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


                              MEMBER DAY:
                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                             ADMINISTRATION

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 4, 2025

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
59-442                     WASHINGTON : 2025                 
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                        
                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

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

                      Mike Platt,  Staff Director 
                 Jamie Fleet,  Minority Staff Director 
                         
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                           Opening Statements

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

                       Submissions for the Record

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

 
                              MEMBER DAY:
                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                              ----------                              


                             March 4, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

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

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

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

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

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

                                 [all]