Committee on House Administration Full Committee Markup on Various Measures
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Committee on House Administration U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsBryan Steil
The gentleman yields back. We now call up H.R. 9368, the Voter ID Act. The clerk will please report the bill. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Also without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk, so please the clerk will please report the amendment. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as read and will serve as base text for the purpose of further amendment. I now recognize myself to speak on the bill. The Voter ID Act will strengthen election integrity. Election integrity shouldn't be partisan.
I think it's actually really common sense reform. Across the country, we all know you've got to show a photo ID to get on an airplane, to open a bank account, to buy a six-pack of beer. These are absolutely common sense reforms. When I go home, people in Wisconsin have a tough time understanding how anybody opposes photo identification being required to vote. And I remember, as noted by the ranking member, that we've had these discussions broadly on election integrity in this committee before.
We've had debates on the House floor. And I'm always reflect back at a time where we there was a robust debate on the House floor, in particular about photo identification, me arguing the need for photo identification, a Democratic colleague on the House floor arguing against it. And it was the day we flew back home, landed, drove home on my way to Janesville, and I stopped and bought a six-pack of beer. Pulled over, went in, clerk recognized me, clerk said, hello Bryan, how you doing? I said, great, good to see you, set my six-pack of beer on the counter.
And she said, Bryan, I need to see your ID. Standard, opened up my wallet, pulled out my ID, handed it to the clerk, the clerk looked at my ID, confirmed I was 21, which I obviously am, bought the beer and walked out. And I was thinking to myself, it is absolutely nuts that we protect our beer more than our ballots in jurisdictions across this country. The photo ID act before us, the Voter ID Act, will really remedy to this. It's simple.
If you want to vote in a federal election, you need to show photo ID.
The Voter ID Act lists five eligible types of IDs. One, probably the most common, a driver's license. Two, a state-issued ID provided by the voter, by the state motor vehicle authority with a photo and an expiration date. Three, obviously you could use a United States passport if you'd like. Four, a valid military photo ID, or five, a tribal ID with a photo of the individual and an expiration date.
The bill will allow provisional voting if someone forgets their ID when they go to vote. Common sense. It also allows states that provide photo IDs at no cost to those who cannot afford one to access HAVA dollars to pay for that expense. Asking a voter to show their ID is a simple way to verify voter identity and eligibility. It's common sense and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this bill.
I yield back.
Does any other member seek recognition for amendment or debate? The ranking member Mr. Morelle is recognized.
Joseph Morelle
Yeah, just as it relates to general comments and then I will have an amendment that I want to offer, but just generally speaking, and thank you Mr. Chairman for yielding. I want to correct the record on something because my colleagues across the aisle continue to consistently misrepresent a very important point: Democrats support voter identification. Let me say that again: Democrats support voter identification. And there are many forms of effective voter ID. New York, for example, and I just did this just a few days ago, we require voters to prove their identity.
First-time voters must prove identification either with their voter registration form or when they cast their first ballot. After that, New Yorkers prove their identity through signature matching. And it is pretty extensive. And if you have a signature that doesn't match, you are called to account and you have to explain why. It could be a medical condition, you could have Parkinson's disease, you could have other things that would affect your signature.
But the system is secure and the system works. I've never seen anyone in New York, neighbors or otherwise, complain about the voter ID system that we have, and I've never heard anyone complain that someone voted erroneously because of it. The bill we're considering today would end this secure voter identification system in New York and in Arizona and in many other states. The bill not only bars signature verification, even if you were to assume you're going to have photo ID, it bars many, many other forms of secure, reliable voter ID used across the country by millions of Americans. HR 9368, for example, would ban young people from using student IDs, even though people under the age of 30 lack driver's licenses at twice the rate of other adults.
That's right, student ID would fit within none of the limited number of IDs this bill would allow. Neither would a hunting license or a fishing license or a firearm license for that matter. Americans across the political spectrum agree on this simple point: after meeting certain minimum accessibility standards, states know best how to ensure a free, fair, and secure election. But this bill isn't meant to secure American elections, it's meant to ensure certain Americans cannot access the ballot easily. Because why, for instance, would HR 9368 specifically ban otherwise valid IDs simply for not having an expiration date?
It makes no sense. If you have a photo with your name on it, your address, and it matches your voter file, what difference whether that piece of paper expires? I understand it for driver's license to make sure that you're continuing to take tests, that you're continuing to be up to the standards necessary to operate a motor vehicle safely. I don't understand what it relates to, why it would relate to voting, unless you know, for instance, that tribal IDs lack in many cases expiration dates. And so Native Americans will have a difficult time because the ID they typically have doesn't have an expiration date at all.
Why would you exclude student IDs, even though they're issued by state universities, if they did not want young people to be precluded from exercising their rights?
Certainly, currently only eight states that require photo ID to vote do not accept student IDs. And in six of those, students may cast a provisional ballot that will be counted even if the student never presents one of the specified photo IDs in their state law. The bill would therefore disenfranchise the students of 48 states that right now can cast valid ballots using their student IDs. The bill is a targeted attack on young people's right to vote. But that's not all.
Why would Republicans include the onerous provision of force voters to include copies of their photo ID with their mail-in ballots? A provision so dubious, the Republican Lieutenant Governor of Utah noted this bill could, quote, and this is a quote, violate our constitutional rights to a secret ballot. If they didn't want to burden the millions of Americans who vote by mail. It's obvious, that's been a pattern. They don't want people mailing in ballots even though in the western part of this country, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, California, Arizona, the vast majority of people cast their votes by mail.
Now, in contrast to this extremely restrictive bill, House Democrats have long championed legislation that includes a strong voter ID provision, the Freedom to Vote Act. The Freedom to Vote Act sets uniform national standards for voter ID laws. It gives flexibility to states to choose which voter IDs to require. And it ensures that voters can utilize but are not limited to a broad range of acceptable identifying documents such as a driver's license or other state-issued ID, an employee identification card, a student ID, a military ID, a gun license, a hunting or fishing license, and other forms of identification to vote. The broad range is actually modeled off West Virginia's standards for identification.
No one accuses West Virginia, to my knowledge, of being a bastion of modern progressive politics. The Freedom to Vote Act also provides alternatives for voters who do not have an ID to prove their identity because studies show that as many as 11% of eligible voters do not have a government-issued photo ID. The percentage is higher for seniors, students, people of color, people with disabilities, and low-income voters. All of these people would be burdened by the bill. So, without serious amendment, I will oppose this bill.
I plan to offer such an amendment shortly and with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 12
The gentleman yields back. Representative Lee is recognized to strike the last word.
Laurel Lee
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of the Voter ID Act. Before coming to Congress, I served as Florida's Secretary of State where I worked closely with election officials around our state who are responsible for administering secure, accessible, and transparent elections. From that experience, I know that confidence and consistency in our elections is essential. Americans deserve to know that our elections are secure, that rules are applied fairly, and that eligible voters can have confidence in the outcome of an election.
The Voter ID Act establishes a common sense national standard requiring voter identification in voting for federal elections while also providing practical accommodations for voters. Eligible voters who forget their ID may still cast a provisional ballot and the legislation supports states that provide identification at no cost to those who need it. So there is no barrier to Americans in obtaining a reliable, verifiable form of identification for use at the polls. This is not a novel concept. Florida and many other states have successfully implemented voter identification requirements for years.
In fact, federal election reform commissions have recommended voter identification requirements as a way to strengthen confidence in the electoral process.
Election integrity and voter access are not competing goals. We can and should pursue both. In Florida, we've demonstrated that it's possible to protect access to the ballot while also strengthening confidence in our elections. The Voter ID Act reflects that same balanced approach. I thank Chairman Steil for his leadership and urge my colleagues to support the bill.
I yield back.
Bryan Steil
The gentleman yields back. Representative Sewell is recognized to strike the last word.
Terri Sewell
I strike the last word, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by just saying that this is, I think, maybe the fifth time that we've met to talk about a voter ID law or a voting bill this Congress. It seems to me that we have repeatedly had legislative efforts that have come before Congress that suppress the voting rights of American citizens. First we saw the SAVE Act, then we saw the Save America Act, and after that, I think it was the MEGA Act, and today we are considering a bill described as a voter ID legislation, but it would make it harder for Americans to make their voices heard at the polls. We all agree, and I just want to reiterate something that the ranking member said.
Democrats support voter ID requirements. We understand that you have to prove who you are in order to get a ballot and prove who you are in order to register to vote. I think that's critically important. What we disagree about is the limited number or types of IDs that are required to be shown. You know, Alabama prior to 2010 used to have nine forms of ID, and now we only have four or no, five forms of ID.
But it used to be that we could be able to show that we prove that we actually live at a residence by showing our lease agreement or our power bill. We used to be able to show a student ID as well as a hunting license. Now it's a hunting license only, not a student ID. I guess what I'm saying is, it's important for us as members of Congress to make it easier for Americans to vote, not harder. And in so many ways, this is very personal to me.
When Alabama changed its law, my dad, who was a nine-time stroke victim, had a very difficult time actually obtaining a photo ID. Why? Well, it took effort from my mom and his home health provider to get him dressed in the morning, to go down to the courthouse and to actually sit for a photo ID. In fact, it took hours. The fact of the matter is is my mom and my dad got my dad up, dressed and ready to go, which took about an hour.
We then had to wait for a van that folded out so that my dad could be rolled into the van to go and vote. And when we got, when they got to the courthouse, there was huge steps, and this courthouse had been grandfathered in before the Americans with Disabilities Act, so it didn't have to have a ramp. So just getting my dad up into the courthouse was a chore. Then when we pressed the button for the elevator and the elevator opened, the elevator was so small, my dad's wheelchair did not fit in it. Now we're now at hour two to get my dad a photo ID.
And then when they finally got upstairs to go and get the photo ID in the registrar's office, there was a big sign that says gone to lunch. What I'm saying is, it should not be this hard.
Someone tell me where there's a mobile unit that one can go to to get a photo ID. They actually drove that mobile unit to my parents' house and he got a photo ID. It should not, you should not have to be a member of Congress or know a member of Congress in order to get a photo ID. We should make this very easy and we're making it harder. That is why I fully support the ranking member's amendment who he's about to, he's about to articulate because it would actually expand the number of types of IDs that one can show in order to prove who they are.
You know, prior to Alabama changing its law, my dad used to show a validly issued ID called a Social Security card. Everybody has one. Everybody has one. And it was easy for him to go to vote. But when we changed the law to require a limited type of voter ID and a photo ID in particular, that's when the problem started for my dad and so many who are disabled.
And so today, I just really want to speak on behalf of the millions of Americans, millions of Americans who don't have a driver's license, who don't have a passport, who may find it very difficult transportation-wise to get to a state-supported ID. We should be making it easier for Americans to vote, not harder. And in so many ways, I feel as if that we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Voter fraud does not exist in the numbers that require us to be so restrictive. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 8
The gentlewoman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition for debate? Representative Bice is recognized to strike the last word.
Stephanie Bice
Yes, I ask to strike the last word. First of all, I think we can all agree that election security and integrity are vital to our democracy. Americans deserve to know that their election process is secure and those who vote in them are eligible. I was recently in Chile meeting with government officials and we had a discussion about their voting process. And I asked the question, do you require a voter photo ID to vote?
And it was almost as if they were shocked at the question. They said, of course. Even countries in South America are requiring a photo ID, valid photo ID to vote. My colleague from New York, the ranking member, mentioned signature verification. I don't know about you, but I don't sign my name the same way every single time.
Sometimes I use a middle initial, sometimes I only use the first initial of my name. My signature has changed over time. So how in the world can you verify someone's identity with a signature that is not always the same? I want to thank Chairman Steil for working with me to add a provision similar to Oklahoma's election laws to allow for notarization of ballots. In Oklahoma, we passed laws decades ago, actually, to ensure that our elections are safe and secure.
Not only are you required to have a notarization of your absentee ballot, but you are required to have a valid photo ID when you go to the polls. And the state of Oklahoma put that in a ballot initiative back in the nineties and it passed overwhelmingly. We all know that this issue is an 80-20 issue. 80% of Americans want there to be some sort of voter ID. And I don't think it's too much to ask to ensure that it is a valid ID and that it is issued by a government entity.
Having a college ID, I think, is not as secure as it should be. So we've said this a number of times in the committee. Oklahoma, I think, is the gold standard for verifying identity for absentee voters. And I think the legislation that's being put forward is thoughtful, reasonable, and Americans want this to pass. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your work on this bill and I yield back the balance of my time.
Julie Johnson
The gentlewoman yields back. The gentlewoman from Texas, Representative Johnson, is recognized to strike the last word.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strike the last word. You know, I just kind of want to weigh in on this conversation. I think Texas is a state that requires showing a photo ID. And again, I want to echo the comments of my colleagues.
This is about the scope of what constitutes a valid ID. This is not about whether or not you have to show a photo ID. And I want to focus on, because there are so many state agencies, not just DPS, but other schools, universities, the University of Texas, Texas A&M, and Ms. Bice, my son went to Oklahoma State. You know, I had to prove for him his birth certificate, all of his things to get that Oklahoma State ID. The fact that we are not allowing photo IDs issued by any state agency or state entity is ridiculous.
Why are you limiting it to just driver's licenses?
Would the gentlelady yield?
Speaker 11
Not yet. I want to finish my soliloquy on this, because you know, the thing is is that it's ridiculous. We're trying to suppress the student vote. And we're trying to keep young people in particular from voting. There are 130,000 students in Dallas, Texas that go to Dallas College.
There's 85,000 students that go to Texas A&M. There are 65,000 students that go to the University of Texas. Each one of those entities goes through a detailed analysis to verify that those students are who in fact they are when they admit them, when they go through the student loan process, when they go through the whole process of being a student at that academic university. The fact that they cannot use that ID to vote is absolutely insane, makes no sense, and it only is an attempt to minimize the student vote. Full stop.
And so this is not about integrity, this is not about security, because if it were, we would have a very broad, expansive list of things that constitute a valid ID, in particular any ID issued by any state agency. Why, I don't understand why we can't have that be the thing. In Texas, we have hunting licenses, just as my colleague mentioned. You have to go through all of these efforts to prove who you are to obtain that photo identification. And it is a valid form of ID in Texas.
But Republicans have determined that, you know what, in Texas, that's good enough. And so there's, there should be, we need to have an expansive list. And I would hope that this committee could really strongly consider expanding the list of valid IDs to any ID issued by any state agency, because obviously the state is charged with verifying who those people are and making sure that those IDs match that identity, and they should be allowed to do that. And now I yield.
Speaker 10
Thank you for yielding. First of all, it's exciting to hear that your son is a student at Oklahoma State University. Go Pokes.
Stephanie Bice
Thank you. I have two of those. I appreciate that. But my question to you is this. You talk about these state entities, but not every university is a state entity.
The University of Tulsa is not a state entity. There are quite a few higher ed institutions in Texas, Southern Methodist, TCU, and others that are not state entities. So it seems to me that you're excluding provisions that, you know, would allow for some but not all to be included.
Speaker 7
No, I would welcome that any student ID is valid, that any of these universities, because they have to go through the same process.
The University of Tulsa goes through the same thing. You still have to be a student there, have to show your birth certificate, have to show all of those things to qualify for admittance there. So I would argue that any college university would be acceptable. But at a minimum, you should allow it from any state university, because wouldn't you think that the state of Oklahoma, that Oklahoma State University is quite competent to verify the identity of its students?
Stephanie Bice
What if I told you that the staffer sitting behind me shared with me that when he went to his university to get a student ID, he was given the wrong ID?
Julie Johnson
Well, I'm sure that mistakes happen. But that doesn't minimize the fact that hundreds of thousands of students in Texas and in Oklahoma and in states all across the country have gone through these processes to verify who they are, to be admitted to these universities. And we should allow those student IDs to serve as a valid form of identification for who that person is at the ballot box. Because otherwise, we are keeping hundreds of thousands of students from the opportunity to exercise their constitutional right to vote. And I think that's a huge problem with this bill.
And I'm out of time.
And with that, thank you. It's my colleague for yielding.
Bryan Steil
The gentlewoman's time has expired. She yields back. Is there further amendment or debate? The gentleman from New York has an amendment at the desk. Has an amendment.
We'll pause while the amendment is distributed. The clerk will report the amendment. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. The gentleman from New York, the gentlewoman from Florida reserves a point of order. The gentleman from New York is recognized on his amendment.
Joseph Morelle
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I sort of just as a general observation of what's going on, the GOP now apparently stands for Good On Paperwork, because it requires Americans to do so much more paperwork than they used to. If you're a SNAP beneficiary, someone who needs nutrition assistance, you now have to fill out certifications and paperwork and, you know, just to continue to have the benefit of nutrition support. Or if you're a Medicaid recipient, so-called able-bodied, you're now going to have to go through all kinds of things just to continue to get healthcare in this country, even though it used to be exclusively a question of whether or not you were in poverty and didn't have income and resources to get healthcare. And now around voting.
And honestly, when it comes to voting, it's built on this preposterous premise. The premise being that elections are no longer secure, and it's preposterous because they are. It's preposterous because there's this theory, often promoted at the highest levels of the party by the president and his allies, that people who aren't eligible to vote are actually voting, which is absurd. There's no evidence of it at all that voter fraud is rampant. I will just say from my personal experience, which I'm sure everyone here has shared, where you are doing everything you can to get voters out to the polls, right?
We now do digital ads, we do television ads, we do text messages, we do phone calls, we knock on doors.
We do everything we can to get the eligible voters to come to vote, and it's a struggle. Turnout in some cases is so low. But there's this theory which has gained traction that somehow we're going to ignore all those people who are actually eligible, but we're now going to spend all of our time and do spend all of our time trying to get people who are not eligible, who face severe penalties for even attempting it, are going to vote. It is preposterous. There's no evidence, and yet we're going to add more paperwork requirements.
We're going to do anything we can to just continue this falsehood, continue this theory and this argument that there is something amiss with American elections, all because someone cannot accept, someone who should be a big boy, someone who should be able to take wins and losses, can't accept losing a single election in 2020. And their whole party has been turned upside down because of it. But anyway, that's just my editorializing on the amendment. I do want to say again, Democrats support voter identification. We don't want people who aren't eligible to vote to vote, and we don't do anything to try to encourage it, despite everything that the president or his allies might say.
As I mentioned in my previous comments, House Democrats' Freedom to Vote Act contains a strong, accessible voter ID provision. So in the spirit of finding bipartisan consensus, my dear friend from Oklahoma talked about bipartisan consensus. I'm going to offer an amendment because bipartisanship was once common in the realm of election administration before the leader of one party wagered that denying the results of an election liberated him from its consequences, from its results. All you have to do is attack it, attack its credibility, and you can absolve yourself of losing an election. Anyway, I offer an amendment to ensure that American elections remain free, fair, secure, and accessible to every eligible voter.
I'm proud to co-offer this amendment alongside my friend Congresswoman Sewell, the ranking member of the committee's subcommittee on elections. It would expand HR 9368's forms of acceptable voter ID. It borrows from the common sense list of eligible voter identification in the Freedom to Vote Act, including student IDs, gun licenses, and concealed carry permits. But we want to find common ground here. So in good faith, an offer of bipartisan, this amendment would also adopt portions of the bill under consideration today.
Committee Democrats feel that the grant program in section three, for example, makes good sense. Our amendment would retain this Republican provision, and to ensure that the bill is as effective as possible, our amendment would provide funding to ensure these grants sufficiently serve the eligible American voters most in need. So I encourage my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, to support this reasonable approach to voter ID. Americans want us to compromise. They want us to protect voting rights.
They want us to secure American elections, including from those in power who would weaponize government power against their political opponents. So this amendment would do all of the above, and I urge its adoption, and with that, I yield back. Thank you.
Mary Miller
Representative Miller from Illinois is recognized. The gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Okay, it's so ridiculous, I'm triggered. Um, we can look at the votes. 100% the Democrats do not support Save America, they don't support MAGA, and the reason we want to use a voter ID with a photo is because of the fraud that's going on in our country. And it's in blue states in particular. It's SNAP, it's childcare facilities, it's Medicare, and even just the Government Accountability Office has estimated the fraud to be up to a half of a trillion dollars.
Now are you telling me these same people are going to have so much integrity when it comes to voting? They are not. That's why we want voter ID. That's why the American people want voter ID. And you cannot use a student ID to go sign up for SNAP.
There's a reason for that. There's excessive fraud in our country, including election fraud. And it's interesting that two of my friends in Illinois with the DOJ have sued Illinois over just cleaning up their voter rolls. There's an estimated up to 800,000 ineligible voters on the voter rolls in Illinois because they support election fraud. That's what that is doing when you do not clean up voter rolls, you're supporting election fraud.
And guess what? The state of Illinois decided to settle because they know they don't have a case. We want election integrity, voter IDs. Quit gaslighting us. It's the Democrats that do not support voter ID.
And with that I yield.
Bryan Steil
The gentlewoman yields. Is there further debate? Representative Sewell is recognized to strike the last word on the amendment.
Terri Sewell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to wholeheartedly support the amendment of the ranking member. Democrats support voter ID. I'm going to say it again: Democrats support voter ID. We all agree that it's important for voters to verify who they are in the registration process as well as the voting process.
However, imposing a strict national photo ID requirement that only accepts five forms of ID risks disenfranchising millions of voters. Some may be surprised to know just how many voters do not have driver's license, state-issued ID, passports, military ID, or tribal ID. A report of the University of Maryland Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement estimates that a restrictive voter ID law like this one would suppress the voting rights of over 30 million Americans. I said how personal this was with my dad. You know, my dad was highly motivated to go to the polls and get his voter ID because he had to vote for his daughter on the ballot.
It should not have taken an act of the Secretary of State to get him a photo ID. We have to think about the fact that we are adding more restrictive voter laws by limiting the types of ID that we have. A federal law that only permits five forms of ID for voting is simply too restrictive. Even the state of Texas, as our colleague said, has a very restrictive voter ID, but it allows seven forms of ID. So I think it's really important that we acknowledge that studies have shown and demonstrated that the extensive voter ID restrictions do disproportionately affect Black and Brown Americans, citizens with disabilities, the elderly, and working-class voters are all disproportionately impacted by these restrictive photo ID laws.
State governments throughout the country, including my own state of Alabama, have already redrawn district maps and moved primaries due to the Milligan case decision by the Supreme Court.
Pairing that extreme effort with this voter suppression bill further erodes the election integrity that we all cherish as lawmakers, or should. The ranking member's amendment will provide and create an extensive list of documents that a person can use to verify their ID, like a valid lease, a mortgage document, a bank statement, a utility bill, a health insurance card, an ID card issued by the Supplemental Nutrition Program, and the list goes on. When it comes to legislating, reality should be our start point. And that starting point has to start with the fact, the simple truth, that rampant voter fraud is a myth. It does not exist.
This legislation is an egregious attempt to solve a problem that is not based on a real problem. It is already illegal to commit voter fraud in federal elections. It is already illegal to commit voter fraud in federal elections. And American citizens, people who are not American citizens, are not allowed to vote, and that also is a crime. The solution to resolve this non-existent problem is not to suppress the vote of millions of Americans; rather, the solution is to make it easier for folks to access the ballot box.
With that, I want to yield back my balance of my time, but I just want to reiterate something that was said here today. It is not as if Democrats are against voter ID, or even photo ID. What we're against is having a restrictive list that includes things like a passport. A passport costs $140. The folks in my district, the median income for a family of four is $36,000.
There are lots of people who cannot afford a passport. There are lots of people who don't have a driver's license. There are lots of people who don't have a military ID, a tribal ID, or any other state-issued ID. We have to think about that. We should be making it easier to vote, not harder to vote, and with that, I want to yield back the balance of my time and ask that all of my colleagues consider voting in favor of this amendment.
Speaker 16
The gentlewoman yields back. Representative Lee is recognized to strike the last word.
Laurel Lee
So I think it's important for us to note here today, every member on this committee who has spoken has said the words that they support voter ID. But yet, only some of the members on the committee actually support the underlying bill that would define that and require it in federal elections. So the key issue is really this: it's how do we define what a voter ID is? And for clarity, I think that it's important we spend a little time there. The amendment that we're discussing right now would include not just a driver's license, not just a state-issued ID, not just a passport, but it would also include things like a valid debit card, or a valid utility bill, or a health insurance card.
And so where the disagreement lies in this committee between the Republicans that are here and the Democrats is whether those types of documents are sufficient to verify identity when going to the polls. And so, you know, I think as the chairman started today, we ask ourselves these questions. Will TSA accept my utility bill? Can I buy beer with my health insurance card? Unequivocally no, and no one in America would suggest to us that it should be so.
As for the point, as for the allegation, that in any way the underlying bill we consider here today would be harmful to those who can't afford ID, no, it's right there in the bill.
One of the things that we anticipated to ensure that there was not a financial barrier to any American to voting was the establishment of a grant program so that any American who needs a valid state-issued ID but cannot cover the cost of obtaining that ID has a pathway, a pathway to do so. Here is the reality. Republicans want to ensure that every American has access to the polls, that every American can exercise their right to vote. All we are doing here today is ensuring that there is a baseline verifiable way to confirm identity for people who come to the polls. It is something that Americans across the country do every day in other aspects of life, and bringing that baseline common sense level of integrity and reliability to the IDs that we use at the polls is not making it difficult to vote, it is creating a system that we can rely on that ensures the reliability, integrity, and consistency of elections across this country.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Bryan Steil
The gentlewoman yields back. Representative Torres is recognized to strike the last word.
Norma Torres
Thank you, Chairman. I fully support the amendment offered by Ranking Member Morelle. And just want to once again be very clear about what is happening in this committee with the Republican effort to cancel your vote as American citizens. They only want the people who agree with their ill-conceived policies of hate, of continuing foreign wars, of continuing to spread violence in our community, one American against the other. That does not make us safe, that makes us incredibly selfish.
They know that American citizens are eyes wide open. The cost of living has gone up, our healthcare has gone up, the cost of fuel has gone up, everything that they run on has failed, failed, failed miserably. So here they are. They want to block your vote because they are scared of losing their job. And you know what my opinion is, is that they should lose their job.
Chairman, you came to Los Angeles because you were also spreading rumors that in California we were changing people's ballots and changing votes. And instead, what you found and what you said to Fox News during that interview that I actually posted on my social media page was that you found an incredibly slow process of ballot verification because when people's signature change and California checks every signature and if it doesn't match, we make every attempt to cure, to reach out to that voter to ensure that they are the person who actually voted. Check the facts, voters. Check the facts, Americans. See who's on your side.
Check their voting record and every single vote that they have taken since Trump was elected has been to benefit the president and to benefit their billionaire funders, not to benefit the welfare of American citizens.
Joseph Morelle
Thank you, Ms. Torres. I just want to note, and I appreciate my colleague from Florida, but when she was Secretary of State in Florida, you could use to vote student ID, ID from a retirement center or neighborhood association, public assistance identification, a firearm license, or even an employee ID card from any government agency in order to cast a ballot, including you could also use a debit or credit card. When you were Secretary of State, that's what you allowed. But somehow it's no longer good enough for the people of this country. In Georgia, you can use a driver's license even if it's expired.
Expiration didn't matter in Georgia, a student ID, or even an employee ID from any government, federal to municipal. Wisconsin allows a student ID. It even allows newly issued driver's licenses within 45 days, and it doesn't matter about expiration. North Carolina, you can use your driver's license even if it is expired, a public assistance program ID card, Ms. Miller, a public assistance program ID card, or a student or staff ID from a list of over 7,000 institutions. You know why?
Because in all these states, at the very least, they recognize what we're trying to just simply prove is that you are who you are, not that you have a card that's not expired, not that you limiting this to the narrowest range of is clear what you're intending to do is stop people from voting. There could be no other rationale. These are not states, again, I wasn't talking about what happens in New York. I wasn't talking about California or all the places where you assume progressives are trying to take elections away. These are from conservative Southern states and what they do to allow an expansive view that you ought to have the minimal requirement.
You ought to be able to prove who you are and that's it, because voting, unlike getting on an airplane, unlike buying alcohol or liquor, those are privileges and those you have to demonstrate certain degrees of competence or certain degrees of safety. Not to vote. Not to vote. It's an unalienable right in my view. That's what the founders wanted.
Everyone. And by the way, they had an expansive view even in 1787 when they built this Constitution. Pretty expansive view of who was allowed to vote. Didn't require property rights, it didn't require anything to be able to vote. It did, unfortunately, restrict Black Americans and women.
We rectified that. But they had a more expansive view than even the Republicans do in 2026. With that, I yield back.
The gentlewoman's time is expired. The representative Loudermilk is recognized to strike the last word.
Barry Loudermilk
Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak, but I have to respond to the inflammatory and divisive words by the gentlewoman from California that Republicans are spreading hate, the Republicans are causing violence. I was on the baseball field in June the 14th of 2017 when a Democrat took open fire on me. No, this is my time.
Speaker 23
I was on at the Capitol faced down for 45 minutes when your friends stormed the Capitol and attempted to murder your Vice President and attempted to murder Speaker Pelosi. 45 minutes face down because your lies that you spread across America brought those people here.
Bryan Steil
The gentlewoman is not recognized. The gentlewoman is not recognized. The time is the gentleman from Georgia. The gentleman from Georgia is now recognized. The gentlewoman is not recognized.
Speaker 17
I was taking cover behind a vehicle for 22 bullets were fired directly at me.
Bryan Steil
The gentlewoman will suspend. All members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. The gentleman has the time. The gentleman will be given the time to deliver his remarks as the gentlewoman was given her time to deliver her remarks. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized again.
Speaker 19
Mr. Chairman, I'm just bringing up the point that causing more divisiveness is not the solution here. It was a Democrat that walked on the field and started shooting at me and several of my colleagues who was radicalized by inflammatory and divisive remarks by other Democrats. I think this is unfair to lay this on the backs of Republicans and that was my point. I yield back.
Speaker 22
The gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Representative Miller is recognized to strike the last word.
Mary Miller
Yes, and I want to remind the Democrats that when non-citizens vote, it is canceling the votes of American citizens. We want voter IDs for one reason. We want only eligible American citizens to be able to vote. I want to remind everybody that the Democrats deliberately opened the border. They advertised and facilitated the invasion of our country for one reason and one reason only, and it is to replace American citizens at the polls because you want to hang on to your power and you have terrible ideas.
The American citizens do not support your terrible ideas and you have brought these people in to replace American citizens. We want voter ID because we want only eligible American citizens to vote. Otherwise, you are canceling the votes of American citizens and with that I yield back.
Bryan Steil
The gentlewoman yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? I recognize myself to strike the last word. A lot has been said. I apologize to one of our colleagues who was just commenting about...
I didn't... The apology is to our colleague from Georgia who was spoken over while he was discussing a member of Congress being shot and almost passing away on a baseball field. I think when a member speaks, the member's time should be recognized and that will be enforced in this committee. As it relates to the underlying bill, I think it's really important that we have photo identification. I think the gentleman's comments, the ranking member, that there's a series of different standards across this nation actually is reason to support the underlying measure that we standardize the approach as we did in other areas of federal law.
It was noted you want to board an airplane, there's a pretty tight list of forms of ID that qualify. I think there's lots of reasons why this amendment doesn't reach to the standard of to make sure that an individual is who they say they are. For example, I think if you come in with a utility bill, I think it'd be pretty easy to bring that bill and claim that you are somebody who you are not. I think the photo identification piece is really important. So obviously, unless a utility bill in a state that I'm unaware of has a photo associated with it, it doesn't of course in the state of Wisconsin, that would be unacceptable because I think you need to show a form of photo ID.
Handful of things were discussed. I just want to try to see if I can hit all of these in my time remaining. One is the funding aspect. It is correct a passport costs money, all the more reason to make sure that we have the free option available. State of Wisconsin, my home state, has a free option available.
to allow for that. I think states need to do a better job about making sure individuals in their state have a valid state ID. I think it's really important for a host of things beyond just voting. As discussed, I learned this in real time how Alabama has a mobile unit that will go to different locations. Clever idea.
I think states should be encouraged to make sure that we're getting individuals access to photo IDs when they need it. The underlying core goal here is to root out fraud writ large. We're discussing why you need identification to get SNAP benefits or other things. The whole idea here is to make sure that we're helping the people who need assistance in our welfare programs, but we don't allow people to come in and abuse the system. It was also discussed now, two and a half years ago, two days after the 2024 election, I did go to LA to central count.
I think my my interview as noted was accurate. I think you posted it, a member here posted it on their own social media because the interview I gave was accurate. And I think most Americans are shocked as to how California runs their elections. There's a lot of problems with how California runs their elections if you care about building up Americans' confidence in our elections. To me, in that visit, it was really about one key principle.
It's not the discussion today, but that is a simple principle that the ballot should arrive by the time the polls close. If you're a fan of watching sports, it's really nice when there's a whistle that indicates the end of the game. You tally up the points, whoever has the most points wins the game. I think it instills confidence. It'd be really tough if you said the the the football game ended, by the way, there might be a few more touchdowns coming in over the next couple of weeks.
Even if that was legal in the rules and everybody bought into it, boy, that doesn't really instill confidence as to how the game was played. You just say, just blow the whistle, that's when the game's over, we all know, we'll tally it up. I think that's where our elections, that was actually the point of my visit. During that visit, it was actually pretty shocking how California does signature verification. That is a whole separate matter.
I think there's massive opportunities with California's election, and we've held a hearing on it. At its core, I think there's a basic premise. We want to make sure the individuals who go to vote are who they say they are. The easiest and best way to do that is through a government-issued photo identification. We laid out five ways an individual could have that, very straightforward, very simplistic.
And I think there is a huge opportunity here to benefit from that. If we pull in additional language, this is not in this bill today, but additional language from the MEGA Act, I think the real the real solution here is to further update the REAL ID language such that your identification issued by the state, the REAL ID standard, says citizen or non-citizen. The state of North Dakota already requires that on their state-issued ID. So if you're in the state of North Dakota, you go and you get your REAL ID, it actually indicates citizen or non-citizen. They then have a photo identification requirement when an individual goes to the polls.
And you get a two-fer in the state of North Dakota. You get confirmation that the individual who is voting is a United States citizen, followed by the fact that the person who goes to the polls is who they say they are. I think that's actually a really straightforward way to accomplish our goal of making sure that it's only US citizens voting and the person is who they say they are. Because of the underlying principles here, I am unable to support the ranking member's amendment. I think it actually guts out key provisions of the underlying bill.
I encourage my colleagues to vote against the underlying amendment. I yield back. Is there further amendment or debate? Seeing none, does the gentlewoman from Florida insist on her point of order? I withdraw the point of order.
The point of order is withdrawn. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Morelle. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no.
No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. I would like to ask for a recorded vote. A recorded vote is is requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Chairman Steil? No. Chairman Steil votes no. Ms. Lee?
Mr. Griffith votes no. Dr. Murphy?
Dr. Murphy votes no. Mrs. Bice?
Mrs. Bice votes no. Mr. Carey?
Mr. Carey votes no. Mrs. Miller?
Mrs. Miller votes no. Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle votes aye. Ms. Sewell?
Mrs. Torres votes aye. Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson votes aye.
Bryan Steil
Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will report the tally.
Mr. Chairman, the vote is four noes and eight yeas, or four noes, eight noes and four yeses.
Is there further amendment or debate on the underlying bill? Seeing none, all those in favor of, let me pull up the bill number for us just so we get this on the record. Eight noes and four yeses, the amendment fails. The question now occurs on H.R. 9368. All those, oh, we're in the ANS.
I apologize. We got going earlier today and so I'm flipping my pages here. There being no further amendment in nature of substitute, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The question now occurs on ordering H.R. 9368 as amended reported favorably to the House. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no.
No. And in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion to report is agreed to.
Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Speaker 25
A roll call vote has been requested in stereo. The clerk will please call the roll.
Chairman Steil?
Chairman Steil votes aye. Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee votes aye. Mr. Loudermilk?
Mr. Loudermilk votes aye. Mr. Griffith?
Mrs. Bice votes aye. Mr. Carey?
Mr. Carey votes aye. Mrs. Miller?
Mrs. Miller votes aye. Mr. Morelle?
Mr. Morelle votes no. Ms. Sewell?
Ms. Johnson votes no.
Speaker 29
Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will report the tally.
Mr. Chairman, for this vote there are eight ayes and four noes.
Bryan Steil
A majority having voted in favor of H.R. 9368 as amended, the bill is reported favorably to the House. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. I now call up H.R. 9367, the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act. The clerk will please report the bill.
H.R. 9367.
Bryan Steil
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Also without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. I have an amendment in the nature of substitute at the desk. Clerk will please report the amendment.
Amendment in the nature of substitute.
Bryan Steil
Without objection, the amendment in the nature of substitute is considered as read and will serve as base text for the purpose of further amendment. I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the bill. Members of the Congress should be writing public policy, not wagering on its outcome. I think we all agree on that principle. Under current law, lawmakers are not explicitly prohibited from using prediction markets.
There's growing concerns that lawmakers could wager on the outcomes of decisions they make. Under the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act, members, their spouses, and their dependent children are prohibited from using prediction markets to wager on government policies, government action, and political outcomes, or any other event that comes to the attention of a covered individual as a result directly or indirectly of the service of a member of Congress. The bill ensures accountability and makes it crystal clear that members cannot participate in these two activities. One, wagering on the results of elections as elected officials, and two, wagering on government policy.
The penalties associated with this bill are strict and mirror the Stop Insider Trading Act. It includes a fine of $2,000 or 10% of the covered transaction, whichever is greater, and the forfeiture of any net gain realized from the transaction. Additionally, if a member resigns or retires before paying the fine, the supervising ethics office can refer them to the Department of Justice for enforcement. This legislation will clarify that no member of Congress can wager on insider information they may gain through their service. In January, this committee advanced the nonpartisan Stop Insider Trading Act, which prevents members of Congress from purchasing individual stocks.
Now we have an opportunity to build on that important legislation and take this next step. I urge my colleagues to support the common sense legislation, and it's our opportunity to continue to earn back the trust of American families. I yield back. Do other, does any other member seek recognition? The ranking member's recognized to strike the last word.
Joseph Morelle
Thank you, Chair. Strike the last word. I appreciate your gathering us together and considering a solution to what I consider to be a very, very important problem today. I support the policy goal of H.R. 9367. Just as I do not buy or sell stock, don't hold individual stock, I do not participate in prediction markets.
And that should be the norm for the entirety of the federal government. That includes our official and campaign staffs, our institutional partners. As a matter of principle, it should include the president, the vice president, the cabinet, the justices of the Supreme Court. The behavior is too pernicious for a half measure. But even the mere appearance of self-dealing further erodes the already declining trust between the American people and this government.
I take the trust that's put in me very, very seriously, as we all should. Before I get into details of the legislation, it's important that we talk about how urgent this problem is, particularly for those of us in the federal government. For those watching at home, blissfully unaware of what prediction markets are, I want to read some examples of currently available contracts to give you an idea of what we're talking about and what we're confronting. Here are some of the contracts that you can buy on the prediction markets. When will Trump's ballroom be completed?
Which cities will the National Guard deploy to this year? Which bills will become law in 2026? Will Mike Johnson be ousted as speaker before November 3rd? When will Congress regulate cryptocurrencies? Who will Donald Trump publicly insult by June 30th?
I'm not making those up. Those are actually on the prediction markets right now. They may sound silly. They may sound benign on their face, but if you take a second to think about how easy it would be for someone, particularly a government official, to profit using information they've acquired through their work. More grotesquely, war has been uniquely profitable for some users.
The market for wagers on the on-again, off-again war in Iran has already topped $2 billion. And for a president who changes his mind every 15 minutes or so on what the rationale for the war is, you can imagine how profitable this could be. $2 billion being wagered on the suffering and despair of real people as if this were betting on the World Cup. Since the start of the Iran war, billions of dollars of somehow perfectly timed bets have been placed on the price of oil, which is even more awe-inspiring given what a prolonged chaotic mess this war has been. The examples are manifold, and this administration has exacerbated the problem.
Look no further than the Trump family's personal involvement in the spread of prediction markets. Donald Trump Jr. is deeply involved in the industry's two biggest trading platforms as a paid advisor and a direct investor. Coincidentally, just days after they hired the president's son, Polymarket was allowed to resume operation in the United States following a two-year ban by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. And in October of last year, the Trump Media and Technology Group shamelessly announced the launch of its own trading platform, Truth Predict. Truth Predict.
The president's son also sits on that company's board. Surely nothing to see here, divert your attention.
Which brings me to the bill we're considering today. HR 9367 is not a single chamber resolution for the purposes of self-policing this House. I would support that effort. In fact, there are two resolutions currently filed with the House that would prohibit us, our staffs, and House offices from participating in prediction markets. These resolutions have been awaiting floor consideration for months now.
What's the hold up? We can clean up our own house, and we can do it today by unanimous consent. It shouldn't be hard. The Senate unanimously agreed to amend its rules to immediately and explicitly prohibit senators and their staffs from participating in prediction markets. It was effective immediately.
A total ban on participation, no loopholes, no allowable types of any contracts. Instead of the simple approach, the bill we consider today is attempting to change federal law, but only for the House and Senate. The Senate is certainly not going to pass a bill that is a weaker version of what they already have done by rule. Further, HR 9367 takes effect after 180 days. I would prefer to see an immediate ban today.
The Senate did it in a matter of minutes. No six-month grace period, no procedurally laborious process. They just went to the floor with a two-page resolution and banned it all, unanimously. We should do the same. I believe this bill, like the Stop Insider Trading Act, is meant to blunt the momentum on real reform.
We could solve this problem today. The bill won't do it. As such, I will oppose it and offer a more comprehensive policy as an amendment, and with that, I yield back.
Bryan Steil
Gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Is there further amendment or debate on the amendment? The gentleman has an amendment at the desk. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Joseph Morelle
Gentlewoman from Florida reserves a point of order. The gentleman from New York is recognized on his amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, um, this amendment is a comprehensive and immediate ban on congressional participation in prediction markets. The problem with HR 9367 is the bill falls too short and this problem is far too serious to ignore. My objection shouldn't come as a surprise. When this committee considered the Stop Insider Trading Act, I raised related concerns with the shortcomings of that bill as well.
The universe of prohibited investment vehicles is far too narrow, and the universe of covered individuals is far too small. The Stop Insider Trading Act still allows members to freely buy and sell privately traded company stocks. In fact, just days before we considered the bill, the chair of the Republican Conference purchased hundreds of thousands of dollars in XAI stock, at a time a privately traded company, days before the Pentagon announced the integration of XAI into its military systems. Then just two weeks ago, AI's parent company, SpaceX, went public with the largest IPO in history.
Notably, this transaction would have been wholly permitted by the Stop Insider Trading Act. Another provision of that bill even allows family members to make straw purchases of stock on behalf of members with zero restrictions. I raise these concerns again because congressional participation in prediction markets like member stock trading is too urgent an issue for half measures. It is too damaging to the fundamental idea of our republic and our democratic institutions. So, I'm proposing a solution.
While HR 9367 bans only certain contracts for certain people, my amendment is a total congressional ban on participation in prediction markets. It covers members, senators, their immediate families, our staffs, candidates for federal office and their staffs, and the officers of the House and Senate. While HR 9367 takes six months to take effect, my amendment is effective immediately. It contains no loopholes, no nebulous definitions or half-year grace periods. It is effective, simple, and immediate, instantaneous.
If anything, my amendment doesn't go far enough, extending into the executive and judicial branches of the federal government, but that's only because we are at the jurisdictional mercy of the rules of the House. The longer we wait to confront this problem this head-on is more foundation of our government crumbles. It's already on shaky ground. Billions of dollars of dark money are poisoning our elections. The right to vote is under unyielding assault from Congress, state legislatures, and the Supreme Court.
And no-bid government contracts are being handed out like they're pocket constitutions. The American people are sick of it, and it's hard to blame them. This amendment sends a message that not only are we going to clean up our own house, but we take the trust that's put in us by our constituents seriously, that we use the immense power of our offices to advocate for their best interests, not to self-enrich. We can prove that today, right now, by adopting this amendment. For the good of Congress, for the good of the country, I urge the committee to support this amendment and I yield back.
Bryan Steil
The gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? I recognize myself to strike the last word. Appreciate my colleague's intention with his amendment. A couple things to cover maybe on this.
One is, I think it's important for the American people to know that there's, there are a lot of rules and restrictions on anyone engaged in insider trading on these prediction markets. And so it would be illegal, of course, under the CFTC or the SEC who would have enforcement jurisdiction for an individual to engage in types of insider trading on these platforms. It's a question then that becomes of how do you enforce that, how do we make sure that this is explicit, in what areas should we prevent? My colleague's amendment broadens the types of transactions that are covered. But if we step back and think about the fact that this underlying bill applies to members, spouses, and dependent children, one can envision a really simplistic scenario, I think where no ill intent would be intended, but would be a violation then of federal law.
So let me run through this scenario. Say an individual has a son or daughter who's 18, goes to college. They're at Oklahoma State, University of Wisconsin, or somewhere else, and they get excited during the NCAA tournament. They turn on their phone and they make an otherwise legal bet or a prediction, because you could, this wouldn't impact gambling through say like a DraftKings, but it would impact prediction markets say through Kalshi or Polymarket. And they go on and make an otherwise legal prediction on the outcome of the NCAA tournament.
Maybe they put ten dollars down, they triple their money, however that plays out. Under my colleague's amendment, with the broad brush, their dependent child away at college would trigger a federal violation of the underlying member.
I don't think that's really the intent we're after. Now whether or not individuals should be engaged in prediction markets or online gambling, that is a contentious debate across the country and I'm not looking to enter into that, at least not today. But I don't think that's actually the intention of what is offered, but I think that's what the legislative text of this amendment as offered actually does. What I'm trying to do in my underlying amendment is actually narrow this down to two key areas that I think we should just even remove the appearance of impropriety from. One is public policy, and it was noted by my colleague a couple areas where individuals could make, where an individual could go online and make a prediction on public policy.
I think it's pretty clear we don't want members in that space. I think it would already be illegal under insider trading rules, maybe, maybe not. Let's just make it explicit and clear under the jurisdiction that this committee has, our legislation does that. The second is elections, in large part because we're all engaged in those. There was an election last night in New York.
For obvious reasons, we wouldn't want members engaging in predictions in that space. And many of these platforms when you go on, actually if you read the rules and regulations of those platforms, they're actually outlawing that or banning it, maybe would be a better word, in the terms and conditions of these platforms. But I think it's actually a really good policy for us to make that explicit into the law. It actually couples with the Stop Insider Trading Act, bipartisan legislation that we've moved through this committee earlier this year, which we're hopeful will ultimately see floor action. I think it's a really important piece of legislation.
And so the underlying bill is intended to couple with the Stop Insider Trading Act, not to be too broad that it picks up what I think most members would think is otherwise constitutionally acceptable or permissible behavior of family members maybe making a prediction on a sports event that they want to legally participate in just by the fact that they are a dependent adult child or a spouse of a member. I don't think that they should inherently be restricted on that. As we look to other government employees, I'm very actually very open to working with the ranking member in that regard. This committee will lose jurisdiction as we look to all federal employees, but I'm very open to expanding the scope of covered individuals that play in this. So I appreciate the intention of my colleague's amendment.
I don't think it strikes exactly what we're after. I encourage my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and yes on the underlying amendment offered by myself. With that I yield back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Representative Bice is recognized to strike the last word.
Stephanie Bice
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to reiterate the point that you made. I actually agree that no member of Congress should be partaking in prediction markets. There's actually in my office part of our employee handbook prohibits staff from actually participating in these, particularly as it relates to political activity. So I agree, and I wouldn't be opposed to necessarily doing this sooner. But I do oppose the fact that, as the chairman said, a college-aged student who may want to partake is prohibited and or there could be some sort of civil or criminal penalties that would go along with that or, you know, affecting the member themselves.
I think is problematic and that's why I'll be opposing the amendment, but I appreciate the ranking member's consideration. And with that I yield back.
Bryan Steil
Representative Bice yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? There being no further debate. The gentlewoman removes her point of order. The question is now on the amendment from Mr. Morelle of New York.
All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
I'd ask for the ayes and nays.
A recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Chairman Steil.
Chairman Steil votes no. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Loudermilk.
Mrs. Bice votes no. Mr. Carey. Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller votes no. Mr. Morelle.
Mrs. Torres votes aye. Mr. Johnson.
Bryan Steil
Mr. Johnson votes aye. Mr. Chairman, there are five noes and four yeses.
The amendment is not adopted. Is there further amendment or debate? There being no further amendment or debate, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
Bryan Steil
Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. The question now occurs on ordering H.R. 9367 as amended reported favorably to the House. Those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
Those opposed, no.
Bryan Steil
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion to report is agreed to. A roll call vote is requested. The clerk will please call the roll.
Chairman Steil.
Chairman Steil votes aye. Ms. Lee.
Mr. Morelle votes no. Ms. Sewell.
Mrs. Torres votes no. Mr. Johnson.
Bryan Steil
Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there are five ayes and four noes.
Majority having voted favorably of H.R. 9367 as amended, the bill is ordered reported favorably to the House. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. I now call up H.R. 9342, the GPO Modernization Act of 2024, introduced by our colleague, Representative Bice from Oklahoma. The clerk will please report the bill.
H.R. 9342. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as read and will serve as base text for the purpose of further amendment. I now recognize Representative Bice for five minutes to speak on her bill.
Stephanie Bice
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm going to try to make this very brief because I know we're pressed for time. Thank you for having this markup today considering the bill, the GPO Modernization Act of 2024, and I also want to thank GPO Director Halpern and the CHA staff for their hard work. This bill is simple. It gives GPO the desperate statutory updates that the office has asked Congress for for years, and it will finally bring the GPO into the 21st century. As an example, it aligns statutory GPO authorities with the current digital-first environment in which they operate.
It removes antiquated references to GPO's role in producing inks and glues for federal agencies and reframes the agency's role in providing publishing and other services.
It also helps the Federal Depository Library Program better serve communities with their digital-first needs. Many of the provisions follow findings from the GPO's task force on a digital federal depository library program. There's a lot of other great updates in the bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes and I yield back the balance of my time.
Bryan Steil
The gentlewoman yields back. Is there further amendment or debate? The gentleman from New York is recognized to strike the last word.
Joseph Morelle
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to begin by thanking my friend and colleague Ms. Bice for the bill and just make a couple of quick observations if I might. The Government Publishing Office is a pillar of the legislative branch. Without it, Congress simply could not write laws, issue reports, or conduct virtually any of its constitutional responsibilities. And it provides the public with one of the essentials of democracy: access to authoritative, accurate information. The statutes governing the GPO have seen modest updates over the years, including name changes from the original Government Printing Office to the Government Publishing Office, but much of the law still predates the digital era.
So the bill further modernizes those statutes, streamlines their operation, and provides public access to government information. I support these efforts, which will help strengthen GPO's capacity and in turn Congress's to do its work. Among other things, the bill updates the Federal Depository Library Program to more effectively provide free, equitable, and convenient public access to government information. It will allow depository libraries, because I'm going to get a plug in for my local library, including the Rochester Public Library and the Rush Rhees Library at the University of Rochester in my home district, to substitute digital copies of government documents for hard copies. It will free up physical space, therefore, and let libraries without room on their shelves take part in the program and serve the public.
It establishes a national collection of US government public information and gives the Superintendent of Documents the tools to catalog, preserve, and provide that information to the public. I would go through more because this is a good bill and I really think this is important. So, and I want to be able to give credit to my friend. But I will say this: Thomas Jefferson once wrote that if a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. So guarding against that begins with access to reliable public information, and I'm grateful to support this legislation, grateful for my friend, and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
I yield back.
Bryan Steil
Gentleman yields back. Is there further amendment or debate? Seeing none, there being no further amendment or debate, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, no. The opinion of the chair is the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Without objection, we will hold the vote to report until the end of two more bills. We have a couple colleagues who have, who are wrapping up a little bit of other work. I now call up HR 9360, the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress Sunset Act, introduced by our colleague Representative Mary Miller of Illinois.
The clerk will report the bill.
Thank you, Chairman Steil. My bill HR 9360...
Bryan Steil
One moment. The clerk will please report the bill. We'll be to you in one second, but I love the energy. Clerk will please report the bill.
Mary Miller
HR 9360. Amendment in the nature...
Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as read and will serve as base text for the purpose of further amendment. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois, Representative Miller, for five minutes to speak on her bill.
Thank you, Chairman. We have energy to wrap this hearing up. My bill HR 9360 will sunset the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress. This committee was created in the nineties to advise Congress and the National Archives on the management and retention of congressional records.
The bill requires the Center for Legislative Archives to publish an annual report on the management and preservation of records, keeping Congress and the National Archives updated on the center's management practices. Sunsetting the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress will save approximately $38,000 annually in operating costs without sacrificing the transparency of congressional records. As this advisory committee approaches its 36th year, stakeholders agree the committee accomplished its original mandate and has outlived its usefulness. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back.
Joseph Morelle
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a brief word and I thank the gentlelady for offering it. The Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress was created in 1990 to review and advise Congress and the National Archives on the management and preservation of congressional records. And the House Clerk, who's one of the leaders of the advisory committee, approached us, I believe, with this proposal because the committee accomplished its key goals and is no longer useful in addressing current challenges. And it's important to continue to update this and not have rules that are outdated, which makes sense.
The ways we manage and preserve records have changed significantly over the last three and a half decades. And sunsetting this committee will allow the resources dedicated to it to be used to improve contemporary archiving practice. So I want to urge my colleagues to support the bill and with that I will yield back.
Bryan Steil
The gentleman yields back. Is there further amendment or debate? There being no further amendment or debate, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Without objection, we'll hold the vote to report until the end. I now call up H.R. 3334, the USCP Empowerment Act of 2025, introduced by Representative Crane from Arizona. The clerk will report the bill.
H.R. 3334... Amendment in...
Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as read and will serve as base text for the purpose of further amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the bill. The United States Capitol Police are charged with protecting the safety of the Capitol complex for visitors, staff, and members alike. We're all aware drone usage over the years has grown rapidly, which is a new safety and security challenge around sensitive areas like the US Capitol. As a result, US Capitol Police has invested in technology and new capabilities to detect and disable unauthorized drones.
However, there are gaps in regulatory authority that need updating to ensure the United States Capitol Police has explicit authority to respond to any emerging drone activity. I think we can all agree that the Capitol Police stands ready and able to address potential threats, but we must ensure that they have the tools they need without confusion. And so the bill authorizes the United States Capitol Police to research and evaluate Capitol Police's capabilities to respond to unauthorized drone activity to ensure preparations are made for the next generation of drone technology. I just want to thank Representative Crane for his leadership and work on this issue to ensure that law enforcement officials like USCP have the tools they need to keep our public and Capitol safe. I think this is an important clarifying piece of legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Do any other members seek recognition or debate?
Joseph Morelle
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Striking the last word, it is no secret that threats against the Congress remain extraordinarily high, as the chairman has just indicated. In 2025 alone, Capitol Police Threat Assessment Section investigated nearly 15,000 threats and directions of interest against members, their families, staff, and the Capitol complex. An extraordinary number. Unfortunately, the trend has not abated, and while post-January 6th reforms have significantly strengthened the security here on the campus, the threat environment continues to evolve and our response must evolve with it.
And H.R. 3334 would help address one such emerging threat: unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones. While the Capitol Police can and do identify and disable drones flown near the Capitol, the department lacks the clear statutory authority that other federal agencies possess. This bill expressly authorizes Capitol Police to detect, track, and when necessary, disable a drone that poses a threat to the Capitol campus and the people who are on it. And it allows Capitol Police to move easily and to coordinate with partner agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration. Advances in technology have made drones smaller, cheaper, and more capable than ever before.
I work very closely with the sheriff in Monroe County, where Rochester is located, on drones and the public policies that relate to drone technology for other law enforcement agencies. And what was once niche technology is now widely available, and malign actors around the world have demonstrated how these systems can be used for surveillance, disruption, and even for attacks. In fact, just a few weeks ago, the individual accused of plotting an attack on the White House event reportedly intended to employ drones as part of that attack. These threats are not hypothetical. The bill is a measured but meaningful step towards empowering the Capitol Police and make sure that they have the tools and authorities necessary to protect the Congress.
At the same time, as Capitol Police take on more and more threats against the Congress, the department must stay focused on its core mission: screening at our doors, inspecting vehicles, assessing threats in time to act on them. And new authorities like this one should reinforce that mission, not pull focus from it. I expect Congress will need to continue to adapt as technology continues to change, and I hope the department will continue to work closely with subject matter experts at the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation as it further develops the counter-UAS capability. So I support this legislation, encourage my colleagues to do the same, and appreciate the legislation. With that, I'll yield back.
Speaker 8
The gentleman yields back. Representative Miller is recognized to strike the last word.
Mary Miller
Thank you, Chairman Steil. I strongly support the USCP Empowerment Act, which will help strengthen the security of our Capitol complex. I have a letter of support addressed to this committee from Representative Crane, the bill's sponsor, and I request unanimous consent to submit Representative Crane's letter into the record as well as a US Capitol Police document from 2016 detailing USCP's drone policy.
Without objection.
Mary Miller
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. And with that, I yield back.
Bryan Steil
The gentlewoman yields back. Is there further debate or amendment? There being no further debate or amendment, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Without objection, we'll hold the vote to report until the end.
It's now the end. The question now occurs on ordering H.R. 9342 as amended, H.R. 9360 as amended, and H.R. 3334 as amended in bloc. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye. Those opposed no. The opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the motion to report is agreed to. A roll call vote is requested. The clerk will please call the roll.
Chairman Steil.
Ms. Lee votes aye. Mr. Loudermilk. Mr. Griffith. Dr. Murphy.
Dr. Murphy votes aye. Mrs. Bice.
Mrs. Bice votes aye. Mr. Carey. Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller votes aye. Mr. Morelle.
Mrs. Torres votes aye. Mr. Johnson.
Bryan Steil
Mr. Johnson votes aye. Mr. Chairman, for this vote there are eight ayes and zero nos.
A majority having voted in favor of HR 9342, 9360, and 3334 as amended, the bills are ordered reported favorably to the House. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. This concludes the order of business for today's markup. Without objection, pursuant to House Rule 9, clause 2L, committee members can file with the clerk of the committee supplemental, additional, minority, and dissenting views on each of the items marked up today. Also without objection, the staff is authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes.
If there's no further business, I want to thank the members for their participation. Without objection, the Committee on House Administration stands adjourned.