:29:31in order, will you sign the discharge
4:29:32petition so we can have a vote? And I
4:29:34think your answer is no. And that's
4:29:36>> well you have a different you have a
4:29:38different legislation on that petition.
4:29:40Thank you, Mr. Ranking member. But
4:29:41hopefully you can support if it's in
4:29:43order.
4:29:45>> Miss,
4:29:46>> thank you. Um, I do want to thank the
4:29:48representative from North Dakota for
4:29:50bringing forward the fact that our
4:29:52elections are constitutionally run by
4:29:56the states and and the fact that there's
4:29:58some issues with the legislation that's
4:30:00being uh pressed here. Um, and how it
4:30:04would be implemented in the states, I
4:30:05think, is really telling. Uh, Mr.
4:30:07Magazer, I I hope um that your
4:30:09amendments made in order. I certainly
4:30:11will be um voting for it myself, but you
4:30:15seem to have a fair amount of you know,
4:30:16you mentioned there was a lot of
4:30:17bipartisan support and uh that's
4:30:19including among members of the rules
4:30:21committee. So hopefully they will follow
4:30:24what they've already sponsored.
4:30:26>> Yeah. No, that's right. Thank you. And
4:30:28and again, when we introduced the
4:30:29Restore Trust in Congress Act last year,
4:30:31it was with broad bipartisan support,
4:30:33including by at least one of the
4:30:34Republican members of the rules
4:30:36committee. And I think, you know, to
4:30:38ranking member McGovern's point, you
4:30:40know, the reason that Chairman Style
4:30:41doesn't want an an open rule is because
4:30:43he knows that there is broad support in
4:30:45both parties for including the president
4:30:48and vice president and Supreme Court for
4:30:50having a real stock trading ban that
4:30:52actually bans stock trading and doesn't
4:30:54just pretend to. And so if we can open
4:30:56this up, then I think you'll find broad
4:30:58support on both sides and of course the
4:31:00American people as well.
4:31:01>> Thank you. I yield back.
4:31:04Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez.
4:31:07>> Uh, thank you for your amendments. Uh,
4:31:09we made many of the same points you did,
4:31:11Representative Davidson, of where
4:31:12they're willing to uh rack up the debt
4:31:15again, and we don't really see them
4:31:18willing to uh raise revenue. And so,
4:31:20we're going to have some amendments
4:31:21suggesting that there are ways to uh
4:31:23raise revenue to pay for what they want
4:31:25to uh do. And I I think it's like a
4:31:28halfstock trading ban. It's not really a
4:31:30trading ban. It is uh you and earlier
4:31:33today chairman still said no it's enough
4:31:35to just require disclosure of sales uh
4:31:39but that's not a ban is it of a position
4:31:41>> well we've had disclosure for over a
4:31:42decade and it hasn't fixed the problem
4:31:44all it's done is shown that there is a
4:31:46big problem and and again under this
4:31:48so-called stock trading ban that's not a
4:31:50stock trading ban members could still
4:31:52sell any amount at any time on any
4:31:54inside information and can still hold as
4:31:57much stock as they want while they're
4:31:58voting on the regular regulations and
4:32:01the laws for those same industries. So
4:32:03there'll still be a tremendous conflict
4:32:04of interest. And of course it does
4:32:06nothing to do address the the trader
4:32:10chief right now who is the president
4:32:11who's traded more than every member of
4:32:13Congress combined this year.
4:32:14>> Outrageous and uh corruption action. And
4:32:17thank you for your amendments. And with
4:32:19that, Madam Chair, thank you all for
4:32:21your uh coming forward and explaining
4:32:23your amendments. And I yel back.
4:32:26>> Thank you. Miss Pedor, did you have some
4:32:28other comment you wish to make?
4:32:30Uh, no. I just wanted to emphasize that
4:32:33the amendment I'm seeking is very narrow
4:32:36and it is recognizes that Northakota
4:32:38already meets and exceeds the standards
4:32:41that we're trying to create for the rest
4:32:42of the country. Uh, of which I strongly
4:32:45support.
4:32:47>> Thank you.
4:32:59Madam Chair,
4:33:02>> Mad Chair, may I ask unanimous consent
4:33:04to assert in the record written
4:33:05testimony from Representative Courtney
4:33:06in support of his amendment number 878
4:33:09to HR8800, which would authorize 610
4:33:12million for the construction of up to
4:33:13two medium landing ships by reducing
4:33:15funds authorized for the one big
4:33:18battleship program by 610 million.
4:33:21>> Without objection, is there anyone else
4:33:23seeking to testify on today's agenda?
4:33:27Seeing none, this closes the hearing
4:33:29portion of our meeting.
4:33:32The chair will be in receipt of a motion
4:33:35from the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
4:33:37Griffith.
4:33:38>> Madam Chair, I move the committee grant
4:33:40HR880,
4:33:42the National Defense Authorization Act
4:33:44for fiscal year 2027, a structured rule.
4:33:46The rule waves all points of order
4:33:47against consideration of the bill. The
4:33:49rule provides one hour of general debate
4:33:51equally divided and controlled by the
4:33:52chair and ranking minority member of the
4:33:54committee on armed services or their
4:33:55respective design. The rule provides
4:33:57that in lie of the amendment the nature
4:33:59of substitute recommended by the
4:34:00committee on armed services now printed
4:34:02in the bill and amendment the nature of
4:34:03substitute consisting of the text of
4:34:05rules committee print 119-33
4:34:09shall be considered as adopted and the
4:34:11bill is amended shall be considered as
4:34:12read. The rule waves all points of order
4:34:14against provisions in the bill as
4:34:16amended. The rule makes in order only
4:34:18those amendments printed in part A of
4:34:20the rules committee report. Amendments
4:34:23in block described in section three and
4:34:25proform amendments described in section
4:34:274.
4:34:28Each amendment shall be considered only
4:34:30in the order printed in the report may
4:34:32be offered only by a member designated
4:34:34in the report shall be considered as
4:34:35read. Shall be debatable for the time
4:34:37specified in the report equally divided
4:34:39and controlled by the proponent and an
4:34:42opponent. shall not be subject to
4:34:44amendment except as provided by section
4:34:46four of the rule and shall not be
4:34:47subject to a demand for division of the
4:34:50question. The rules wave wave the rule
4:34:52waves all points of order against the
4:34:54amendments printed in part A of the
4:34:55rules committee report or amendments in
4:34:57block described in section three of the
4:34:59rule. The rule provides that the chair
4:35:01of the committee on armed services or
4:35:02his design may offer amendments in block
4:35:05consisting of further amendments printed
4:35:06in part A of the rules committee report
4:35:09not earlier disposed of. Amendments in
4:35:11block shall be considered as read. Shall
4:35:13be debatable for 40 minutes equally
4:35:15divided and controlled by the chair and
4:35:17ranking minority member of the committee
4:35:18on armed services or their respective
4:35:21design shall not be subject to amendment
4:35:24except as provided by section four of
4:35:25the rule and shall not be subject to
4:35:27demand for division of the question. The
4:35:29rule provides that the chair and ranking
4:35:31minority member of the committee on
4:35:32armed services or their respective
4:35:33design may offer up to 10 pro-forma
4:35:35amendments each at any point for the
4:35:38purpose of debate. The rule provides one
4:35:40motion to recommit. The rule provides
4:35:42for consideration of HR 8884, the
4:35:45removing barriers to work for disabled
4:35:48Americans act under a closed rule. The
4:35:50rule waves all points of order against
4:35:52consideration of the bill. The rule
4:35:53provides that in lie of the amendment,
4:35:54the nature of substitute recommended by
4:35:56the committee of ways and means now
4:35:57printed in a bill and amendment the
4:35:59nature of substitute consisting of the
4:36:00text of rules committee print 119-34
4:36:04shall be considered as adopted and the
4:36:05bill as amended shall be considered as
4:36:08read. The rule waves all points of order
4:36:09against provisions in the bill as
4:36:11amended. The rule provides one hour of
4:36:13general debate equally divided and
4:36:14controlled by the chair and ranking
4:36:15minority member of the committee on ways
4:36:17and means or the respective design. The
4:36:19rule provides one motion to recommit.
4:36:21The rule further provides for
4:36:22consideration of H. Conres 113
4:36:25establishing the congressional budget
4:36:26for the United States government for
4:36:27fiscal year 2027 and setting forth the
4:36:30appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
4:36:32years 2028 through 2036 under a closed
4:36:35rule. The rule waves all points of order
4:36:37against consideration of the concurrent
4:36:39resolution. The rule provides one hour
4:36:41of general debate equally divided and
4:36:43controlled by the chair and ranking
4:36:44minority member of the committee on the
4:36:45budget or their respective design. The
4:36:48rule provides an amendment the nature of
4:36:50substitute consisting of the text of
4:36:52rules committee print 119-37 shall be
4:36:55considered as adopted and the con and
4:36:57the concurrent resolution as amended
4:36:59shall be considered as read. The rule
4:37:01permits the chair of the committee on
4:37:02the budget to offer amendments in the
4:37:04house per pursuant to section 305A5 of
4:37:08the congressional budget act of 1974 to
4:37:10achieve mathematical consistency. The
4:37:13rule further provides for consideration
4:37:15of HR7008
4:37:17the stop insider trading act under a
4:37:20closed rule. The rule waves all points
4:37:22of order against consideration of the
4:37:23bill. The rule provides that in l of the
4:37:25amendment the nature of substitute
4:37:26recommended by the committee on house
4:37:28administration now printed in the bill
4:37:29an amendment the nature of a substitute
4:37:30consisting of the text of rules
4:37:33committee print 119-38
4:37:35modified by the amendment printed in
4:37:37part B of the rules committee report
4:37:39shall be considered as adopted and the
4:37:41bill as amended shall be considered as
4:37:42read. The rule waves all points of order
4:37:44against provisions in the bill as
4:37:46amended. The rule provides one hour of
4:37:48general debate equally divided and
4:37:49controlled by the chair and ranking
4:37:51minority member of the committee on the
4:37:52house on house administration or their
4:37:55respective designates. The rule provides
4:37:56one motion to recommit. The rule further
4:37:58provides for consideration of HR6955
4:38:02the main street capital access act under
4:38:04a closed rule. The rule waves all points
4:38:07of order against consideration of the
4:38:08bill. The rule provides that in lie of
4:38:10the amendment the nature of substitute
4:38:11recommended by the committee on
4:38:12financial services now printed in the
4:38:13bill an amendment in the nature of
4:38:15substitute consisting of the text of
4:38:17rules committee print 119-35 shall be
4:38:20considered as adopted and the bill is
4:38:21amended shall be considered as read. The
4:38:23rule waves all points of order against
4:38:24provisions in the bill as amended. The
4:38:26rule provides one hour of general debate
4:38:27equally divided and controlled by the
4:38:29chair and ranking minority member of the
4:38:31committee on financial services or their
4:38:33respective design. The rule provides one
4:38:36motion to recommmit. Rule further
4:38:38provides for consideration of HR9770,
4:38:42the Continuing Appropriations Act 2027
4:38:45under a closed rule. The rule waves all
4:38:47points of order against consideration of
4:38:48the bill. The rule provides that the
4:38:49bill should be considered as read. The
4:38:50rule waves all points of order against
4:38:52provisions in the bill. The rule
4:38:53provides one hour of general debate
4:38:55equally divided and controlled by the
4:38:56chair and ranking minority member of the
4:38:57committee on appropriations or the
4:38:59respective design. The rule provides one
4:39:01motion to recommmit. Finally, the rule
4:39:03provides that in the engrossment of
4:39:04HR880,
4:39:07the clerk shall add the text of Senate
4:39:101383 is passed by the House as new
4:39:13matter at the end of HR880.
4:39:16Assign appropriate designations to
4:39:18provisions within the engrossment.
4:39:20conform cross references and provisions
4:39:22for short titles within the engrossment
4:39:25and be authorized to make technical
4:39:26corrections to include corrections in
4:39:28spelling, punctuation, page and line
4:39:30numbering, section numbering, and
4:39:31insertion of appropriate headings. And I
4:39:35so move.
4:39:40>> Thank you very much, Mr. Griffith. Um,
4:39:44is there um
4:39:48>> members? Yeah.
4:39:48>> Yeah. Sorry.
4:39:51Is there any discussion on the motion
4:39:53from the gentleman from Virginia?
4:39:55>> Madam Chair, we have several amendments.
4:39:57We're going to try to be quick, but six
4:39:58bills in one rule is an awful lot. But
4:40:00uh I have an amendment to the rule. I
4:40:01move the committee make an order
4:40:02amendment number 19 to H. Conres 113
4:40:05offered by myself which would add budget
4:40:07reconciliation instructions requiring
4:40:09the House Committee on Armed Services to
4:40:11submit changes in laws within its
4:40:13jurisdiction that increase direct
4:40:14spending by no less than 13 billion out
4:40:17of a 60 billion out of the $60 billion
4:40:19that Republicans allocated for the
4:40:21Department of Defense for the purpose of
4:40:22adding the major Richard Star Act to the
4:40:24reconciliation bill. Republicans gave
4:40:26DoD $150 billion last July. They haven't
4:40:29used half of it. Now they want to send
4:40:31another $60 billion for for the war
4:40:33again without paying for it. But when it
4:40:35comes to helping combat wounded
4:40:37veterans, Republicans insist on cutting
4:40:39benefits to other disabled veterans and
4:40:41raising VA home loan fees. That's BS and
4:40:43that's why your bill was pulled from the
4:40:45House floor last week. I urge a yes vote
4:40:47on my motion and I yield back and I'm
4:40:49going to ask for a recorded vote.
4:40:53>> You've heard the motion from Mr.
4:40:54McGovern. Is there any further
4:40:56discussion hearing? None. The question
4:40:59is on the amendment. All those in favor
4:41:02signify by saying I.
4:41:03>> I.
4:41:04>> Those opposed say no. No. Any opinion?
4:41:07Share the nose have it.
4:41:08>> Record a vote.
4:41:09>> The clerk will call the role.
4:41:11>> Mrs. Fishbach. Mr. Fishbach. No. Mr.
4:41:13Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs.
4:41:15Hchen. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy.
4:41:17No. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. No. Mr.
4:41:19Griffith. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack.
4:41:20Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern.
4:41:22>> I.
4:41:23>> Mr. McGovern. I Miss Gallen. Miss
4:41:24Gallen. I Mr. Noose. Mr. Ngus. I. M.
4:41:26Ledger Fernandez. M. Ledger Fernandez.
4:41:28I, Madam Chair.
4:41:29>> No.
4:41:29>> Madam Chair, no.
4:41:31>> Clerk will report the total.
4:41:32>> Four, seven A's.
4:41:34>> The nos have it. The amendments not
4:41:36agreed to. Further discussion.
4:41:37>> I have an amendment to the rule. I move
4:41:39the committee make an order amendment
4:41:40number 17 to H. Conres 113 offered by
4:41:42myself, which would add budget
4:41:44reconciliation instructions requiring
4:41:46the House Committee on Transportation
4:41:47and Infrastructure to submit changes in
4:41:49laws within its jurisdiction that
4:41:51provide $60 billion for natural disaster
4:41:54recovery efforts. Communities across the
4:41:56country have been devastated by natural
4:41:57na natural disasters. This budget
4:41:59resolution includes no money to help
4:42:01them recover, rebuild. If we're going to
4:42:03spend $60 billion more for Trump's war,
4:42:06we should spend the same amount helping
4:42:07people across the US who have lost their
4:42:10loved ones, friends, and homes, farms,
4:42:12and businesses due to natural disasters.
4:42:14I urge a yes vote on my motion and I
4:42:15yield back.
4:42:17>> Is there further discussion on the
4:42:18amendment from the government? Hearing
4:42:21none, the questions on the amendment.
4:42:22All those in favor signify by saying I.
4:42:25>> I.
4:42:25>> Those opposed say no. No. Chair.
4:42:29>> The clerk will call the role.
4:42:31>> Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbuck. No. Mr.
4:42:33Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs.
4:42:35Hen. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy. No.
4:42:37Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith.
4:42:40Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack.
4:42:42No. Mr. McGovern. Hi. Mr. McGovern. I
4:42:43Miss Gallen. Miss Gallen. I. Mr. Noose.
4:42:45Mr. Ngus. I M Ledger Fernandez. Miss
4:42:47Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair.
4:42:49>> No.
4:42:49>> Madam Chair. No.
4:42:50>> Clerk will report the total.
4:42:52>> Four. A 78.
4:42:53>> The nose have it. The amendments not
4:42:55agreed to.
4:42:55>> Madam chair, I have an amendment to the
4:42:57rule. I move the committee make an order
4:42:58amendment number 20 to H Conres 113
4:43:00offered by myself, which would create a
4:43:02point of order requiring that any
4:43:03reconciliation bill resulting from the
4:43:05Republicans's fiscal year 2027 budget
4:43:08resolution must be fully offset or paid
4:43:11for and must not increase the deficit.
4:43:13Um, and I would urge a yes vote on this.
4:43:16>> Is there further discussion on the
4:43:18amendment? Hearing none, the questions
4:43:20on the amendment. All those in favor
4:43:22signify by saying I.
4:43:23>> I.
4:43:24>> Those opposed say no. No. Any opinion?
4:43:27Chair of the for comment.
4:43:29>> The clerk will call the role.
4:43:30>> Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr.
4:43:32Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs.
4:43:34Sin. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy. No.
4:43:36Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith.
4:43:38Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack.
4:43:41No. Mr. McGovern. Hi.
4:43:42>> Mr. McGovern. I Miss Scan. Miss Gallen.
4:43:44I Mr. Negus. Mr. Ngus. I. M. Fernandez.
4:43:46M. Ledger Fernandez. I. Madam Chair.
4:43:48>> No.
4:43:48>> Madam Chair. No. Clerk will report the
4:43:50total
4:43:51>> for so nice
4:43:52>> and nose have it. The amendments not
4:43:54agreed to.
4:43:54>> Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the
4:43:56rule. I move the committee make an order
4:43:57amendment number one to H Conres 113
4:43:59offered by Representative Omar which
4:44:01would reverse the cuts to SNAP that were
4:44:03imposed by Republicans in their big ugly
4:44:05bill. Uh because of the big ugly bill
4:44:07Republicans enacted last year over 4
4:44:09million Americans have lost their food
4:44:10benefits including 1 million kids all
4:44:13give massive tax breaks to Jeff Bezos
4:44:15and other billionaire other
4:44:16billionaires. in the bill and the cuts
4:44:18haven't even been fully implemented yet.
4:44:19So, I'd urge a yes vote on this to uh to
4:44:22reverse these terrible cuts.
4:44:24>> Any further discussion on the amendment
4:44:26from Mr. McGovern?
4:44:28>> Just a reminder that Madam Chair, Mr.
4:44:31>> Just a reminder that anybody under the
4:44:33age of 18 or over the age of 64, 65 and
4:44:37over, or anybody who is medically or
4:44:39psychologically disabled and unable to
4:44:40work was exempt from the work
4:44:42requirements in our bill. Yeah, but
4:44:43they're not not exempt from losing their
4:44:45benefits and many of them are as we
4:44:46speak.
4:44:48>> Uh there's is there further discussion?
4:44:52Hearing none, the question is on the
4:44:54amendment. All those in favor signify by
4:44:56saying I.
4:44:57>> I.
4:44:58>> Those opposed? No. No. In the opinion,
4:45:00chair. No. Madam Chair,
4:45:02>> the clerk will call the role.
4:45:03>> Mrs. Fishbach.
4:45:04>> No.
4:45:05>> Mrs. Fishbag. No Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman.
4:45:07No. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Hen. Mr. Langworthy.
4:45:09Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. Mr.
4:45:11Scott. No. Mr. Griffith.
4:45:12>> Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack.
4:45:14No. Mr. McGovern. Hi.
4:45:15>> Mr. McGovern. I Miss Gatlin. Miss
4:45:17Gatlin. I Mr. Noose.
4:45:19>> Hi.
4:45:19>> Mr. Nagus. I Mr. Ledger. Fernandez. Mr.
4:45:21Ledger. Fernandez. I Madam Chair.
4:45:22>> No.
4:45:23>> Madam Chair. No.
4:45:24>> Clerk will report the total
4:45:25>> 48 78.
4:45:26>> The nose have it.
4:45:27>> Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the
4:45:29rule. I move the committee make an order
4:45:30amendments number nine to H. Conres 113
4:45:33offered by Representative Tonko, which
4:45:35would add a section to the budget
4:45:36resolution requiring that no taxpayer
4:45:38funds could be given by the Trump
4:45:40administration to people who were
4:45:41convicted of of assaulting law
4:45:44enforcement officers on January 6, 2021.
4:45:47Madam Chair, this fund's a disgrace.
4:45:49People who assaulted police officers
4:45:50should not be given compensation for
4:45:52doing so. Last week, acting attorney
4:45:54general Blanch testified that the fund
4:45:56was dead, but Senator Cornin during his
4:45:58questioning raised continued concerns
4:46:00that the administration has yet to
4:46:02commit to that in writing. So, I ask
4:46:03that this amendment be made in order so
4:46:05we can debate and vote on it.
4:46:08>> Is there any further discussion on Mr.
4:46:10McGovern's amendment? Hearing none, the
4:46:13question is on the amendment. All those
4:46:15in favor signify by saying I.
4:46:16>> I.
4:46:17>> Those opposed say no.
4:46:19>> No. Opinions, share the no.
4:46:21>> I ask for a roll call. The clerk will
4:46:23call the role.
4:46:24>> Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr.
4:46:26Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs.
4:46:28Houchen. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy.
4:46:30No. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. No. Mr.
4:46:32Griffith. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack.
4:46:34Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. Hi.
4:46:35>> Mr. McGover. I Miss Scanland. M.
4:46:37Scanland. I. Mr. Noose.
4:46:38>> Mr. Noose. I. M. Ledger. Fernandez.
4:46:40Miss. Ledger. Fernandz. I. Madam Chair.
4:46:42>> No.
4:46:42>> Madam Chair. No.
4:46:43>> Clerk will report the total.
4:46:44>> Four. Yes. Seven A.
4:46:46>> The NOS have it.
4:46:47>> Madam Chair, amendments not agree.
4:46:49>> I have an amendment to the rule. I move
4:46:50the committee make an order amendment
4:46:51number 14 to HR70008 offered by
4:46:54Representative O'Shei, which restores
4:46:56grants to states that require photo IDs
4:46:59without charge to eligible voters.
4:47:04>> Is there any further discussion to the
4:47:06amendment from Mr. McGovern? Hearing
4:47:09none, the question is on the amendment.
4:47:11All those in favor signify by saying I.
4:47:13>> I.
4:47:14>> Those opposed say no. No. Any opinion?
4:47:17Share the nose have it. The amendments.
4:47:18Ask for roll comments.
4:47:19>> Clerk will call the role.
4:47:21>> Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr.
4:47:23Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs.
4:47:25Hchen. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy.
4:47:27No. Mr. Scott. No.
4:47:29>> Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. Mr.
4:47:30Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. No.
4:47:32>> Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern.
4:47:33>> Hi.
4:47:34>> Mr. McGovern. I Miss Gallant. Hi. Miss
4:47:36Gallon. I Mr. Noose. Hi.
4:47:37>> Mr. Ngus. I Miss. Ledger. Fernandez.
4:47:39Miss. Ledger. Fernandez. I Madam Chair.
4:47:41>> No.
4:47:41>> Madam Chair. No.
4:47:42>> Clerk will report the total.
4:47:44>> Four. Yes. Sevens.
4:47:45>> The nos have it. The amendments not
4:47:47agree to.
4:47:47>> Chair. I have an amendment to the rule.
4:47:48I move the committee make an order
4:47:49amendment number 15 to HR70008 offered
4:47:52by Representative Davidson, which
4:47:53extends the stock trading restrictions
4:47:55the bill creates to judicial officers as
4:47:57well as all senior executive service
4:48:00positions and above uh including the
4:48:02president, the vice president, and any
4:48:04cabinet secretary and any political
4:48:06appointee. I just say if Republicans
4:48:08won't work with us to get a stock
4:48:10trading ban bill that is bipartisan and
4:48:12comprehensive, at least you can make an
4:48:14order, an amendment from one of your own
4:48:15members to expand the restrictions in
4:48:17this bill to include senior
4:48:18administration officials and judicial
4:48:20officers.
4:48:22>> Is there any further discussion on the
4:48:24amendment?
4:48:25Hearing none, the questions on the
4:48:27amendment. All those in favor signify by
4:48:29saying I.
4:48:29>> I.
4:48:30>> Those opposed say no. No.
4:48:32>> In the opinion chair, the nos have it.
4:48:34>> Ask for roll call.
4:48:36The clerk will call the role.
4:48:37>> Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr.
4:48:39Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs.
4:48:42Hen. Mrs. Hen. No. Mr. Langworthy. Mr.
4:48:44Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott.
4:48:46No. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr.
4:48:48Jack. Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. Hi.
4:48:50>> Mr. McGover. I Miss Gallon. Miss
4:48:52Gallant. I Mr. Noose. Hi. Mr. Noose. I.
4:48:54Miss. Ledger. Fernandez. M. Lecher.
4:48:56Fernandez. I. Madam Chair.
4:48:57>> No.
4:48:58>> Madam Chair. No.
4:48:59>> Clerk will report the total.
4:49:00>> Four. Yes. Eight nays.
4:49:02>> The nos have it. The amendments not
4:49:04agreed to.
4:49:04>> Madam chair. I have an amendment to the
4:49:05rule. I move the committee make an order
4:49:06in amendment number 232 to HR88000
4:49:10offered by representative Barrett which
4:49:12repeals the 1957 AU amendment.
4:49:17>> You you've heard the is any further
4:49:19discussion on the amendment
4:49:22hearing? None. The question is on the
4:49:24amendment. All those in favor signify by
4:49:26saying I.
4:49:27>> I.
4:49:28>> Those opposed say no.
4:49:29>> No. In the opinion chair the nose have
4:49:31it. As for roll call.
4:49:33>> Clerk will call the roll.
4:49:35>> Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr.
4:49:37Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs.
4:49:39Houchin. Mrs. Houch. No. Mr. Langworthy.
4:49:41Mr. Lingworthy. No. Mr. Scott.
4:49:43>> Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith.
4:49:48>> Mr. Griffith.
4:49:49>> No.
4:49:49>> Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack.
4:49:51>> No.
4:49:51>> Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern.
4:49:53>> Hi.
4:49:53>> Mr. McGovern. I Miss Gallon. Miss
4:49:55Gallon. I. Mr. Noose.
4:49:56>> Hi.
4:49:56>> Mr. Noose. I Miss Ledger Fernandez. Hi.
4:49:58>> M. Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair.
4:50:00>> No.
4:50:00>> Madam Chair. No.
4:50:02>> Clerk will report the total
4:50:03>> 40s. Eight nays.
4:50:04>> The nose have it. The amendments not a
4:50:06good reader. Miss Scandlin.
4:50:08>> Madam chair. I have an amendment to the
4:50:09rule. I move the committee make an order
4:50:10amendment 10 to HCON res 113 offered by
4:50:13myself which would add bud budget
4:50:15reconciliation instructions requiring
4:50:18the House Committee on Education
4:50:19Workforce to submit changes in laws
4:50:21within its jurisdiction to provide $10
4:50:24billion to lower Americans child care
4:50:26costs by increasing funding for child
4:50:29care and development block grants. Uh,
4:50:31Americans are struggling with the cost
4:50:33of living. This Republican budget
4:50:35resolution would add nearly a hundred
4:50:37billion in new spending, but without a
4:50:39dollar devoted to addressing the cost of
4:50:41living crisis. My amendment would help
4:50:43more families afford child care, allow
4:50:45parents to stay in the workforce, and
4:50:48strengthen our economy by allowing
4:50:50making it easier for Americans to raise
4:50:52a family. I yield back.
4:50:54>> Is there any further discussion on the
4:50:56amendment? Hearing none, the questions
4:50:58on the amendment. All those in favor
4:51:00signify by saying I.
4:51:01>> I.
4:51:02>> Those opposed say no. No.
4:51:04>> I'd ask for.
4:51:04>> In the opinion chair, the nos have it.
4:51:07>> The amendments not agreed.
4:51:08>> I'd ask for a roll call.
4:51:09>> The clerk will call the role.
4:51:11>> Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No, Mr.
4:51:13Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs.
4:51:15Hton. Mrs. Hton. No. Mr. Langworthy. Mr.
4:51:18Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott.
4:51:20No. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr.
4:51:21Jack. Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. Hi.
4:51:24Mr. McGovern. I am. Miss Scan. Hi. Miss
4:51:25Scallan. I Mr. Negus. Mr. Negus. I Mr.
4:51:28Fernandez. Mr. Leger Fernandez. I madam
4:51:30chair.
4:51:30>> No.
4:51:30>> Madam chair. No.
4:51:32>> Clerk will report the total
4:51:33>> fours. Eight nays.
4:51:35>> And the nos have it. The amendments not
4:51:37agreed to. Miss Scandal, you're
4:51:38recognized.
4:51:38>> Madam chair, I have an amendment to the
4:51:40rule. I move the committee make in order
4:51:41amendment 11 to Hconres 113 offered by
4:51:44myself which would add budget rec
4:51:46reconciliation instructions requiring
4:51:48the House Committee on Financial
4:51:50Services to submit changes in laws
4:51:52within its jurisdiction and provide $10
4:51:54billion for the purposes of lowering
4:51:56Americans rent and housing costs by
4:51:59increasing funding for the home
4:52:00investment partnership program and
4:52:02community development block grants. I'm
4:52:05disappointed that our Republican
4:52:06colleagues voted against lowering costs
4:52:09and of child care for American families,
4:52:11but since you rejected that opportunity,
4:52:14uh, let's try another approach and
4:52:16address the housing costs that are
4:52:17stretching family budgets to the
4:52:19breaking point. We've seen what
4:52:21bipartisan collaboration can do to bring
4:52:23about positive change in the housing
4:52:25space. So, I propose an amendment to do
4:52:28the same here. I yield back.
4:52:30>> Thank you. Is there any further
4:52:31discussion on the amendment? Hearing
4:52:34none. The questions on the amendment.
4:52:35All those in favor signify by saying I.
4:52:37>> I.
4:52:38>> Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion
4:52:41chair, the nose have it. The amendment
4:52:42is not agreed to. Miss Kandlin request a
4:52:45roll call. The clerk will call the role.
4:52:46>> Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr.
4:52:48Norman. Mr. D. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs.
4:52:51Hchen. Mrs. Howin. No Mr. Langworthy.
4:52:53>> Mr. Lingworthy. No. Mr. Scott. Mr.
4:52:55Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith.
4:52:57No. Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack. No. Mr.
4:52:59McGovern. Hi. Mr. McGovern. I Miss
4:53:00Gallant. Hi. Miss Gallant. I Mr. Noose.
4:53:02Mr. Mr. Nigus I Miss Ledger Fernandez.
4:53:04Miss Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair.
4:53:06>> No.
4:53:06>> Madam Chair. No.
4:53:08>> Clerk will report the total.
4:53:10>> Four. Eight nays.
4:53:11>> The nose have it. The amendments not
4:53:13agreed to. Miss Gandlin, you're
4:53:14recognized.
4:53:14>> I have an amendment to the rule. I move
4:53:16the committee make an order amendment
4:53:18number 12 to HC Conres 113 offered by
4:53:20myself which would add budget
4:53:22reconciliation instructions requiring
4:53:24the House Committee on Energy and
4:53:26Commerce to submit changes to provide
4:53:28$10 billion for purposes of lowering
4:53:31Americans energy bills by increasing
4:53:34funding for the lowincome energy
4:53:36assistance program or LI HEAP. Why heap
4:53:39is incredibly important in my community
4:53:41and I know the communities of many of
4:53:43the members here. Um our Republican
4:53:46colleagues rejected an opportunity to
4:53:48lower costs for child care. Then they
4:53:49rejected uh the opportunity to help
4:53:52families afford housing. So uh let's try
4:53:55to keep the lights on for Americans by
4:53:57providing additional lie funding. Um
4:54:00it's a lifeline for families and I would
4:54:02urge a yes vote on my amendment. I yield
4:54:05back.
4:54:06Any further discussion on the amendment?
4:54:09Hearing none, the question is on the
4:54:11amendment. All those in favor signify by
4:54:13saying I.
4:54:14>> I.
4:54:14>> Those opposed say no.
4:54:16>> No.
4:54:17>> Independent chair the request a roll
4:54:19call.
4:54:19>> Miss Ganman request a roll call. The
4:54:21clerk will call the roll.
4:54:22>> Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr.
4:54:24Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs.
4:54:26Houchin. Mrs. Houch. No. Mr. Langworthy.
4:54:28Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. Mr.
4:54:30Scott. No. Mr. Griffith.
4:54:32>> Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack.
4:54:34No. Mr. McGovern. I
4:54:35>> Mr. McGomery and I Miss Gall Miss Gallen
4:54:37I Mr. Nagus
4:54:38>> Mr. Augustus. I sledger Fernandez.
4:54:40Medger Fernandez. I madam chair.
4:54:42>> No.
4:54:43>> Madam chair. No.
4:54:44>> Clerk will report the total
4:54:45>> fours. Eight nays.
4:54:46>> The nos have it. The amendments not
4:54:48agreed to. Miss Gandlin, you're
4:54:49recognized. I
4:54:50>> have an amendment to the rule. I move
4:54:51the committee make an order amendment
4:54:53two to HR70008
4:54:55offered by Representative Morelli. The
4:54:57amendment would strike the text and
4:54:59replace it with the text of HR6731,
4:55:02the Restore Trust in Government Act,
4:55:04which bans congressional participation
4:55:06in prediction markets and provides that
4:55:09eligible voters are able to cast a
4:55:11ballot using any number of acceptable
4:55:13forms of identification. We've already
4:55:16discussed these bills um at length, but
4:55:19um if we're going to ha an overwhelming
4:55:22majority of Americans believe members of
4:55:24Congress shouldn't trade individual
4:55:25stocks, they feel similarly about the
4:55:27president, the vice president, the
4:55:29Supreme Court. Um if we're going to be
4:55:32serious about fighting corruption, we
4:55:34should pass this bill.
4:55:37>> Is there any further discussion on the
4:55:39amendment?
4:55:40>> Hearing none, the questions on the
4:55:42amendment. All those in favor signify by
4:55:43saying I. I
4:55:45>> those opposed say no. No.
4:55:47>> In the opinion share the nos have it.
4:55:49Members agree to call
4:55:51>> the clerk will call the role.
4:55:53>> Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr.
4:55:55Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs.
4:55:57Hen. Mrs. Hen. No. Mr. Lingworthy. Mr.
4:55:59Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott.
4:56:01No. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr.
4:56:03Jack. Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. Hi.
4:56:05Mr. McGovern. I Miss Scan. Hi. M.
4:56:07Scanland. I.e.................. Mr.. N.
4:56:08Mr. Noose. I Miss Ledger Fernandez.
4:56:11>> Miss Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair.
4:56:13>> No.
4:56:13>> Madam Chair. No.
4:56:14>> Clerk will report the total.
4:56:15>> Four yays, eight nays.
4:56:17>> Miss Gandlin, you're recognized.
4:56:19>> Thank you. I have one more amendment. I
4:56:21move the committee make an order
4:56:22amendment 5 to HR708 offered by
4:56:25Representative Magaziner, which strikes
4:56:27the text and replaces it with the text
4:56:29of HR5106, the Restore Trust in Congress
4:56:32Act. And I have really high hopes for
4:56:35this one because it is co-sponsored by
4:56:36Representative Roy. Um several members
4:56:39of the committee here are co-sponsors of
4:56:42it including representatives Langworthy
4:56:44and Norman. Um you know this would
4:56:47strike the underlying bill and uh while
4:56:50it doesn't extend to the president and
4:56:52vice president, it does what the bill
4:56:54before us fails to do, which is
4:56:56establish a comprehensive ban on members
4:56:59of Congress and their families owning
4:57:01and trading individual stocks. It's a
4:57:03real standard. Um and and I think uh we
4:57:07definitely should be allowing Congress
4:57:09to vote on this and instead of the sham
4:57:11bill that we have before us. I yield
4:57:13back.
4:57:14>> Is there further discussion on the
4:57:16amendment? Hearing none. The question is
4:57:19on the amendment. All those in favor
4:57:21signify by saying I.
4:57:22>> I.
4:57:23>> Those opposed say no.
4:57:24>> No. In the opinion chair the no.
4:57:26>> I'd ask for a roll call vote.
4:57:28>> The clerk will call the role.
4:57:30>> Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr.
4:57:32Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy, Mrs.
4:57:34Hen, Mrs. Hen, No. Mr. Langworthy, Mr.
4:57:37Langworthy, No. Mr. Scott, Mr. Scott,
4:57:39No. Mr. Griffith, Mr. Griffin, no. Mr.
4:57:41Jack,
4:57:42>> Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern, Mr.
4:57:43McGovern, I, Miss Scanland, I
4:57:45>> Miss Gland, I, Mr. Nagus.
4:57:47>> Mr. Nagus, I, Miss Ledger Fernandez,
4:57:49Miss Ledger Fernandez, I, Madam Chair.
4:57:50>> No.
4:57:51>> Madam Chair, no.
4:57:52>> Clerk will report the total.
4:57:53>> Four yays, eight nays.
4:57:54>> The nos have it. The amendments not
4:57:56agreed to.
4:57:58>> Madam Chair,
4:57:59>> Miss Ledger Fernandez, you recognize.
4:58:01>> I have amendment to the rule. I move the
4:58:02committee make an order amendment number
4:58:0413 to HC con resolution 113 offered by
4:58:07my staff which would add budget
4:58:08reconciliation instructions requiring
4:58:11Republicans to fully offset any deficit
4:58:15increase in the reconciliation bill by
4:58:18requiring wealthy individuals and large
4:58:20corporations to pay their fair share in
4:58:23taxes which may include reversing or
4:58:26limiting some of the tax cuts for the
4:58:28wealthy and corporations passed as part
4:58:31of the Republic Republicans big
4:58:33beautifully ugly bill raising the
4:58:35corporate tax rate, imposing a minimum
4:58:37tax on billionaires or closing loopholes
4:58:40used by the ultra rich. You guys can
4:58:42work it out but you should pay for what
4:58:45you want to spend and with that I yield
4:58:47back.
4:58:49>> Is there further discussion on the
4:58:51amendment? Hearing none the questions on
4:58:53the amendment. All those in favor
4:58:55signify by saying I.
4:58:57>> Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion
4:59:00chair, the nos have it. The amendments
4:59:01not agreed to. The clerk will call the
4:59:04role.
4:59:05>> Mrs. Fishbach.
4:59:06>> Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman. Mr.
4:59:08Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin. Mrs.
4:59:10Hutchin. No. Mr. Langworthy. Mr.
4:59:12Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott.
4:59:13>> Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. Mr.
4:59:15Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack. No.
4:59:17Mr. McGovern. Mr. McGovern. I Miss
4:59:19Gland. Miss Gallant. I Mr. Noose. Mr.
4:59:22Noose. I Mr. Fernandez. Hi. M. Lgered
4:59:24Fernandez. I Madam Chair.
4:59:25>> No.
4:59:26>> Madam Chair. No.
4:59:27>> Clerk will report the total.
4:59:28>> Four. Eight nays. The nose have it. The
4:59:31amendments not agreed to.
4:59:32>> Madam Chair,
4:59:33>> pleased Fernandez.
4:59:34>> I have an amendment to the ruler. I move
4:59:35the committee strike section 11 of the
4:59:38resolution provides that in the
4:59:39engrossment of HR8 8000 8800. The clerk
4:59:44shall add the text of the Save America
4:59:46Act as passed by the House. Uh this is
4:59:49the Save America Act that Republicans
4:59:51keep adding to every single bill and now
4:59:53they want to put it on NDAA.
4:59:55Let's kill this zombie voter suppression
5:00:00effort once and for all. So, I suggest
5:00:02we strike uh that from the NDAA, allow
5:00:06the NDAA to move forward uh on its
5:00:09merits or not. And with that, Madam
5:00:11Chair, I yield back.
5:00:14>> Is there a further discussion on the
5:00:15amendment from Miss Leger Fernandez?
5:00:17Hearing none, the question is on the
5:00:19amendment. All those in favor signify by
5:00:21saying I. I.
5:00:23>> Those opposed say no. In the no in the
5:00:26opinion chair the nose have it. The
5:00:28amendments not agreed to.
5:00:30>> Okay. The clerk will call the role.
5:00:32>> Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr.
5:00:34Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs.
5:00:36Hen.
5:00:38>> Mrs. Hchen. No. Mr. Langworthy. Mr.
5:00:40Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott.
5:00:43No. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr.
5:00:44Jack.
5:00:47>> Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. Mr.
5:00:49McGovern. I am. M. Scallan. M. Scallan.
5:00:51I am. Mr. Noose. Mr. Noose. I am. Med
5:00:53Fernandez. M. Ledger Fernandez. I madam
5:00:55chair
5:00:55>> no
5:00:55>> madam chair no
5:00:57>> clerk will report the total
5:00:58>> four ys eight nays
5:00:59>> the nos have it the amendment is not
5:01:02agreed to further discussion or
5:01:04amendment
5:01:07hearing no further discussion the
5:01:08questions on the motion from the
5:01:10gentleman from Virginia all those in
5:01:12favor signify by saying I I those
5:01:15opposed say no
5:01:16>> no
5:01:17>> in the opinion chair the eyes have it
5:01:19the motion
5:01:20>> ask for a roll call
5:01:21>> the clerk will call the role
5:01:22>> Mrs. Fishbach.
5:01:23>> Hi,
5:01:24>> Mrs. Fishbach. I Mr. Norman, Mr. Norman,
5:01:26I Mr. Roy, Mrs. Houchin, Mrs. Houchin, I
5:01:29Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Langworthy, I Mr.
5:01:31Scott, Mr. Scott, I Mr. Griffith, Mr.
5:01:33Griffith, I Mr. Jack, Mr. Jack, I, Mr.
5:01:36McGovern, no. Mr. McGovern, no. Miss
5:01:37Scantland, Miss Scallan, no. Mr. Noose,
5:01:41>> Mr. Negus, no. Med Fernandez. M. Ledger
5:01:43Fernandez. No. Madam Chair,
5:01:45>> I.
5:01:45>> Madam Chair, I
5:01:46>> The clerk will report the total.
5:01:48>> Eight yays, four nays.
5:01:50>> Eyes have it. The motion to reports
5:01:52agreed to. I'll be managing the rule for
5:01:53the majority
5:01:54>> and meet for me for the majority
5:01:58>> the dynamic duo again the without
5:02:01objection the meeting is adjourned

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Rules Committee Hearing H.R. 7008, H.R. 6959, H.R. 8884, H.R. 8800, H.R. 9770 , H. Con. Res. 113 by HouseRules, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 49,702 words across 7,700 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.