▶ 0:04:28e e
▶ 0:05:08good afternoon the committee will come to order without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time before we proceed with our hearing we have a housekeeping matter to take care of regarding the appointment of members to our subcommittees my understanding is that the assignments of the subcommittees are satisfactory to all therefore without objection the following members are appointed
▶ 0:05:38to serve on the subcommittee on rules and organization of the house for Republicans Miss fishbach is chair in addition to miss fishbach Mr Scott Mr Griffith and Mr Jack for Democrats Miss ganlin as ranking member and Mr McGovern for the subcommittee on legislative and budget process the following members are appointed for Republicans Mr Langworthy is chair
▶ 0:06:09in addition to Mr Norman Mr Roy and Mrs hin for Democrats Miss Ledger Fernandez is ranking member and Mr ngus hearing no further comments we'll now proceed with our hearing today the rules committee is convening to consider four separate measures hr22 hr1 1526 sjr 18 sjr 28
▶ 0:06:39hr22 the Safeguard American voter eligibility act or save act would amend the national voter registration Act of 1993 to require proof of US citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for federal office the only people who should vote in American elections are American citizens there's no debate about it Republicans do not thumb our noses at election Integrity for we
▶ 0:07:10understand that Americans deserve free transparent and Free Fair elections the save act pres us with an opportunity to add additional layers of protection to elections right here in our own country it's an opportunity worthy of bipartisan support in 1520 26 the no Rogue rulings Act of 2025 would limit the authority of district courts to provide sweeping injunctive
▶ 0:07:40relief on a nationwide or exceedingly broad scale as of late we have certainly seen a slew of rulings by Rogue judges that surpass their own Authority the this is judicial Warfare in the flesh if it is not remedied in a common sense and expeditious fashion these exercises and partisanship will do further irreparable damage to the nation
▶ 0:08:10and to the confidence of Americans in our own justice system without question exceeding constitutional mandates as a matter of Judicial philosophy does nothing more than blight Justice itself SJ res 18 a congressional review act resolution would overturn a midnight rule issued by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau cfpb that undercuts the ability of lower income Americans to
▶ 0:08:41access liquidity to put it simply the cfpb's own rule hurts the very consumers that it reports to protect this rule mandates that extensions of overdraft credit offered by very large financial institutions adhere to Consumer Protections required of similarly situated products unless the overdraft fee
▶ 0:09:11is at or below the institution's cost and losses one of the likely outcomes of this rule being fully implemented would be lowincome Americans being expelled from the financial system entirely due to a lack of overdraft protection it's time to add this midnight rule to the burn pile SJ res28 another Congressional review act resolution would overturn another cfpb
▶ 0:09:42rule that unjustly shackles private sector companies that operate within the digital asset Marketplace there's no legitimate basis for this rule it's purely an exercise in exerting more government control this rule is build as a consumer protection mechanism but what it really does is misclassify an entire segment of digital prod products
▶ 0:10:12with the aim of regulating them straight into the ground the cfpb overstepped its regulatory Authority in its pursuit of sub subjugating the American economy in the name of quote consumer protection end quote this is yet another misguided rule that we'll rightly repeal with that I look forward to today's discussion and now yield to the ranking member Mr McGovern for any comments he wishes to make well thank you madam chair and
▶ 0:10:42uh and let's not beat around the bush and let me say this as clearly as possible this Administration is already a complete and total disaster uh we've heard for years from the other side about the importance of safeguarding classified information and the need to use secure channels and last week we found out that Trump's entire National Security team is just casually planning military operations on unsecured group threads that anyone could have access to in fact the Pentagon said signal the app they used
▶ 0:11:13is vulnerable to hacking by our our adversaries defense secretary Pete Heth our vice president and the President's chief of staff our CIA and NSA directors all of them swapping classified battle plans like school kids in memes this is nuts I mean based on public comments one of the participants in Signal gate had the text going to his unattended personal phone back at home because he was in Moscow
▶ 0:11:43I mean I you can't make this stuff up and let me just lay out for people this isn't just stupid it's dangerous 30 minutes before planes took off our top government officials were putting out onto the internet details about their mission who was listening we have no idea Russia was probably listening China was probably listening Iran was listening I'm sure tapping unsecured phones of our national security advisers is one of their top priorities
▶ 0:12:14doing this might have given our enemies a chance to position anti-aircraft resources or given a heads up to the targets that they should leave where they are where they are because us planes are on the way they put the entire mission in Jeopardy and they put the lives of our troops in danger we also know that apparently this wasn't the first time classified information was sent via unofficial channels the Wall Street Journal is reporting that National Security adviser Mike walls created and hosted several other sensitive
▶ 0:12:44National Security conversations on Signal including separate threads on how to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine I mean this is ridiculous this is not a game and there's still so much that we don't know we need a full investigation to understand the scope of damage done and if there are other National Security Communications happening on unsecure channels those responsible must be held accountable and heg Seth should resign immediately immediately but while this
▶ 0:13:14Administration is busy putting our troops at risk while our economy is crumbling because of Trump's erratic obsession with tariffs while students are literally getting kidnapped off our streets by massed Ice agents because they wrote an noted that Donald Trump didn't agree with what are what are my Republican colleagues doing are they focused on fixing things or making Americans lives better in any way of course not they are making it harder for women to vote doing favors for their billionaire
▶ 0:13:44donors and trying to undermine the Constitution by eroding the independence of an independent Judiciary the save Act is a voter suppression bill that's all it is 69 million women who have married and taken their post's name do not have a birth um name do not have a birth certificate they could easily use to register to vote if this bill were to become law nothing in this bill guarantees they could use marriage licenses and name change documents
▶ 0:14:14to prove their identity nothing in this bill says that it's about taking away the right of women to vote plain and simple we have two other measures here designed to make big Banks even richer at the expense of working people again you can't make this stuff up with all the problems of the world Republicans want to make it easier for your bank to charge you unfair fees and then there's the so-called no Rogue rulings act it's a blatant power grab to gut the courts if a judge doesn't
▶ 0:14:44bow down to Trump or Republicans extremist agenda Republicans want to strip that judge's Authority that's nuts If This Were happening in another country our state department would condemn it this regime team is marching toward authoritarianism trying to trample over the courts and undermine the rule of law and we are absolutely not going to let that happen without a fight Democrats want a lower costs protect workers expand health care and invest in a future where everyone not just Rich
▶ 0:15:15Republican Mega donors can Thrive and we will not stand by while extremists try to dismantle our democracy and sell out working Americans the American people deserve better and we will keep fighting to make sure they get it I yield back thank you Mr McGovern without objection any prepared statements that our Witnesses may have will be included in the record I now welcome our first panel representative Isa and ranking member Raskin
▶ 0:15:45from the committee on the Judiciary your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes representative Isa I welcome your testimony thank you madam chair and for the ranking member I'll summarize not only is this not a nuts bill but I will include the following the Biden Administration sought in October of last year
▶ 0:16:15asked the Supreme Court to invalidate Lower Court Universal injunctions against the Department of Education quoting an opinion by Justice Thomas in citing one by Justice Gorsuch the solicitor general argued that that Universal remedies are inconsistent with long-standing limits on Equitable relief and the power of article 3 courts to impose a severe toll on the federal court system October wasn't a year ago the fact is
▶ 0:16:45the last Administration rightfully so saw an expansion of these uh National injunctions in which plaintiffs not there not represented are being included in the decision Nora uh the no Rogue rules act intends to reign in the most egregious of these activities and we do so in a measured way we're not saying that that a judge does not
▶ 0:17:16rule a national role on on behalf of any plaintiff before them what we're saying is that when you don't have a class action suit you don't have multiple uh uh C being represented before one judge what you have is one judge representing one PL being represented with one plaintive or one group of planets you you rule on behalf of that now for nearly 200 years until 1963 there had
▶ 0:17:46never been a ruling like that and even after 1963 it still remained extremely rare and yet this Administration has seen 67% of all the national injunction Junctions ever granted granted against them it is clear that it has gotten out of control the fact is with 38 tempor TR and preliminary injunctions in forced today the high court finds itself essentially
▶ 0:18:16forced to see case after case after case it is not appropriate to do that and certainly because in many cases these are extremely times sensitive will $2 billion be sent or not sent the fact is these decisions have to be made and ultimately at the high court I would also note for the record that in the pre a previous Congress HR 9660 uh by Congressman mandere Jones substantially did the same
▶ 0:18:46thing it didn't have some of the safeguards we had it was actually broader but when the shoe was on the other foot my colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognized that this was getting out of hand I would ask the rules committee and the and the Congress as a whole to weigh fairly the the question of the court and the question of this body and I'll close with this Madame chair the the Supreme Court those nine men and women were were
▶ 0:19:17created by the Constitution all other judges were created by acts of Congress and their Authority was determined by this body are fairly carefully crafted bill is intended to reiterate what I think was taken for granted for almost 200 years after the creation of the first district court and I would only ask that we pass this bill as a form of enforcement but also as a form of reminder that district courts were created and called district
▶ 0:19:47for a reason I yield back thank you Mr Isa Mr Rasin chair Fox recognized for five minutes thank you kindly and Mr mcover and Mr Isa look we get it federal judges in 46 cases have blocked Donald Trump's executive orders and policies as unconstitutional or illegal the judges ruling in these cases were appointed by five different presidents Republican and Democrat alike in 11 different district courts across seven Federal circuits
▶ 0:20:17the courts have explained in painstaking detail what is unlawful about these orders and policies and Trump has offered no substantive critique of their legal reasoning he just says the jurist deciding are quote radical left judges including chief judge bosberg the chief judge of the DC District Court who was nominated to the bench first by President George W bush and was Justice Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale some Fanatics are now attacking and threatening the judges and even their family members like judge bosberg daughter or Justice
▶ 0:20:48Amy cone Barrett's sister who got a bomb threat a few weeks ago some Republicans are calling the jurist Prudence of these courts judicial Warfare and are trying to impeach these so-called Rogue judges and some Republicans like my friend Mr Isa are now trying to change the ability of Courts to issue Nationwide injunctions something that Republicans took generous advantage of themselves in the last Administration the no Rogue rulings act would effectively ban district courts from providing
▶ 0:21:18Nationwide relief against unlawful executive actions because litigants could request injunctive relief only with respect to themselves for every American citizen to get protect ction against a president's illegal actions each citizen would have to go to court and bring his or her own case if this had been the law when Trump tried to revoke the 14th Amendment right to Birthright citizenship by executive order in January the judge would not have been able to stay implementation of the order nationally while the case worked
▶ 0:21:48its way to the court even though the executive order was quote blatantly unconstitutional and struck down by four separate judges one nominated by President Reagan one by Donald Trump one by Joe Biden and one by Obama every affected person or family would have had to bring their own separate personal lawsuit because the district court injunction could only apply to the actual parties in the case this bill is totally unworkable our judicial system of 94 different Federal Judicial districts could not handle
▶ 0:22:18the tital wave of litigation that would necessarily follow if you do the math um and you just had one person for every federal district in the country it would 12,220 attorneys to replicate the work of the original case and then 12,220 defending prosecutors for the Department of Justice do the math this is wholly unworkable and of course many people wouldn't have the resources to bring their own case and thus would be deprived of their rights and
▶ 0:22:49freedoms under federal law and the Constitution until the Supreme Court could rule the whole idea of suddenly blocking Nationwide injunctions being because Donald Trump is losing every single day in court defeats the whole concept of the rule of law just as Justice delayed as Justice denied Justice circumscribed is Justice circumvented this is a principle Republicans not only endorsed but took liberal advantage of in the last Administration remember judge Matt casmer of the Northern
▶ 0:23:19District of Texas Republicans were lining up around the block to get cases against the Biden Administration before him and praise the Nationwide injunctions that he issued they've even inserted a car out provision in this bill to ensure that he can still issue Nationwide injunctions in a case currently before him so don't tell me that this is a principle about Nationwide injunctions even though judge Casmir was several times reversed we never tried to ban the power of judges to to issue Nationwide injunctions or at least
▶ 0:23:49I did not um these are essential judicial tools we did try to stop the outrageous practice of judicial Forum Shopping and Madame chair I would submit to you that's a real problem we could work on together but our colleagues humiliated by this unprecedented losing streak in federal courts across the land should not try to convince themselves that there's something wrong with the courts read the opinions and you'll see that there is something wrong with the utterly Lawless executive orders and policies lifted out of the project 2025 Playbook of
▶ 0:24:19the over 150 cases filed against the administration some form of injunctive relief has been ordered in only 46 cases and and of those only 17 were Nationwide or one-third of them which shows that the courts are appropriately balancing all of the factors in the different cases I call on my colleagues to take down the wanted posters with judges faces on them outside of offices and House Office Buildings temper their discourse when it comes to judges who are just doing their job
▶ 0:24:49stop the calls for impeachment and oppose this uh very unfit Bill thank you and I go back thank you very much Mr Rasin representative Iceland despite the accusations we're sure to hear from the other side this legislation is evenhanded is it not it would apply evenly to Republican and Democrat administrations in the future is that correct that's absolutely correct Madam chair that we we balanced him including
▶ 0:25:20the recognition that if multiple us or multiple Attorneys General in different circuits or multiple plaintiffs from different circuits they would still be able to ask for a broader injunction but they'd have to be plaintiffs uh represented and present so just to put a fine point on this congress's ability to establish the scope of jurisdiction of certain courts as you said is derived by the Constitution you said that in your
▶ 0:25:50opening statements correct correct that uh we have the right and we have defined district courts as more limited and until uh for almost 200 years they respected that great thank you very much Mr McGovern you're recognized yeah no I agree with Mr raskins uh assessment of of this legislation I don't know if you want to respond to anything that uh or add anything before I yield back you know with the committee is presented with a very interesting problem
▶ 0:26:20because um Donald Trump has indeed suffered an unprecedented strain of judicial defeats like with the birthright citizenship case or attempts to usurp congress's spending power um or the um illegal sacking of federal workers who are on probationary status because they've been recently um promoted to a higher job he's been losing all these cases so our friends say well that's
▶ 0:26:51because suddenly all of these you know Bush and Reagan and Biden and Obama appointees have become radical left Rogue judges and we say it's because these orders and these policies are outrageous and unlawful and clearly unconstitutional I mean one Reagan judge said of the birthright citizenship executive order this was the easiest case he had ever decided and you don't need to be a lawyer to understand what's wrong with denying people Birthright citizenship you just have to know how to read so
▶ 0:27:21I I would prefer if we were discussing the substance of the opinions rather than blaming the judges because again it's getting very dangerous and risky out there for judges and if you read what chief justice Roberts wrote in his annual report he said that this has now become a pattern where people are targeting judges when they disagree with the opinion just like the people who are now saying impeach the judges we've impeached 15 judges in all of American history and it's always for bribery corruption habitual drunkenness on the bench professional misconduct
▶ 0:27:51and they're talking about impeaching judges because they disagree with the substance of their ruling and the rulings are right so chief just as Robert said last week when it was really getting out of hand the proper response to a Judicial opinion you disagree with is to appeal it not to impeach the judge no and I think that if um if the rulings were going the other way and everybody was agreeing with Donald Trump we wouldn't be here with this bill today well and he's won some of these cases he hasn't lost all of them I mean he's lost an extraordinary number for any
▶ 0:28:21president in American history but they're not calling for the impeachment of the judges who sided with him and I've seen some of these signs in front of uh Congressional offices with judges faces on them that um unwanted posters um and I I think that's an appropriate and I would like to think that the leadership of this house would demand that those be taken down um especially given the political climate uh that has been made even more coar by the current occupant of the White House but I yield back thank you Mr govern
▶ 0:28:51m f you recognized thank you chair Mr Rasin and Mr McGovern have both talked about stopping the threats take down the wanted posters I would ask you to publicly then ask your side to stop threatening members of Congress if you're concerned about if you're concerned about threats there are threats to me Republican members of Congress from your side yes there's wanted posters I I will get you
▶ 0:29:21copies of them because there's wanted posters of Republicans in their districts and if you are concerned about threats maybe we should talk about all the threats there's one of our one of our Republican members who's there's a guillotine set up in front of his office you don't think that's a threat I haven't seen a guillotine since January 2021 it's my time and there is one and I am asking you both right now to publicly renounce say stop the threats against Republican
▶ 0:29:52members of Congress to the extent that's happening I'm not aware of it I would absolutely denounce and renounce any threats against any member of Congress thank you and I would hope that you would talk to your folks about stopping those threats because they are we have members we have members who have wear yes it is about they brought up the threats ma'am yeah this is and and Madam chair I'd like to say I it is my time will you yeah will you please denounce Trump for sending a mob here on
▶ 0:30:22January 6th January 6th is not happening right now the threats are happening NOC your side and it's my time ma' sir but I would suggest that when you start talking about these threats yes that you talk about both sides and I suggest that you talk to your side because you have been talking about January 6 for a very long time you denounce the threats against the judges I don't think anyone should be threatened I don't think there should be wanted posters out there and but these are serious I mean this is we have members
▶ 0:30:52who have to wear bulletproof vests because of the Democrats coming after them well but I've had so I I several judicial restraining orders against people who have threatened me so I can relate to what you're talking about then you need to talk about all of them instead of sitting here in front of us saying that this is threats and so I appreciate that you are going to denounce them and you're going to work Chief Justice of the United States of America who wrote about it in his annual report you talked about the threats you brought it up and you're serious against members of this
▶ 0:31:22body Republican members of this body and so I would appreciate it when you start talking about those things you talk about both sides you're aware the Democrats have received those threats too so I recognize that all of us have then we should all denounce it we should all work against it not just in the legislative branch but the judicial branch as well I think the threats and the and the what what has been going on to our Republican members of Congress in the last month or so is inexcusable I mean when when
▶ 0:31:52they have the like the guillotine out in front they're having to wear bulletproof vests because of the threats against them and I recognize there's others there's other threats but this is right now this is coming from an organized group of Democrats who are doing this yes it is okay it absolutely is we all you can go on and look online because it's right there that could lead to something like January 6 where 140 of our officers were wounded and injured and so we should stop I'm reclaiming
▶ 0:32:22my time because I am talking about things that are happening right now that can be stopped and with that I yield I yield my time thank you Miss fishbot Mr scin you're recognized guess I'd yield to Mr mcover and for the life of me I don't understand why it is impossible for Republicans to denounce the mob that attacked this capital on January 6th and wounded 140 police officers they can't bring them yeah know and it continues and it continues uh and so
▶ 0:32:53anyway I'm I yield back thank you and of course we would denounce political violence I'm unaware of any wanted posters I have seen a lot of missing posters like on the side of a milk carton referring to um Republican members of Congress who are refusing to meet their constituents but turning back to the issue at hand here um I think we're all concerned about the fact that we have this authoritarian Playbook occurring where um in order to
▶ 0:33:23undermine civil society and undermine the rule of law the accepted way to go about that is you attack the media you attack the universities and you attack the courts and this proposed uh bill seems to be another way to attack the courts I mean if the president as you rightly pointed out if the president doesn't want to lose in court he should follow the Constitution um I was really struck by the fact that forcing you know everybody impacted by the birthright
▶ 0:33:53citizenship um overreach uh order would just cause mass chaos in the courts I mean you want to talk about fraud waste and inefficiency right I mean forcing hundreds and hundreds of cases every time there's one of these issues seems to be um a prime example of it did you want to say anything else on that judges um shrewdly and sparingly use the Nationwide injunction uh and they use it in cases where it would be an
▶ 0:34:23absolute burden on judicial economy to have hundreds of thousand thousands or millions of people going to court for example A lot of people are upset about the the potential conversion of their private data like it's Social Security and then there was a federal court which said that Doge could not take people's Social Security data and needed to destroy the data that Doge had taken why should that have to be litigated by what 200 million Americans who don't want their data corrupted
▶ 0:34:54or prostituted in that way so look the chairman Isa is a very smart man I've gotten to know him pretty well uh in my few months in the Judiciary Committee I think he understands that um you don't impeach judges because you disagree with their opinion you appeal right and you know and so I think that this is analogous to that we don't need to change the rules of civil procedure to amend the rules of civil procedure to block out
▶ 0:35:24this tool that judges have at their disposal it has not been misused used I I I would agree with you on that and it's just kind of uh making me blanch as as a former attorney thinking about every single American having to go up against Elon Musk and the US government in order to kick Elon Musk and his buddies out of your own private data I mean that's just a total recipe for for disaster um I believe
▶ 0:35:54there are other proposals on how one could address address some of these Nationwide suits I mean this isn't this is a pretty broad one that would basically eliminate with the exception of the one very conservative judge who is already doing this kind of a a case so can you just comment on the selective um nature of this bill with respect to what Nationwide injunctions it's going to allow and those that it well that's why we would love to hear from our friends a specific
▶ 0:36:24case or a group of cases that they think really should not have the benefit of a nationwide injunction I mean like on the Social Security data case that's something that clearly has National implications and it would be a ridiculous waste of judicial resources to be hearing that hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of times just like Birthright citizenship that's a very clean constitutional issue the first sentence of the 14th Amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the United States
▶ 0:36:54and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens the United States so how many times do you need to litigate that basic legal question and of course it's for a temporary period anyway it's going up to the Supreme Court but it says we're going to have a stay in uh deference to the rights of the people before The Supreme Court can get a hold of it I don't think a single one and again I'll stand corrected by my friend Mr I don't think a single one of these Nationwide injunctions which again
▶ 0:37:25is just onethird of the injunctions been issued has been reversed by an appeals court and so I go back to what chief justice Robert said the proper way to deal with this if you think somebody's got it wrong is you appeal the decision you don't try to impeach the judge or change all the rules all of a sudden Miss gin I could answer your question if you'd like sure there were 17 of the cases have been brought so far that uh for one or two reasons would not have been covered by this bill
▶ 0:37:55and are those mostly involving the use of stone and medical abortion no no in most cases uh the these these were brought and the judge did a national injunction but only as to the parties before him but in another case uh there the judge did in TGG versus Trump he certified a class action and that wasn't something that we did because of a previous administration it's because class action lawsuits have
▶ 0:38:25historically included a class that went beyond one circuit one district and as a result they did have National repercussions so uh out of the first 38 17 would in fact not be covered by this bill we we did multicircuit and class action because historically those are viewed differently and because a judge we want the efficiency and I think Mr rasum said it fairly well we wouldn't want
▶ 0:38:55to have them have to go to a 100 different different districts there are two ways that you can get a nationwide injunction historically one is multiple different circuits applying before one judge or quite frankly to paraphrase the Supreme Court just chief justice if in fact you go to two just two judges and you get two outcomes you then have a case for the US Supreme Court and that by the way is historically how it's done I need to reclaim my time because I see the chairwoman
▶ 0:39:26checking the clock and I know she's trying to Reign all of us in consent request before can you do um I just I just in conclusion I am I'm very aware of the strain that this kind of thing would put on our courts but I'm more concerned about the strain that it puts on uh the people whose civil rights are being violated by these orders and the burden it puts on them to each one get representation no I I think you know we we had this exchange uh before Miss Fishback left but uh I do want to ask unanimous consent to insert the record
▶ 0:39:56uh this is is one floor below my office in front of Representative Ole's office wanted posters of Judges it says known get Trump judicial activists wanted uh and this is the kind of stuff that some of us are asking there to be Universal condemnation about I mean this this is this is this is threatening to these judges it has no place in the halls of Congress I ask you has consent to Not only would we want that this committee has had a long history of providing security we are currently redacting
▶ 0:40:27the addresses and other information so the one place that you'll find you won't we won't be in front of you except United is on the security of the Judes can we get some agreement that members who put these posters up in front of their offices will take them down I don't believe we should be putting up pictures of judges and I thank Mr Isa for saying that I I would hope also that all of the calls to impeach judges because members disagree with their opinions should be retracted or at least that should cease immediately because
▶ 0:40:57that is creating the climate in we should all be able to condemn this I think everybody should condemn condemn that I'm glad to hear Mr ISO agrees that that should not be going up but I think the whole the whole thing about talking about impeaching Judges who ruled in the birthright citizenship case or impeaching judges who are protecting our social security data um is very dangerous and look uh judge bosberg daughter uh has been the subject of an online campaign of vilification and intimidation
▶ 0:41:27and Justice Barrett's sister got thank you Mr Rasen thank you very much I I want to say but I believe for all Republicans we do not condone any calls for violence against anyone anyone we do not condone any calls for violence against anyone period Mr Langworthy you're recognized thank you very much Madam chair and U Mr Isa I thank you for you
▶ 0:41:57know bringing this legislation forward I'm proud to co-sponsor it uh with you um I I join uh the chorus here condemning violence against any elected official we are all popularly elected in our districts I mean there should be no violence geared towards anyone there should not be any violence geared towards anyone in the Judiciary in this country I think that should really go without saying and be Universal uh but um uh I think as many as my colleagues do there's a growing trend on these Nationwide
▶ 0:42:28injunctions that is shaking the confidence of the American people in the Judiciary to fairly and effectively do its job and I uh think that this legislation is a step in the right direction there is there anything you know with all the conversation that's happened here so far that you would like to add Mr Isa thank you sir uh you know I would just try to reiterate that in the last Administration the solicitor general on behalf of the administration it may not be on behalf of uh the uh judiciary committee's minority
▶ 0:42:58but they called for an end to these excesses and uh Congressman Jones offered a bill that would be substantially the same as this one except quite frankly bringing even more of an end so I think we're really dealing in maybe people don't want it when when it's not their president and they do want it when it is their president but like so many things if you do the right thing as we change back and forth between majorities and minority between Queen presidents will have done
▶ 0:43:28the right thing we protect all judges uh both with the Marshall service and now with additional judges additional protection after things like the home addresses of uh judges being put on the internet and so on the same thing goes here we're protecting every Administration by not having this continued growth I will note you know somebody said all of a sudden but I held the first hearing on this subject in uh the the fact is this is
▶ 0:43:58not a new issue this is an issue who simply we're seeing it get worse and just as uh the Judiciary Committee had to deal with uh venue shopping in East Texas at one time where about half of all patent cases ended up in one in one judge's hands things can get out of hand we're trying to rein them in and again uh you know we I went out of my way to make sure that we did allow a path for appropriate Nationwide
▶ 0:44:28injunctions um and then lastly just as a point of personal privilege this is not based on whether the president or any president wins or loses their cases presidents test the executive powers the last one did it he lost to a tune of $188 billion on forgiving student loans uh but that was a decision that was made by the court over time as it should be and you know I uh I I don't always agree with the outcome of
▶ 0:44:58court cases but I always agree that that's the process and all we really want to do with this piece of legislation is maintain the historic process uh two different plaintiffs show up in one courtroom they get represented uh Beyond any one of them two two uh plaintiffs show up even if it's the ACLU in two different locations they go in two different locations they get an outcome they get to appeal it and it gets to the Supreme Court
▶ 0:45:29we want to preserve that again if this had been something that went on for the first almost 200 years we could say it was part of the original intent of district courts it didn't it didn't go on for about 190 years uh of our of our great nation uh but it has grown now to where it is basically one case one uh action by a judge every two days since this president came to office and I thank you for your question
▶ 0:45:59well thank you very much Mr ice I'm I'm very much looking forward to supporting this legislation on the floor and then you know back to just the discussion of violence against people in public uh service I mean we we we've had just a lot of instances I mean it was Senator Schumer that went and you know stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and called and told Supreme Court Justices that they all have hell to pay I mean we have to set the tone we have to turn the volume down over the weekend the Buffalo News in my hometown decided to cover uh a
▶ 0:46:29protest of the Tesla Factory in Buffalo and God God bless those people they have their First Amendment right to do that but the paper decided uh to glorify the image of one particular sign uh that showed uh a guillotine and it said checks and balances and that you know to to have a major newspaper in this country you know glorify the image of people basically calling for the execution of elected officials is unacceptable by any metric and I think uh everyone's got to take uh this
▶ 0:46:59moment and and acknowledge the fact that we do have people that suffer from mental illness in this country and are more than willing to take drastic measures uh if they feel called to do so by what they read on social media or in the media uh and all of us in public life have the same responsibility uh as well so with that I yield back Madam chair thank you Mr Langworthy Mr nus you're recognized thank you you thank you madam chair uh good evening or good afternoon
▶ 0:47:30representive Isa and ranking member Raskin thank you both for being here thank you for your testimony uh I'll preface my remarks or my questioning rather uh with a simple statement that I very much appreciate our partnership uh Mr Isa and our friendship and have great respect for you but I do have some pointed questions about this bill because I think this is a a dangerous proposal uh that House Republicans uh have have conjured that in in my view ultimately is consistent with the broader attacks that ranking member Askin has described about the Judiciary so
▶ 0:48:00let's start here have you introduced this bill before no I held hearings on it in 2017 but uh there hadn't been it was previously put in by representative Jones on the Democrat side sure but I I'm say because I heard your uh cqu there with Mr Lang Langworthy and I just want to make sure we're clarifying for the record this bill you had not introduced in the prior congresses no I think but there is a justification for why the bill has come
▶ 0:48:31to us now sure please proceed you had one case in 1963 you went on for an additional presidence without it and then it began to grow it grew to where the alltime record was George uh W bush then it went down a little bit but not a lot during Obama it went back up during Trump 1 it went down but not to zero during Biden what we've seen is a growth like this Republicans get a little more of this than Democrats but the fact
▶ 0:49:01is it's a growing Trend each Democrat president gets more than the Democrat president before them sure that's the reason that uh uh Congressman Jones introduced substantially the same bill in 2022 is that the problem the problem is not that it's happened once the problem is it's becoming the the go-to solution were you in Congress when President Obama was President yes I was and you were in Congress when George W Bush was president president yes and you were in Cong I was here with Calvin kulage if you're going back that I
▶ 0:49:31don't want to a you here but you were in Congress when Joe Biden was President I was you didn't introduce this bill during any of those time periods in question right not withstanding as you said there were many Nationwide injunctions being issued by federal judges at that time but lo and behold it's only in the last 60 days that you decided to introduce this bill right in In fairness there was a period of time when I was chairing a different committee I understand but also uh Congressman former Congressman mark introduced the bill previously uh so it wasn't originally
▶ 0:50:01my bill and it wasn't originally uh Mr Jones's bill this bill has come up a couple of times under both Republicans different I'll ask you a different way you seem like that way that's a good way you seem very passionate about ending Nationwide injunctions not ending reigning in fine we'll use your word you feel very passionate about reigning in Nationwide injunctions right unless they unless they pertain to the plaintiffs before the judge a lot of disclaimers on it I mean you call this bill the no Rogue rulings Act of 2025
▶ 0:50:31I I don't I I don't think I'm misstating your position that subject to the disclaimers that you've provided you believe that there should be reigning in if Nationwide injunctions right that's why you're here that's why you're submitting this bill right that's correct okay uh during President Biden's tenure there were 14 Nationwide injunctions did you denounce any of them I'm not I'm not denouncing any of these did you believe any of them should be in I haven't looked at the details of each one of the cases but to the was there any that you made a public statement about wait wait a second there were 14 of them uh
▶ 0:51:01to the extent that judges were ruling beyond the plaintiffs before them sure I hereby would say that they were wrong to do okay the fact is judges should represent an a decision for the plaintiffs before them your team may need to go online and delete some of the social media posts that you've previously posted right are you familiar with a case called Missouri vers Biden I don't recall that this was a case regarding social media moderation by the administration sure sure and on July 5th of
▶ 0:51:312023 this is on Twitter X was called back then you said here on your social media quote a federal judge is stopping the White House from colluding with big Tech to censor your free speech on social media releasing this decision on Independence Day was right on target okay this is your Tweet July 5th of 2023 celebrating a district court Nationwide injunction against the Biden Administration made by a district court judge
▶ 0:52:02in the Monroe division of the Western District of Louisiana you can understand why we would be very skeptical about the motives of our colleagues bringing this bill today because they are disappointed and frustrated with decisions that have not gone in president Trump's favor when as recently as a year and a half ago year year and a half ago you and many other of our Republican colleagues were praising these Nationwide injunctions clamoring
▶ 0:52:32for more judges to issue Nationwide injunctions and now you you've seen the light I I explain to me how that how that happens since you've studied that one did they rule beyond the plaintiff before them it was I believe so it was a nationwide injunction we'll get you the decision I if you want to parcel through uh we can go through each of the 14 injunctions Nationwide injunctions that's why I made the list so far of 17 of the uh of the decisions would have still stood under this bill okay we will go through
▶ 0:53:02I I can promise you Mr Isa um we've got a great team they'll go through they'll pull every Nationwide injunction that was issued during the course of President Biden's time in the White House I suspect we're not going to find any statements from you denouncing or disagreeing or believing that those Nationwide injunctions provided they meet the disclaimers you've you've stipulated to I don't know I mean are you contending that was the case find that some of those uh 14 would survive a significant portion of would survive under this
▶ 0:53:33uh this legislation sure but the ones that wouldn't survive you weren't taking issue with them in the past In fairness uh every single one of them would still survive they would simply be limited to the plaintiffs before the judge Mr Isa I would simply suggest I I know that because I know ranking member Raskin real well I know that he was disappointed when there there were decisions made by federal judges issuing Nationwide injunctions by virtue of the Forum Shopping
▶ 0:54:03that Republican attorneys generals had done during the course of the Biden Administration I suspect he disappointed what he didn't do was come before the rules committee and ask our committee to end Nationwide injunctions as a matter of course in federal law he didn't do that why how do I know that because I'm on the rules committee I was here during the course of the Biden Administration he wasn't here asking us to do that so I would just implore you and I I know this is your legislation so I I suspect that perhaps this is
▶ 0:54:33a a tougher request for me to make but I would certainly implore my colleagues on this committee to reconsider their support for this legislation I don't think that it's in the best interests of judicial economy or adherence to the rule of law I get it you're frustrated I understand that temptation but we don't respond by changing federal law so that judges could no longer provide the kind of Equitable inherit and injunctive relief that they have found provided since the the the Inception
▶ 0:55:03of our Republic ranky member asking do you care to expound on this yeah Mr n thank you so much for your your thoughtful comments it brings to mind actually the conversation I had with mere Jones about this because he came and asked me to join the the legislation and he was invoking what was happening with judge kesrick and a few other Rogue you know right-wing judges who were imposing Nationwide injunctions on stuff and I said I couldn't sign on to it because I believe that courts should have that Authority that doesn't mean I
▶ 0:55:33agree with what he did in that particular case and I am definitely against the Forum Shopping which I think is the real problem we should be talking about but the fact is just because somebody misuses a rule doesn't mean that the rule itself is wrong and the rule is capacious enough so that if there are nationwide implications of a particular unconstitutional act or order might disagree about what they are then the court can act in that way and I think that happened in the the Biden um you know forgiveness
▶ 0:56:03of the the student loans and so on but I said I couldn't do it for that reason now in defense of Mr Isa I'm not sure he wants me defending him but I would say that I've been very concerned about what's taking uh place with the judges I went over to the judicial conference at the Supreme Court I think Mr Isa was there that day too we spoke to a bunch of federal district judges appeals court judges chief justice Roberts was was there these people are very upset and anxious about one and
▶ 0:56:33I'd say above all the physical threats the violent intimidation the attacks by the president of the United States yes Elon Musk on judges uh online because they understand millions of people read those and they're also very upset about converting a substantive doctrinal difference into cause for impeachment so I would say and I I'm not speaking at all to Mr isa's motives because I know he really believes in this but I would say this is a much safer way for people to have an outlet for
▶ 0:57:04their frustration to talk about this rule than what what is going on in the halls of Congress and in the streets Madam chair I'm concluded I but I do want to give Mr is a chance to respond if he'd like well I'd only say that um I'm sorry you didn't sign on to his bill it was it was actually pretty good uh but I I will say one more thing maybe for everyone the Biden Administration solicitor general said and I quote that these National injunctions they operate as systemat
▶ 0:57:34a with AET with a symetry uh I'm one of those words I can't do the government must Prevail in every suit to keep its policy in force but plaintiffs can derail a federal program Nationwide with what but a single Lower Court Victory and that is really the Crux of why we wanted to be limited to the plaintiffs before a a judge so that his his or her ruling applies to those plaintiffs but it doesn't create a situation
▶ 0:58:05in which literally you can you you can lose the plaintiffs can lose five times you just have to find one judge where the where they win puts a nationwide injunction and then for a significant period of time that becomes the law of the when he issued that statement this was this was she it was in October of uh as she was just before the election as her with her departure so I again we've we've belabored the point they thought they were thought they had another term I hear you I appreciate the chairwoman's Indulgence I would just simply say Mr R
▶ 0:58:35again you can understand our skepticism given that you did not introduce this bill when the solicitor general made her remarks you didn't announc publicly your support for her position on Nationwide injunctions nor to any of your colleagues you waited until Donald Trump had been elected president and of course here we are so with that I yield back thank you Mr ngus Mr Griffith you so sub committee chairman Isa uh are am I interpreting that one of the reasons you might have waited is is that the bill
▶ 0:59:05would not have stood a chance in the Senate since the Senate was not controlled by people who might be friendly to this bill that is absolutely correct and and Senator Grassley of course has a companion Bill's working on and I I just have to say and I think you touched on it a second ago is hypothetical at this point but in Theory without your bill and assuming that the principles of raise jicon and collateral stopa would not apply you could have five judges district court judges of the 94 a different districts turn down
▶ 0:59:35a national injunction and then have one implemented is that what I heard you say that's absolutely correct that you you could lose time and time again until you got one win and then you'd have a national injunction so in reality but if the issues raised in two different circuits in two different states this actually does create judicial economy does it not it absolutely does because that's historically where the high court looks for those two different differences and takes a case but generally the the entire nation and the
▶ 1:00:05administration isn't held to a standstill waiting for the time it takes to get to the Supreme Court and it's that time that causes a ticking of an administration's legitimate right and obligation to administer all right I appreciate that now I'm going put you in a little bit of an awkward situation but it's what came to me I'm going to put you into the role of of Michael Phelps as my colleague on the other side was saying you are talking about the Olympic swimmer right I am talking about the Olympic swimmer okay
▶ 1:00:35Mexico what was it eight of them he won a bunch Mexico City he just kept winning if you're going to hold me to that size hand and swimmer I'm proud to try do my best I I appreciate that and here's the issue that popped into my head all swimmers were allowed for many years to wear a full body suit made out of high-tech fiber Phelps competed wearing that suit but after several competitions he
▶ 1:01:06realized and it was a number of years I want to say it was four or five years he realized looking at things in hindsight that records were falling at a faster rate than historically had fallen in swimming they're always falling but he recognized that they had fallen at a faster rate and he recognized that it might might be the full body suit and he championed to the international Olympic Committee that those suit not that the records be gotten rid of
▶ 1:01:36but that the Olympic suit be changed so that it's just a Jammer that is basically wasted above the knee as opposed to a full bodysuit I I sense that's what you're doing here that looking at the history you recognize that things are trending in a way that is not good for the American judicial system and even though though you may have made comments on national uh injunctions previously issued by District Court even though you may not have thought deeply about it until 17
▶ 1:02:06or until the comments by the Democrats list General in October looking like Michael Phelps did looking back on the record you recognize that this is not good for the Judiciary just as he recognized it was not good for the sport of swimming and championed the cause and is really the reason that they they stopped o those high-tech suits to be any more than just uh waste just above the knee so do you see the analogy and do you agree with it I couldn't agree more that uh
▶ 1:02:36I I not only champion this now but I would champion in the future until it becomes law because the good of the court is important and and I might note something else for the record here um there's a rule 65 of the court that requires that you Bond these decisions and to my knowledge none of these decisions are being bonded uh and as we work Mr rasum and I work with the judicial conference we'd like them to live up to their rules those rules are there
▶ 1:03:06for a good reason uh the fact is when a judge orders that a plane turn around and come back that's fine but if that's overturned later where do we go to get the administration back the adverse cost of that decision on which there was a plaintiff asking for that so uh we have a number of things we want to do Mr Ras and I are working a number of members of the committee are even co-sponsoring it to expand the size of the court now I I'll be honest we've been trying to expand the size of the Court
▶ 1:03:36since 2000 we haven't succeeded you're exactly right it comes a time when you realize something has to happen and I would only be held that I not change until we accomplish it from the time I recognized it and I will promise you that I appreciate that one other thing I want to clear up because I've been reading the bill and I can't find it I'm sure in there somewhere but early on uh one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that that this Bill P particularly Exempted or at least they implied it
▶ 1:04:07Exempted an individual judge that Republicans had liked and I don't see that in the bill itself I'm guessing that what it is is that you're not affecting any pending cases is that what I'm understanding cases that in which an injunction this doesn't preempt existing injunction that are going through the process it does apply to all district judges uh equally and it it quite frankly we're we're frustrated to find that it doesn't have
▶ 1:04:37more acceptance it the area that Mr Rasam uh was particularly uh concerned about the idea that we would allow multi plaintiffs to come and they still would get a national injunction was really put in out of fairness to the history of class action suits and as a republican class action lawsuits are not necessarily what we're known for but we do recognize that when a judge is faced with cases for efficiency that are coming from multiple
▶ 1:05:07circuits that in fact they rule more broadly than their district and we could we could end more injunctions if we did that that's not what we're trying to do we're simply trying to say You're supposed to represent a decision of the plaintiffs before you and not plaintiffs that again uh are outside there's a district court judge in another uh District in another circuit that might rule differently and that's that's their right is to rule differently and then the US Supreme Court
▶ 1:05:37to reconcile those differences all right I appreciate that I will tell you that uh that that uh is of great concern to me uh in a bill that we had in the last term we changed the rules uh on pending litig litigation related to pipelines which just struck me as unfair and I did not care for that particular provision so with that uh Madam chair I yield back very much Mr Griffith Miss leure
▶ 1:06:07Fernandez you're recognized thank you so much Madam chair um and you know uh rep representative Isa you've publicly stated your support for Trump and musk and and what they are doing uh you know Democrats see it as that there's a lot of firings and chaos and we're worried about what's going to happen uh to Social Security what's going to happen to Veterans what about all the contracts that have been frozen uh and that would happen in your District as well right you have a lot of veterans in your
▶ 1:06:38District uh you have a lot of uh Federal contractors I suppose as someone who represented Camp Pendleton and the brave Marines for 18 years I not only have that but I have a lot of active duty exactly and so but you are in supportive of what Trump and musk uh are doing correct correct I have served in this body with the exception of the two years that I worked for Trump um I've served in this body for going on 25 years now and I've watched us build up a deficit uh and a debt
▶ 1:07:08that I am extremely concerned that someone in this case president Trump and Elon Musk has to take on because this body has been unwilling to deal with now a$2 trillion deficit so I'm extremely concerned that we have to eliminate waste Fraud and Abuse that we have to go after right people over 115 years old who claim be General the point was you are very supportive of what Trump and musk are doing you know we are very concerned about what's happening in our district so we are raising those concerns
▶ 1:07:38it makes sense that you as a republican elected with your positions as supportive of what Trump and mus are doing despite what might be happening in a district but no actually actually I have 55 miles of the Mexican order so I am I am interested in what he's doing because of my district fine because of your District fine whatever it is that you are right but the reality is that uh when there is
▶ 1:08:09a president in power with a House and Senate you are not going to get as much of the checks and balances that the Constitution anticipates and that's when we turn to the court you know the federal the Federalist did ANP as many when it's my time and that's when we turn to the courts right and that's when we turn to the courts and so our concern when we look at a bill like that when we look at the statements that come repeatedly
▶ 1:08:39from Trump and from members of this Congress that want to attack the courts that do not want to honor court rulings we become concerned because we need and the framers considered a checks and balances that said Congress can do oversight but when the house is not willing to do any oversight of this Administration then the plaintiffs have the right to go to the courts and some of the reason we are seeing the
▶ 1:09:09number of injunctions is because there have been a record number of executive orders this is about three times the number of executive orders of any president in the first 100 days right Biden only had maybe 37 so the fact that you're having these many injunctions is probably coming from two places one is that there are so many executive orders and two they are simply being found unconstitutional illegal and triggering
▶ 1:09:40the injunction by judges that have been appointed by Republicans that have been appointed by democrats that have been appointed by Trump and so that's where we come to this now uh you know ranking member Rasin what do you think when you see these numbers of injunctions coming out because they are as they put it flooding The Zone well thank you for
▶ 1:10:10for the question um first of all president Trump can issue as many executive orders as he wants he could do 5,000 he could do 5 million but if they're unconstitutional they're going to be struck down by the courts so there's no limit and people should understand what an executive order is because I think there's been a lot of confusion about this since the administration started an executive order does not Prevail over a federal law over a federal statute nor of course does it Prevail over the United States Constitution
▶ 1:10:41an executive order is an order from the president to the executive branch to interpret a law or a policy in a particular way so he's got a right to do that of course he the citizens as you say also have a right to go to court if what he's doing is unlawful or unconstitutional and that's all that's happening and I I wish my friend Mr Isa who again I repeat understands the law in a very deep way would identify one case where he thinks the judge got it wrong and we could actually talk about a matter of
▶ 1:11:11substance instead of saying oh there must be something wrong with the whole legal system as it's grown up over the centuries right uh that doesn't make sense to me and you know take the birthright citizenship case we've got con Conservative Republican judges we got liberal Democratic judges they're all saying the same thing which is it's in direct contradiction of the 14th Amendment right and that's in the Constitution so if you're issuing executive orders that are indirect opposition to the Constitution you can
▶ 1:11:42expect that you are going to lose in court he can be the all-time champion of executive orders if he wants he can be the Olympic first place holder like Michael Phelps of Maryland uh but not for swimming for executive orders and issue the most number of executive orders but he also could be the number one president in terms of having executive orders struck down it doesn't mean there's something wrong with our system right and the fact that when you lose in court talk about Michael Phelps and the sports when you lose in court when you lose uh in uh
▶ 1:12:12in the in the field in the track you don't then go back and say I want to change the judges which is kind of what they're doing since we're on the sports metaphor they're saying no let's change the rules let's change the judges and once we change the judges or we say we have anybody judge us so that way iaim that I want right that's sort of what this feels like is they are they keep trying to change the rules and and and and this time it's going after the courts well Bonnie and Clyde
▶ 1:12:42should have just denounced judicial activism right Butch Cassy and the Sundance Kid should have said well it's nothing that we did it's these liberal Rogue judges who are going after us I mean that's essenti what's happening right now we're in the middle of a constitutional crime spree uh against due process equal protection the First Amendment the separation of powers the power of the purse the judges are reacting appropriately to my mind and now the judges are being attacked and vilified right and
▶ 1:13:13and I mean and the the issue is when the judge when the courts rule against you and these will eventually make their way to the Supreme Court I mean it's not like there isn't already a system to resolve any cont addictions among the district courts and then when it goes up among the circuit courts and then to the Supreme Court so there is already a system in place nothing is broken right now with regards to this other than that President Trump keeps losing is there anything else you'd like to add no I other than I think you're making the point that also chief justice
▶ 1:13:43Roberts made he went to pays to say the proper response to disagreement with the judges to appeal the case not all of this other stuff that's going on and it is very rare to have a Supreme Court justice issue a statement the way Justice werts did because it was so extreme the attack on the courts and impeachment and on the judges and that's a court that has that has ruled in Donald Trump's favor in some major cases including Trump vers Anderson
▶ 1:14:14including us versus Trump about presidential immunity creating a whole new doctrine so it's not as if this court is somehow biased against him but he seems to be very concerned about the direction in which things are going right now so if we don't have a court system that can adequately respond to a president then do we have a democracy well the whole reason that we had a revolution in America
▶ 1:14:44was against a monarch a king uh and Madison defined tyrrany is the collapse of all powers legislative executive and judicial into one and so that cuts completely against the whole meaning of the American experiment thank you very much Madame chair yield back thank you Miss Leisure Fernandez Miss howchin you're recognized thank you madam chair thank you to the witnesses I am uh I've been taking some some Furious notes over here chairman
▶ 1:15:14Isa on uh some of the comments that we've heard from the other side of the aisle uh one of the comments that has been said is that this this bill will end injunctive relief but it doesn't end in relief in fact it provides a mechanism to allow for it under certain circumstances is that correct it doesn't end injunctive relief at all as to the parties before the judge but it does provide a process when the if you will there were multiple plaintiffs but not all the plaintiffs were present
▶ 1:15:44and I might argue that this process that you have put in place um is a mechanism by which uh it is a protection for some of the things that our friends on the other side of the aisle are concerned about permit permits a district court to issue a nationwide injunction where at least two states Attorneys General from different judicial districts are plaintiffs and provides that such a case must be heard by a three-judge panel that seems to be to be m a much better system than one unelected federal judge making a
▶ 1:16:14national injunction absolutely and then it it also uh in that situation gives an expedited trip to the to the Supreme Court after that three judge panel is ruled that's terrific so does this bill prevent the Supreme Court or any other court from issuing a ruling not a bit does this bill protect uh or prohibit any type of appeal from moving forward not a bit not a bit does it place the judicial branch uh in one uh so does it does the current
▶ 1:16:45circumstance does it not place the judicial branch and one unelected judge above the presidency you hit the nail right on the head it it it defines that a federal judge is limited to the plaintiffs before them when they're a district judge and does not give them Powers not only superior to the president but super Superior to nine men and women of the high court so we're supposed to have co-equal branches of government but it seems under the current circumstance if a lower court judge who is unelected in one jurisdiction
▶ 1:17:15can issue a nationwide injunction in joining the president of the United States that seems to be placing one branch above another and that's a huge concern it abs was intended to retain that balance and if I could there were a number of requests for examples and I'll give you just a couple of them that we're we're we're see seeing and it doesn't matter which way the the judge ruled but for example a judge ruled uh that the President should disperse $2 billion that he's holding against uh an
▶ 1:17:46investigation on fraud that's fine we'll leave that one alone but it's a trro here's one that love men serving in women's prisons in other words men who identify as women being placed in women's prisons even if they have a history of rape of women that is a nationwide injunction under my bill they might be able to order one prisoner who's a plaintiff who demands to be placed in there they might be able to make that decision they wouldn't be able to
▶ 1:18:16say to the entire federal system that overnight those those prisons would be flooded with that that would take the time which means there'd be a chance for the high court to say that's ridiculous and dangerous uh the same thing goes with Force mutilation uh of uh of children uh there's a the funds for it there's a number of these cases that are simply policies of the previous administration being reversed by this Administration but the
▶ 1:18:46court is standing in there saying yes we understand that the first Trump Administration was one position Biden reversed it and got away with it now you want to reverse it back to where it was in your Administration no you can't and I'm going to ban you we're trying to get down to plaintiffs and and districts as it should be and as I said earlier I can go through 17 of the 38 cases that would still go forward because they limited themselves most of them limited themselves to the plaintiffs before
▶ 1:19:16them we're not trying to neutralize the importance of the court in the balance but we're not trying to raise any one judge to to be superior to nine men and women of the chief uh of the Supreme Court and is the term National injunction is that a legal term um I don't believe that it is it is not is it defined in federal statute or in a in a majority Court decision no it is not it is not so um the term National injunction is is something
▶ 1:19:46that is within the lower court it's a defined maybe in a lower Court ruling but it hasn't been around forever uh and it's not something that's been legislated not at all Al statute although from the beginning of time a plaintiff and defendant when they left that Court knew they were they were enjoined anywhere they went but again it was the plaintiff and defendant before them not parties that were quote not present so let me ask you this question uh before Nationwide
▶ 1:20:17injunctions were judges powerless to protect people's rights in cases like Brown versus the Board of Education not a bit for 190 years we dit just fine without the so-called Nationwide injunction and so we've heard a couple of things saying uh that this might be unconstitutional doesn't Congress have a role in determining the scope of federal jurisdiction yes it does um judges can't just issue injunctions without somebody petitioning for it
▶ 1:20:47in a lawsuit is that correct they are not allowed to hand to operate Den Novo there has to be someone who has Nexus to them according to the statute St so is it maybe this may be the most extreme example of a concern that I have if we continue under the current pathway without passing your bill if a judge is able to issue an injunction for instance to say that troops cannot deploy that's one judge unelected taking authority over what should be the decision of the president of
▶ 1:21:17the United States we had a similar circumstance in my view that uh the issue to turn a deportation plane uh was made by a a district court judge against the uh wishes of the president of the United States and his military authority to protect our national security and in what he sees as commander-in-chief so um under those circumstances it's um it's very concerning to
▶ 1:21:47me uh we know that uh the Congress does have the authority to legislate in this manner under article 3 you are well within the bounds of that um directive uh we do have outstanding concerns uh maybe they were highlighted by this Administration but there have been other circumstances and what you're doing is not saying that National injunctions can't take place you're saying that these cases can move forward they can be appealed they can be taken all the way to the Supreme Court it's
▶ 1:22:17just that the uh the actions of the president would not be enjoined by one judge exactly L right and in the case of that airplane for example had a had they come with a plaintiff one of the people on the plane asserting that that individual had been wrongfully identified as a member of a terrorist organization wrongfully identified as undocumented and illegally in this country uh then in fact they could have petitioned for that individual to be
▶ 1:22:47left on the plane and brought back that would have been appropriate but that would have been a plaintiff with a case not a party moving saying this is an injustice uh you know earlier I was asked about you know am I happy uh with this Administration as a as a republican am I happy with President Trump well I'll tell you my district with 55 miles of the Mexican border my district with fentanyl coming over the Border by the tens of thousands of pounds every year
▶ 1:23:18my district where we in fact had to B take the burden of this massive importation my district which by the way has now been identified to have people in almost one out of every five people let over the border on Medicaid and many of them are registered voters and voted in the last election my district is better off because of these actions and anything that slows that down that slows down president Trump asserting his legitimate obligation is adverse
▶ 1:23:48to my district so yes I'd like to see the president able to do his job I respect the court but the court needs need to have a plaintiff and represents and represent what that plaintiff brings in the way of evidence and not simply make decisions because they don't like this President well thank you you know National Security decisions are constitutionally delegated to the president federal district judges do not in my view have authority to supersede the president's decisions on matters of National Security like you mentioned uh interestingly we know this no one votes
▶ 1:24:18for federal judges we do this so judges can act free of political influence when judges do become political however and when judges encroach on the powers of the other branches they erode the justification for their protection this uh this is when this happens they invite this kind of reforms uh that we see in this bill I'm happy to support it and I yield back thank you thank you Miss hin Mr Jack you're recognized uh thank you very much Madam chair and I'll
▶ 1:24:48be brief um I'm just curious if I can start with Mr Askin it's not the purpose of this hearing but of the 17 Nationwide injunctions so to speak that have been uh issued since president Trump was sworn in are there any with which you disagree none are coming to mind I've read pretty much all of them um I mean the uh the birthright citizenship cases I I assume you would agree with those or perhaps not but and we have very conservative judges ruling the exact
▶ 1:25:19same way that Democratic appointed judges uh have ruled on that and uh now unlike Mr Ice's District my district has a lot of federal employees so I've been very concerned about the mass firings of probationary employees probation sounds like they did something wrong actually they've been promoted or they just started off but the courts have struck those down because they're saying that you know they have the civil service right to be treated as an individual a lot of them have Superior evaluations um
▶ 1:25:49and were nonetheless fired and the court said that's really a riff it's a reduction in force and you've got a use the specific rules on that protecting Veterans for example because 30% of federal workers are veterans and so a lot of my constituents are veterans who got sacked illegally so I would say I can't think of one thank you yeah um Mr uh Isa if I could ask you know we've talked a little bit about the history 190 years um and I I think as I understand it there have been 17 injunctions filed Nationwide injunctions this presidential term of President
▶ 1:26:19Trump the first term 55 and I think in the 20th century just a about 20 uh if we were to rewind backwards um did at what point did this uh I guess concept of Nationwide injunction begin is there a specific case and obviously happy to defer to Mr Rasin too I know the professor would know it better but there was a 1963 case uh that that was sort of landmark considered to be one of the first but you're exactly right it it became it was so rare
▶ 1:26:49that people didn't see it as much of a problem even if they disagreed with the case um and and it is interesting that the ranking member couldn't give you one example of one that he disagrees with now that the shoe's on the other foot this legislation though is not about whether you agree or disagree with the actual uh decisions this is about having the judges rule as to the plaintiffs before them as a routine rather than simply saying well I'm not worried about who the plaintiff
▶ 1:27:19is I'm going to make it nationwide uh the the basic concept is is that the arguments are between a plaintiff and a defendant the cases can be different and the example uh that I gave of there may have been one person on those airplanes that could have said uh I'm not really a member of the group I just got the tattoo because it looked cool I don't know what their reason might be but that wasn't what was before the judge the judge simply said I'm not going to let you
▶ 1:27:50take a law that has been on the books since our founding virtually over 200 years and execute on it because I disagree with the law that we're going to say they have to have due process even though the law for 200 years 250 almost didn't say that so that's an that's the most that would be my most egregious example that turning around of the aircraft when in fact he wasn't speaking on behalf of a plaintiff but was simply speaking that he didn't agree with the law that had been unchanged
▶ 1:28:21since the late 1700s Mr Jack thank you very kindly um so that I think that that's a great example judge bosberg courtroom and the the deportation case so um I Mrs uh hin forgive me if I'm pronouncing your last name right is that right hin yeah Mrs Alin said that the president exclusively has the National Security power and I I just I beg to differ with that if you look at the 1798 alien enemies act
▶ 1:28:51the the Congress said that the president would have the authority to remove people from the country in two situations okay one is if we are at war with that country if we've declared war against the country or two if we're incurring or suffering from a military Invasion right and judge bosberg again a Bush appointee when he first got onto the court um said well Congress has not declared war we're not at war with Venezuela and there's no military Invasion so for these people to be swept
▶ 1:29:22up and deported from the country you've got to use the Ina the Immigration and Naturalization Act but that requires a due process hearing as everybody knows but there was no hearing and so this gets to my mind like the two most beautiful words in the English language due process you know there was a a guy who um according to his family we don't know because it wasn't under oath but a guy in Dallas who was picked up and the basis for his being picked up according to him was
▶ 1:29:52a tattoo he has for Autism Speaks his younger brother is autistic and there's pictures of him together with the tattoo and that was somehow seen as a pro gang tattoo he said he never met the gang he had nothing to do with the gang and he was deported but nobody knows because there was no due process so the reason why the due process hearing is necessary is because the original statute was improperly invoked because we were not at War and there was no military Invasion so
▶ 1:30:22at the very least that's a credible and plausible analysis of the legal situation and bosberg should neither be impeached nor vilified and I don't think it's caused to completely change what is this fixture in our civil procedur syst and I would I would only say that uh the professor took a little bit of Liberty there the word military is not in the statute so he may be interpreting that it's about military but we are under an invasion we're under an invasion by organized crime
▶ 1:30:53that organiz has been deemed as a terrorist organization uh the president was well within his jurisdiction to say that they came with weapons they came equipped uh to conduct it uh and that organization recruits and comes over here for that purpose so uh did it meet all of the elements absolutely and I believe when it eventually gets through the high court it will again I I agree with my ranking member there was a perfectly good reason to say person X
▶ 1:31:23may have had a tattoo there may be a reason but that would be a plaintiff saying that person has to be turned around on an airplane it doesn't change the fact that it was an airplane full of people that we had very good evidence were in fact members of this terrorist organization they were active in their crimes and their their beliefs and the president was expeditiously removing them and I would only say one other thing the the ranking member talks about immigration acts and so on under those Acts
▶ 1:31:53the right of due process is limited and administrative it is not as broad as it is for for American citizens so even if one were to say was there an administrative procedure the president's entitled to have an administrative procedure that is quick and doesn't automatically go to a federal judge to make a blanket statement so was uh uh Mr bosberg overly broad yes was he wrong yes am I going to vilify him no but I do disagree with his
▶ 1:32:24decision as I disagree with the ranking members interpretation of the of the 189 1798 law thank you and just one last question Mr Rasin you're obviously a well educated constitutional uh law professor um I'm curious uh just to to be clear do you feel this law Falls within the scope of the Constitution is it constitutional did the framers intend for us to be able to limit uh the scope of some of these courts and their Nationwide impact well I'm sorry which law are you referring to sorry
▶ 1:32:54the law that's being proposed the bill upon which you're testifying oh well um that's a that's a good question um you know I don't um I I don't know that the law the way it is today is constitutionally mandatory so I mean I think this is a reasonable debate that uh we're having about it but I I will say the reason I turned it down strongly when Mr Jones came to me was I immediately thought of Brown versus Board of Education and I thought about Linda Brown and I thought well when she finally
▶ 1:33:24summoned up the resources and the energy and the courage to bring her case to court should the court in a case like that just rule desegregation is unconstitutional for you in your school district and if there's anybody else in the country who's in the same situation they can go to their federal district court and that just doesn't make sense to me as a matter of judicial economy or fairness or constitutional rights thank you I yield back sorry Mr daa I I just want to share one thing
▶ 1:33:54uh I happen to have a fairly unique District in that 70 miles into my district you go through a border patrol check station that doesn't occur in many places but the high court the United States Supreme Court back in the 30s held that in fact secondary points in which Americans are well I mean the entire city of San Diego and many other suburbs are south of that border and yet we drive through a border patrol
▶ 1:34:25station every time we head north and we do so because of the nature of catching and apprehending people illegally in the country people who may represent a threat and we do so every day in my district and I only say that because many people want to pretend that the war against this Invasion the war that the president is fighting today for all of us they want to pretend that somehow that has to all fall under common du process but the courts at the highest level
▶ 1:34:55have said illegal immigrants do not have the same rights as American citizens and that is something that will be decided by the high court during this administration because the this President is doing for us what the last one undid for the American people thank you Mr Isa Mr Norman you're recognized thank both of you for for for coming in appearing today um I think there is another side to
▶ 1:35:25it too Congressman I is the fact that just the logic when Boseman or I don't if I'm pronouncing his name right ordered the the plane to come back and bring the basically gang me members and murders back the American people just don't understand that nor and that's why I think the the president's approval ratings are so high one of the things they didn't understand when the Biden Administration wouldn't let um
▶ 1:35:55Elon Musk rescue the the astronauts who were there uh for months and should have been there 12 days they don't understand that but this is one of Common Sense and you do think that you know the alien's enemies act does give him the authority I I do I I not only believe it gives him the authority but it gives him essentially a mandate to protect us from Invasion right um now the I guess the U
▶ 1:36:25the court that you the panel of three uh to sell if a federal district court issues a nationwide Junction you've has have a safety valve for a panel of three absolutely and who who walk me through who pays for that where is it how is it chosen um it's chosen at random uh by by by the the circuit uh they they all have that that basic assignment rotation uh as meic in some cases they actually have a bag with all the names and they pull them
▶ 1:36:56out um so uh and and that has fairly well respected the random uh nature of of three judge panels okay and you mentioned a bond yeah under rule 65 uh every one of these cases brought and asking for these injunctions the law that rule uh uh says that they cannot issue that injunction without the bond uh and yet they're doing it again and again and again as though it as though it says may
▶ 1:37:26instead of shall as though it said doesn't say exactly what it says which is they in order to do it they shall have a bond of sufficiency for the offset and it just isn't happening uh and this is an area where uh many of us on the uh Judiciary Committee several of us we go before the judicial conference and it is an area that has been brought up before and I will bring it up again the next time that this is something that the Chief Justice and additional conference need to enforce and if they
▶ 1:37:56don't uh we might have to take rule 65 and turn it into law 65 because it's a good it's good for a reason you get frivolous cases when it costs the plaintiff nothing you get uh you get better cases when there's a risk if they're wrong and they and the Damage they cause uh can be uh brought back it's called consequences is it consequences matter well they the ranking member hit you hit or I guess stated when you first
▶ 1:38:27he when it was his time to talk that he really cares about the lives of our troops in danger uh where was he when he left the 13 Americans in Afghanistan where was he on the as astronauts how about those lives um you know I think it's to to say anything otherwise and it's kind of hypocritical for him to bring that up hundreds if not thousands of Americans are alive today because tens of thousands of dangerous criminals
▶ 1:38:57who are unlawfully in this country have been arrested and deported yeah well thank you for the bill I fully support it and I Y back thank you Mr Norman Mr Scott recognized thank you madam chair I apologize for being late but the weather conflicted with Delta Airlines and uh sometimes that happens safy first what's that Safety First yeah um I I to support the bill I I don't have any questions I would point out
▶ 1:39:27that Brown versus Board of Education was a Supreme Court ruling uh we're talking about district courts here if I'm not mistaken is that correct and there's a big difference in a Supreme Court ruling and a District Court ruling there was no Nationwide injunction at the lower court in brown VI Board of Education that's right and and I I do believe that the president has done the right thing in taking some of the most violent people in the world and getting them out of our country and so I commend him for being aggressive enough to do this I think for the last several years the cartels have controlled
▶ 1:39:58the Border I think it absolutely is an invasion I think if look at the number of people that have died from um you know that that would lead you to believe that it was an invasion as well and I would just ask this just this one question I mean the law is still on the books right the law is still on the books and it could have been repealed at any time could have been appealed or the judge could have ruled that it was unconstitutional he didn't rule it was unconstitutional he still ordered the president to return these individuals and give them a due process not in that law
▶ 1:40:28it's the law of the land I think the president has the right to use it to protect American citizens and with that Madam chair I yield thank you Mr Scott I want to thank our Witnesses again today for coming before us and without any further comment the Witnesses are excused I now welcome our second panel chairman
▶ 1:41:00style and ranking member Morelli from the committee on house administration your full statement your full statements will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes chairman style I welcome your testimony thank you very much thank you very much chairwoman Fox
▶ 1:41:30uh ranking member McGovern members of the committee uh thank you for inviting me to testify in support of hr22 uh the Safeguard Americans election voter elig eligibility act uh known as The Safe Act I also want to thank my colleague uh Mr chip Roy for his sponsorship of this bill and his collaboration uh and working to get this legislation into final form uh also would like to thank uh speaker Johnson and his team and the committee uh for all their time and resources dedicated to bringing this bill uh to the floor as
▶ 1:42:00the chairman of the commun house administration uh I'm focused on securing our elections we've held numerous hearings on Election Integrity U and spoken with election administrators and expert on federal uh election law uh from across the country this bill the save Act passed the House of Representatives during the 118th congress with bipartisan support uh but un for was not taken up by our colleagues in the Senate last Congress so I'm pleased uh to see the save act brought to the floor once again
▶ 1:42:30the save act will help restore Americans confidence in our elections through the save act we'll strengthen our election Administration and keep American elections for American citizens in recent years we've seen a growing number of jurisdictions across the country allow non-citizens to vote in Municipal elections including right here in our nation's capital in Washington DC non citizen only has to reside in the district for 30 days to be eligible to vote in Municipal elections you can imagine what it would look
▶ 1:43:00like if that policy was adopted across the country the save act contains uh critical reforms and strengthens current laws by requiring documentary proof of US citizenship to register to vote uh in federal elections two months ago uh I held a Roundtable with secretaries of state from across the country to discuss difficulties they encounter while administering the most recent election one of their top concerns was the Integrity of voter roles uh and we discussed preventing noncitizens
▶ 1:43:31from voting the save act contains crucial reforms to election law that will help States conduct free and fair elections the national voter registration act currently requires states to give voter registration forms to everyone who receives a driver's license regardless of citizenship so for example uh in Illinois non-citizens can obtain a driver's license and under the nvra these non-citizens are given voter registration forms uh and just a few years ago illino had to
▶ 1:44:01remove hundreds of non-citizens from its voter roles all an application has to do is check a box saying they're a citizen and the citizenship verification process is over it's almost hard to believe uh but following the 2013 Supreme Court case Arizona versus intertribal the nvra uh as it's currently written uh actually prevent States from asking applicants uh for confirmation of citizenship in federal elections uh that's wrong the save
▶ 1:44:31act would change the federal language under the NV to require and assist States in obtaining documentary proof of citizenship in person when an individual registers to vote in a federal election State DMVs can no longer take someone word someone's word for being a citizen the self-verification method of claiming to be an American citizen does not ensure that American elections are secure states have tried to enforce documentary proof of citizenship but the
▶ 1:45:01requirement has been shot down by the courts uh due to preemption and so the save act would require states to set up a program to remove non-citizens from their voter roles in order to assist with this process the bill would give States free access to federal and state databases with citizenship information uh by allowing this access states can strengthen registration processes uh and ensure that non-citizens are not registered to vote this has routinely been a top request made by secretaries of State across the country
▶ 1:45:32uh the save act will direct the election ad Mission commission to update any guidance associated with the bill that's an important Point they'll probably talk about here today the save act will also ensure that states U with same day registration can comply with the bill and finally the save Act is in line with President Trump's recent executive order on preserving and protecting the Integrity of American elections uh many of my colleagues may say uh that non-citizen voting is already illegal that's true
▶ 1:46:02in fact it's illegal uh for a non-citizen to vote uh in a federal election this bill is about enforcing our laws and ensuring non-citizens cannot vote so it's illegal to evade uh border patrol uh and illegally enter the country uh it was illegal under the Biden Administration and it was illegal uh today under the the Trump Administration but why have we seen the dramatic drop because of enforcement so this bill is not simply about altering
▶ 1:46:32the law it's still illegal for non-citizens to vote in this country in federal elections this bill is about enforcing the law uh getting the result we want which is that US citizens are the only individuals that are voting uh in US elections so um I look forward to our conversation today I think we need to pass the save act uh Madam chair I back thank you Mr style Mr melli you are recognized uh thank you very much
▶ 1:47:03uh Madame chair it's nice to see you thank you uh to the ranking member Mr McGovern thank you to the members of the committee uh grateful for your service uh on this committee which I know takes a great deal of time as an Alum of the committee it's always uh good to be back in the room uh on the first day of this Congress Republicans included the save Act the rules package under a closed rule yet here we are debating a bill that Republican leadership could easily have brought to the floor at any time so I do have a simple question which is what are we doing
▶ 1:47:33here um aside from process however I want to be crystal clear about the substance of the bill the save act coupled with the president's recent executive order would American elections the save Act and the president's executive order formed the most significant effort to disenfranchise American citizens in this nation 's long history the save act would force American citizens into a paperwork nightmare turning every voter registration into a bureaucratic tsunami of
▶ 1:48:03government red tape the save act requires every American citizen to show generally either a passport or their birth certificate to register to vote want to use your real ID you cannot even as my good friend the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin admitted to this committee last year most real IDs alone cannot be used for voter registration under this under the save act military IDs alone will also be insufficient to register to vote you can use your birth certificate alongside your photo
▶ 1:48:34ID but almost 70 million American women a quarter of the citizen voting age population have a different name on their birth certificates than on their ID most married women 84% to be exact change their name this provision would also disen disenfranchise survivors of domestic abuse who have changed their names for safety reasons that Republicans would willfully make it harder for domestic abuse survivors to vote is shocking the save act will disproportionately
▶ 1:49:04burden rural Americans it will force millions of rural voters many of whom now registered to vote online or by mail to travel significant distances to present documents to government officials candidly under the save act voter registration As We Know It Ends the save act does let does does let Americans to use their passports to register but half of all Americans do not have a passport and a passport costs $130 per person plus additional fees so the cost of the save
▶ 1:49:34act to American voters who are without a passports and need one to register if they all did it $19 billion that's right at the time of rising costs under the administration we currently have in the white house with a looming Trump recession on the horizon Republicans are trying to charge US citizens billions of dollars just to register to vote let's face it Republicans have one real purpose here to weaken American confidence in elections which Americans generally assume they have confidence in the election
▶ 1:50:04system just look at the recent executive order on voting the order Lake the save act disenfranchises women rural voters military voters native voters seniors students survivors of domestic abuse and survivors of natural disasters who after a flood or hurricane may find it very hard to find documentation like their passports or their birth certificates worse yet the executive order forces states to let Elon Musk and Doge into State voter databases containing personal
▶ 1:50:34private information and I ask why does Elon Musk need access to American citizens voting records uh I think the sole objective here is to scare Americans into falsely believing that non-citizens are voting in federal elections but we know this simply does not happen last Congress our committee held hearing after hearing on a number of topics including non-citizen voting but my colleagues could not produce any evidence to back up their claims nor was there any evidence of non-citizens voting
▶ 1:51:05in the 2024 election in fact speaker Johnson admitted publicly he had known proof of non-citizen voting in federal elections thought it was simply intuitive well we need to have evidence of it if we're going to make all of these changes in fact the save act does not solve any problems American elections elections do face from chronic underfunding to to State and County Boards of Elections to Violent threats against election administrators and election workers the save act will not lower the cost of living for American
▶ 1:51:35families instead will make Americans lives more expensive the Press has extensively reported that someh House Republicans have been afraid to face their constituents at Town Halls the save act proves that in some cases Republicans are also afraid to face constituents at The Ballot Box they'd rather stop them from voting and registering altogether but the American people will not for fall forward we should not approve this bill and with that Madame chair I yield back thank you very
▶ 1:52:05much I appreciate both of you being here chairman style as you know increasing the role of the Federal Government in state elections is something that should be avoided but the save act simply amends established law on this subject correct it doesn't increase the role of the Federal Government but closes a fundamental loophole that existing current law is that correct that that's ex exactly right in many
▶ 1:52:35ways Congress broke this and Congress needs to fix this um and so as we discussed um under Uh current law National registration voter act uh States give um registration Force everyone who receives a driver's license uh I was not here when that law was written when it was maybe people didn't think states were going to be giving driver licenses to illegal immigrants maybe they did uh but in the case of non-citizen receiving that uh as required uh it sure seems like an area to me
▶ 1:53:05that Congress should engage uh in fixing the law so Congress broke the law when they when they wrote it originally and this is our opportunity for Congress to fix that law uh sure followup is it your view that the participation of noncitizens in illegal immigrants in our voting processes has been increasing in the last decade well we do know that there's a significant number of illegal immigrants that entered this country uh during the Biden Administration there's also legal uh immigrants
▶ 1:53:35in the United States uh as well and so we have seen this uh occur there's uh a series of documents um that in evidence that we put forward in our committee through different hearings uh where this has been the case uh my standard is that one non-citizen voting in us elections is too much I know some of my colleagues on the other side their standard is higher than that we can have that debate uh on the house floor when this bill comes forward uh but this bill really allows the true enforcement of the law that
▶ 1:54:06is in US elections only US citizens can vote thank you and we have a member serving currently who won her first election by only six votes and so to say um to to dis count anybody voting illegally uh really is um unjust because um if you're winning by six votes and you had for
▶ 1:54:36hypothetically six illegal or un um unel ineligible voters then that distorts the entire program and uh six votes is not much uh and it's not hard hard to see that when you're cast seeing 400 500 600,000 votes cast so thank you very much again Mr style Mr mcgoverin you're recognized thank you just a a few questions uh first of all I'm trying
▶ 1:55:06to understand kind of why we are here right now um if I remember correctly in our opening day rules package um we provided a rule a close rule because that's what you guys all like is Clos rules to deal with the uh with the save act um is there a manager's Amendment that you're bringing to us today or is there is there something new from the bill that was in the that we gave a rule for in the rules opening day rules package and now is there any different language this is the the same bill on the same text that we pass so why why are we
▶ 1:55:36why are we here you already have a rule to bring it to the floor why are we why are we bringing this why are we here having a debate about another rule I would if if it's directed at me uh Mr ranking member I would I would defer to the rules committee for the expertise as to the rules process but happy to comment on the substance of the bill but didn't you ask for there to be a rule granted for this a new rule I'm just wondering why are we having a new rule when you already have a rule it's the same rule this will be a closed rule as well I'm I'm assuming
▶ 1:56:06so like what we what are we I'm just trying to why why are we having this second meeting to take up the exact same bill and give it the exact same close rule again I would defer to the rules committee as it relates to that process obviously the rules committee Theory I have a theory um and I have a theory that um you guys are trying to um derail um the discharge petition uh that representative Luna brought before
▶ 1:56:36um uh before the before this chamber um I want to request I have unanimous consent request to insert into a record a letter from representative Luna announcing her departure from the freedom caucus and representative Luna writes and I quote when compromise proved impossible our own Freedom caucus members on the house rules committee and a small faction of our group advocated to change our rules of governance by tying my petition to a rule that would kill it and attaching it to the save act and I also want to ask unanimous
▶ 1:57:07consent to iner to the record a letter from representative Luna regarding speaker Johnson's efforts uh to use uh this committee to kill her discharge petition related to proxy voting for new parents um and she writes let me quote the letter that she is that she's sending to all the Republican conference she says this the speaker speaker is being blackmailed speaker is being blackmailed into doing this but this Behavior to force
▶ 1:57:37someone into doing something is categorically wrong and everything we're supposed to stand against end quote so is with that objection yeah so is that the reason why we're here is is so that we could have a so that we could try to get get a rule that might make it more difficult for Republicans to vote no on in order to kill a discharge petition where a majority of members of this house Democrats and Republicans signed onto to be able to bring a debate and a vote to the house floor on
▶ 1:58:08uh proxy voting for new parents from the rule standpoint I'll defer to the expertise of the members of this commit not not I don't know it's not the jurisdiction of the committee on house administration but you asked for this you asked for this uh for this in a letter you sent to this committee you asked us to give your bill a rule and I guess I'm just puzzled by we already gave it a rule we already gave it the kind of rule that you're requ that you you're going to that you want
▶ 1:58:38today I I so I mean this is kind of a like a a um kind of a scam to to derail a discharge petition uh that some of your members many of whom by the way when we had proxy voting utilize proxy voting including the speaker of the house by the way um but now want to deny new mothers the ability to participate um in uh I I I just well anyway well I mean I think
▶ 1:59:08we all know that that that's what's going on nobody wants to talk about it everybody wants to make believe it's not happening but we all know what is happening um you know uh ranking member melli pointed out that almost 70 million American women have a different name on their birth certificate than their photo id id and under this bill they will be unable to prove citizen Citizenship using a birth certificate um so they would what need like a what a passport would that be
▶ 1:59:38sufficient to prove that you're a citizen director to me yeah um no actually I think page 14 uh line 19 uh actually explicitly addresses this uh and directs the states to create a process uh for addressing this this exact issue uh name changes are State specific and so each state your state and my state may not have the same process for an individual to change their name and so therefore uh in this text of the bill we've explicitly asked the states to design that process uh to make sure
▶ 2:00:08individual are not disenfranchised but how many different well how many different ways could you design a process uh to address that short of a of a of a passport can I give so we could look for examples to the state of North Dakota which uses real ID and indicate citizenship on those identifications so an individual in the state of North Dakota when they obtain a driver's license or any other form of ID would have a citizenship or non-citizenship delineated on their driver's license and therefore would
▶ 2:00:38be able to utilize that that be one example but as you know a lot of real IDs don't don't require proof of citizenship like in DC for example and and so we would look for many of these states or uh or in if you you know if you don't have to prove proof for citizenship for a real ID in in many states and many states don't have real ID then what are your options you have like a passport and you know how much a passport costs well we would we a passport would be one of a series $160 but but it would only be one of
▶ 2:01:08a series of options and so for example any given State as we note in page 14 line 19 directing the state to create a process for addressing the exact issue the state could make obtaining a license free in their respective state if they so chose or they could they could charge amount depending on what each individual State determines to setup as their process so could could the state not change anything and keep it as it is North Dakota would be just fine sir I mean I can any other I mean could every state just maintain the status quo it depends if they're in compliance I I would need
▶ 2:01:39an example I'm noting that North Dakota would be in compliance today right well but I'm I'm just simp saying in order to prove your citizenship if you're a woman and your name on your birth certificate is different um you know I'm I'm just what what I mean the state's coming up with criteria what would that I'm trying to think of the criteria that wouldn't cost a lot of money or that wouldn't be so difficult that it would dissuade people from voting it just seems like the the brunt of all the requirements in this bill are on
▶ 2:02:09women M Mr mlli well I do want to point out that first of all the executive order by the president gives no instruction to EAC whatsoever so that's obviously at odds with the bill that is being uh Advanced here today but I'd also note that the the ACT becomes uh effective immediately it's upon enactment if you then charge the 50 states with coming up with after getting guidance from the elections um assistant commission so
▶ 2:02:39once that happens they will provide whatever guidance and then send it to the states and the states will have to make decisions presumably similar maybe different requirements in each state um during that entire time time and that could take months women who have a different last name by virtue of been married and 84% of women take a their husband's name in America they will be unable to register to vote so that could take months and months there's no way to register during that time you do you want to add something
▶ 2:03:10sure we're looking at a federal election that's 18 months away so if enacted immediately you have the 18 months uh there's not a federal election um nationally in the interm we note U that states will be creating a process to address this issue so if a state wanted uh to put forward um you you could bring your marriage license and show other documentation of the name change for example the state could put that forward uh as it relates to the finances that any given State uh chooses what those fees are associated with of attaining uh something such as a marriage
▶ 2:03:41license if I might um that's not entirely I appreciate um my good friend the general election for the 2026 election but we have special elections going on right now right there there vacancies in in Texas there's two vacancies in Florida um and there there certainly could be other vacancies that would occur but this is and by the way this isn't about voting this is about registering so you'd have to wait months uh to figure out what your state does after you've waited for
▶ 2:04:11the EAC to come up with guidelines that would be implemented so for a period of time and it could take months women who have a different last name than their husbands or than their their birth certificate by virtue of taking their husband's name will not be able to register to vote yeah I mean this sounds like a hell of a lot this sounds like a hell of a lot of paperwork just to be able to register to vote Mr melli can you just talk a little bit more about how this bill would make it harder for members of our military to register to vote so if you're overseas this will affectively end a voter registration by mail this this
▶ 2:04:41bill so you cannot do it unless you're physically present at the Board of Elections now you could mail in a form but you'd still have to go to your local Board of Elections to bring your documentation so you could mail it in but it wouldn't be effective because your documentation will have to be brought in so if you are serving overseas you're a marine somewhere stationed around any place in the globe you can't register by mail if you haven't registered before you get deployed you simply can't register to
▶ 2:05:11vote so think about it men and women who are literally putting their lives on the line to defend the rights and interests of American citizens would not be able to register to vote to vote in an American election it seems like the greatest insult of all um I'd also mention as it relates to senior citizens if if if a mother or grandmother of yours is in a nursing home they have to re-register because they're changing location but they can't mail in their registration any longer so 90-year-old person who's
▶ 2:05:42incapacitated living in a Skilled Nursing Facility they somehow have to get to the board of elections they have to make sure they have their birth certificate they have to have a passport if they have a different name be than their U than their birth certificate they're going to have to get documentation of course they'll have to wait for that to get approved same is true I mean you'll list person after person after person um it is this will create such a dynamic that'll and and honestly for many things that you might have to provide documentation like I have real
▶ 2:06:12ID I just went last week to get my enhanced real ID required under the state of New York turns out I didn't have the documentation I thought I needed I went home I'm incredibly organized I couldn't find it but to get real IDE I'm required so I'll have to go through a process to get replacement documentation I'll do it but if it was just simply to register to vote you might say yeah sound this sounds like a voter repression you know suppression bill that's what this sounds like um and U
▶ 2:06:42and I I I the last election I mean all the all supposedly all these illegal aliens voted in the last election Donald Trump won maybe were they all rushing I don't know what happened but the bottom line is uh you know I expected my Republican colleagues to do something like this had C Harris one but I this is a little bit you know over the top but let me I want to ask you an consent to put a letter from Mr style into the record where he ask for this committee to Grant a rule on the Safe Act um
▶ 2:07:12and um Mr style I would ask you not to send us requests in the future um if it is not your request or if you don't know why that you're doing it um bottom line U we're here because you asked us to give this a rule I ask you what's different from the bill that we gave you a rule on uh in the original rules package to now and you told me there's no difference why I don't it seems like we're wasting our time here you it should be maybe then an easy yes if we already have the rule you give us the
▶ 2:07:43no well I mean you you have nine here you you'll get a yes but it's it's like I I I mean it goes back to what I'm saying what this is about is a is it is about shutting off the discharge petition uh it's the first time M that we have we have done something like this um and you were party to it and I with that I yield back I believe the gentleman knows that every time there is a bill before the committee the chairman of the representative committee will send a letter to the committee asking
▶ 2:08:13for a rule um with that I recog thank you madam chair and and I would like to call this a voter protection bill um as opposed to some of the names that has been called by the other side and and um Mr style I know that the other side's claiming that we are disenfranchising and doing all kinds of horrible things and um particularly for veterans married women and some other that may have lacking some documents but
▶ 2:08:43um this bill actually actually require states to protect the voting rights of these folks that we're talking about um isn't that correct and maybe you could explain that a little bit no absolutely and I think it goes to the court principle that if a illegal vote is cast it cancels out the vote of a legal vote and so if we have a non-citizen who votes an election that cancels out the vote of a legal citizen uh chairwoman Fox uh noted correctly uh that we have a member of Congress who won
▶ 2:09:13uh her respective race in Iowa by six votes uh we have indications in some states where hundreds of people have been added to the voter roles who are non-citizens if those individuals cast a vote they could decide uh a house race often uh in the House of Representatives many of our races are incredibly close to cided uh by a few hundred or in this case six total votes and so making sure that we are enforcing the law
▶ 2:09:44uh to make sure that only US citizens are voting in US elections I think is absolutely appropriate yeah because I think you mentioned it earlier you know one non-citizen voting is too many and so I appreciate that but I I did want to just I know that there was some discussion earlier about the voter uh about State IDs and things like that and I am from a state that will issue State IDs to anyone to anyone who um regardless of citizenship or legal status anything
▶ 2:10:14like that and so it is a serious issue um and I know that there have been reports in Minnesota of non-citizens being um being mailed ballots because then we have the ballots just being mailed out and so there's a huge concern about this and and I and I recognize that you know we shouldn't be uh the federal government shouldn't be we should be very careful about what we do in elections and I think this um absolutely um assists in making sure that our elections
▶ 2:10:44are secure so I thank you and I I think I'm supposed to thank Mr Roy for bringing it Forward too and thank you for handling the rules portion of it with that I yield back thank you Miss fishbot Miss gin you're recognized thank you um I don't know how many times I have to see this bill but between Judiciary and rules and house floor uh here it is again it's a terrible bill it's not about solving real problems but about solving or spreading misinformation
▶ 2:11:15weakening confidence in our elections and making it harder for eligible voters to in fact vote it's a dangerous bill because it would keep millions of eligible voters off the roles under the false pretense of addressing a nonexistent problem I think it's notable that when the chairwoman asked uh the chair of house admin uh whether the incidence of non-citizens voting had increased in the past decade he did not answer that question
▶ 2:11:45he talked about some other things but he could not say that non-citizens are voting in larger numbers now than they ever have in the past because in fact there is no evidence that non-citizens vote in any appreciable numbers and that's what we've gotten from all of the evidence that has ever been submitted but if you think about it if you are a non-citizen and you go register to vote and then every time you vote you are providing evidence that you are doing something illegal that can get you deported that
▶ 2:12:15can get you jailed and can get you fined that among many other reasons is why non-citizens don't vote so it's a non-existent problem every state has procedures in uh in effect to make sure that only citizens are being registered to vote so the real purpose of this bill isn't to protect elections but it's to suppress voting we've already seen what happens in my state in Pennsylvania when you put these kind of onerous documentary
▶ 2:12:46requirements on registration and um identification for it means that certain people aren't then able to vote even if they're eligible to and this act in particular it's the ranking member has pointed out has a particularly harsh impact on women because of the number of women who change their names when they marry and then don't have a birth certificate or other documentation showing citizenship that matches their married name so
▶ 2:13:17um I think the ranking members uh point that this bill is supposed to supposed to go into effect immediately upon passage is worth uh teasing out a little bit here because we've got the issue of it has no way for women to um prove their citizenship but let's look at this real ID requirement because the two basic forms that this bill posits um that you can prove your citizenship are a real ID that indicates
▶ 2:13:47citizenship only five states provide that so min is one New York's another one only five states do that Pennsylvania doesn't provide that most of the states don't indicate citizenship so that means as soon as this bill goes into effect most people across the country aren't going to have real ID that meets the requirements of this bill again in Pennsylvania it costs 30 bucks more to get real ID I don't know what additional requirements might be added when they have to
▶ 2:14:17then go the extra yard to put a citizenship stamp on it but it's more expensive to get a passport it's more expensive to get real ID right now in Pennsylvania only 25% of our citizens have real ID and less than half have a passport so that means that most pennsylvanians who are eligible to vote are not going to be able to under this statute I think it's really poorly thought out it seeks to solve a non-existent problem and it puts unacceptable burdens on eligible
▶ 2:14:47voters is there anything you wanted to add Mr mlli what I just want to suggest that while while people are suggesting this has to do with non US citizens voting actually it just puts burdens on US citizens that's really what this does and the burden is extraordinary um and so it's actually the opposite of what it said and frankly to your point there's no evidence uh that there is a significant increase over the years in
▶ 2:15:18uh non US citizens voting in fact it's not only illegal to vote it's illegal to register to vote if you're not a US citizen so I mean this is a lot of work and this is truly billions and billions of dollars new infrastructure that would be required at the at the at the state and local level in fact if you're a local election official and someone comes to you to register and you take information because you think it's appropriate when it's not you could face 5 years in prison felony charges
▶ 2:15:49as a local election official I mean it's extraordinary I mean I'm sorry the chair isn't here who said this is simply you know the federal government doing what it's always done it's not this is an enormous intrusion on the states and local um Boards of election when we should be worrying about giving them enough resources to do their already difficult jobs uh and providing them with predictable funding over the years we're not doing that but instead we're going to build a giant infrastructure uh uh to
▶ 2:16:19you know and create this massive bureaucratic solution in search of a problem well I I think that is interesting because several of our Republican colleagues mentioned the fact that under the Constitution Article 1 Section 4 of the election Clause it is the job of the states to administer the elections and they generally have first crack at all that um but here we have Congress imposing a huge bureaucracy to solve a non-existent problem that sounds like waste and abuse
▶ 2:16:49and I thought this Administration and the Republican majorities were against waste and abuse but this is billions of dollars of it um I would just close I think uh the ranking member put in one of Representative Luna's um letters in which she says the Constitution entrusts us to serve not to twist rules for power or to silence dissent over Petty disagreements when we abandon that Duty we weaken the foundation we swear to defend I urge you to reject these tactics and stand for a Congress
▶ 2:17:19that supports its members and our nation's future I think that also applies to this bill having seeing that there's an attempt to twist the facts and twist the law in order to suppress votes I think that's an abandonment of uh what we're here to do I yield back Mr Griffith Madam chair I just wish I could get my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to adopt all of Representative Luna's philosophies and we'd be a lot lot better off
▶ 2:17:50uh that's said uh I have long supported this both in the uh committee uh not just the rules committee but in the uh admin committee and uh now he in rules and so without further Ado and not wanting to waste or abuse the committee's time I you back thank you I would call on Miss ler Fernandez thank you uh very much um so you know the it it is interesting of why we're here again because we are
▶ 2:18:20it's sort of like it it we could call it ground hug day but it's not because this is a very different day because we are dealing with the same bill but the reason why we are here is very different and I think that is very clear with Luna's uh letter uh and if that's not the case then we'd have a clean rule then our rule that we come out would not mention the discharge petition at all
▶ 2:18:51have you asked for there to be any issue in the rule with regards to the discharge petition chairman I'm fully supportive of the save act I've looked for the save act to come to the floor I'll defer to the rules committee as to the you're going to be deferring to the rules committee this is the discharge petition has nothing to do with the with the save act so if we see anything about the discharge petition we really know why we're here and I think we're going to see that and what's also interesting about a rule
▶ 2:19:21that might come out attacking the ability to do a discharge petition is the whole after the fact right representative Luna thought there was a process if you want to get a discharge position do the work get on the floor convince your colleagues to sign that dis have them put their names in signature in ink and if this committee with these Republicans pass something that
▶ 2:19:52takes away they are changing the rules after the fact and if I were representative Luna and everybody else who signed that discharge petition I agree they should be mad what are the rules of the house do we know what they are can you just start changing them really nearly anytime you don't like what people are doing and that's kind of what this committee does do but chairman steel going back to uh this uh bill to your knowledge when did
▶ 2:20:22The Hunk the chipas the manaman the onidas and the moans first start living in Wisconsin uh before the uh founding of our country to the best of my knowledge yeah 17th century time and Memorial a long time right uh and because of that long history that the first Americans people who have been living here since the beginning of the country Wisconsin
▶ 2:20:52New Mexico and almost every not every but almost every state with significant tribal membership allows a tribal ID by itself as proof for registration but the save act does not does not allow a tribal ID by itself proof for citizenship and I don't know about you uh chairman stylea
▶ 2:21:22I worked with tribes for 30 years I have yet to meet an undocumented immigrant trying to vote with the tribal idea just doesn't happen the first Americans they've been here uh but also I want to go back to this concept of what you said earlier about um if just one undocumented and oh somebody who's not a citizen votes that's too much I'm thinking about all the
▶ 2:21:52women who won't be able to register and vote so for that one undocumented you're willing to sacrifice in New Mexico maybe 431,000 married women across the United States have changed their name and so their birth certificate ific would not match up with the legal name
▶ 2:22:23I'm assuming you know how many women in your District have names that don't match the birth certificates Mr s again page 14 line 19 directs the states to create a process to address the exact issue uh you're identifying page for but no that's not the problem the thing is that we don't know what Wisconsin will do we don't know what New Mexico will do we don't know what Utah will do and so what you are creating is a problem that then will need to be solved right now this bill is trying to solve something that doesn't exist
▶ 2:22:53and you are creating a problem for women across the country because then women are going to be at the mercy of what does their state do so New Mexico we believe in voting we like it when people vote so we will pass whatever we need to make sure that women can vote but we don't know what they'll do in Texas we don't know what they'll do in Utah and so it will depend on which state you happen to live in whether if you're marican woman you'll be able to register to vote without buying
▶ 2:23:24without buying and it is buying that passport right you said how much do a cop passport cost to member of style I I don't have the number in front of me but it's over $1 it's $130 but you know what when you want to get a passport for $130 you're going to have to wait four weeks two months before you ever get that passport and you know what with musk and Trump five firing everybody that two months to 3 months
▶ 2:23:55that was too slow already is going to take even longer and so when you'd be able to do this is going to be unknown and I uh ranking member I mean your point about how much it would cost voting is supposed to be free isn't it well I mean I think voting is essentially one of the basic inalienable rights I mean it's what makes America America is our right
▶ 2:24:25to participate in self-government and we should want elections to be free fair and make sure every single individual uh has their vote cast so yeah this is right yeah I mean the the when you have not a privilege but a right and you have to spend $130 $150 uh just to register if you can get there I mean if you're in a rural community you may have to travel three four hours just to get to the Board of Elections so you add the gas cost you add to your point if you have to get a photograph if you I mean
▶ 2:24:55depending on what you have to do to get the documentary evidence together uh it it's certainly going to cost you money and frankly uh you don't have to pay for your freedom to speak your freedom to assemble your freedom to worship you have to you have to to pay to vote you have to pay for your freedom to vote but everything that Trump and musk and the Republicans do seems to be cost in is a whole lot more and I need to tell you women can't afford Trump and they can't afford to pay $130 or $190 to get a passport so they'll be able
▶ 2:25:25to register the vote and you know represent still there are 162,000 women in your District 167,000 in rest representative men ordinance District who might not be able to register to vote in upcoming Federal elections without a passport um and you know I just don't think that's right and the idea you would responded to a question that this doesn't overturn any state law well I
▶ 2:25:55pulled up Wisconsin state law and Wisconsin state law has a long list of identification that you can use to register to vote including tribal ID and it actually makes sure that the military will be able to register to vote so I would argue that it does overturn state law because it is changing what Wisconsin can do with regards to who can vote uh and then you know this idea
▶ 2:26:25that there's uh no evidence right when we were when you were asked what evidence is there you talked about evidence of immigrants coming into this country that's not evidence of immigrants voting ranking uh there were lots of hearings on this what is the evidence with regards to uh UND documented voting well as I said even speaker Johnson indicated he didn't have any evidence
▶ 2:26:55that he felt intuitive that people were voting who were not US citizens but I would just again we had I don't know probably 10 different election related hearings that weren't all on the question of US citizenship but many were and there was no evidence brought forward that indicated this it happened um and so I would just continue to say this is a a pretty costly bureaucratic uh nightmare of a solution looking for a problem and I do find
▶ 2:27:26it ironic the the complaints in 2020 that uh noncitizens had voted in federal election that's why one of the reasons the election turned the way it did but you didn't hear any evidence of that in 2016 or 2024 it seems like only noncitizens somehow managed to vote in elections uh that president Trump loses not the ones he wins it's just kind of odd how that happens right you know and only 55%
▶ 2:27:56of women in uh representative uh Styles and um most of the Republicans on this District uh of the women in their districts have passports you know my district is very rural only you know they don't have passport 55% of the women in my district who are married don't have passports because they don't they're working they're working working mothers they you know they they don't get to travel to France or uh to Australia or any of the other places they stay home
▶ 2:28:26and they hard and so when you have that many women who don't have passports that many women who have a different name uh than their birth certificate uh you are setting up a process for married women to be able to register to vote that is honorous that is expensive and that is simply unamerican
▶ 2:28:56and uh with that Madam chair I'll yield back thank you um I just wanted to point out too I know that the that um A lot's been made out of you asking Mr style asking for um a rule on this bill um but from what I understand and I wasn't here but in this is this there is precedent to do this in July of 2020 on HR 55 uh uh 553 excuse
▶ 2:29:26me uh the Democrats actually in in a rule turned off uh consensus bill in the rule they turned it off and it was a Joe Wilson Bill and so the Democrats so there is precedent uh to do this and what we're doing in this um in the rule from my understanding but I just uh wanted to point that out because I know much has been made of that and I would call on Mr Norman thank both love you for take the time to be here um Congress style would you say that you know you trust
▶ 2:29:57but you verify 100% And if we lose our integrity in voting that we've lost our basically lost our representative you need to have integrity in voting and wasn't this all highlighted when the Biden Administration opened the borders to over 15 million illegals coming in this country that that's one thing a lot of people woke up to the risk of non-citizens voting I mean previously it was mentioned that there's you know there's no existing problem and and that's just not true
▶ 2:30:27we could actually go all the way back to 1996 where there was a contested US House of Representatives race uh in Orange County uh a congressional investigation in that case found that 624 non-citizens uh voted in the race uh they'll go back and say that you know this or that or they found somebody that wasn't a citizen in that then we could go look at Fairfax County in 2011 where Virginia found 278 non-citizens uh on the voter roles and over a 100 voted we could look uh
▶ 2:30:58at the Chinese citizen in the state of Michigan who cast a ballot in the previous election and once that ballot is in uh in the hopper so to speak you can't you can't get it back out you You Poison the Well and so what we're looking at here is how do you enhance and increase the Integrity of us elections so it's for US citizens only and it just wasn't the ones you mentioned in p Pennsylvania they admitted that uh a few years ago it had inadvertently allowed 10,000 noncitizens to register to vote in Texas
▶ 2:31:28had a problem where 100,000 non-citizens registered in Illinois uh hundreds ended up on the voter roles Ohio said was removing 100 noncitizens Georgia found an audit that noncitizens had attempted to register vote now how is that not proof well it not only is it proof it's it's occurring we have we have the individual uh from China who admitted uh to having voted in the previous presidential election in the state of Michigan
▶ 2:31:59um but I think what we're what we're what we're talking about here is how do you make sure that this isn't occurring in the first place and putting in uh rules of the road to to fix it but in particular uh Congress broke it so Congress wrote the nvra uh in a manner that really was giving out voter registration when people came to get a driver's license and when they wrote that I think there was a mindset that states were only giving a driver's license to Legal US citizens but as we know uh in States uh across
▶ 2:32:29the country now um driver's license are provided uh to illegal immigrants and that has been um exacerbated the problem which really I think is where you opened there Mr Norman talking about has this problem been exacerbated well it's exacerbated because we know a large number of states across the country are giving voter registration forms to noncitizens because they're actually required by federal law under the NV to provide that documentation um and so what we're saying is let's
▶ 2:32:59go in and amend the nvra but let's get it right this time so that there's evidence and individuals as citizen in the United States when they register to vote I think the illegal immigration uh is probably the moving the the primary factor of Donald Trump's approval ratings are through the roof now and the fact that uh you know the the qu number one question I had in citizens of South Carolina why is the B Administration doing this we've never seen this and it had to be for
▶ 2:33:29one or two reasons uh e either he felt sorry for 15 million illegals and just wanted to give them access to everything America provided or he wanted to create a power base of votes that's the only two and I don't think it was from from the U he felt sorry for them just let it gang members in that have killed citizens and the the American people aren't putting up with it um plan support it thank you uh you want to say something else can can I just add one one
▶ 2:33:59more point if I can Mr Norman because the we had a lot of conversation in previous questions about passports and and I didn't get a chance to to to rebut or comment uh as to why that's misleading and it's misleading because passports are only one of a series of documents that can be used to show citizenship so yeah a passport does cost more which might be a great reason why your state wants to issue photo identification indicating whether or not you're a citizen why you might look for other avenues and why we set up in
▶ 2:34:29this bill uh an opportunity for states to put forward a framework for additional types of ID in addition to a passport so yes a passport does cost a substantial sum of money uh for some for for individuals which is exactly why we're looking at making sure other opportunities are available uh which they are in the bill a lot of the rhetoric that we're hearing is the same rhetoric we hear uh as it relates to uh photo identification to begin with uh and we have been able to overcome uh those
▶ 2:34:59arguments in showing why photo ID is so important in the first place thank you m Mor you say something yeah thank you Mr Norman I but I would stress that only five states have real ID that have citizenship I believe my state is actually one of them so if you live in a state where real ID doesn't have your citizenship on your driver's license and you don't have a passport you're going to struggle to find the documentation that suggests that you're an American citizen particularly again if you're a married woman because your birth
▶ 2:35:29certificate even if it demonstrated that you were born in the United States which would make you a citizen if your name is different you're going to have to somehow connect the dots for some poor election official who's sitting at the Board of Elections who doesn't even know if the documentation is right and who's going to fear basically in charged with a felony if he or she gets it wrong and accept something that's not right can face up to 5 years imprisonment for taking documentation that they assume this seems right and then find out it's not this is really a very
▶ 2:36:00I I I just urge people to read through the bill I again look we could work on things that relate to US citizenship if that's the fear I continue to suggest that most of these reported cases um are not what they seem to be we want to work on that but someone should look at this and think about get a big whiteboard and write down what would have to happen in your state or the various 50 states to be able to register to vote it's going to be very very bureaucratic it's going to be cumbersome it's going to make this
▶ 2:36:30very very difficult to register anyway thank you sir okay I Y back thank you Mr Norman howchin thank you madam chair uh we've heard uh frankly some truly absurd things today including the suggestion that this bill somehow takes away a married woman's right to vote um let me ask this question even if voter fraud is widespread I hear this a lot I I worked on legislation as in the state senate for voter
▶ 2:37:00ID laws in Indiana and from the left we would hear oh it's voter suppression um to require an ID but how much voter fraud is acceptable Mr Style no voter fraud is acceptable no voter fraud is acceptable even one vote is that correct that's my view so how many married women is it okay to disenfranchise with an illegal vote by an illegal immigrant no one should be disenfranchised Mr melli
▶ 2:37:30how many married women is it okay to disenfranchise with an illegal vote by an illegal immigrant well the question is how many women being dis the question is how many married women is it okay to disenfranchise that's the question byy an illegal vote by an illegal immigrant just an answer how many I would if the answer is not a number then no I how many is it okay to disenfranchise by an illegal immigrant with an illegal vote I think it's wrong to disenfranchise
▶ 2:38:01any American great I agree how many veterans is it okay to disenfranchise with an illegal vote by an illegal immigrant Mr style none Mr mlli how many veterans is it okay to disenfranchise with an illegal vote by an illegal immigrant so I'll say again you can ask me any category it is never okay to disenfranchise Americans we agree Mr mlli would you support this bill if it had a requirement that a birth certificate was a a proper form of identification yes or no I'm sorry I don't understand the question the
▶ 2:38:31birth certificate is potentially a form of identification but if your name is different than your birth certificate then it would you'd have a problem because you'd have to demonstrate the uh like I do whenever I get married and I get a marriage license and I participate in the economy potential well potentially I mean the the the just to be clear though the marriage license is not in the bill I didn't say that Mr mlli I'm just saying that as a married woman I did have to go through some steps to be able to
▶ 2:39:01participate in the economy and in elections and in all kinds of stuff like changing my credit card information I had to change my name at the Social Security Department so there are lots of things that happen and I think safeguarding our elections is is pretty important so let me talk about just so just to be clear though what you just said if you had a marriage license so if you have a birth certificate that has a name different than the name you have now and you went to your Board of Elections because You' have to go there now in person you can't mail it in so you go and
▶ 2:39:31you have a birth certificate and you have your your voter ID your driver's license if you have a different last name your marriage relations may or may not suffice it's not in the bill I didn't I I'm not suggesting that the marriage license should be in the bill but since you brought it up if a marriage license was an option in the bill would you support it then to require that as proof of citizenship to vote in our federal elections yes or no you would not okay freom to vote I'm going to reclaim my time I'm going to reclaim my time sure so
▶ 2:40:01it doesn't matter then Mr style what what's in this bill or is not there arguments about all these things that that are are or not in here uh really don't matter the save act to me is a common sense pro-democracy bill that ensures only American citizens are voting in our elections period i I think that's what we should all want to do it strengthens voter Integrity in my view by requiring states to verify citizenship before allowing someone to vote in a federal election many states offer already proof of
▶ 2:40:32citizenship uh as part of their uh voter ID laws Arizona Kansas Alabama and Georgia and many other states uh even though there's some litigation surrounding that uh courts have allowed proof of citizenship to vote at the state and local level it's my understanding that some of this has not been allowed at the federal level due to confusion over the nvra which we're trying to fix now so um this bill not only does it it requires proof of citizenship which I believe is a safeguard for our elections it also
▶ 2:41:03requires that states clean up their voter roles to give election officials the tools necessary to protect The Ballot Box for to me that's not voter suppression it's voter protection and let's be honest the American people overwhelmingly support this they want Fair elections they want to know that their vote isn't being canceled out by someone who's here illegally chairman style can you defini definitively set the record straight does the save act in any way prevent eligible citizens including married women from voting no in in this this
▶ 2:41:33this argument um about the the state process that we created I think is worthy of just pausing and reflecting on so we explicitly set forward the state process page 14 line line 19 everybody can read it sets for the state process and the reason for that is because marriage license and some of these documents in different states are all a little bit technically different so it's very logical in my home state of Wisconsin which I'm more familiar with than maybe some of the other 49 states around our country to recognize that they would allow uh the marriage license uh to
▶ 2:42:03be coupled with your birth certificate uh and it'd be a pretty straightforward and unburdens some process but what we want is each state uh to go through that because the documentation each state is different uh as well as the cost of obtaining documents uh in the state of Wisconsin for many of these documents the cost is low uh that's not true uh in all of our states and in fact uh to get a a voter Ida in the state of Wisconsin if you show evidence that that you don't have means you can obtain it for free totally appropriate mechanism I'm supported that in the state of Wisconsin um we could allow
▶ 2:42:33the state of Indiana to set forward their path uh and so it's actually intentional that we set forward uh the state path rather than uh in air in the bill it's a mechanism to make sure that each state uh gets this right and prevents anyone uh from uh from being disenfranchised and if we think about that if we go a little bit further it's also worth noting because there was some discussion as relates to um uh overseas voting um we explicitly are not amending
▶ 2:43:03uocava um yava is a bill that's probably worthy of going back and looking at with modern technology I'd look forward to working uh with all of my colleagues Democrat and Republicans uh as we work to have the option to modernize that bill but the bill before us today uh makes no changes uh to yava and overseas voting thank you I appreciate your commentary uh I think this is an issue of of also federalism letting the states decide how they're going to manage it but I do think we should have a citizenship requirement proof of citizenship requirement
▶ 2:43:34uh before we allow voting in federal elections thank you madam chair I yield back thank you Miss howchin Mr Jack you're recognized uh just very briefly I want to associate myself with the gentle ladyes comments uh my district wholeheartedly supports Pro of citizenship uh with respect to voting and the only question I have just a point of curiosity uh Mr style do you believe that non-citizens should hold elected office in our country uh no I believe uh the the the core of our
▶ 2:44:04democracy is that this democracy is based on US citizens and I think that US citizens are the um us the individuals that should hold elected positions Mr mlli do you believe non-citizens should uh should or should not hold elected office in our country well I don't believe non US citizens should vote in federal state or local elections um the rules of of who can stand for election I don't know you may guess that's a question
▶ 2:44:35that I hadn't really contemplated but I don't know how you'd serve and not be a citizen so I'd say no fair enough with that to be mindful of our voting time I back I had hoped to finish this this panel before we went to vote because but because of the time constraints that we have in terms of voting and because we have two me two members left to speak unless they want to speak very I believe Mr Roy
▶ 2:45:05will want to talk longer than the time that we have so I'm going to recess the committee until um 15 minutes after the last
▶ 3:13:46e e
▶ 3:14:46rules commit will come to order Madam chair May Mr govern yeah I just I just um I was not here when this was said but apparently I was told that the general lady from Minnesota made some reference to the Democrats shutting off the um a discharge petition and my understanding is that we turned off a consensus calendar bill that was later tucked into an ndaa Bill uh so that was done with the understanding that this uh this particular measure would actually become law so I
▶ 3:15:16just wanted that to be clear for the record thank you um thank you Mr McGovern Mr nus you're recognized no comments I'll yield Mr neg Mr Roy is recognized I think the uh chairwoman um just a couple things uh first of all uh chairman Style
▶ 3:15:47there was an issue raised earlier about the ability for our men and women in uniform to be able to continue to register to vote their engagement um could you U respond to that uh accusation and talk a little bit about uaba and how that will continue going forward this this bill makes no uh amendments to yava it's it's amending um National registration voter act and so what we are noting is that some of the claims as it relates to our overseas service members
▶ 3:16:18uh which we want to make sure have uh not only the right to vote but the able the ability to implement that um there is a worthy conversation we probably have about OV I think there's actual improvements that we could make in the bill to make it um even better for our service members and address some of the other challenges we face but the bill makes no amendments to yava and so the it's misleading to State otherwise I think that's an important Point um and and I would note just for background here some of the questions have been raised about whether or not there are issues um whether this merits
▶ 3:16:48attention right that it's a problem that doesn't need to be uh solved um but is it is it not true that um we've had significant amount of evidence and information uh of of problems uh in incl including most recently uh specifically indictments in Ohio uh for those for individual six noncitizens voting in federal elections in Ohio Grant jury indicted six non-citizens which is the past fall that seems
▶ 3:17:18like okay that's just a small number six but to bring it to the level of inditing and bring it for a grand jury right that's representative of a larger problem at sample is that a fair characterization yeah not only not only that uh but sometimes we have house races as we noted with one of our colleagues from the state of Iowa where uh she won by six votes and so house races are often very close where a small number of individuals could sway the election uh and uh here you have an instance of six individuals uh uh that you just noted and
▶ 3:17:48we know one of our colleagues won by six o so pretty easy to understand how a small number of individuals that should not be voting who voted legally could have a significant impact uh on the country in a particular period of time when we have a very narrow majority a small number of races could easily determine the majority in the future of this country now and this this reality is heightened by the most recent uptick in releases of individuals in the United States by the Biden administration of individuals who are uh under various programs um through parole through Asylum and the
▶ 3:18:18significant number of Goda ways right so we're talking about millions of people by the government's own counting of people who've been released or have gotten away into the United States is that fair absolutely and raises the Spectre and the concern significantly as a result um is it not true that there's been a significant uptick in local jurisdictions state and local jurisdictions particularly local cities including our nation's capital in taking actions to register non-citizens uh not only that uh the our nation's capital taxpayer money to encourage non-citizens
▶ 3:18:49to vote uh in the most previous uh election just a few months ago uh we have uh a large number of noncitizens who voted our nation's capital in Municipal elections and did we not pass legislation last Congress to address at least the District of Columbia right where you're not dealing with the specific federalism questions and I mean I can make arguments to why we have a role to make sure that only citizens vote generally across the country but specifically with the District of Columbia right we had 140 three of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who
▶ 3:19:19opposed A bill that we passed to overturn the District of Columbia's law allowing illegal aliens to vote in the Local District of Columbia election Now 52 did support our colleagues on other side of the aisle but is that uh your understanding yeah absolutely in the same way we saw a small number of Democrats who voted for the save act uh last Congress there's a but the overwhelming majority uh of our colleagues across the aisle clearly are on the record opposing the save
▶ 3:19:49act and opposing making Washington DC a jurisdiction where only US citizens voting now Mr melli and I I want to be very careful this is not a gotcha question I I want to give you a chance to kind of clarify the record you stated earlier your view about um non-citizens voting in state and local elections we had that vote and I believe that you oppos that bill um I want to give you ability to explain that and and the you know um apparent
▶ 3:20:20disagreement that it's a um it's a fair question I personally yeah uh believe that you should be a US citizen to vote in federal elections State elections local elections also respect the fact that the city of Washington uh chose a different route and the question was whether or not we should impose on them and I voted to allow them to continue to exercise what I think is their judgment even if I disag agree with it okay fair I just wanted to be able to clarify the record on that
▶ 3:20:50um the uh is it not also true some things have been raised about how the process would work that they say well the the bill will be uh you know it's enacted you know and and becomes um law immediate upon passage right or being signed but the truth is those who are registered to vote would still be able to vote under their current registration right and that that the only only uh things that would change on that is to the extent that states under their laws of
▶ 3:21:20cleaning their voter roles which the bill contemplates the need to clean the voter roles that they could enact requirements under their state laws as to how they wanted to proceed um Andor uh any other um uh circumstance that would change right so is that fair characterization you're G if you're currently registered to vote you're going to be able to go vote this has no impact on individuals that are currently registered to vote right and so the um well there's I said if there's an intervening circumstance and so to the ENT that there's an intervening circumstance right the bill contemplates the ability to
▶ 3:21:50present um various forms of identification to register right various forms um that would include obviously a passport to the extent that not everybody has a passport a real ID to the extent the real ID has not adopted by every one of the states to have the citizenship status on it we believe right that the structures put in place now that allow I think there's at least five states that do have the citizenship status as part of their real ID encourage more states to do so right that would be part of the the goal here and is it not true that there's something like
▶ 3:22:2135 I don't to get the exact number wrong 35 32 states that currently require voter identification in their uh in their own laws under the state law is that correct that's correct to my knowledge um and so the idea here is that for individuals to be able to continue to vote if they're registered if they have an intervening event or if the states want to clean the roles people would come forward to register to demonstrate their citizenship so we could convert our system over some reasonable time to a citizenship based registration system and to make that clear so
▶ 3:22:51there's documentary proof and that we then to your point which you've now uh put out on the record multiple times we have a mechanisms giving the state fairly significant difference to make determinations as to how to structure the um situation where an individual does have a name change right which of course is often uh uh women but it's not always women right there's men who Chang their names there's you know somewhat infamously people like Chad o choso you know might be running around trying to figure out how to get registered to vote change his name and uh so we've got the ability
▶ 3:23:21to do that though right through uh the processes specifically contemplated in this absolutely um the other rep that I want to point out here you've mentioned the NV concerns is it not true that Arizona for example has two separate systems right one system for their state and local elections where they che check citizenship y but one for the federal where they do not because they are prohibited under the NV or I should State
▶ 3:23:51more clearly they are prohibited under the interpretation of the NV from being able to get the information necessary to check citizenship as a state so a lot of my colleagues have heard them say well the states can figure this out but yet they can't isn't that true 100% there there Supreme Court case uh on point on this um that prevents Arizona from doing the things that are absolutely logical and reasonable to all of us sitting in this room and so what Arizona has done is created a dual system because they they are blocked from checking for citizenship
▶ 3:24:21in the manner that they want to and a man manner manner that is absolutely reasonable so they can only do that at the State Side versus the federal side so they're running a dual system another important point right is that it is um if someone is in the pipeline for citizenship currently and yet they register to vote illegally they could that could prevent them from ever becoming a citizen correct I believe so yes so it's in the interest of all that we get this all done correctly to ensure that no one gets
▶ 3:24:52uh you know um you register to vote illegally uh so that they're then prohibited from being in the citizenship pipeline if they followed all the rules and all the laws to therefore be in that pipeline appropriately is that correct yes and it's why the nvra has such a significant error in implementation when you realize that they are states are required to provide voter registration material upon getting a driver's license so it maybe sound sounded logical to somebody until we realize how many states are providing uh driver's licenses to illegal
▶ 3:25:22immigrants and as that point uh where people could get caught up could be a legal immigrant uh as well in that case who would be receiving documentations of a legal immigrant was in the United States as you noted going through the pipeline here legally uh in all other aspects they'd still be provided uh with voter registration material uh at their uh at their point of getting their driver's license that's illogical and that's where your bill Mr Roy is so important at cleaning this up and am I not correct going back to the state and local voting last
▶ 3:25:52year I think I I've got a story that said there are 500 non-citizen residents of DC that have registered to vote in the primary election that was that was data from last June I have 523 523 non-citizens registered to vote in the United in the United States capital here in Washington DC that are not only eligible to vote under current law in our nation's capital they're using taxpayer dollars to encourage them to do just that and you're taking advantage of it and to be clear we passed a law to deal with that our colleagues in the other side of the aisle 52 supported it
▶ 3:26:23uh some opposed it but that it died in the Senate is that correct yes um there's some various litigation challenges these things is it not true that the New York State's Top Court blocked to New York City law to allow non-citizen voting that's my understand this ongoing matter of determination and litigation even in a state like New York right yeah absolutely we know the radical left wants non-citizens to be able to vote they want to use Washington DC as the petri dish in which they can roll that out across the country it's all the more reason you need to have the save act in place so in short and in summary this is
▶ 3:26:53legislation that would ensure that only citizens American citizens vote in American elections there are multiple Avenues by which we allow states to ensure that all citizens will be able to vote they'll be able to use the proper documentation to do it whether it's a passport a real ID or multiple other forms allowed allowing the states to make those determinations so that no one will be disenfranchised for illegal aliens and non-citizens who should not be voting in our elections is that correct that's correct will the gentlemen yield for tit question I will yield
▶ 3:27:23to the I'm just kind of amused by all this but don't don't we already have a rule to bring your bill to the floor didn't we pass a rule in January to bring this to the floor if this was such an urgent matter why didn't we bring it up in January or February or March um why are we here doing talking about this bill and and having a whole another debate on a rule well as the gentleman knows we often uh have a number of bills in the first package of things that we bring forward through uh and we're bring things with the new house and
▶ 3:27:53we run through a number of those things now this is one of those matters the gentleman's own precedent is that when you start getting later in the in the year you want to start coming through the rules committee maybe even go back to committee yes and yes it is true that this bill did not go back to committee but it was a bill that was passed last year and so we're passing uh this bill through the rules committee making very clear that it's important for this body you already did I back you already did and it's March it's March and there's no changes in this Bel I
▶ 3:28:23mean this is a waste yes thank you madam chair uh representative style as has been pointed out the national voter registration act relies on individuals simply to attest that they're a citizen being able to vote should we really leave it up to the honor System with perhaps as many as 20 million people that have come into this country illegally in the last four years no you should be able you should
▶ 3:28:54be required to show that you're a US citizen and in particular um as Mr Roy was noting um the simple box checking mechanism uh of the nvra is ripe for either abuse or mistakes um and so you could also Envision an individual who literally makes a mistake you could also Envision somebody who's abusing the process because once that box is checked you're actually blocked from being able to follow up and require the documentation which is the issue uh that we have noted um
▶ 3:29:24um the State of Arizona is trying to work around and we have Democratic cities all over the country in in you know in my home state New York City uh tried this and I actually led the the legal challenge uh several years ago that now has finally prevented it from happening where non-citizens are voting in Municipal elections and this could include in a place like New York City you know individuals from Russia members of the CCP and U from other foreign actors adversarial to
▶ 3:29:54the United States and on a federal level we've seen attempts from non-citizens uh of foreign countries to vote in our federal elections is this not foreign interference in our election chairman style I mean it's the absolute risk of foreign interference I mean you could look at what takes place in Washington DC under a legal system uh where an individual who works at the Russian Embassy uh could leave uh that Embassy put their passport in their pocket walk down uh and vote in Municipal elections in our nation's capital not even have to show
▶ 3:30:24uh the passport in their in their pocket because there's no requirement uh to show identification here in Washington DC and so what we're doing is looking to set up a system that simply requires individuals who are voting uh to show that they're a citizen in the United States to make sure that we're enforcing the law uh that only US citizens are voting in US elections and and as I pointed out when I uh LED that lawsuit Boards of Elections uh claiming to have great intentions here to create a separate set of books
▶ 3:30:54for local elections from federal elections uh and then there's uh even been an effort in my state to combine elections into the same year so you'd have different tables perhaps for people to set up if they're going to vote for city council but they have to vote for the presidency somewhere else uh it's shocking to me that the same Democratic party that claims to protect democracy is willing to Je jeopardize our Democratic elections and institutions through welcoming foreign in interference in those same elections I look forward to
▶ 3:31:24uh supporting this legislation on the floor I thank you for your leadership in this area and with that I yield back uh thank you Mr Langworthy now I believe everyone who uh wanted to ask questions has been able to ask questions so I thank our panel members for being here tonight I'm sorry we had to bring you back after votes but we appreciate your patience with us and the the work of the rules committee you are now
▶ 3:31:56excused although Madam chair I didn't get my question answered Mr McGovern I often have questions that you don't get answer no but it's a it's a simple it's a simple question I often have questions that don't get answered hours on this and we already have a rule for it I don't understand I now welcome our third panel representative bar and ranking member Waters from the committee on Financial Services
▶ 3:32:26your full statement statements will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes uh I'm going to repeat what I said I welcome our third panel representative bar and ranking member Waters from the committee on Financial Services your full statement
▶ 3:32:56will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes representative bar
▶ 3:33:47representative bar um we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes and I welcome your testimony thank you chairwoman fox ranking member McGovern and members of the rules committee thank you for the opportunity to testify on SJ resolution 18 and SJ resolution 28 I offer my support for these resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional review act which would nullify the Consumer Financial Protection bureau's final rule aimed at imposing a price cap on overdraft
▶ 3:34:17Services provided by financial institutions and the cfpb's final rule targeting larger participants in general use digital consumer payment applications these two midnight rules from the Biden Administration cfpb expanded the bureau's power without sufficient justification or analysis both rules will stifle Innovation and harm consumers by increasing costs and reducing access and availability of financial services and products first
▶ 3:34:48the over overdraft services are essential for many American families for those living paycheck to paycheck paying a fixed fee to ensure that a payment whether for groceries or diapers is not rejected in the checkout line is crucial these families understand the costs and willingly and this is critical willingly opt in this service finding value and convenience in that service instead of allowing competition to continue its beneficial effect
▶ 3:35:18the bureau has decided to intervene by reclassify reclassifying overdraft Services as credit under the truth and lending actor Tila this shifts this shift introduces burdensome disclosure and underwriting requirements for banks and Credit Unions these requirements are both costly and unnecessary for short-term services like overdraft the first option under the new rule forces financial institutions to treat overdrafts as extensions of credit which of course they are not not this could significantly limit access to critical
▶ 3:35:49liquidity especially for those who need it most requiring Banks and Credit Unions to underwrite each overdraft such as evaluating a borrower's ability to repay is simply not feasible for such amounts additionally TAA disclosures are more likely to confuse customers than to inform them inform them moreover the alternative option of justifying a charge higher than the $5 Safe Harbor will be nearly impossible for financial institutions the cfpb will have the power to decide what costs are permissible
▶ 3:36:19when evaluating this charge is essentially setting a government determined price cap as a result many banks and Credit Unions May simply opt out to charge a $5 fee or Not O offer overdraft services at all this price cap would effectively price out high-risk consumers who rely on overdrafts thereby reducing critical financial services and access but the problems with the overdraft fee caps aren't just theoretical the Federal Reserve of Bank of Bank Bank of New York has already concluded that
▶ 3:36:49quote overdraft fee caps hamper rather than Foster Financial inclusion unquote furthermore the claim that smaller Banks and Credit Unions will not be impacted because the rule the rule excludes institutions under 10 billion in assets is misguided smaller institutions will still be forced to lower their overdraft fees in order to compete and keep uh customers second the larger participant rule is a textbook case of regulatory overreach it stems from a flawed process and applies an overly broad approach that blurs important
▶ 3:37:19distinctions between very different products and services in the digital economy the Rule's expansive il- defined scope concentrates a diverse range of digital products under the generic label of General use digital consumer payment applications this includes pay peer-to-peer payment apps digital wallets e-commerce payment processors and even certain embedded payment tools used in marketplaces and mobile platforms these are not one size fits-all products they serve very different functions they carry different risk
▶ 3:37:49profiles and they are used by customers in very different ways rather than tailoring its approach to the complexities of digital payments ecosystem the bureau issued a rule that treats all of these companies as if they're the same and deserve identical Federal oversight the bottom line is this the bureau had ample opportunity to develop a more targeted risk-based approach but chose instead a broad one-size fits-all strategy based on volume not conduct without clear evidence of systemic consumer harm or
▶ 3:38:19market failure in fact payment services accounted for only 1% of the bureau's 1.3 million complaints in 2023 while the Bureau claims this rule is aimed at consumer protection the real consequences will be F felt by consumers themselves through higher costs reduced functionality and fewer Innovative tools designed to meet their financial needs Congress has a responsibility to check executive overreach especially when it's done through a rushed opaque and politicized process that results in
▶ 3:38:49less Innovation and growth and worse consumer outcomes this resolution gives us the opportunity to do just that I urge the committee to support these resolutions of disproval disapproval uh and I yield back thank you very much Mr bar Miss Waters you're recognized for five minutes you
▶ 3:39:23uh Miss Waters will you pull the mic close to you okay thank you I'll start again uh thank you chairwoman fox ranking member of McGovern and members of the committee I wish I was here to testify under different circumstances where we might be discussing bipartisan legislation to lower prices for consumers or strengthen consumer protections or even fulfilling our duties under the Constitution to conduct meaningful oversight
▶ 3:39:54of the Trump musk regime but no House Republicans have turned a blind eye while the regime usurps congress's power and unlawfully tries to delete the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau I'd like to remind the panel that the cfpb is the only Federal Watchdog consumers have solely focused on protecting them from predatory lenders and big tick uh encroachment in the financial Marketplace
▶ 3:40:24today House Republicans add insult to inquiry by proposing to advance two harmful and anti-consumer pieces of legislation the first bill is SJ Rez 18 a partisan Congressional review act resolution that will increase increase Bank fees you heard me right I said increase Bank fees and it will impact 23 million households roughly one in
▶ 3:40:54five households that incur overdraft fees each year many of these fees are $35 or $40 even if you briefly overdraw your account a few dollars let's clear up a few myths cfpb's rule does not ban overdraft fees but rather it sets a reasonable limit at $5 per overd charge by the biggest banks despite what opponents may claim the rule does not impose a hard
▶ 3:41:24cap on these fees as it provides flexibility for large Banks to charge more if their estimated cost and losses in providing the service are higher than $5 the rule even allows big Banks to charge even higher fees if they provide a simple upfront cost L disclosure to Consumers that's right the biggest banks can charge higher fees but they just have to tell consumers uh that they plan to do so
▶ 3:41:55furthermore this rule does not apply to any small Community Banks or credit unions in fact 97% of all banks and virtually all credit unions are completely exempt from the rule now Republicans will try reverse psychology and claim resending the overdraft rule will somehow result in better banking service and lower fees for consumers if that were true then why do nearly 300 consumer civil rights
▶ 3:42:25labor religious and Community groups across the country strongly oppose this bill last Friday we got a new report that a key Federal Reserve metric of inflation is going up which sent the stock market further into the tank whether you like to cfpb or not it doesn't make any sense to hike Bank fees on 23 million hardworking families why do you want to force them to pay5 billion do in more fees every year the second bill
▶ 3:42:55is SJ regge 28 another partisan Congressional review act resolution that will prevent the cfpv from supervising payment apps offered by big Tech firms including Apple Google and Elon musk's XA that will soon get get into the payments business normally the cfpb examines the largest banks along with the payment apps and services these Banks provide consumers
▶ 3:43:26cfpb checks to make sure they're complying with applicable consumer protection laws cpb's playment apps supervision rule simply levels the playing field for banks that is because big Tech and other non-bank firms have increasingly offered mobile wallets and payment apps for consumers to use the same consumer protection laws apply to them and Congress gave cfpb the authority to examine the largest participants
▶ 3:43:56to ensure they are complying with those laws so let's be clear cfpb's rule that sjr 28 would repeal imposes no new consumer protection standards on these large payment apps it simply allows cfpb to check if they're following current law this is important because I've received more and more complaints from constituents who have been tricked scammed and defrauded out of their hard earned money on these payment apps candly we should
▶ 3:44:26be working together to tackle this rise in payment fraud unlike the overdraft bill I first discussed hjr 28 was never considered by the committee we have a markup on Wednesday and could easily have considered it there why are Republicans in such a rush to pass this I know that Trump recently turned the White House lawn into a Tesla sales lot after Tesla's stock tanked maybe the president is ordering
▶ 3:44:57this bill to be passed now so Elon can launch his payment app without any supervision and recoup the money he's lost after Americans have resoundingly rejected musk's Reckless Doge work including unlawfully firing cfpb employees Madam chair our constituents are deeply concerned about losing their Social Security and Medicaid checks because of the Reckless government Cuts they're concerned about how Elon
▶ 3:45:27Musk is using his government role to further enrich himself at the same time families and businesses are struggling as Trump's chaotic and dumb tariff Wars raise cost across the board it makes no sense to pass legislation that increases Bank fees and eliminates oversight of big tech apps while millions of people are being defrauded scammed and ripped off in fact the only thing bipartisan about both bills is the opposition they both
▶ 3:45:57received in the Senate it is not too late to turn back I urge members of this committee to show some courage stand up for consumers and reject these harmful pieces of legislation thank you and I look forward to some questions thank you Miss Waters representative bar um I'm not sure if I have seen as many rules as concerning as the one with respect to the
▶ 3:46:27cfpb's rule on digital wallets can you elaborate on the justification the cfpb made when deciding to regulate this space and create such an unnecessary rule well thank you for the question uh chairwoman the Don Frank law um ostensibly authorizes this Rule and this this this is a multiple iterations
▶ 3:46:57of this rule thank you um but the real problem with the larger participant rule that was uh a midnight Ru making from uh former director Chopra is that it it is a one-sized fits-all approach and it it's not tailored to the various different types of products for uh larger participants um for all these various uh Financial Technologies so they don't really take a look at at the granular specific risks
▶ 3:47:28of a particular product they don't look at the differences between uh these digital wallets and different payment applications and as a result they they lump everything together right now which will stifle Innovation and they subject these participants to um to supervision which again would um is much is over Brad and it would extend the supervisory reach of the bureau Way Beyond the original purpose well you know I read my
▶ 3:47:58mail and I answer my mail and I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of letters I've gotten in my time here I don't believe I've ever gotten a letter complaining about one of these entities I I just don't believe I've ever gotten a letter so it seems to me that this was a a solution in search of a problem exactly right and not only are you does that corroborate uh that that your experience from your constituents corroborates
▶ 3:48:28what the bureau itself is receiving less than 1% of all of its complaints relate to these products thank you very much so now to the rule on overdraft Fe overdraft fees is it not the case that overdraft revenues in the banking sector have actually decreased in recent years even as overdrafts themselves seem to have remained more or less constant they have and that just goes to show chairwoman that competition and choice not
▶ 3:48:58Central planning from director Chopra is what constitutes true consumer protection when you have robust competition where consumers can shop with their feet if they don't like a particular o overdraft service and by the way it's a convenience they can opt in or they can opt out it is it is it is not a product that is crammed down their throats they they can choose not to have this service they can opt out of it they can also shop on
▶ 3:49:28what an overdraft fee looks like from this institution versus this Credit Union from from a big bank to a small bank but here's the reality the marketplace reality about overdraft larger Banks can afford the cap that the bureau is putting into place they can afford it you know who can't afford it the Community financial institutions the credit unions they can't afford to provide this convenient service um without some level of compensation for uh the
▶ 3:49:58convenience that they're offering to someone who doesn't want to be embarrassed at the point of sale and and their consumers want this service they know exactly what they're getting at that they're getting and they choose it in lie of a more usurious user ious product like a payday loan and the irony is that the cfpb and our colleagues on the other side of the owl apparently want to push these paycheck to paycheck Americans into higher cost higher risk
▶ 3:50:29products thank you very much Mr McGovern you recognize yeah thank you madam chair I I kind of feel like we've entered the Twilight Zone um uh I mean this bill raises Bank fees I mean I mean Republicans are raising Bank fees on regular Americans it it it is that simple I dare you to do a town hall in person uh where you go before the audience and and stand up for banks over consumers um
▶ 3:51:00and argue that somehow the banks are the victims here that they're not the poor Banks the poor Banks and then say Oh people have all this choice I mean I mean people's lives are busy they're complicated they you know not everybody has Financial advisers uh to guide them but the idea that somehow we we're here to say that uh you know it's okay to raise Bank fees on regular consumers I think is absurd that's what this is about and I get it I'm sure
▶ 3:51:30you know uh with the change in leadership the banking industry came in and is you know making all kind all kinds of requests but I got to tell you you know I if I ever get up before an audience in my district and made the argument that you just made I I I mean I'd be I'd be booed out of the hall um I I I I don't get it um you know uh uh ranky me
▶ 3:52:00Waters I I didn't know if you wanted to add anything um to anything that's been said but I want to give you the opportunity now thank you McGovern you know I'm overwhelmed uh with the fact fact uh that we have elected officials supposedly representing their constituents who seem to put a lot of time and effort into making sure the big Banks can do whatever they want to do charge whatever
▶ 3:52:30they want to charge in these and somehow claim it's the con this the constituents fault uh that um they're not shopping around enough they're not smart enough uh to know uh that maybe they have some Alternatives but of course I guess they expect their representatives to know and they expect their representatives to represent them but you know it's disgusting
▶ 3:53:01uh to have to deal with an issue like this when in fact again uh the big Banks the biggest corporations in America have the opportunity to be represented in this way well they refer to people living paycheck to paycheck but they're not willing to help the people living paycheck to paycheck it's a lot I could say but what the hell no I I I appreciate that I I just this this whole rules committee meeting
▶ 3:53:31has been really Troublesome I mean we we we're taking up a bill that's uh making it more difficult for women in this country to be able to register to vote and everybody's Behavior like oh it's no big deal you know um go get a $160 uh making it more difficult for people in a military to vote um and and and on top of all that I can't quite understand why we're even talking about that issue because we already had a rule to bring it up but apparently we're bringing we're bringing the save act up in
▶ 3:54:01order to be able to provide cover for Republicans who are going to vote to make it impossible for a new mother to be able to vote by proxy so much for a familyfriendly Congress and then this again a bill that will increase Bank fees on consumers my constituents don't want that so that's where I am I do you want to add you can well just to clarify it's this is not increasing Bank fees Bank the fees are coming down in the marketplace
▶ 3:54:31it is absolutely incorrect to characterize this resolution of disapproval as increasing Bank fees the the opposite is true and with respect to the ranking members characterization of of the intelligence it's precisely because our consumers are smart yeah that they want this they recognize that the that the convenience of a fee to pay an overdraft charge to avoid the inconvenience at the point of sale as a liquidity bridge when they've run out of cash in their
▶ 3:55:02account is better and less expensive than a high cost payday loan well you know you I would just say sell that someplace else it won't it won't work with my constituents and this is about raising Bank fees let me let me read you I don't ever agree with anything this woman ever says Laura lomer but she just she tweeted you know yes really hopefully you can put an end to this Elon Musk the GOP doesn't like uh cfpb and so they are now just opposing everything cfp has done including the good things like implementing a
▶ 3:55:32law in 2024 that banned payment platforms like PayPal stripe and venmo from Banning PE People based off their political affiliation Senate GOP just voted to legalize Deb banking they should kill the companion bill off in the house I mean I I I I again I we just have a very different Viewpoint here but I'm going to tell you uh my constituents don't trust big Banks um and because they've been screwed by big Banks time and time and time again over the years and I'll tell you
▶ 3:56:03I guarantee you if you get your way on this they're going to get screwed again so uh leg Ral I just want to make sure we get this on the record and everybody understand Community Banks are not subject to the rule and 97% of banks are exempt from the rule that should be understood by everybody I appreciate it thank you you well if I could respond to that the the reality of the way the rule works is that if you if you cap it for the
▶ 3:56:33big Banks guess what guess who's in competition with the big big Banks Community Banks what we want our Community Banks to be able to compete with larger Banks regionals and big Banks we want them to be able to compete with them to provide similar services and products as the big Banks if you take if if you if you cap the fees for the big Banks and create price controls for the big Banks who can afford them guess who gets hurt it's the the Community Banks
▶ 3:57:03who no longer can offer this service to their customers a service that is in demand safe and is transparent well I'll end as I began um you know I dare you to go before inperson town hall and give the same speech you just gave right here uh because it it won't go over very well um people understand what this is about it's about raising Bank fees on regular consumers and people wen't no part of it thank you I yield back thank you Mr McGovern Mr bar thank you very much for correcting the record that this does not
▶ 3:57:33raise Bank fees I think I think we are going to have to State the truth every Madam chair I am stating the truth this will raise Bank fees with all due respect so I will correct the record as well and and the lady you quoted said it was implementing a bill it's a rule a regulation and that's part of the problems with people who make these
▶ 3:58:04comments uh Mr Langworthy thank you madam chair representative bar regarding the cfpb's overdraft cap rule what steps had Financial instit institions already taken and continue to take to promote transparency and flexibility in their overdraft products for consumers well I think the the first thing you have to understand is that the law already requires that this is a voluntary product and when a bank opens up a checking account for a customer they
▶ 3:58:34give that customer a choice and that choice is do you want overdraft protection or do you not in other words if you go if you've run out of money uh in your bank account and you go and use your debit card at a point of sale and your purchase accidentally is over the amount that's the balance that's left in your account do you want the bank to cover that um provide the convenience uh avoid the embarrassment
▶ 3:59:05of a rejection at the point of sale uh protect that that individual potentially from Criminal liability by covering that and providing that short term liquidity um and if so here is what the fee is associated with that these customers know what that is they know what that is they use it they're they use it sometimes repeatedly because it's less expensive for and more convenient for them to use that on a paycheck to paycheck basis than to
▶ 3:59:35resort to the inconvenience and the cost and the higher cost of going to a loone shark or a Payday lender um this is one of the most popular products that Banks and Credit Unions offer to their customers and and uh and the low complaint levels bear that out well thank you for clarifying that and turning to the cfpb's larger participant rule can you remind us again is cfpb leading the way in supervising these electronic payment companies or does such supervision already
▶ 4:00:05exist well I mean the supervision already exists the problem is that they're trying to broaden and expand their uh their supervisory reach and they're trying to do it in a way that lumps all of these very different Divergent uh types of payment platforms into one basic standard and that would stifle Innovation and will these controls rules and these regulations issued in the Biden rule via cfpb both before us today and Beyond ultimately restrict what is
▶ 4:00:35financially available to Everyday American it would absolutely have the effect of restricting uh access to these products and in particular with respect to the the overdraft product the overdraft product in many cases will go away and Americans will lose access to that short-term uh liquidity well thank you representative bar I look forward to supporting these measures on the floor and I yield back Madam chair thank you Mr Langworthy Miss Canin you're recognized
▶ 4:01:06thank you um representative um Waters am I correct that the regulation we're talking about here caps overdraft fees charged by big Banks yes okay so this regulation if we overturn it with this CRA would allow the country's biggest banks to charge even higher overdraft fees so our Republican colleagues want to make sure that big Banks can price gouge even
▶ 4:01:36more from American consumers absolutely at least they're on brand um we heard a little bit of testimony that consumers opt into um these overdraft fees have you ever known a big bank to negotiate with a non-commercial um client to negotiate over draft Fe as a matter of fact uh I don't know exactly how they supposedly uh disclose this uh but I bet
▶ 4:02:06you they don't tell them what it's going to cost them uh in order to uh you know take advantage of this service and while we're looking at you know possibly $35 $40 etc etc and we're trying to cap that I bet they don't tell them that it's probably in the same fine print as the forced arbitration Clause um you know it's really disturbing we've seen some really good work come out of the cfpb um saving money for consumers cracking down on some of these predatory practices
▶ 4:02:37and to see this attempt to roll back even even more even as this Administration is moving moving to gut the Consumer Financial Protection board um it's really disturbing because the biggest winners in this are going to be the corporations that profit off deception and fraud um I don't think these two resolutions have much to do with reducing regulation it's about taking power away from consumers um just more generally on the rule you know our colleagues across the aisle are
▶ 4:03:07really famous for having themes legislative themes each week you know some weeks it's veterans other weeks it's education for most of the last year or so it's been protecting the rights of household appliances almost every week so it's the last day of women's history month so it should be expected that we'll be dealing with a rule to advance bills regarding women's rights and we are except it's about limiting women's rights so in this bill we have in this rule that we're considering today
▶ 4:03:37we're considering the save act which makes it harder for women to register to vote this prop tionately harder and the rule itself is going to manipulate the rules of the house in order to prevent a vote on a bill that would make it possible for new mothers to vote so happy women's history month and I yield back wow thank you thank you Miss kenlan uh that begs for a lot
▶ 4:04:07of response but I am going to control myself tonight and not respond to what should be responded to Mr Griffith you are recognized thank you so much Madame chair you know this is an issue that I think when you actually understand the law should get all of my Democrat colleagues supporting the resolution to disallow
▶ 4:04:38the rule on the bank fee for insufficient funds Senate joint resolution 18 let me explain why because I want y'all to pay attention to this because while it may have been well intended by the cfbp they're not criminal lawyers they don't understand the criminal law and guess what happens to the small consumer in this country when we don't get rid of rule the banks and the credit unions go away from having the program where you have the insufficient
▶ 4:05:09funds I've I've used it you sign up for and the bank will Mark or the credit union will mark on that check or on that withdrawal insufficient funds in the Commonwealth of Virginia where I practiced for nearly 30 years I've represented a lot of clients in this situation because what happens when you have insufficient funds marked on there creates a presumption that you're attempting to defraud the merchant now this only applies to Merchant expenses
▶ 4:05:40but you're defrauding the merchant it is a class one misdemeanor carrying up to 12 months in jail and or a fine up to ,000 or $2,500 I think they raised it to $2,500 since I quit practicing but it was $1,000 when I practiced law it was up to 12 months if it's over $1,000 it's considered a felony carrying up to five years in the penitentiary so here we are arguing
▶ 4:06:10that somehow we're letting Banks you know take advantage of small consumers when in fact the banks are protecting them from potential as long as they're not truly involved in a criminal scheme it prevents them from having a an insufficient fund returned to the merchant and guess what happens under the law in Virginia you get to charge at least a $50 fee there's some other they've added some new stuff on that goes above that I'm not sure I understand that but the merchant gets to charge a $50 fee
▶ 4:06:40that the cfpb doesn't have any control over and this rule doesn't deal with the merchant gets to charge that fee and if it actually ends up where there's a criminal charge and that happens on a regular basis or happened on a regular basis in the past even if you pay the check off you pay you have to pay the $50 Merchant fee and you have to pay the court costs far in excess of the average of $35 that some of these institutions have been charging
▶ 4:07:11so I grant you I understand understand the frustration I don't care about the big Banks so much but I do care about the clients that I represented because I represented the guys in a Main Street practice and what you all are inadvertently doing by not supporting this resolution is hurting the little guys because they're going to end up facing criminal penalties or criminal charges at the very least with higher fees than what the bank is
▶ 4:07:41charging I think it's bad policy and I believe there's similar laws in the Commonwealth of Kentucky is that not true uh that is true in fact uh Kentucky revised Statute statute uh uh 51404 is the theft by deception statute uh and um not only is the merchant uh entitled to charge a $50 uh fee which is more than what the bank would or the credit union would charge for
▶ 4:08:11overdraft protection but then theft by deception is uh a Class B misdemeanor at the lower scale it can be a Class A could be a Class B depending on the amount of the overdrawn check that would create a theft by deception charge by the County Attorney um and if it's a very large check it could even be a Class D Felony so this could carry actual jail time what the banks and the financial institutions are providing is protection
▶ 4:08:42it's protection for the consumer and this is a a very important point that the gentleman from Virginia is pointing out Virginia obviously has similar criminal statutes as Kentucky yeah I I'll just tell you I'm very glad this protection has been there my wife gives me a certain amount of money in my account she gets all the money in our household and she gives me a certain amount of money on the credit union up here our Federal Credit Union here and there have been months when she has chastised me and said you know when you just use
▶ 4:09:12that card Wily n they charge you a fee when you run out of money and I said they do and she said yeah but I'd much rather have that than to have somebody saying no no no you can't buy that meal on the way home because your money's run out or thinking that I'm attempting to defraud them so this is where these fees were originally came into to be very popular is because people do opt in because people do like them because if you're inadvertent it's a way of saying to whomever you're spending that money with
▶ 4:09:42I'm not trying to defraud you and the state recognizes that as as better than having something returned for insufficient funds and potential criminal penalties Mr bar yeah and if I could just respond to uh the gentle lady's point that this is women's history m month I I I have a constituent and uh the gentleman from Massachusetts talks about our constituents and whether they want this or not and and and the town hall scenario let me just share a my constituent a female constituent and
▶ 4:10:12her testimonial about this product um and it's this was told by a uh uh a financial institution we have a customer with two children in versales Kentucky uh and her husband is in the military as you know things can be difficult when one parent is deployed and one parent is alone with the children trying to manage finances school after school activities and church as the customer said things can be overwhelming even exclusive of her husband's deployment the customer approached me in church with her head down saying that
▶ 4:10:43she was having a tough time with things some expenses surprised her and she was suddenly out of money for the month she was okay as she had groceries gas and her bills uh were paid until she got a flat tire on the way to a school function she got the car to the tire shop and the tire was irreparable she had to buy a new tire for a couple hundred dollars she didn't have she was not able to keep up with her car so she had to buy the new tire there was no choice she ran her debit card and to her surprise it covered the tire
▶ 4:11:14she ran the debit card she didn't have the money in her account but it covered it it covered the tire and she said um she she um she got home and she checked the the account when she got home wondering how it was paid for her uh because she knew she didn't have the money for it and it and it was her overdraft that covered it she thanked me that her Community Bank was there for her to cover her overdraft so she could keep moving without having to call for help needless to say I was tremendously humbled that we could help this mother whose
▶ 4:11:44husband was deployed in the military due to the overdraft and I was grateful we were there to cover it in time of need that is a celebration in women's History Month that overdraft protection protected that female mother of two with a deployed husband the gentem yield for one one second I appreciate it but I'm not going to yield I yeld back that's typical thank you Mr Jack you're recognized no questions M thank you
▶ 4:12:34I believe we have at least one member who wishes to offer an amendment Miss Johnson yes ma'am Texas yes ma'am we
▶ 4:13:04welcome you to the rules committee I'm not sure how long you've been there because we've had a crowd but I I hope um that has been a good experience for for you is this your first time it is it reminds me of the Texas legislature this is how we do all the hearings down there little back and forth and little member member questions it's good it's an honor to be here thank you well if you've heard my comments uh we welcome your testimony and we hope that you can keep your uh spoken comments to
▶ 4:13:34five minutes yes ma'am thank you thank you uh thank you so much Madame chairwoman uh I come here today as a member of the sub committee on elections and house administrations committee and because voting and the right of the people to select their leaders are among the most sacred rights that we must always defend I appreciate the efforts to ensure that our elections are safe and free from foreign interference and that only US citizens are allowed to vote however this bill seeks some solutions for problems that don't
▶ 4:14:05exist and it creates some other problems that I'm very very concerned about of which I've offered three amendments that I hope the committee will substantially consider you know one of the big concerns is that we don't allow for any mail or online voter registration in in this new version we have many states that allow for that but we also have many service members persons with disabilities seniors who rely on online and mailin registration in order
▶ 4:14:35to register to vote this bill requires only an in allows for only an in-person V voter registration so my Amendment would allow for people to provide their documents online um to be able to take care of folks who are not able to get out of their homes because as this bill is written it will absolutely deny the right to register to vote for eligible citizens and I would think that that is something that every member of this committee would be very concerned about
▶ 4:15:05like I am my second amendment provides teeth for those who are wrongfully denied the right to vote who are eligible can you imagine being a a citizen of this country and you put in your voter registration and somebody tells you you can't vote how are you going to respond to that constituent that reaches out to you that says I was denied the right to vote and I'm legally entitled to we have to take an abundance of careful measures to make sure
▶ 4:15:35that those are allowed to vote and so one of my amendments gives a right to cure if you've been denied the right to vote then you should be able to have a district court have a hearing on your denial within 24 hours to determine if you have been wrongfully disenfranchise the right to vote because we as the Congress of the United States should seek to ensure without waiver without hesitation without question every eligible citizen of this country should be able to vote
▶ 4:16:06and then thirdly we have a lot of um of uh Provisions in this bill that require for criminal penalty for those um for on Election administrators who register in illegal um aliens to vote well likewise if they wrongfully deny the right to vote of eligible citizens then criminal penalties should ensue likewise so they have they can't have on the one side and not the other there if there's going to be criminal
▶ 4:16:36penalties for them doing their job then it needs to also ensure that legal citizens have the right um for recourse in the event that they are wrongfully denied and those people are held accountable if they seek to intentionally deny the right to vote to Legal citizens of this country so those are my three amendments I deeply hope that the committee will seek that they seek to improve this legislation to make sure that Congress does its
▶ 4:17:06constitutional duty to make sure that we protect the inviolet right of every person in this country to vote if they are able thank you madam chairman well I thank you very much Miss Johnson uh for your comments and for your amendments Mr MC I have no questions Mr mcgu yeah no I would U First well thank you for coming here uh thank you for your patience um uh I support all three of your amendments they all
▶ 4:17:36are reasonable and thoughtful which probably means they won't be made in order um I sometimes say half jokingly that the rules committee is the place where democracy goes to die sometimes and on a on a bill regarding voting rights I mean I um and voted protection I I really do think we ought to open it up um and allow some different points of view to be put forward so I will we support your amendments we will uh if they're not made in order we will absolutely
▶ 4:18:07uh tomorrow uh when we meet to report out the rule I will offer them and hopefully we'll get a a be able to to get it some Republicans to vote for it um you know I I will also just take my moment here to say that um you know um again as you can see we're outnumbered here 9 to4 uh and um and so sometimes you know and and I always regret when we don't have an opportunity for give and take or debate but I just do want to say to the gentleman to suggest that the
▶ 4:18:38cfpb rule somehow benefits big Banks uh um I just I find that to be over the top even Senator Josh Holly who I don't I can't even agree on what to have lunch with him about uh oppos this resolution on the senate floor and he knows this this resolution is harmful telling report is and I quote why would we help the big banks at the expense of working people I just don't understand it I mean there is a consensus
▶ 4:19:09um a growing consensus with Democrats and and some Republicans with liberals and some conservatives um that would U uh uh Mr barer is bringing before this committee will be harmful to regular consumers our constituents uh so I just wanted to say that um because I have a little moment to be able to express myself uh but I support your amendments um and again um you
▶ 4:19:39know this so-called save act um I think disadvantages women in particular uh um in a way that um again I hope it doesn't become law but if it ever does uh it's like a pole tax well that's right I mean one of the biggest problems though is is for married women if if they could get it wrong well where's the right to fix it there's no right to fix a an error in this bill nowhere do
▶ 4:20:09all the 80 million married women across this country have a chance to say this clerk got it wrong I'm a citizen I deserve the right to vote and I demand my right to vote and we as Congress have an obligation to ensure that every citizen of this country is able to vote in our elections and unfortunately this bill has way too many problems with it that will rid and and deny people the most violent
▶ 4:20:39thing that we have in this country is the right of self-determination and the right to vote it's what distinguish our democ distinguishes our democracy from those all across the world right here it's what we were founded on and so I think these amendments really go to cure a lot of the problems that could really prohibit um people having their right to vote I know if I was denied my right to vote I'd be damn mad and I'm sure a lot of people everyone in this room would as well and what recourses do we have under this bill absolutely
▶ 4:21:10and again you know the the the the ability to you know comply with all that you need to comply with to prove that in fact you know you are who you say you are could be costly um maybe it doesn't matter for Elon Musk he doesn't care about money he gives a million dollar checks you know right before elections try to you know persuade five votes but um you know $160 for a passport for a lot of people um is not only a lot of money but the time
▶ 4:21:40it takes to get a passport um you know may pre May prevent you from being able to uh register in time so anyway I I will support your amendments I thank you for being here and you back thank you thank you Mr McGovern um Mr Langworthy Miss gin yeah I just wanted to thank you for bringing these amendments I think um we hadn't devoted much time yet in this debate to the fact that this bill would disenfranchise
▶ 4:22:11folks who are serving over overseas folks with disabilities who are unable to meet the in-person requirements so I think that's a really important Amendment as are the ones that provide some balance here because the whole weight of this bill is to disenfranchise eligible voters in order to solve this non-existent problem regarding non-citizen voters so I think the Cure provision the fact that um there would be balancing criminal Provisions all make a lot of sense and I will support those amendments
▶ 4:22:41thank you thank you you know it's interesting because I don't know how you can say you support our veterans and not support my Amendment because how how in the world are they supposed to come in person when their kid turns 18 or or whatever how how are they supposed to register to vote if they can't do it online or remotely how can you support seniors who have Mobility problems who can't maybe they don't have a driver's license anymore whatever how can you support people with disabilities and not give them an opportunity
▶ 4:23:12to vote when we there's there's absolutely no reason why they can't submit a passport online submit their their birth certificate online there's absolutely no reason at all uh we have to we submit electronic documents to prove who we are all the time and so other than to keep people from being able to exercise their constitutional right to vote and I really do think that this amendment needs to be strongly considered I appreciate thank you I yield back thank you Miss scin Mr Griffith no
▶ 4:23:44Jack thank you thank you m Johnson thank you so much for the opportunity to be here I hope you strongly consider my amendments do we have anyone else seeking to testify on hr1 hr22 SJ res 18 or SJ res 228 seeing none this closes the hearing portion of our meeting and the committee stands in say until 8:00 a.m.
▶ 4:24:14tomorrow
▶ 4:31:10e for