S. 1383 – [SAVE America Act]

Good afternoon everyone. The committee will come to order. Without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today the Rules Committee is convening to consider a single measure S. 1383 the SAVE America Act. Election integrity is one of many monumental issues that the American people care about. They deserve to have confidence, not doubt, in our nation's system of elections. The only people who should vote in American elections are American citizens. There are no exceptions or debate about that. The SAVE America Act would implement a series of common sense safeguards that preserve the right of American citizens to cast their vote. These safeguards include the requirement of individuals to provide eligible photo documentation before casting their votes, the requirement of states to obtain proof of citizenship in person when registering an individual to vote, and the requirement of states to properly maintain existing voter rolls by removing ineligible non-citizens. Some will inevitably argue that this piece of legislation is nothing more than a partisan messaging tool. But that's not even remotely the case. This is about preserving election integrity and keeping elections in the hands of American citizens. I'm sure our friends on the other side will squawk about how this bill is designed to suppress voting and to rig our elections. What I say to them in response is that this couldn't be further from the truth. You already need a photo ID to get on a flight, to buy a pack of cigarettes, or to open a bank account. Shouldn't one of the most important duties we have as citizens, voting, be held to at least the same standard? I certainly believe that to be true, and so do the American people in overwhelming numbers. I'm very much looking forward to the discussion here today, and I now yield to the ranking member Mr. McGovern for any comments he wishes to make. Mr. McGovern.

Well thank you Madam Chair and I don't even know where to begin. I agree I will agree with you I don't view this as a partisan messaging effort Madam Chair. I view this as a dangerous effort to disenfranchise countless American voters from participating in the next election. I mean this is a new low. You know this is the I'm reading the bill this is the SAVE America Act. I have news for my Republican friends Americans don't want to be saved by you. They don't want you screwing up the next elections. They don't want you to make it more difficult for them to participate in the next election. You know I mean and they certainly do not want to have states' voting rolls turned over to Kristi Noem who right now is overseeing a government agency that is killing innocent Americans in our streets. I mean this is this is crazy. So let me just start off this hearing by stating some facts. There is no widespread voter fraud in the United States of America. It is simply not true to say that voter fraud or non-citizens voting is a massive widespread issue. That is not to say that we are that our system is perfect. We face issues when it comes to cyberattacks, foreign disinformation, intimidation, and violence against election workers. Those are all important issues that we should be addressing today, but we are not. We are not. Instead we're considering a bill that is fundamentally predicated on a lie. There is extensive, extensive documentary evidence that voter fraud, voter impersonation, and non-citizens voting is not a widespread issue. It is a myth perpetrated by people whose real goal is to suppress the rights of American citizens, citizens who are legally and constitutionally entitled to cast their ballot, and to prevent American citizens from participating in our elections. Republicans are pushing the SAVE America Act because they want fewer Americans to vote. It's that simple. Republicans have looked high and low to find fraud. And you know what they've found? Someone is more likely to get struck by lightning than to vote illegally. Donald Trump's own voting integrity commission was unable to find fraud or massive evidence of fraud. Kansas, Iowa, Florida, I could go down the list of states that have launched commissions and investigations only to reach the same conclusion that voter fraud is vanishingly uncommon. Now I think Florida is a good illustration of what happens every time Republicans launch an inquisition into voting fraud. Former Governor Rick Scott claimed that he knew, he knew with absolute certainty that there were 182,000 alleged non-citizens registered to vote. But then his investigation starts and that dwindles down to 198 people. That's not 182,000, it's 198. And in the end out of those 198, one person, one person was found to have committed fraud. One out of 12 million registered voters at the time. One person. Now every time these claims are investigated they disappear like a mirage. But this bill is worse than a solution in search of a problem because the so-called solution is going to disenfranchise millions and millions of American citizens. Now we always tell people to vote, make their voices heard, participate in our democracy, right? Those are supposed to be good things. So why are Republicans trying to pass a bill that makes it as hard as possible to vote? That is what this bill does. It makes it harder to register, it makes it harder to vote. It makes it so that every single American citizen must now show up in person, in person to register to vote. So you can file your taxes online, you can bank online, you can get your medical results online, but you have to go back in time 50 years when it comes to registering to vote. You have to show up in person and bring your birth certificate or a passport with you. And good luck if your town clerk isn't open on weekends or at nights because you will have to take time off from work just to register to vote. Now let's go down the list of people who this is difficult for. Students who don't live at home and have class during the day. Senior citizens and people with disabilities who can't get to town hall easily. Service members and military families who are deployed overseas or relocated frequently and don't have the luxury of chasing paperwork. A passport costs upwards of $130 now. In my hometown of Worcester it costs $15 to get your birth certificate mailed to you. So not only do you have to massively inconvenience yourself to register if you want to vote, you have to pay. It's a modern day poll tax. And no people can't just use their license or a state ID to register since state IDs and driver's licenses don't include proof of citizenship. Even most of the new Real IDs don't meet the bill's requirements. Speaking of Real ID, it took decades and decades and billions of dollars to implement. And now they expect us to believe with primaries in what three weeks and the general election in nine months that this won't be a complete disaster disenfranchising millions, keeping them from voting? But then again that may be the point of all of this. And here's what really bothers me. This isn't just another Republican solution in search of a problem. It's much, much more dangerous than that. It's part of MAGA's ongoing attempt to rig elections and hold onto power, democracy be damned. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi tried to shake down the Minnesota state government by saying ICE will withdraw if they hand over their voting rolls. Remember that? That was just recently. And we've all heard the President talk about quote nationalizing elections and urging Republicans to quote take over the voting. Now let me be clear what this is about. It's about Republicans trying to rig the next elections. I get it, the polls look lousy for you. You're not very popular right now and so I think this is your last ditch effort to try to hold onto power. The FBI raided an election office in Fulton County, Georgia and seized 2020 election records, ballots, tabulator tapes, voter rolls with Trump's director of the NSA Tulsi Gabbard present. Yet the last time I checked after an extensive investigation the only fraud in Georgia is when Donald Trump told the Secretary of State there to quote find 11,800 ballots so that he could be declared the winner. Yet the federal government is seizing ballots yet again in search of this mythical, mystical, widespread voter fraud that we are always told exists. Never see any evidence of it, certainly never see any evidence that it has impacted the results of an election. Remember remember that guy Mike Lindell the pillow guy? He was ordered to pay millions in defamation charges after he lied about voting machines being rigged. And let's not forget the President's former chief of staff Mark Meadows, his former campaign lawyers Rudy Giuliani and others were actually indicted, actually indicted for their roles in trying to fraudulently overturn the last election. If we want to talk about voter fraud let's talk about how Donald Trump's campaign didn't like the outcome in 2020 so they recruited fake electors, forged documents, and tried to throw millions of ballots in the trash by substituting phony paperwork so they could cling onto power after they lost. Maybe if Republicans want to go after voter fraud they ought to start by investigating themselves. But what we aren't going to do is sit here and get lectured about voter fraud from the same people who tried to overturn an election. Because Democrats believe in democracy and we believe in the basic American principle that voting is a right and not a privilege. Now Republicans know their ideas are unpopular. They see the writing on the wall this November and instead of trying to win fair and square they don't want to you know they want to cheat. They're hoping that this bill will pass and will make it so hard to vote that many American citizens will just give up. Not on my watch. Not on the watch of my Democratic colleagues. And I hope there are some Republicans here who will stand with us on this. Too many people have fought too hard to secure the right to vote for everyone in this country. Generations of people have fought and died for that right and we will not let Republicans use bullshit claims and lies about voter fraud to rip the right to vote away from American citizens. With that I yield back my time.

Thank you Mr. McGovern. Without objection any prepared statements our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our panel Chairman Steil, Ranking Member Morelle from the Committee on House Administration. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Steil I welcome your testimony.

Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today in support of S. 1383 the SAVE America Act. I also want to thank our colleague Chip Roy for his work on this important legislation and his collaboration as we worked to get the bill in its final form. I'd also like to thank Speaker Johnson, Leader Scalise, Whip Emmer, and their teams and dedicated committee staff for all the time and resources dedicated to preparing this bill for the floor. In front of the committee today is a Rules Committee print RCP which is still the SAVE America Act. We're still implementing a documentary proof of citizenship and voter ID requirement. The RCP clarified the voter ID language from the original text. Now I've also submitted a manager's amendment with a few additional changes. First deployed service members or absent uniformed voters, their spouses and dependents under UOCAVA are exempt from the SAVE America Act. And second the manager's amendment makes the SAVE Act effective upon enactment. This legislation is an enhanced version of a previous legislation the SAVE Act which passed the House on a bipartisan basis last April but to date has not been taken up by our colleagues in the Senate. Now thanks to the collaboration of Senator Mike Lee and Chip Roy the bill is even stronger. The SAVE America Act is common sense and it does two main things. One it requires photo identification to vote and two it requires states to confirm U.S. citizenship when someone first registers to vote. Let's address the need for citizenship verification first. Under President Biden over 10 million illegal aliens poured into the country. Now we know it's illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections in the United States but the bill in front of us today is about enforcing the law. Under current law citizenship verification is simply checking a box. What's to stop a non-citizen from claiming they're a citizen and registering to vote? The current law is not strong enough. The lack of safeguards under current law and reports of non-citizens casting ballots undermines Americans' confidence in our elections. Under the SAVE America Act states will need to obtain documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering new individuals to vote in federal elections. Now let's touch on voter ID. Currently only 36 states require a form of ID when someone casts a ballot. Requiring photo identification is common sense. It's why it's popular. It's time we make this standard. Now some of my colleagues will call this voter suppression or Jim Crow 2.0 and we all know it's not the first time we've heard this argument. In 2021 when the state of Georgia passed their comprehensive election integrity law Democrats and the mainstream media decried the bill. You may recall President Joe Biden calling it you guessed it Jim Crow 2.0. And the allegations are false. Georgia has held two statewide elections since passage of the election integrity law. Turnout's been incredibly high. The University of Georgia surveyed and found 95 percent of voters reported an excellent or good voting experience in the 2022 midterm. The statement by my colleagues across the aisle is often misguided and it's an insult to the intelligence of the American people. The SAVE America Act has safeguards to make sure every eligible U.S. citizen can cast a ballot. If a voter forgets their necessary ID on election day they can still cast a provisional ballot. The bill also has specific sections addressing name discrepancies so that no eligible voter is disqualified due to a name change. And the bill takes a strong piece of legislation the SAVE Act and makes it even stronger in the SAVE America Act. It's time Congress ensures the integrity of our elections. It's common sense legislation and I thank you all for discussing it today and look forward to your questions.

Thank you Chairman Steil. Ranking Member Morelle you're recognized.

Thank you Chair Foxx and Ranking Member McGovern and to the members of the committee. As a former member of the Rules Committee I'm always delighted to be back. A year ago the House considered the SAVE Act. This morning I participated in a hearing on the Make Elections Great Again Act, a different attempt to take over our elections and now we are discussing yet another Republican proposal the SAVE America Act. This bill is so rushed and devoid of deliberation that Republicans were forced to make repeated changes to the bill in just the two weeks it's been introduced. In fact the bill is so riddled with mistakes that yesterday my friend and chair Mr. Steil had to submit a late night manager's amendment to try and fail to account for a couple of embarrassing flaws in this bill. Flaws that Democrats pointed out last Congress and that Republicans insisted were non-issues. Nonetheless flaws that we could have considered should this bill have been marked up in committee which it was not instead of attempting to haphazardly amend the bill on the fly. You told us the SAVE Act was just fine. Now you scramble to apply some Band-Aids and push it out the door in your rush to hand over control of the election to President Trump. So how can the American people trust any of this? This is amateur hour and despite the desperate flailing the bill remains egregious. So I want to ask my Republican colleagues what exactly are you doing here? I would hate to step in the middle of Republican internal politics. Senator Murkowski a Republican from Alaska already said today she opposes the SAVE Act but this bill is not ready for prime time. But while we wait for you to decide how best to silence the American people the Trump administration is blatantly disregarding the American rule of law. On January 24th Attorney General Bondi sent a letter, more accurately a ransom note, to the Governor of Minnesota weaponizing federal law enforcement in a brazen effort to extort state voter rolls. While ICE kills American citizens on the street of Minneapolis the Attorney General meddles in Minnesota's elections. And just earlier this week President Trump said and these are his exact words that Republicans should take over the election and nationalize voting. I want to be crystal clear about the substance of this bill. The SAVE America Act is more extreme than the SAVE Act. The SAVE America Act requires American citizens to show generally either a passport or their birth certificate to register to vote. But half of all Americans do not have a passport and a passport as Mr. McGovern points out costs at least $130. Most Americans' number one concern right now is the cost of living and this administration has done nothing to make life more affordable for the American people other than to mock it as a hoax. But Republicans are trying to charge U.S. citizens $130 each just to vote. If Americans want to use their Real ID to register well for most people that would be impossible because as my Republican friends have admitted Real IDs in most states do not prove American citizenship. As you know last year our committee held hearing after hearing on non-citizen voting. Non-citizen voting in federal elections is already a serious crime and it should be and those laws should be enforced and they are. But my colleagues could not produce any evidence in those hearings to back up claims of widespread non-citizen voting. In fact Speaker Johnson has admitted he has no proof of non-citizen voting in federal elections. He admitted it when we first considered this bill, he admitted it again recently. Worse the SAVE America Act would give Secretary Noem power over our elections. It would require states as Mr. McGovern rightly points out that's right require them to provide their entire voter rolls to Kristi Noem's DHS. Secretary Noem has been criticized by congressional Republicans for her leadership at DHS. Some Republicans have even publicly called on her to resign. Yet here we are considering legislation to give this important vital task of voting to an incompetent and reckless secretary who would have more control over the lives of Americans. Legislation that gives you personal data, your private information like your address to a department that sends masked agents to terrorize civilian populations. Republicans think ICE agents should be able to hide their faces behind masks, should be able to hide their badge numbers. But you the American voter watching this you must give your personal information to Kristi Noem. What could possibly go wrong? I mean what happened to the party of small government? As costs skyrocket as federal agents kill American citizens Republicans are afraid to face their constituents at the ballot box. They would rather stop Americans from voting at all. That's why late last night Republicans amended this bill to take effect immediately because their plans start here, they start now. But we and the American people will not let that happen. Thank you I yield back.

Thank you Mr. Morelle. I'm going to recognize myself to ask some questions. Chairman Steil can you please respond to the claim by our Democrat colleagues that this bill is unnecessary because it's illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections? We hear that constantly and I want to be clear about this issue.

Thank you Chairwoman Foxx. Sometimes there's a lack of distinction between whether or not an act is illegal and whether or not that law is enforced. So it is currently illegal under federal law for a non-citizen to vote in a federal election. Of course there's jurisdictions such as our nation's capital that do allow non-citizens to vote in local or municipal elections. Let's give an example of that. So if an individual is a Russian national, works at the Russian embassy in Washington D.C., has a Russian passport in their pocket, under current law they could walk out of the Russian embassy on election day, U.S. election day, walk to the ballot and cast a ballot. They would not even be required to show their Russian passport as identification because photo ID is not required in our nation's capital. The focus of the SAVE America Act is to actually enforce the law by requiring citizenship verification at the point of voter registration. We know under current law that the check to determine whether or not an individual is a citizen of the United States is incredibly weak which is why we have seen individuals either intentionally violate the law or inadvertently violate the law and why the underlying bill in front of us the SAVE America Act is so absolutely essential.

You've already touched on this but I'll ask you to expand. There are cities in the U.S. that permit non-citizens to vote in elections as you mentioned D.C. If that's the case does this framework and do these processes allowing non-citizens to vote undermine our confidence that non-citizens cannot infiltrate federal elections?

You bring up a great point. And so in a handful of jurisdictions across the country I think the easiest example is our nation's capital in Washington D.C. non-citizens are eligible under current law to vote in local and municipal elections. Let's give an example of that. So if an individual is a Russian national, works at the Russian embassy in Washington D.C., has a Russian passport in their pocket, under current law they could walk out of the Russian embassy on election day, U.S. election day, walk to the ballot and cast a ballot. They would not even be required to show their Russian passport as identification because photo ID is not required in our nation's capital. States or localities that attempt to do this the question then becomes how do they maintain two voter rolls lists? This is something that we've explored at the committee, it's one of the challenges we face, it's why we should ban non-citizens from voting in any election in the United States. U.S. elections should be for U.S. citizens only and in particular it's why passing the SAVE America Act is so absolutely essential to restore America's confidence that only U.S. citizens are voting in U.S. elections.

And one quick one more quick question. Does the SAVE Act threaten democracy as its detractors say?

It's one of the most ridiculous comments. If anything it restores trust in America's elections that U.S. elections are for U.S. citizens only. The question that I would ask to those individuals that make that claim is how many illegal votes are okay? We heard earlier an example where there was only one case of fraud. The question of course would be how many cases of fraud are you comfortable with? The standard for me is that we should have no cases of fraud, that we should have no non-citizens voting in U.S. elections. In my opinion one non-citizen canceling out the vote of a U.S. citizen is one too many.

Thank you very much. Mr. McGovern you're recognized.

Yeah well thank you very much. Chairman Steil I disagree with you on what you said when you began because what I believe undermines Americans' confidence in our elections is not the laws or the lack thereof. It's the lies coming from the White House. I mean I don't know whether you conveniently forgot but when Donald Trump lost the election to Joe Biden do you remember the call he made to the Secretary of State of Georgia asking him to find 11,700 votes? I mean it's recorded if you haven't heard it. And he went out there and just blatantly lied and not only lied but asked the Secretary of State to come up with votes you know to stuff the ballot boxes if you will so that he could end up winning in Georgia. That's what undermines people's confidence in our elections. And thankfully and again I you know I don't always say complimentary things about Republicans but the Republicans in charge of the state of Georgia actually did the right thing. They withstood they stood up to his pressure and they insisted on maintaining the integrity of the election. Chairman Steil President Trump falsely claimed on Friday yet again that he won Minnesota all three times. He said quote I won it all three times. And let me ask you do you agree that Donald Trump won Minnesota three times?

I'll let the President speak for himself. He has plenty of people that can answer questions.

Well I was I was just asking you do you I mean do you have an opinion on whether...

I think the electoral votes have been counted and they've been counted.

Well not the electoral votes I'm talking about the the people who voted to give him the electoral votes. Did he win or not? I mean he either won or he didn't.

He won the election he's the President of the United States.

Did he win Minnesota three times? I mean I can't even believe you can't even bring yourself to say yes on that. I mean if you if you thought that he lost the if you thought that the election was stolen from him you know or he didn't win it or all this garbage that he says is true you would say it. But you know you all know the truth and you go along with this. And that's what undermines people's confidence in our elections is they hear all this BS and none of you have the guts to stand up and say enough. No Donald Trump you lost Minnesota three times. You lost the election to Joe Biden. Yeah you may have won it the last time around but the bottom line is we ought to just speak the truth. I mean I just I don't I don't I don't get it. I mean I don't understand the reluctance to just just state the fact. I mean boy I'll tell you that that people are watching this and going I can't believe this. I can't believe this. You know I mean I think this entire exercise is insulting. I mean America doesn't need saving and certainly doesn't need saving from a group of people who want to turn over the voter rolls to a federal department that shot American citizens in our streets. And I think it's preposterous that the same Republicans who have spent their entire careers demanding that states, not federal the government but states should run their elections are now suddenly begging for federal intervention. I think we should all know about I think we all know what this is about. So let's dig into some of the details. Chairman Steil I have here this is the SAVE America Act as introduced by Representative Roy just 10 days ago. It has significant changes from the previously considered SAVE Act. Then we have this Rules Committee print right here. ...of the SAVE America Act. It was posted at around 4:00 last Friday, which again makes more large substantive changes to the bill. And then here is your, we have your manager's amendment here, posted at 9:30 this morning, which doesn't just make technical corrections. It actually makes huge changes including when major provisions of the bill would take effect. I mean, look at all these changes. Look at all these changes. None of them made in a committee markup. And you want us to believe that with zero debate in committee on any of these changes that this is ready to go straight to the floor?

We've had robust debate. I, the ranking member and I, I think could both attest that we've had substantial conversations and debate on the underlying...

Not on this. There's all these changes that have just been made. I've just given you in a very short period of time and I'm just asking and, you know, if you think that, the answer is yes that it's ready to go to the floor, just say yes. But I mean, is this the way the committee process is supposed to work? Major substantive changes, you know, three different documents that we're working off of here. And we're going to, you know, go right to the Rules Committee and go right to the floor and nobody has to worry about anything? I mean, do you really think this is ready?

It's a 32-page bill. I think that the time required to read a 32-page bill was sufficient.

So no hearings, no hearings, no markup, three totally different versions of this bill in a 10-day period. Did you have a hearing in your committee today?

We did have a hearing in the committee.

And what was the topic on?

Election integrity.

Yeah, and but it's, why aren't we dealing with the, was it on legislation or?

It was, it was a hearing. It was not a markup, that is correct.

I mean, I mean, but you could have, you could have met today on, on this with your committee and gone over, you know, in excruciating details, you know, all the changes that are being made here. So, so you met on a different issue, not on this bill. And so I mean, again, I mean, we're on the Rules Committee, it's a process committee, but this, this is a lousy process and I'll tell you, lousy process leads to lousy policy. And, you know, ranking member Morelle, as you know, primary elections start in just a few weeks, right? Am I correct in stating that there is zero chance that any state could possibly implement an extremely complicated new voter ID law in just a couple of weeks?

Well, in fact, at the hearing this morning we had the former head of elections for North Carolina who said the bill was unworkable because of this. We have five states that you note, including Texas, whose primary is on March 3. You have, ballots have already been mailed to people, so it's impossible to comply. And I think frankly it shows what a lack of seriousness this bill has that you would change the effective date to immediately within the last 24 hours.

Yeah. Chairman Steil, in your manager's amendment, you know, you, you removed the 2027 effective date to make it effective immediately. I mean, I don't know if that was because of a, one of your fellow Republicans did a tweet about it or because I mean you think it's a good idea, but like, I mean, I mean we have, we have elections coming up in a few weeks. How do states, how are states supposed to comply with all of this in a few, in a few weeks?

Well, let's break down the, the two key provisions because I think it's worth dialoguing. One is a review of photo identification. In my home state of Wisconsin, if you go buy a six-pack of beer, a clerk behind the bar is going to review your ID before they're able to sell you that six-pack of beer. I don't think it's robust training that's required and I think that the states will be able to implement photo identification upon passage and signing of this law. The second point that I think it's really important just to clarify that the bill, the SAVE America Act, applies to, let you get your feedback if you like, but the SAVE America Act applies to new voter registration. So where voter registration has already closed in a certain or given state, obviously there would by definition not be new voter registration. So some of the concerns that an individual would be impacted by this in the coming weeks would be I think a broadly a false assertion.

Yeah. Is buying a beer a constitutional right? I mean, I mean you have a constitutional right to vote. And I mean, and registering to vote with all these new requirements, quite frankly, I mean the idea that it's going to be, you know, without, you know, any hitch or everything's going to go smoothly, I mean, you know, I mean look, and I mentioned the REAL ID challenges that we've had. You know, it's taking years and billions of dollars and then, you know, and then we're, you're, you're rushing ahead to do this and I mean again, it took over 20 years and billions of dollars to get REAL ID in place and many people still don't have them. So the idea that we can do this just in a couple of weeks is laughable. I mean, and it's either a cynical cave to MAGA extremists or maybe that's the point and, and you just want to sow some chaos in order to disenfranchise millions of voters ahead of the midterms because you, you guys know you're losing here. But I can't believe that this Republican majority is so careless with something as serious as the, the American people's access to the ballot box. I mean, the, the bedrock of our democracy. And I think I've, I've made my point in the sense that, that this is a total farce. I mean, I mean major changes in the last few days and not subject to any kind of committee oversight or debate or hearing or markup. I mean, I, I have to tell you, I, I can't believe that, you know, you're all before the Rules Committee, you know, bringing what, this, this legislation which is not ready for prime time. Mr. Morelle, you wanted to...

I just wanted to just remark that if you have no driver's license but you have a student ID, that's not allowed. So if you intended to show up even at polling places in states that have photo ID, and by the way everybody has a voter, a voter sign-in, there's, you have to prove your identity whether in some states like Arizona and New York use handwriting and signatures, but in those states that you have photo IDs under this law now, if you had a student ID you couldn't use it. Even though that's, it's used by students all over the place, hunting licenses, fishing licenses, firearm IDs, none of those would be allowed and this is more restrictive than even those states that have photo ID. But that's not what this is about. I wanted to just make one other comment if I might, Mr. McGovern.

You know, I, I'll just, I'll just close by saying...

I'm sorry, may I just, I just one other comment I want to make. I, you know, the, the premise of this as you were talking about non-citizen voting, I just want, I always like to remark that in 2024, 80 million people who are voting-eligible U.S. citizens, 80 million did not participate in this presidential election. So our, we somehow we're supposed to believe that Democrats secretly get non-U.S. citizens to vote even though no one can figure out how that happened or if that happened. Somehow we magically do this and yet we can't get the 80 million voter-eligible U.S. citizens to vote and we try to do that all the time. There's, the whole notion of this is preposterous. There is no evidence of non-U.S. citizens voting, there's no evidence that there's a pattern of Democrats, although one witness this morning called us leftist goons, which I'm, I'm going to have to look up the definition of goon. I'm a member of Congress, but nonetheless, no evidence of it. Supposedly we arrange it secretly without ever, ever being caught at doing it because there's no evidence, even Speaker Johnson says so. But 80 million U.S. citizens who are voter-eligible didn't cast a vote in the presidential election. That's not where our focus is. It's on this imaginary thing that doesn't happen. And we'd spend billions to try to correct it.

Right. And I'll just end again because this has been stunning to, to hear this testimony. The fact that, Mr. Chairman, you as chairman of the, of this committee can't even answer clearly whether or not Donald Trump won or lost Minnesota. He says he won it the last three times because and he won it because he said there was a, all, all this non-citizen voting, you know, rigged it and, and against him. The fact that when and there's no evidence, there's no evidence of that, but the fact that you can't just say, you know, he lost and there's no evidence to prove otherwise. I just find it stunning that a, that members of Congress are so afraid of the, of the sitting president, are so afraid that he might, you know, be angry because you tell the truth that you end up, again, you're, it is, it is what you are saying, it is what this Congress is doing that is sowing a lack of confidence amongst the American public about our elections. I, I just, I, I don't know, I, I find it unbelievable every time I ask a Republican a question about the, the election in which Donald Trump lost and they can't answer it straight in a, in a straight manner. And it's just really disappointing. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mrs. Fischbach, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Mr. Chairman, I just want to kind of go through because they keep saying this is unnecessary because it's not happening, because it's already illegal for non-citizens to vote. But you know as I look at it and like you said they say it's not happening, Pennsylvania admitted that it inadvertently allowed 10,000 non-citizens to register. Texas had the same kind of issue with non-citizens registering and Virginia admitted non-citizens registered and and potentially or they are saying that successfully voted in several elections. And in 2014 North Carolina found that over 1,400 voters on the rolls were non-citizens. And maybe I, I was just wondering if, if you know I understand this, this piece of legislation is critical because it, it helps and enhances enforcing the law and so just maybe comment on, on some of those things that they're talking about.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the question. I think we have two things at play right now. One, we have Democrats actively encouraging non-citizens to participate in elections. I noted what's taking place in municipal at state level here in our nation's capital or jurisdictions across the country, so we know what the Democrats' long-term goal is in this situation. Two, underlying law, I don't think ever contemplated non-citizens receiving driver's licenses. And so what we are looking at because of that, and I wasn't here so I can't tell you exactly what congressional intent is, but I can tell you what the implications are. The Motor Voter law comes in and puts simply a registration requirement when an individual gets a driver's license and it's an attestation box that an individual is a citizen of the United States. Some people have said that they've done it inadvertently. We could have a whole debate as to whether or not it's malicious activity or not in any given situation, but we could look at one very clear example. Ian Roberts is now a reasonably well-known illegal immigrant who was arrested. He was previously living in the state of Maryland. He would ultimately move to the state of Iowa. He would become the head of a school district before he was arrested. And after his arrest, it wasn't long before folks went back and ran through his records to determine that he was registered to vote in Maryland. And of course if you then went further and said, well did he ever request a ballot? Well yes in fact Ian Roberts, a illegal citizen in the United States of America, requested a ballot in Maryland. And so what you see is a pattern of this occurring state after state. We've held multiple hearings on this topic at committee and it absolutely justifies the need to verify citizenship at registration.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just one other kind of question that you might want to address is they talk about all of these horrible things, but one of the things is a woman who changed her name will never be able to register because it's difficult. You know, the deployed military personnel won't be able to, won't be able to vote because of this requirement. And I'm just wondering if you could maybe just give me a little bit, dispel some of those kind of things that they're talking about.

Well, Representative, as you may know, I'm engaged to a woman who was born in your district and will be married in less than two months and she plans to change her name. And so someone who currently resides in the state of Minnesota will hopefully or will be moving to the state of Wisconsin because if I left I'd have to leave the job. But she'll move to the state of Wisconsin, she'll hopefully register to vote. And we've actually talked through this process. It's a process that millions of people have done. It could be a woman who's changing her name because she got married, there's other reasons people would go through a name change process. Every state has their own unique process for how an individual changes their name. It's very straightforward, you can jump online, you can Google it. Often that marriage certificate itself will actually enact the name change, so a certified copy of your marriage certificate would be brought along with your, along with your birth certificate when you would go and get a new form of identification. Of course if you get a passport, that would fully validate you for registering to vote. If you didn't, you would utilize the same documents when you'd register to vote. Some people have tried to highlight that a individual could be partway through that name change. So we could envision a scenario where the legal name was changed on a marriage certificate, yet the individual had not arrived at that given state, often starting with the Social Security Administration for a name change, so that's usually where you would start the process, that they've actually completed that step of the process. Now imagine an individual is partway through that process. We contemplated that in this legislation and in particular page 11, line 22, we walk through the process of how an individual would be able to register to vote. Again, the goal being making sure that all legal citizens are able to register to vote while proving their citizenship and we've remedied the concerns that have been brought by others.

Thank you.

May I comment on that? I just to be clear, if the future Mrs. Steil comes to register to vote, she's going to have to bring her birth certificate or a passport, but if she doesn't have one and half of Americans don't, you have to bring your birth certificate, you have to bring your ID and because there's going to be a difference in names, you're going to have to sign an affidavit, which by the way is you doing self-attestation, which is frankly just the same in many ways as just checking the box that says you're a U.S. citizen. But you're going to have to bring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. Seems like an awful lot to be able to just be able to utilize, to make use of your American right to vote as a U.S. citizen. You have to now bring all kinds of documentary proof instead of just checking the box, yes I'm an American citizen. And by the way the affidavit is the same thing.

Well, there's, there's a lot that goes into, you know, making sure that you have all of your documents together when you change your name and I agree, it's too much. But I think that they've made reasonable accommodations and reasonable way to deal with it in this case as in many other cases. And but I just wanted to just point out that it's about enforcing the law. It's about making sure that we have, you know, we always talk about actually we have lots of laws, but are we actually going to enforce them? And this is, this is such a critical piece. This is making sure that our elections, because I think you said it earlier, Mr. Chairman, that one fraudulent vote is too many because it, it is, it's unfair and it blocks the legal voters, the folks, the citizen voters. So I appreciate you bringing this forward. I'm very supportive. And thank you very much and I yield back.

Thank you, Mrs. Fischbach. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.

Thank you. I'd yield first to the ranking member.

Madam Chair, I request unanimous consent to insert in the record an article from ABC News entitled Election Fact Check: Non-citizens Can't Vote and Instances are Vanishingly Rare.

Without objection.

I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record an article from NPR entitled Despite Grand Claims, a New Report Shows Non-citizen Voting Hasn't Materialized.

Without objection.

I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record an article from the Cato Institute entitled Non-citizens Don't Illegally Vote in Detectable Numbers.

Without objection.

I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record another piece from the Cato Institute entitled Trump's Claims About Non-citizen Voting are False and We Can Prove It.

Without objection.

Can I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record an article from the American Immigration Council entitled Unpacking Myths About Non-citizen Voting: How Heritage Foundation's Own Data Proves It's Not a Problem.

Without objection.

And I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record an academic article entitled An Exploration of Donald Trump's Allegations of Massive Voter Fraud in the 2016 Election, which finds, quote, expansive voter fraud concerns espoused by Donald Trump and those allied with him are not grounded in any observable features of the 2016 election.

Without objection.

And Madam Chair, I just also want to say the courts have also found the same thing. Texas, you know, in 2016, the Fifth Circuit, in an opinion finding that Texas's strict photo voter ID law is racially discriminatory, noted that there were only two convictions for in-person voter impersonation fraud out of 20 million votes cast in the decade before Texas passed the law. In North Carolina in 2016, in its opening, in its opinion striking down North Carolina's omnibus restrictive election law, which included a voter ID requirement as purposely racially discriminatory, the Fourth Circuit noted that the state, quote, failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina. And then in Wisconsin in 2016, a federal trial court in Wisconsin reviewing the state's strict photo ID law found that impersonation fraud, the type of fraud that the voter ID is designed to prevent, is extremely rare and is a truly isolated phenomenon which has not posed a significant threat to the integrity of Wisconsin's election. Again, I will say to my friends that what is undermining the confidence in our elections is what is coming out of the mouth of this president on a daily basis. He makes things up, we all know they're lies, and unfortunately we cannot get the Republicans to stand up to him and tell the truth. It is unbelievable that this is occurring in our country. It is unbelievable that he gets away with it and it is unbelievable that we can't even get a straight answer as to whether he won certain states in the last election or lost them. No evidence to prove any different. I will tell you that he won the election against Kamala Harris. I wish he didn't, I think our economy would be better off had she won, but he won. I'm not going to dispute that. And he lost to Joe Biden. And unfortunately we have a Republican conference that is too afraid to tell the truth. And I thank the gentlelady, I yield back.

Thank you. And thank you, Madam Chair. I know it's been said before, but apparently we can't say it enough. We have to start with basic facts. Non-citizen voting is already illegal. Fraudulent voting is already illegal. Under state and local laws, only citizens can vote in federal elections and all 50 states have systems in place to register eligible voters and confirm their eligibility. These systems work. The penalties are severe: prison time, heavy fines, deportation in the case of non-citizen voting. But for years our Republican colleagues have tried to fabricate a problem that simply doesn't exist. Unfortunately we have a media ecosystem that seems to reward the loudest and most strident voices, no matter how wrong they are. So we don't have a crisis. This is a pretext. It's a pretext to pass a radical bill, the sole purpose or outcome of which is to make it harder for American citizens to vote. The SAVE America Act would force every American to produce multiple proofs of citizenship to register to vote and to vote in person. In fact, most Americans would be unable to register or vote using their state-issued driver's license. This is a big deal in Pennsylvania. We still do not have half of our citizens using REAL ID. Less than half of Pennsylvanians don't have a passport so they couldn't vote either. Student IDs wouldn't be enough, birth certificates for married women who changed their name wouldn't be enough. The bill places unrealistic burdens on citizens that will result in mass disenfranchisement of eligible voters, all to solve a problem that no one can prove exists because it doesn't. We've seen how this plays out in Pennsylvania and other states that have implemented these kinds of restrictive voter ID and voter registration requirements. In 2012 the Pennsylvania Republican Party controlled our legislature and they tried to impose restrictions on ID requirements like those here, although less restrictive than those here. That law was overturned because it was proven that it would disenfranchise over half a million eligible Pennsylvania voters. So this is the outrageous rhetoric that we see across the Republican Party, spreading dangerous lies about election integrity, saying that millions of illegal votes are being cast although it's a law. And then you have laws like this proposed SAVE Act making it harder for eligible citizens to vote. And when those laws inevitably cause chaos and confusion, you point to that chaos or confusion as evidence that the system is broken. And the solution that seems to be on offer is federal control, no matter how unconstitutional that is. It doesn't take any imagination after the last few weeks' events to see a scenario where ICE agents and FBI agents are sent to seize ballot boxes because that just happened in Georgia. I represent Philadelphia and two of its collar counties in a district that has voted increasingly for Democrats over the past decade. In the lead-up to and the aftermath of the 2020 election, Republicans filed dozens of lawsuits and made outrageous and fact-free claims of voter fraud. They lost every lawsuit and many recounts and audits, all of which confirmed that Trump not only lost that district in 2020 but also in 2016 and 2024. No problem there, everybody agrees. But what Republicans don't talk about is that their claims of rampant voter fraud are actually inspiring Trump supporters to try to commit voter fraud. In my district one man was criminally charged for illegally voting for Donald Trump using the names of his deceased mother and his deceased mother-in-law. Another man cast his own ballot and then tried to change his appearance by putting on a new MAGA hat and came back to cast a ballot as his own son. Those cases were investigated, they were prosecuted, the system worked, but you don't hear Republicans talking about how they're inspiring voter fraud with their lies about how easy it is to commit voter fraud. The real fraud here isn't happening at the ballot box, it's this bill. The real fraud is standing before the American people and claiming we need to save our elections from a threat that doesn't exist while simultaneously laying the groundwork to steal elections through federal intervention. If there's a threat to free and fair elections in America, it's coming from elected officials who are willing to lie about our elections, willing to disenfranchise our own citizens and willing to support the use of military force to take over voting in states that don't deliver the results that they want. Mr. Morelle, can you add anything to this discussion? It's a little frustrating because we've had the conversation over and over again. There's never any new evidence, but we keep seeing more and more restrictive voter laws being proposed.

Yeah, thank you for the question. A couple things I do want to say and I appreciate Mr. Steil saying that one non-U.S. citizen having the opportunity to vote is too many. What troubles me far more is U.S. citizens being denied the right to register or vote. That's far worse and that's what will happen. I mean the notion that we give the voter files to the Department of Homeland Security and you see what ICE agents are doing in Minneapolis and doing all over the country. They're detaining U.S. citizens, they're rounding up U.S. citizens and sadly they're killing U.S. citizens. So the notion of ICE agents simply sitting at the polling places should that happen or the president suggesting they'd call out the National Guard purely to intimidate people. If you had a Spanish last name, even if you're a U.S. citizen, you're from Puerto Rico, they are U.S. citizens despite what people thought about the halftime show at the Super Bowl. These are U.S. citizens. But if you have a name that maybe sounds to an ICE agent like, hmm, maybe that's not American the way I think of Americans, who knows what they do? Do they detain people? Do they just intimidate people? Do people say I'm not going anywhere near a polling place because I'm afraid of what this will do to my family, to my job, to my livelihood? I mean this is clearly what it's intended to do. And frankly, who in America right now wants to give Kristi Noem more control over Americans' lives? Nobody in my community, I can tell you that. Republicans, Democrats, all complain to me about the awful treatment of U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But it's just not Minneapolis, it's all over the country. We see it, which is why more and more people are getting frustrated and angry and protesting. So we're going to give them more information, private personal information that you'd have, you're going to just turn over to the Department of Homeland Security. Even Republican elected officials, members of Congress have called on Secretary Noem to resign. Republicans, publicly. I think people recognize we're at a very, very difficult point in America right now. The answer to whatever perceived challenges there are is not to give Homeland Security more control over the lives of American citizens. And so frankly there's so much wrong with this bill, that's just but those are some bottom-line thoughts that I have.

Thank you. I appreciate that and I have to say given the conduct we've seen of ICE agents around the country, in Minnesota, in my district, I don't think you have to have a Spanish surname in order to be nervous when you see an ICE agent because we're clearly seeing abuse, use of excessive force, conduct that we've never seen from law enforcement in our communities and that we should never expect to see. You know, and having Kristi Noem in charge of anything at this point, I think she's proven that she's unable to manage either that system or pet control. So thank you for your testimony and I will yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Miss Houchin, you're recognized. Let me see if that's Mr. Scott. I recognize Mr. Scott.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry I had to slip down to the majority leader's office. I have a question for you, Mr. Steil. Have you bought decongestants lately just by any chance? I bought some the other day and you know when I did they made me not only show my driver's license, they actually scanned the back of it. I didn't think it was that much of an inconvenience. I understand why they were doing it. There was a reason for it. But I mean to my knowledge any, that wasn't just me, they weren't picking on me, but anybody who went in and bought a decongestant with certain items in it would have to show an ID. Is that correct?

It's not just a decongestant, right? I mean we can think about the DNC convention in 2024, you had to show an ID. There's a Democratic senator who held a town hall just a couple days ago. You were required in my state, you may be uniquely knowledgeable of it, Mr. Scott, who required what? A photo ID. So Democrats don't have a problem with photo ID when it's for their own events, but they seem to have a problem with it when it's for the integrity of our elections.

The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy.

I thank the chairwoman. Madam Chair, I move the committee grant S. 1383, the SAVE America Act, a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee print 119-19, modified by the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to commit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 2189, the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-escalate Act, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee print 119-18 shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. ...control by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. Finally, the rule provides that the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 13 for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of February 13, 2026, relating to a measure continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026.

Thank you very much, Mr. Roy. You've now heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. You're recognized.

First of all, I want to thank Representatives Kiley, Massey, and Bacon for having the courage of their convictions and doing the right thing, you know, and understanding that when it comes to issues like tariffs, we in this House of Representatives have some responsibility and we have some power and we just shouldn't give it away. So I want to thank them for that. Secondly, I'm noticing in the rule just now that, you know, there's a provision for martial law for a DHS appropriations bill or CR, if I'm understanding that correctly.

Yes, sir.

Yeah. I just will say, I mean, I'm told that there's a bipartisan negotiation going on. And I just, I'm not going to make a big deal of this, but I mean, I think it would be, you know, it would have been nice for our side to have been consulted about this before having it being presented to us in this rule right now. I'm not going to make a big deal of it, but I just, anyway, I just found that a little bit concerning.

Mr. McGovern, the, I believe the negotiations are going on on the Senate side.

Well, I mean, well, I mean, I again, I, I don't, I just, I don't think these are the issues we should be like surprised on. But anyway, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number 20 to S. 1383 offered by Representative Peterson, which delays the enactment of the bill until election officials from every state and territory certify that this bill will not result in reduced voting access for eligible individuals. I mean, Republicans keep saying that non-citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote in federal elections. And I agree. They'll be happy to know that's currently the law. But we are concerned on our side that in your zeal to impose restrictions to solve a non-existent problem, Republicans will disenfranchise Americans and make it more difficult for citizens to register and cast their ballots. So this amendment is simple. If you really think access to the ballot won't be a problem under this bill, then let the people who actually administer the elections, not you, but the people who actually administer the elections, the state officials, certify that the bill will not reduce voting access for anyone who can legally vote in a federal election. And I urge everybody to vote yes on my amendment and I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

I think the ayes have it, but I'll ask for a roll call to double check.

Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman.

No.

Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy.

No.

Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Houchin.

No.

Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy.

No.

Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott.

No.

Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith.

No.

Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack.

No.

Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern.

Aye.

Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon.

Aye.

Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse.

Aye.

Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

Clerk report the total.

Four ayes, nine noes.

The noes have it. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment's not agreed to. Are there further discussions on the motion?

I think I need a hearing aid. No, I'm all set.

Okay. Hearing none, the question, excuse me, the question now is on the motion from the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

No.

How was it this time?

I think we won.

The ayes have it. The amendment, the motion is agreed to.

We ask for a roll call.

Mr. McGovern requests a roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

Yes.

Mrs. Fischbach, aye. Mr. Norman.

Aye.

Mr. Norman, aye. Mr. Roy.

Aye.

Mr. Roy, aye. Mrs. Houchin.

Aye.

Mrs. Houchin, aye. Mr. Langworthy.

Aye.

Mr. Langworthy, aye. Mr. Scott.

Aye.

Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Griffith.

Aye.

Mr. Griffith, aye. Mr. Jack.

Aye.

Mr. Jack, aye. Mr. McGovern.

No.

Mr. McGovern, no. Ms. Scanlon.

No.

Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Neguse.

No.

Mr. Neguse, no. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

No.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, no. Madam Chair.

Aye.

Madam Chair, aye.

Clerk report the total.

Nine ayes, four noes.

The ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. Accordingly, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy, will be managing this rule for the majority.

And in defense of voting rights, I will handle it for the minority.

And Mr. McGovern will handle it for minority. Hearing no further business, the committee is adjourned.

[Gavel sounds.]

...writ large. They just have a problem with photo ID in the instance of voting. And it's such a common practice for Americans to board an airplane, buy decongestant, grab a beer, attend a town hall in your state with a Democratic senator, that it's commonplace and it is such an essential component of election integrity. It's why it's in the SAVE America Act.

Yeah, you would have to have one to open a bank account to deposit a Social Security check in, correct?

Absolutely.

I don't understand their argument against IDs. I did watch as someone from the state of Georgia who actually wrote the original voter ID law for the state of Georgia. At least it left the House under my name, but you know how senators get. They won't pass your legislation unless you let them put their name on it. Senators are all the same. It doesn't matter if you're in Georgia or any other state. I want to give you these numbers. Hillary Clinton, because I've listened to the Democrats nationally talk about how bad the election laws are. Hillary Clinton got 1.8 million votes in her election. 1,877,000 to be specific in the state of Georgia. Biden got 2,473,000 in 2020. After the draconian election law, I say that sarcastically so that nobody quotes me on it, that was passed after that election because of the number of absentee ballots that was the one type of ballot that you didn't have to show an ID on in the state of Georgia. It was only one type of ballot you didn't have to show an ID on in the state of Georgia. Every other ballot you did. And so the legislature and the governor fixed that. You want to guess how many votes Kamala Harris got? 2,548,000. So the Democratic vote count has gone up every single time for their candidate. And it I'll tell you, our vote counts have gone up too in the state of Georgia. And I think the bottom line is people in both parties don't trust the election if you don't have to show an ID to vote. Democrats and Republicans want to be able to trust the elections. And that requires that the person who walks in to vote is the person that they say they are and that requires some type of identification. And you know what? The same identification that allows you to buy Sudafed over the counter allows you to vote and then some in the state of Georgia. There are a lot of other IDs you can use too. So I think it's just good common sense legislation. The vast majority of people in both parties want this legislation. I look at the vote tabulations in the state of Georgia going up for the Democratic Party almost 100,000 ballots after the last election law was passed and I don't understand how they're complaining unless they're just looking for something to complain about. So I appreciate you. Do you have any further comments?

I would just say I think I mean this is unique you're from the state of Georgia. Georgia's experience in implementing voter integrity laws prove the point that we're trying to make here. The Democratic language that was utilized when the state of Georgia was debating their election integrity law mirrors the language you're hearing from Democrats today on the SAVE America Act. I mean it shouldn't be lost on anybody that most recently Democratic leaders have called the legislation in front of us Jim Crow 2.0. And we don't have to go back that far because we can go back to the summer of 2021 when Georgia was debating their election integrity law and the then President of the United States Joe Biden called Georgia's election integrity law what? Of course, Jim Crow 2.0. And if we look at the empirical data that you just shared, Mr. Scott, what we see is that when people have confidence in their elections, they're more likely to participate. And Georgia's run two full statewide elections since that election integrity law went into place. We've seen strong participation. The University of Georgia did a significant survey in the state that showed that people had a positive experience in the elections. That's true across all key demographic groups. The survey found that statistically zero percent of blacks had a poor negative voting experience in the state of Georgia. That's a good thing. What we have seen time and again is when you put in place common sense election integrity reforms as the state of Georgia did or as we are doing here in the SAVE America Act, what happens is people increase their confidence in elections and as people increase their confidence in elections, they're more likely to participate. So I appreciate you bringing up the Georgia example.

Senator Warnock and Governor Kemp both reelected on the same ballots with the voter ID laws after all of the Jim Crow 2.0 rhetoric that was spewed out there after the Major League Baseball I think moved one of their games in an effort to pander to the woke crowd. So I appreciate the law. It makes good sense and you know I truly believe you'll have higher turnout in both parties because it'll lead to more confidence in an accurate ballot. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Austin. Mr. Neguse, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member for being here. My colleague from Georgia, I will say we were delighted to welcome folks to Colorado, but in any event, I don't want to belabor that point. I do want to just check in with respect to the numbers that you mentioned and make sure I've got this right. The my colleague from Georgia, you mentioned you said in 2016 that Hillary Clinton got 1,877,963 votes.

That was my understanding. I just looked it up on the internet.

And Donald Trump got 2,089,104?

I didn't pull all of those numbers, but I...

If I read... okay. Yeah, so you gave the Hillary Clinton number. I was giving you the Donald Trump number for 2016.

Well, my point was that the Democrat numbers went up.

So in 2020, you I think you said Joe Biden had 2,473,633 votes. That's the number you is that right?

That's according to the internet. I think that's the official results.

Exactly. And Donald Trump got 2,461,854 votes.

If that's what's online.

That's what's on the official count.

That's probably the official count.

So Donald Trump lost Georgia.

That is the official count.

That's yeah, he lost the election in Georgia in 2020, right?

And and the question got back to and the recent law was changed...

But is that right or wrong?

Officially, yes.

What do you mean officially?

Did the Democratic Party sue to change the election laws prior to that election?

So wait, are you saying that's not what do you mean officially?

I'm saying the Democratic Party sued to change the election laws in the state of Georgia so that on the absentee ballots...

So that's why the numbers went up? Because I thought you just made the argument a minute ago that the numbers were going up notwithstanding the changes that the Georgia legislature had made to the voting laws in Georgia. What are you talking about?

They are going up.

Exactly. So look, Mr. Scott, I think you can understand where I'm getting at. I think you were making an argument previously that, you know, myself, Mr. Morelle, others may disagree with.

Mm-hmm.

But facts are facts and numbers are numbers. And I would just love to hear somebody say without the qualifiers, without official language and all of the rest, you cited the numbers to us. You said that Joe Biden got 2,473,633 votes in the state of Georgia during the 2020 presidential election. And we know that Donald Trump got 2,461,854 votes. He lost the Georgia election. If you can say those words, if you can say Donald Trump lost Georgia, I'm happy to engage with you in good faith on the latter question.

Those are the official ballot counts and as you know, I voted to certify the election. What you're not saying is that Biden got almost 800,000 absentee ballots where there was no signature verification and no ID required.

And my point to you, and I appreciate I want to say...

And and that number has never been that high before or since.

I hear you. I think the Chairman, I mean I think...

And I I don't have all of my notes in front of me on on all of those things.

I'll go ahead and reclaim it. But I think Mr. Scott, fair enough. And I would just simply say initially when you cite and I let me just say that for the record, I appreciate that you certified the electoral results. I remember you doing that because I was there on January 6th with you. So I don't I want to make that very clear. I was just simply saying when you quoted when you cited the Hillary Clinton number in 2016 and then the Joe Biden number and then the Kamala Harris number, the the general import of the argument as best as I could understand it was your case that the Georgia laws that were enacted notwithstanding the criticism of those laws by Democratic members that nonetheless Democrats continued to compete and to win electorally in Georgia. But in any event, I understand the other alternate argument you're making.

They do win. You won the US we have two Democrat US senators right now.

I hear you. Exactly. So one of which has been reelected. I hear you. So let me I want to ask Chairman Steil. Do you agree that Joe Biden won Georgia? Do you agree with your colleague, Mr. Scott?

Yeah, as reported the state of Georgia cast its electoral ballots for Joe Biden.

What does that mean?

Well, we in the House of Representatives, we witnessed the counting of the Electoral College and the state of Georgia cast their ballots in support of Joe Biden.

Correct. And that is because he won the state of Georgia. And so therefore...

It was certified under the state of Georgia. That's an accurate statement. It was certified under the state of Georgia.

And I presume you would say the same about the state of Minnesota in 2024 with respect to Kamala Harris's victory there?

That the the Electoral College was counted in favor of Kamala Harris.

That Kamala Harris won the election in the state of Minnesota.

As reported in from the state of Minnesota.

What is this why can't you just say yes? I don't understand.

I don't understand your confusion as to how the Electoral College is counted.

I'm not asking about the Electoral College. I'm asking about the popular vote in these respective states.

Well, that's that's that's how we elect the President of the United States.

[Gavel sounds.] Mr. Neguse, I'm confused about why you keep pursuing this when you're getting an answer from these people telling you...

I am not getting an answer.

...that the elections were certified. That should be adequate.

Number one, Madam Chair, the time belongs to the speaker.

I understand, but...

And I'm happy to ask you the question. I'm happy to ask any Republican on this panel. I think the only person on the panel that will answer the question honestly is Mr. Scott from Georgia. If I ask anyone on the panel whether or not a particular candidate won the popular vote in a particular state, I get the same gobbledygook answers of of various sequiturs as reported as elect as the Electoral College certified in the House of Representatives. I'm not asking that. I'm asking who won the state of Wisconsin? Who won the state of Minnesota? If I go out and ask a citizen on the street who won Minnesota in 2024, every single one of them will say Kamala Harris won. The only people who equivocate are Republican politicians in this committee. That's a fact. We all know it. But in any event, I will agree with the Chairwoman that it's not worth belaboring it because I don't think I'm going to get a different answer out of Mr. Steil. I go through 50 states and you'll answer it the same way. Who won the state of Arkansas in 2024, Mr. Morelle?

State of Arkansas?

Yes.

In 2024?

Yes.

Donald Trump.

Donald Trump won the state of Arkansas. Not as reported and as certified by the electoral...

He won the state of Arkansas.

He won the state of Arkansas. Mr. Steil, do you disagree? Who won the state of Arkansas in 2024?

I mean I think we've made it pretty clear that we count I think there's confusion maybe in your question that the Electoral College determines who's the President of the United States. The Electoral College has been reported in the House of Representatives. I don't think it's terribly confusing.

Okay, Mr. Steil. I mean again, people can draw their own judgments. Wild. Wild. Honestly, the only I go out I ask any citizen in the state of Arkansas. I think if Bruce Westerman were here, I think he'd answer it honestly too. He'd say Donald Trump won Arkansas. He would not he wouldn't be worried about how Donald Trump might react to him saying that. I get it. I understand you're worried President Trump might be watching this. Maybe he hears you and he understands that you were willing to, you know, perhaps concede the truth on it. Very honest question. But in any event, I'll digress. We can talk about the merits of this bill. I want to talk about the section governing registration with respect to mail voter registrations and applications. My understanding of the legislation, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman, is that under this legislation, essentially states would not allow or would not be allowed to accept NVRA mail voter registration applications unless the applicant presents the requisite types of identification in person at the office of an appropriate election official.

That'd be accurate.

Okay. So let's say that you are a US Marine stationed in a foreign country and you have not registered to vote. You would not be able to register to vote under this legislation, correct?

No, you the US service members stationed abroad are specifically excluded from the in-person registration requirement.

Mr. Morelle, is that correct? Because as I understand this language and I'm reading here, this would have a significant effect on members of the United States Armed Forces who would be unable to register to vote at all while deployed overseas.

Yeah, it's one of the criticisms we made of the SAVE Act which we were told isn't a problem, but they did make it late yesterday. They made that change. It's just an amendment that's been added. Correct, which is hard to follow the different versions of the bill, but that was a change made yesterday. Incidentally, the first change did not include service members' spouses, but they realized again they made a mistake so they had to make that change as well. But it doesn't apply to other people who live overseas, only to members of the military.

So with respect to vote by mail, can military spouses vote by mail? So Mr. Morelle, under the legislation or Mr. Steil, either, help me understand the...

Yes.

And they're not subject, excuse me, to the registration requirement or to the in-person registration requirement?

Correct.

Spouses? To me? Either of you. Yeah, I'm good faith question. I'm trying to understand.

No, no, that's fine. Because the bill was changed. Correct. So the manager's amendment explicitly exempts active duty military voters, their spouses, and their dependents.

Okay. One provision of this bill requires states to provide voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security.

Correct.

Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? Okay.

For for the purpose of being reviewed by by the SAVE database.

States are not required to do that now.

They're not required to do that now. That is an accurate statement.

Okay. I want to say that I appreciate that acknowledgment because as you know, there's litigation right now in a variety of different courts across the country in which the Trump administration is asserting that it has the right under existing law to these voter rolls. Of course, every court has disagreed with them, including a Trump-appointed judge, federal judge in the state of Michigan just I think 11 days ago. And so in any event, I think safe to say Republicans in Congress, not that you speak for all Republicans, but I think it's clear to me that the House believes that the administration does not have this power under federal law and the courts believe that to be the case. And the fact that you all have introduced a bill to impose this requirement affirmatively, I suspect is going to make its way into a circuit court opinion as a basis for concluding that in fact they're not required, states aren't required to do this under existing law, which is why you're trying to change the law. So anyway, that's my view.

That's your view.

Well, you disagree?

I actually don't know enough case law regarding whether or not the affirmative action by the federal government to take it would be overruled by explicit requirements of the state to provide it. I just don't have background case law between the requirement to provide versus the ability to request that data.

Fair enough. I think which is why we made it explicit in this so that it would be checked against the SAVE database. My sense, I have one question one more question. I will say my sense is that I don't know the court's going to be particularly interested in my view on it, but I think, you know, the Chairman of the House Administration Committee conceded that point. Yeah.

Post-Chevron deference.

The Chairman of the House Administration Committee conceded that point. Yeah. One last question. So Paperwork Reduction Act.

Mm-hmm.

You're familiar with that? Okay. This is a 1980s Reagan-era law passed by the House unanimously. It's existed for about a half a century now, designed to prevent onerous paperwork requirements on hardworking American citizens, right? Fair description?

Fair enough.

You've exempted this legislation from the Paperwork Reduction Act, right?

We did.

So to me, that's an acknowledgment to the American public that what House Republicans intend to do, notwithstanding the way in which many have described it as somehow not imposing onerous requirements and all the like, if that weren't the case, I don't think you would have necessitated a requirement an exception or an exemption to the Paperwork Reduction Act. And I see my friend Mr. Morelle wants to...

Well, I just I just note because it's a really important point. Not only does it exempt them from the Paperwork Reduction Act, this is going to be burdensome not only for people who choose to register, but this places all types of liability on election workers. Right? So if you're at the Board of Elections or if you're a an entry-level clerk at the at your local Board of Elections and you take some form of what you think is acceptable, so an expired passport or you take something that you think is documentary proof of citizenship but it's not, there's liability that arises from that. We're already having a difficult time in local Boards of Elections, state Boards of Elections to attract people who are now often the victims of intimidation and violence whose work is being literally criticized by as Mr. McGovern's pointed out by the President repeatedly about voter fraud, etc. We're already finding people demoralized in these jobs who are trying to do what they can. Now you're going to make them liable for taking proof of citizenship that's not in line with what the law says.

Thank you to both of the witnesses.

You can really stretch one question, Mr. Neguse. Miss Houchin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been sitting here taking notes on some of the arguments that have been made by the Democrats. One thing is that it's not widespread. I think we've covered this, but it's not widespread, it's not happening in a detectable number. Mr. Steil, what level of voter fraud is acceptable?

In my opinion, no voter fraud is acceptable.

Mr. Morelle, what level of voter fraud is acceptable?

No level.

No level. What amount of illegal aliens voting is acceptable, Mr. Steil?

None.

Mr. Morelle, what amount of illegal aliens voting is acceptable?

None.

None. So Americans are required to show photo ID to board a plane, to rent a car, to buy alcohol, to purchase a firearm, to open a bank account, and check into a hotel. Last time I checked, the Second Amendment was a constitutional right. We do have to show ID in order to purchase a firearm. Is that correct, Mr. Steil?

That's my understanding.

You need identification for everyday activities that are far less important than choosing the next leaders of the United States of America. And the American people overwhelmingly support applying that same standard to voting. Roughly 70 percent of voters agree that photo ID should be required at the ballot box. My Democrat colleagues have made comments such as the Republicans are doing this because we are struggling with favorability when in fact Republicans hold a three-point favorability advantage over Democrats currently and a Pew Research study noted that only 40 percent of Democrats approve of Democrats. I support the SAVE Act because American elections should be decided by American citizens, period. No amount of voter fraud is acceptable, no amount of illegal aliens voting is acceptable. Ensuring that only eligible citizens participate in our elections should not be controversial. The SAVE America Act strengthens that protection by requiring voters to present photo identification when casting a ballot. Indiana was one of the first states in the nation to do voter ID. We've been doing that for many years. It has not resulted in lower voter turnout. Much like in Georgia, voter turnout has been consistent even after the passage of voter ID laws. But let's be clear about part of the reason why this legislation is necessary in the first place. Because of the failed border policies of the Biden administration allowing millions of illegal immigrants to enter the country. When you combine an open border with weak election security, you erode public confidence in the system. My colleagues will argue there isn't evidence of widespread fraud. They'll say fraud is rare or difficult to detect. But the standard should not be whether fraud is widespread, the standard should be zero. Any level of fraud in American elections is unacceptable. It is a right. It is a right and it should be protected by not allowing non-citizens to vote in our elections and not permitting fraud. Voter ID leads to less fraud, not more. 36 states already have voter ID, 14 do not. I don't think it would surprise the panel to note that the 14 states that do not have voter ID are led by mostly Democrat legislatures. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. This argument that it somehow causes voter suppression to have voter ID laws is an argument that Democrats have been making for years and it hasn't led to lower voter participation. One thing that that I often find our colleagues on the other side of the aisle doing is they try to say that we are doing the thing that they're doing. In my view, Democrats that don't want to support very common sense voter ID laws, maybe they're the ones that intend to rig elections unlike much like my colleague had said on the other side of the aisle tonight. Maybe that's why they don't want voter ID. It's very hard for me to understand. Any level of voter fraud in America should be unacceptable. This bill does not limit the rights of a single eligible citizen. At most, I would say it may cause a headache for maybe a thousand individuals per state. It does protect the rights, reinforcing election integrity and restoring public trust in our elections. I'm a married woman. I had to change my name. I did change my name when I got married. It did not cause me any issues voting in the next election even with voter ID. So let's be clear. The only people threatened by basic election safeguards are the people who benefit from weak ones. It's that simple. So Chairman Steil, we've heard an argument that it's too difficult to obtain acceptable ID as required by the bill, but all 50 states issue driver's licenses and non-driver state ID cards. Departments of Motor Vehicles often provide like in Indiana reduced fee or free IDs for the purpose of voting, especially for seniors or low-income residents. And several national nonprofits specialize in helping people secure ID. Mr. Steil, do you think that's an unreasonable standard to meet for the purpose of election integrity?

No. No. If I can take a second because I I want to dive into the ID argument. Can I just go back to the very beginning? We had a couple of comments in the previous panel that I think is worth referencing before we we let that close out. In particular as it relates to the argument that we're criminalizing the work of election of election workers. As we know, underlying in US Code that we're amending, that there is a mens rea requirement that an individual would have to knowingly and willfully do an action. So that means that someone would have to knowingly attempt to defraud the government by intentionally registering a non-citizen to vote. So you'd require that that individual would know that the registrant is a non-citizen. And so the the fearmongering and the comments that can exist in this space I think are misplaced. If I can clean up one other item that I think is relevant for the record before we we ultimately get to a close is discussion of the markup. As we know, the underlying SAVE Act, this is an enhanced SAVE Act because it picks up photo ID, that did go through the regular markup process in 2024. Obviously, it came through the House earlier through the initial procedures at the very beginning of this Congress, but there was robust debate on the bill. But let's go back to your photo ID requirement if I can, Miss Houchin. Photo identification is standard in Americans' lives across the board. It is incredibly commonplace. 36 states require photo identification to vote. We are looking at the minority of states that make a decision to not put in place common sense photo identification requirements that are needed and I think it is a burden it is not a burden that would be placed of of any substance, but it is significant to enhance election integrity.

Thank you. And just to be clear, it is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in the election, but no proof of citizenship is required in many states, no proof of identification is required in many states. Is that accurate?

That is accurate.

So I support the SAVE Act. Is there anything else you'd like to cover, Mr. Steil, before...

I think your last question brings up a really important point and this is is a topic we hear time and again where individuals will say, but it's already illegal for non-citizens to vote in US elections. That's accurate. This bill is about enforcement of the law. And so you could go to many states around the country and you could say, well, what's the what's the speed limit on the interstate in your respective state? 75, 70, 65. This is about enforcing the speed limit, right? They're two very different things. You can put up a speed limit sign and let everybody know the speed limit in the state of Indiana is 70 miles per hour. It's a whole another ballgame to say that we're actually going to enforce the speed limit in the state of Indiana. And so it's yes, the underlying federal law is that non-citizens cannot vote in US elections. The SAVE America Act is about enforcing that by putting in place citizenship verification at the point of registration.

Yeah, I appreciate that. And I just would like to note as of May 2023, the Virginia Department of Election officials have removed 1,481 registrations from its official voter rolls with a reported reason for removal due to non-citizen status. Of those non-citizens who were removed, 335 individuals or 22.6 percent had cast a ballot in Virginia elections over the prior four years. In total, these non-citizens cast over 800 ballots. In response to inquiries, the Virginia Attorney General's office said it had no prosecution records related to this illegal voting even though voting illegally is a class six felony in Virginia. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence. I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Houchin. Miss Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you... ...to our witnesses for engaging in this debate. And I do recall being on the House Administration with the now chairman and how he was constantly opposed to any federal laws imposing on the states anything with regard to voting rights. So it's wonderful to see the change. Not really great. It's not wonderful because it's really sad what this is about. Can you take out your driver's license? You're in and Mr. Scott has his out. If you took yours out, I'm looking at mine. And what we're talking about here is does your driver's license tell us where you were born?

It does not. Does it?

No, not in the state of Wisconsin.

It does not. Mr. Scott, yours doesn't either. Because what we're talking about is registration. And you cannot use this ID to register to vote under your bill. Is that correct, Mr. Steil?

You could not use your ID. That would be an inaccurate statement. But you could, for example, if you were in the state of North Dakota. So if somebody here was in the state...

But I'm asking so in many states, you could not use that ID to register to vote. But Mr. Chairman Steil, do you have a passport?

I personally do have a passport.

You do have a passport. Does your... you're part of the roughly 50 percent of Americans who have a passport.

Roughly 50 percent of Americans have a passport because...

You travel. About 50 percent of Americans don't travel internationally. They don't have that money. Is that why? I mean, one of the reasons you have to have a certain amount of money to be able to travel internationally to get that passport, to pay for that passport. Is that correct?

There is a charge to a U.S. passport. That's accurate.

21.3 million American citizens of voting age don't have ready access to citizenship documents. Does that sound about right, Chairman Steil?

I don't have that data in front of me. Do you have a source of that data you'd like to share?

But you said 50 percent don't have ready access to passports. I will...

They're two very different topics, of course.

Yeah, but that's one is one form of citizenship verification that's in the bill is a passport. Madam Chair, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from the Brennan Center entitled 21.3 Million American Citizens of Voting Age Don't Have Ready Access to Citizenship Documents.

Without objection.

And this is ready access. And we already discussed earlier the fact that this bill, you have changed the enactment date of this bill to go in effect as soon as it is signed into law. If you could get this bill, like your goal would be to get this bill as soon as possible, right? Signed into law.

Yes.

And if that happens, then this 21.3 million American citizens who might not be prepared for a future in a few weeks in terms of Texas, who might want to... they're excited about the race, they're excited about the Republican senators who are running against each other and battling it out, they're excited about the Democrat primaries, they want to get involved, they want to register to vote, and they might be on one of the 21.3 million Americans who don't have ready access to citizenship documents. And that's what we are concerned about is that by rushing this into law, you are going to prevent so many people from being able to register to vote. And that's I think unacceptable. When you say how many illegal, you know, immigrants or too many voting, I would ask I'd flip the question and ask you how many eligible citizens are you worried about being turned away because you are rushing something like this into law? Do you care?

We have specifically considered that there may be individuals that are not in possession of documentary proof of evidence. And on page 12 of the legislative text, we put forward in conjunction with what will be EAC guidance for applicants who do not provide or have that possession of documentary proof of citizenship, ultimately giving them avenues to be able to attest to their citizenship, which is still significantly stronger than underlying law. And because of the process as set forward in the legislation, I do not think we'll reach the concerns that you've brought forward today.

Yeah, and I think that this is interesting because we already heard from the ranking member that there is already an attestation. So now you're saying, well, it's all right because we're going to allow them to do basically an affidavit, an attestation. That's what is already required is an attestation. But now you're going to make them attest and then go out and have to spend all that money to get those underlying documents. And I mean that that is this that's a huge concern that I have. The other one is that you have eliminated the ability of people to register to vote providing documentation unless they do it in person. I represent a huge rural area. My voters, people who are eligible to vote in my area might need to travel five hours, four hours round trip because we have a lot of space between us. We love those little towns and villages, but that's not where the county clerk's office is. And I have a major problem with the fact that what are they going to do? Like who's going to help them pay for that gas? Is there any way to help them pay for that gas? Can they apply for anything to help pay for that gas? Can they what are they going to do in terms of childcare? Working women don't have anyone to leave their kids with so they can go register to vote during working hours. Because when a county clerk's office is open, Mr. Chairman Steil?

It depends on your jurisdiction.

Generally, Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.

Not during election season in the state of Wisconsin, but that may be the case in New Mexico.

Yeah, yeah. But generally, that's when they're open. And I think that that's the problem with this legislation is it puts all this burden on eligible citizens who are going to be deterred from voting. Ranking Member Morelle.

Yeah, I do want to comment on that because particularly for rural voters, and I hear my good friend Mr. Griffith, who also serves on Committee on House Administration, he's I've heard him say several occasions talking about the needs of rural voters. So thinking about this, 80 million rural Americans, many of whom register to vote online or via mail currently, have to travel significant distances now under this bill. And by the way, it's registration is largely, I mean for all the talk about voter ID, I haven't said a word about voter ID during this whole conversation. It's about registering, the difficulty in registering. They did narrow the number of things that states currently allow for voter ID, make it harder and harder. That is an actual fact of this. Student IDs no longer allowed. But now you're going to have to drive and just to for instance, in Inyo County, California, some voters would have to travel 378 miles round trip to their designated election office in order to register. Seven hours of driving. I don't know, does that sound like a burden to anybody? Seven hours in the car to register to vote. SAVE Act would force voters in Mohave County, Arizona to drive over 500 miles, crossing state lines several times in order to get to a designated election office. That doesn't seem extreme to anybody? You're going to turn over your data to the Department of Homeland Service or Homeland Services and Kristi Noem. You're going to have to drive in some cases, particularly rural voters, hundreds of miles, hours and hours in the car. And by the way, God forbid you get to the election office after traveling 350 miles with another 350 mile trip to go home and you forgot something that was one of your documentary proofs of documentation. God forbid, because that means you can't exercise your God-given inalienable right to vote as an American citizen. That's like this is the the the party of small government, this is the party of rural voters, this is the party of participation? Really? So I just mention all this. It is to me, everybody glosses over that and wants to talk about voter ID. I haven't said a word about that. But think of these barriers, think about and then giving Homeland Security access to private voter information. Boy, that should be enough to just get everyone to have real concerns about this bill, which was not marked up in committee.

Right. And the whole issue because this doesn't this bill doesn't sit here in a vacuum. This bill sits here with the statement that you made. Because what Trump asked for is Republicans to nationalize our federal elections. Trump asked and suggested that ICE officers, masked ICE officers with guns who've already killed citizens are going to show up at our polling place. People are terrified. People are terrified of this. And it is called voter suppression because it doesn't exist in a vacuum. And the reason that people are worried about our election integrity is not because there's been widespread fraud. Because as my colleague said, fraud gets prosecuted. It gets prosecuted. And interestingly enough, it tends to be more Republican than Democrat from some of the cases that we've seen. But they're worried because your president and your party have spent a long time denying elections and saying that he won places he did not, asking to find votes. This fits within a moment of time where there is an attack on elections and on election integrity. And you know, the thing is is that Republicans keep lying to the American people, right? They keep telling us that that somebody who was holding a phone was going to massacre ICE officers even when we saw it with our own eyes. And then they want to blame immigrants. And we've already said immigrant voting is statistically meaningless. But what they are afraid of is the people who are going to vote. Republicans are afraid of the women vote, they're afraid of the people of color, of working families, and even given the tariffs that are beating people up and that Republicans are going to vote for or maybe not in the rule, they're going to vote for tariffs. When Republicans vote for that rule tonight, they're voting for tariffs. And Americans don't like it. And instead of Republicans changing their policies, they're going to change the rules of who gets to register to vote and how expensive is it and how difficult is it. And that's different than using this ID to go and vote. This is about registering to vote. And I think that that really is the key thing. Representative Ranking Member Morelle, I am the last Democrat on here, so I want to give you a chance. Is there anything that you've heard that you want to clarify?

Well, I thank you and I appreciate and I appreciate the debate here and which I'm sure will rage on. But this is ultimately making it extraordinarily difficult for millions of Americans to vote. You know in some cases you'd have to take a plane in Alaska just to register to vote because there's no other way to get to your polling place. 15 million rural Americans would have to travel to register an average of 259 miles to register to vote. Four hours and 30 minutes. I don't know about anybody else, but that seems to me to be extraordinary burden to be able to avail yourself of your right to participate at the ballot. So we're going to continue to highlight this and urge in the strongest terms that members reject this.

Thank you very much. And with that, Madam Chair, I'd just like to point out that I have a chart here that's not dated, otherwise I would enter it into the record because it shows that in state after state after state when there is that red line, it's because we are imposing more restrictive requirements on the states for registering and voting. And that's what they are is they're just making it harder, they're making it more expensive, they're going to charge you more for your right to vote. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Roy, you're recognized.

I thank Chairwoman. Lots has been covered and and I appreciate it. Chairman Steil, I want to thank you. Thank you for your leadership on this. Thank you for your work on the SAVE Act, which I know there's other provisions we want to talk about in other times. And I thank the the staff, your staff, for their hard work on this piece of legislation. Just a couple of things. I mean, look, we've covered most of this already, I think, in the back and forth. But the one thing that I want to reiterate and just Chairman Steil, get your thoughts on this and yours too, Ranking Member Morelle, is that currently states are prohibited. Okay, I just I just want to stop for a second. Currently, under current laws that's been applied through the courts, states are prohibited from being able to check. And a state like Arizona, for example, is running parallel systems, right? A system for state and local elections wherein they check citizenship and federal elections where they do not because of that interpretation. Am I correct in that assessment, Chairman Steil?

For almost every state with the exception of states that are not covered under the NVRA, and we've actually seen Wyoming implement citizenship verification recently. They've run an election under citizenship verification functionally operating in a very safe-like way. But the overwhelming majority of states do not have the ability to confirm verification citizenship verification because of laws passed by Congress. Which is why this is so important.

Right. So given that, we're trying to correct that issue, right? And and then of course in doing so, we're also making certain requirements around it because we believe it's important to have a standard system nationwide. Is that a fair characterization? Very good. One of the underlying issues, of course, and I'm not going to go through the reams of examples, but there are reams of examples that I know your committee's addressed on, many of us have talked about in other debates in committee. I don't think it's in the appropriate place in the Rules Committee to go through the whole thing. But the examples of cases where individuals have in fact voted who were here illegally present, where there's been prosecution of said individuals, where there's been significant discrepancies in voter rolls that have taken a lot of work to clean off the voter rolls and demonstrate that there are people on the voter rolls who are not citizens, and that this issue is a continuing issue. And there's here, for example, I've got a list of over 100 documented cases of aliens voting in American elections. In one in particular that that caught my attention was this case with Ian Andre Roberts, who was serving as the Des Moines, Iowa school district superintendent at the time of his arrest. He was found was a registered voter in Maryland despite his illegal immigration status and long criminal record. And I can go through it, you know, he fled from ICE officials, tried to hide in a bush, he illegally possessed a loaded handgun and a knife at the time of his arrest, he had a long rap sheet, you can go through the entire rap sheet from narcotics to weapons possession to reckless driving and other issues. And this individual was a registered voter. Now there's other examples and I can go through those examples of of specific examples, but the large number of people that are on voting rolls who are not citizens that we're trying to reconcile and in fact states are limited and prohibited from doing so in many respects. Would the chairman like to address that for the need for the legislation?

Well, I think the the Ian Roberts example is spot on. I mean, you have an illegal citizen an illegal alien who's residing in Maryland registers to vote before he even gets into the other legal trouble. He actually pulled ballots in the state of Maryland. I think that is really an important piece of information to know. And then further, under federal law today, it's a simple check the box if an individual to confirm on a voter registration that individual is eligible to vote that they're a U.S. citizen. And there's discussions as to whether or not some of these non-citizens are doing that inadvertently, whether or not they're doing that maliciously. But a large number of states are issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. And after we have the President Biden allow millions of individuals into the country illegally, as those individuals go and obtain driver's licenses in some of our bluest states, we have really increased the risk that we've identified in that and that's why your bill, the SAVE America Act, is so absolutely essential.

And it's gone through it, I think Ms. Houchin went through it, I think perhaps Ms. Fischbach went through it, but the claims of the barrier for married women and you went through it in your recent engagement and that what you guys are going to be dealing with. We believe that the SAVE Act as it was passed previously twice on a bipartisan basis, both times, addressed that in a way that that did not leave any problem or concern for married women. They'd be able to address the issue in state law as you pointed out is more than flexible across the country to be able to deal with those issues. But out of an abundance of concern, right, we added a provision in here to try to make sure there's no ambiguity. In other words, to clarify and ensure that there's additional procedures. Same thing I might add with with our men and women in uniform. That we believe that they were covered under UOCAVA that that they would have been in a place where they would have been able to handle this with military IDs, but we made very clear here to say, hey, it's not going to apply under UOCAVA in this iteration of the bill. Anything you want to expand upon to make sure I haven't missed anything on those issues?

No, I think you lay it out really well. We are incredibly explicit to make sure that an individual who's changed their name has the ability to go and register to vote. We want those individuals to register to vote. And if we are looking for a parallel in this structure, if an individual goes from one state to another and wants to sell their car and they've had a name change, every state in the country has a process for this. We don't hear Democrats concerned that an individual who went and changed their name and wants to sell their Chevy is all of a sudden has this massive challenge in front of them. Every state has a process. You can go through every single state represented on this panel. I went through and pulled it up at the the Department of Motor Vehicles in in each respective state. It's a simple process you would go through and it in many ways mirrors the work that would be done for an individual to register to vote, completely manageable and very straightforward.

Last area, I think the time's going on here a little long, so I'll try to wrap up. Someone said earlier talking about the voter ID issues. I'm correct it's like 36 or 37 states, I think 36 that have voter ID already, correct?

36 states have voter ID.

Right. And and student IDs are often issued to non-citizens and non-residents. That's one of the issues we did want to address and we were concerned about, right? That that's a issue and that we did specifically want to address that in the bill, correct?

Absolutely.

And that you know, look, I won't go through a few more things. Look, I would just say this. The clear intent of this bill is to deal with a clear problem where there are in fact discrepancies in voter rolls and there are clear documented cases of people who are not citizens who vote, right? And it is an overwhelmingly popular issue, as the chairman has laid out, 80 plus percent support across bipartisan, across various ethnicities, backgrounds, poor, rich, rural, urban, overwhelming support among the country for voter identification and that only American citizens vote. Would the gentleman agree?

Absolutely, because it's common sense.

And the clear intent of the legislation and that we've tried to bend over backwards to ensure is clear is that there be no burdens on people, maybe some burdens on states to get their voter rolls right, but to ensure that American women can vote, that if there's any issues with their names, they can deal with it for the very narrow and small number of people for whom that might be an issue in the timing, that there's affidavit process, and that there's an issue that our men and women in uniform are covered. And therefore, it's a straightforward piece of legislation to simply say show up with a voter ID like 36 states already do, show your voter ID, vote as a part of your civic duty, ensure that you're a citizen, you don't have to deal with the citizenship issue until you have an event, marital event, you move, you change, like anything else, and we've tried to make sure that everybody's covered. Is that a fair characterization of our intent and what the bill does?

Very fair.

I thank you and I yield back to the chairwoman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Roy. Mr. Griffith, you're recognized.

Madam Chair, I feel like I'm in that spot where everybody's already said everything but they just haven't said it the same way. Is there anything, Mr. Steil, that you would like to add?

I think you we've covered it quite well. I mean, I think this is an incredibly straightforward piece of legislation that says that we're going to allow only U.S. citizens to vote in U.S. elections and you're going to have photo identification when you go in vote. And I think we've laid out how the arguments on the left are false in the way that they were false in their charges against the Georgia election integrity legislation as well.

I appreciate that. I would say I really don't understand these voter registrations in other states because in my rural district, and my constituents want citizens to be the ones who vote and they are fine with voter ID. I'm not sure 100 percent would say that, but a vast majority. But they hold the registrars and their deputies hold registrations at all kinds of events in the rural parts of the districts. And so yeah, if you if it the bill doesn't say you have to go to the one voter registration office in the state of Alaska, does it? It says you go to you have to be registered with the registrar, doesn't it?

That's accurate.

So all those voter registration things that the registrars do, it's part of their job going around the rural parts of the district, that's still allowed, correct?

Absolutely.

Wow, because I didn't that wasn't the impression I got from some of the questions from the other side. But I do appreciate that. I also thought it was interesting as I was doing a little research over here and maybe AI's got it wrong and the internet's got it wrong, but to get a real ID, which most of us now have on our driver's license, you can give a passport, but that's the alternate. The first line, even if you're lawfully in the U.S., is a birth certificate. Fascinating. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Gentlemen, I believe that completes the number of people wishing to ask you questions and seeing no other people who want to ask questions, we appreciate your coming today and you are excused. Thank you both. We now welcome Mr. Clyde, Ms. Johnson from Texas who was here earlier, Ms. Sewell, and Ms. Torres. And Mr. Morelle is going to be staying, I understand. Well, Ms. Sewell, it looks like you have it to yourself. So you you know the spiel. We will welcome your written testimony and we ask you to summarize what it is you have to say to the committee. I understand you have an amendment.

I do have an amendment. Madam Chair, as the ranking member of the subcommittee on elections, not sure if you all have a copy of the amendment.

Please use your mic.

Do you have a copy of the amendment? Okay. Madam Chair, as the ranking member of the subcommittee on elections, there's nothing more important to me than protecting the cornerstone of democracy. That is why I'm offering an amendment to address the discriminatory voter identification provisions in the SAVE America Act that require voters to show only their driver's license, passport, or birth certificate to register to vote. These barriers to ballot box are concerning because there are more than 140 million Americans that do not have a passport and who do not have easy access to a birth certificate or a driver's license. There are also 69 million women who have changed their last name after being after getting married and whose last name does not match the maiden name on their birth certificates. Moreover, this issue has had personal impact for me. In 2012, we had a very difficult time getting my father who was a who was disabled, nine-time stroke victim in a wheelchair, a photo ID in order for him to vote. And he was obviously in 2012 very motivated to vote since I was on the ballot and he wanted to be able to vote for me. And you would think that this is not this would not have been a problem. But you see, my dad had been in a wheelchair for 10 years, so he didn't have a driver's license. And one of the the requirements for Alabama at the time, it still is, that you have a photo ID issued by someone in the voter registrar's office. And so, you know, it was really burdensome for my mom in the small town Selma to first of all to get dad up, dressed, and ready to go and take his photo ID. You know, the truth of the matter is that until we had one of those vans that kind of fold out, it was really hard to transport my father. But nevertheless, we were very blessed to have wonderful home help. ...the reason why so many of us disagree about the SAVE Act is that you're limiting those to like three things. And those three things are not things that everybody has. That's just the fact of the matter, whether you're an American citizen or not. And you know what's really interesting is that Kansas, the state of Kansas, tried to institute the requirement of citizenship, proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. First of all, it took over a year and a half to implement, and in fact, 12 percent of American citizens were told that they were ineligible to vote, only to find out 99 percent of them that they were American citizens and should be able to vote. I say that to say that we've gone down this road before. We've gone down this road before and we know that laws like the SAVE Act are limiting our ability to access the ballot box for so many disabled, seniors, students. It's as if there are a subset of individual citizens that the Republican Party wants to limit their ability to vote. And I just think that that is unacceptable. So I, my amendment is pretty simple. It's very common sense. It would expand the list of options for showing an ID in order to vote. And again, I want to just say thank you for the opportunity to present my amendment and the opportunity to state for the record that you should and most Americans agree show some form of identification in order to vote.

Thank you, Ms. Sewell. I have questions. Mr. McGovern.

Well, I have a radical idea since we're talking about voting, maybe we should allow members of Congress to vote on amendments, which is something we don't do anymore under this leadership. And I think your amendment is not only reasonable, but I think it makes a lot of sense. I mean, at the beginning of this hearing, I asked the chairman of the committee, I pointed out to the chairman of the House Administration Committee that there's lots of changes that have been made to this underlying legislation over the last week, but it hasn't gone through a full markup or a full hearing process in the committee of jurisdiction. And one of the changes that they made was that all the awful things in this bill weren't supposed to take effect until 2027. They're now saying it has to take effect in this election. I mean, we have primaries coming up in a matter of weeks. Is this serious? I mean, are these states supposed to be able to adapt to this and all the requirements in a matter of weeks? Of course not. And if people are worried about Americans losing confidence in our election system, you know what? My Republican friends ought to look at Donald Trump. I mean, I asked the chairman of the House Administration Committee, who is sitting here, a number of times. I said Donald Trump this last Friday said that even though he lost Minnesota three times in a row, he said he won it all three times. And I asked the chairman, did Trump win or lose Minnesota? And he couldn't give me a straight answer. Why? Because Republicans are afraid out of their minds of this president and they constantly cave into his bullying tactics. I mean, the challenge is, I mean, there's all kinds of challenges with people who don't have transportation, people who can't, there's not an easy place for them to get to to register to vote. Working people, you know, I look through all the cities and towns in my district and the hours of the town halls are very, very different, and especially when it comes to post 5:00, even as we're leading up to an election. I mean, it varies from place to place to place. So that means people have to take off from work. You know, it means people have to get a babysitter for their kids. Plus the IDs that are being required are going to cost money. Childcare costs. This is, but the idea that all this is going to be required of states to adhere to in the first primaries in a few weeks. I mean, this is, I don't know whether this is not a serious effort. And if Republicans are worried about people's confidence in our elections, by the way, there's no evidence that non-citizens are influencing our elections anywhere. I mean, there's been a gazillion investigations. We do have Donald Trump on record calling the Secretary of State of Georgia asking him to find 11,780 votes. So we know that. But this, you know, I know you lead the pilgrimage to Selma on the civil rights march and the voting rights march. This is eerily similar to the discussions that were happening in the '50s and 1960s. This is about voter suppression. And they know exactly what they're doing. But I know, are you going to let Mr. Morelle? Why don't you go, Mr. Morelle, then I might have a question for you.

Yeah, I was just going to say, Mr. McGovern, if you would yield five minutes to Mr. Morelle to present and explain his amendment.

I'll yield.

Yes, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. In place of the odious SAVE America Act, I would offer as an amendment the relevant portions of the Freedom to Vote Act, the most pro-democracy legislation since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Where the SAVE America Act would block American access to the ballot, the Freedom to Vote Act will expand automatic voter registration and same-day registration. Where the SAVE America Act would create massive hurdles to voting, the FTVA would set a national standard for no-excuse vote by mail for every eligible voter. Where the SAVE America Act would prevent millions of Americans from registering to vote at all, the Freedom to Vote Act will protect the integrity of our voter registration list by prohibiting unlawful and faulty voter purges. SAVE America Act will make it harder to vote. The Freedom to Vote Act will expand early voting by requiring states to offer early voting at least two weeks prior to election day. The SAVE America Act does nothing to ease access to the ballot for people who may need additional assistance. The Freedom to Vote Act will protect access to the ballot for individuals with different physical abilities. And unlike the SAVE America Act, the Freedom to Vote Act will make election day a national holiday. The SAVE America Act worsens the crisis of intimidation against election workers. The Freedom to Vote Act will crack down on the violence and threats against election workers and officials who have remained in constant danger since the former president, the current president, and his allies targeted several public servants with threats and harassment. So American democracy is in peril. Only the Freedom to Vote Act will defend our republic against those who are actively seeking to undermine our election integrity. Did you want me to go to the second amendment or do you want me to...

We say go.

I have just one additional amendment that I'd like to offer. As a firm believer in the need to do more to enhance our fellow citizens' trust in our government, I'm also a believer that the way to do that is by holding ourselves to a higher standard, not by disenfranchising eligible voters who want nothing more than to participate in our democracy. As such, I offer an amendment today, the Restore Trust in Government Act, building upon the very good work done by our colleagues, including one of the members of this committee, which would ban members of Congress and the president and vice president from trading stocks. It's clear the majority of Americans believe it is time to end the practice of members of Congress, the president, and vice president from trading individual stocks. The decision of the leadership in this House to move a weak stock trading bill which does not prohibit congressional stock trading proves Speaker Johnson's disinterest in enhancing public trust in this institution. Our oath of office demands fidelity to the United States Constitution over personal gain or financial benefit. The discharge petition on this bill has over 170 signatures, nearing the 218 signatures we need to send the stock trading ban to the Senate. I encourage each of you to sign if we really want Americans to trust us, to trust our government, to trust our elections, we need to root out corruption, real corruption, not imaginary voter fraud. And that's what the Restore Trust in Government Act would do. While we continue to flail and attempt to distract the American people from their policy failures, House Democrats will remain focused on enacting a true congressional stock trading ban. And I urge my colleagues on the Rules Committee to recognize the importance of this moment and make this amendment in order. With that, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Morelle. I will recognize Ms. Sewell for her next amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment would address the reckless voter purges that the SAVE America Act authorizes. Our democracy functions best when every voter is given an opportunity to participate in the elections, but far too often eligible voters are removed from voter rolls with little or no notice before election day. Keeping voter rolls accurate is important, but it must be done by using quality data and best practices to ensure that the registration of eligible voters are not inadvertently canceled. The SAVE America Vote Act requires states to purge their voter rolls on a consistent basis without appropriate guardrails like requiring officials to notify voters before removing their names. Eligible voters could risk learning that they have been removed at the polls on election day. Mass voter purges could put millions of eligible voters at risk of being scrubbed from the rolls. In 2024, faulty purge efforts in Alabama, Virginia, Ohio, and Texas resulted in thousands of eligible voters being removed. In my home state of Alabama, an effort was made to remove non-citizens from the voter rolls using data from the State Department of Labor. The data was highly inaccurate and what we found is that 93.8 percent of the voters removed were indeed U.S. citizens. That's 93.8 percent of those that were removed. Let me say that again. It means that people who were American citizens were taken off rolls without notice. It turns out that they were American citizens. And this problem is not just unique to Alabama. My amendment addresses this concern by ensuring that election officials maintain a thorough process to ensure that no voter is removed from the rolls without proper evidence. My amendment would also ensure that voters are notified no later than 48 hours from the time of their removal and they are given an opportunity to contest that removal from the voter rolls before the election. As members of Congress, we have a duty to not only protect the cornerstone of our democracy, but to ensure that every eligible voter is able to participate in our democracy. I urge the committee to make my amendment in order and I look forward to answering any questions you may have about my amendment.

Thank you, Ms. Sewell. I will continue to recognize Mr. McGovern for questions.

Yeah, well let me just, I mean, I kind of feel like we're speaking to a brick wall in this committee. I'll just say to my Republican colleagues, this didn't go through regular order. This is not a good process. Major changes have been made multiple times to this without the benefit of committee consideration. So I would hope, I would just hope just out of basic decency that you would allow these amendments to be made in order so that members could actually debate and vote their conscience on the House floor. I mean, I don't think that's too much to ask. I mean, again, the Rules Committee has gotten into a rut now where everything is closed. But again, this bill did not go through regular order. And on a subject like this, on a topic like this, I mean, shame on us for kind of rushing this to the floor and to make a change that this has to be in effect in a matter of a few weeks. I mean, give me a break. I mean, this whole process is a joke. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. I now recognize Mr. Langworthy for any questions.

I have no questions and echo the witness's remarks.

And now I recognize Ms. Scanlon for her questions.

Thank you. I do appreciate the ranking member and Mr. Morelle pointing out that Congress should be voting on a few more bills here. We should be voting on bills to repeal tariffs, but the Speaker is trying to block that. And we should be voting on the stock trading ban, but the Speaker is trying to block that. So we're having a breakdown in congressional process here. I think both have very strong chances of passing if we could just get them to the damn floor. I really appreciate your testimony, especially Representative Sewell, because you've been so deeply engaged in the issue of voter ID. And while obviously we want citizens to vote, the types of strict voter ID that we are seeing in this bill will impede citizens from voting. You mentioned the live-action experiment that happened in Kansas when people were not allowed to vote because of this type of law. I mentioned earlier that we saw similar impact in Pennsylvania. And I just want to talk for a minute to Pennsylvanians because this bill would restrict the forms of ID that you're allowed to use to register and vote in Pennsylvania. One form is Real ID. Okay? Three-quarters of Pennsylvanians do not have Real ID. It is one of the slowest uptake states in the country. Less than half of Pennsylvanians have a passport. So we already have a massive number of voters in Pennsylvania who would not be able to vote this year in this election as a result. And any Pennsylvania representative who would vote for this bill is absolutely not representing their constituents. The last thing is I do appreciate the amendments you have offered. This is the 250th anniversary of our democracy, so your efforts to try to make sure that our democracy is functioning and that everybody has the opportunity to cast their ballots are really, really appreciated. So thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. I now recognize Mr. Norman from South Carolina for any questions.

I've spoken, I have no questions.

Thank you, Mr. Norman. I now recognize Ms. Leger Fernandez for any questions.

Thank you very much. And I want to thank both of you for those amendments. And yes, let's ban stock trading. Let's ban stock trading by Congress people, senators, the president. Let's ban all stock trading. We should not be utilizing information we get to trade stock. Simple. And why Speaker Johnson doesn't want to do that is beyond me. So I'm glad we're going to be able to talk about your amendment because they won't make it in order. Right? They know that if that went to the floor, Republicans would vote for it. So they're going to keep it off. But thank you for bringing it out. And Representative Sewell, you are such a champion for election integrity, for democracy. Thank you so very much for pointing out what happened in Kansas. Because earlier here, we had some questions of how many illegal aliens is too many? And you know, both Chairman Steil and Ranking Member Morelle responded one. Right? We don't want anybody who's not eligible to vote. But I think the flip answer, the flip question is how many is too many citizens who have been kicked off the rolls? And I would ask those of, you know, I know that was now Chairwoman saying, well that's too many, I'm not going to stand for that. Do you remember how many Kansas citizens, United States citizens were kicked off the rolls?

I can actually find out.

You can find out. Because I would then ask, is it all right? Do my Republican colleagues think it's all right that, I'm looking at a Kansas report now from Topeka, Kansas, that it was 31,000. 31,000. Like I don't know, do my Republican colleagues think it's all right, Mr. Langworthy, do you think it's all right to kick 31,000 United States citizens off the rolls?

If they didn't use proper identification.

No, that's not the question. Is when you have United States citizens who are eligible to vote and can't, that's the question. And that's what happened in Kansas. Because Kansas had passed basically the SAVE Act. Kansas passed the mini SAVE Act. And it was, I'm going to quote here, it was a political fiasco. It was overturned by the United States Supreme Court. And their own elections officer, a Republican, said Kansas did that 10 years ago. Commenting about the SAVE Act, it didn't work out so well. Right? Because it's not right to not let register, to not let United States citizens register to vote. Period. Just wrong. Because they don't have a passport. And we already talked about how expensive a passport is. Ranking Member Morelle, I love the fact that you laid out the distinction between what Democrats are trying to do, which is to make it possible for people to register and to vote, which is what Republicans are doing, which is making it more expensive and harder. More complicated, more burdensome, more paperwork, more red tape. That's what the two different bills highlight. I represent a lot of Native Americans, as you know, Representative Morelle. And we looked earlier at the IDs for a driver's license. Because you could not use, except for in five states, none of our driver's license could you use to register to vote. You could, as they pointed out, you could go and buy I don't know what did Scott say, Representative Scott say, Tylenol or something, but you can't use it to register to vote. I'm concerned about tribal ID. Now, we all acknowledge, right, Native Americans, if you are a member of a tribe, you're going to be a citizen of the United States and your heritage is going to go back thousands of years. Right? Representative Chairman Cole sat there and said we shouldn't be putting them in ICE detention. Well, we should also make sure that they get to vote. Ranking Member Morelle, could a Native American use their tribal ID, which demonstrates that they are enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe to register to vote under this SAVE Act?

Under the SAVE America Act, it requires Americans attempting to register to vote show a form of identification that shows the applicant was born in the United States. But IDs often issued by tribal governments do not show place of birth, which is sort of ironic. I mean, to your point, been here thousands of years, first Americans. The fact that the SAVE America Act effectively bars native persons from using their tribal ID, I mean, if that's not laughable, I don't know what is. Studies have shown native people have a disproportionately harder time obtaining the additional documentation they'd need to present alongside their tribal ID, including birth certificates. And I've spent time in your beautiful state, in your community meeting with the tribes to talk about their challenges in registering, their challenges in getting to vote. And honestly, it seems that part of the point of this is to disenfranchise millions of Americans, including millions of native voters. So it's discriminatory, it's just a disgraceful effort by to disenfranchise first Americans.

Right. I mean, and a tribal ID by your nature, you're a Native American, you're born in the United States, you know, or you mean you cannot get that tribal ID unless you are descendant, unless you are a child of another tribal member. Period. But the SAVE Act doesn't care about that. And guess what? The other thing about those Native Americans, they live in big reservations and they do not have a county clerk's office on their reservation. So what else are they going to be doing, Representative Morelle?

Yeah, I mean, it's and as I said earlier, to be able to be required to drive potentially hundreds of miles to get to a place where you can register to vote in person. And then God help you if you've forgotten or you've gotten the wrong thing. I will say just for me, New York enhanced Real ID, I spent hours getting because I had my birth certificate, I had my passport, I had my driver's license, but I didn't have my social security card. I realized I had misplaced it, I didn't know I had to have it. So in order for me to do all of that, I had to go home, I had to make a second appointment. It took me hours and hours. Now, I had to do it because you have to get a driver's license. But if you're put off that much to register to vote, you may say, you know what? Maybe they don't want me to vote. Maybe I'm not going to do that. Maybe I don't have the time, to your point. Maybe I can't get off from work. Maybe I can't travel hundreds of miles to do this in person. I mean, it's just so unnecessary. This is your right. This is a right, like the right to speak, like the right to... ...like the right to, sorry, I apologize after that beautiful soliloquy that I just gave and no one heard it. Well, I heard it anyway. But think about fundamentally, these are rights. The right to speak, the right to assemble, the right to worship, the right to free press, the right to have your grievances. They're rights, fundamental rights, and putting people through barriers and barriers of paperwork and difficulties and long hours on the road and having the right paperwork to be able to avail yourself of your rights is just so wrong.

Right. And we're not saying we're saying if you have that tribal ID, you should be able to register to vote. We're not saying just make it up. We're saying show up with that that tribal ID should be enough to register to vote. And Republicans know that it should be enough. They know. They know that a tribal ID should be enough. But they also know that Native Americans tend to vote Democrat. So they didn't make an exception. They could have easily made an exception in this bill for a tribal ID, but they did not. Shame on them. Is there anything else either of you want to add?

Well, I'd also suggest they don't allow student IDs either. Which is crazy. Those are accepted everywhere. Student ID with your picture on it. And they originally barred it from the bill while allowing other forms of ID potentially. But then they struck that because they don't even want to allow all the other types of ID either. So you couldn't use student ID in the bill either.

Can you use hunting licenses anymore, can you?

No. No, hunting license, fishing license wouldn't be allowed, firearms ID would not be allowed. They're very restrictive. It's restrictive, more restrictive than most states that require photo IDs. So they're making it even harder for the states that already have photo IDs. Right. It's basically the Kansas law which Kansas has said we're not doing anymore. But I guess we're not going to learn that lesson. And with that, thank you for bringing those stories and your amendments. I wish we could debate them on the floor so that, you know, we could see where people stood. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Neguse for the purposes of questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know that I have any questions. I want to say thank you to my colleague from Alabama for her courage and her convictions and for leading the charge. And I think sharing with this committee the blunt realities that we are but one generation removed from some of the worst civil rights abuses in the history of the country and in the context of voting rights. So I'm just very grateful to you and it's a reminder. And of course, I'm grateful to the ranking member for his leadership. And I will just say, I suppose I do have a question because I've become now almost myopically obsessed with this exchange that I had with the chairman of the Administration House Administration Committee earlier during this committee proceeding. In part because what is perhaps lost on the American public, but I know is not lost on the ranking member, and of course I know it's not lost on Ms. Sewell either because she's a prominent member of that committee. The House Administration Committee has plenary jurisdiction over the election of House members. House Administration Committee makes very weighty, profound decisions in terms of contesting, certifying, seating members of the House. And to have a chairman who pointedly refuses to concede the most basic of fundamental facts, can't tell me whether or not President Trump won the state of Arkansas in the 2024 presidential election, is unwilling to just say the words, is deeply dispiriting and I think foreboding about what may befall this House in the future. And so I'm still gathering my thoughts about the best way to respond because I don't think it's appropriate for someone to answer the questions in the way that he did and serve as the chairman of that committee in particular. He can serve as chair of other committees, but that committee ought not be one that he is leading given his predisposition. Ms. Sewell, who won Alabama presidential election in 2024?

Donald Trump.

Donald Trump won it. Mr. Langworthy, who won the New York presidential election in 2024?

Kamala Harris.

Kamala Harris. Wasn't difficult for you to say it. I'm sure it pains you, but Mr. Norman, who won the presidential election in South Carolina in 2024?

Donald Trump.

Donald Trump. Right. Not difficult for you all to say it. Deeply problematic for Mr. Steil to walk in here, and I don't think neither of you were here during the exchange, so I'm just encourage you to maybe go watch it. But to have him come in here and refuse to acknowledge presidential election results in any state, apparently, because he's so worried about offending Donald Trump and so nervous that someone at the White House is watching his every word. And that if he concedes that Donald Trump didn't win Minnesota in 2024, notwithstanding the president's rantings and ravings online, that I don't know, maybe he'll earn a primary challenge or, you know, his political future will be in peril, who knows. So I just, anyway, I'll of course I'll yield to the ranking member.

I just wanted to amplify your point, which I'm very grateful for, which is I think back in the lessons of history, if John Adams had taken the view that he couldn't acknowledge that he had lost the election to Thomas Jefferson, how different this country would be. Who knows if we would even be here. It took extraordinary, you know, leap of faith for the first time in human history for a leader to say I lost and I'm going to step aside and let the person who won take over. ...of faith for people in the early republic to just acknowledge wins and losses. It's a lesson I learned honestly as a young boy. My father would say you don't gloat when you win and you never ever object when you lose. You just congratulate the winner, you move on, and you try to do your best next time. I think that's what America is all about. It's what democracy is fundamentally about. And when people refuse to acknowledge wins and losses, really just let the voters have their choice, which is what this is all about, we're in deeply, deeply troubling times if that's not the case. So I appreciate your comments.

Your father was a wise man. Sage insights, and I hope Mr. Steil is listening. I yield back.

Thank you. Is there anyone else seeking to testify on S. 1383? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. Thank you to the witnesses.

Madam Chair, what time are we going to reconvene?

So we will be in touch on when we will return and hope to report immediately after the next vote series.

And that's at 8:30, right?

8:30.

I'll hold my breath.

Hold your breath. Don't hold your breath. Thank you. Without objection, the committee stands in recess subject to the call of the chair.