[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                               MEMBER DAY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                             ADMINISTRATION

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 8, 2023

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
      
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      


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

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-911                       WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                          
                   Committee on House Administration

                    BRYAN STEIL, WISCONSIN, Chairman

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia              Ranking Member
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             DEREK KILMER, Washington
MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     NORMA TORRES, California
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                           Opening Statements

The Honorable Bryan Steil, Representative from the state of 
  Wisconsin, Chairman............................................     1
The Honorable Joseph Morelle, Representative from the state of 
  New York, Ranking Member.......................................     2
The Honorable Claudia Tenney, Representative from the state of 
  New York.......................................................    32

                          Prepared Statements

The Honorable Kelly Armstrong, a Representative from the state of 
  North Dakota...................................................     6
The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative from the state of 
  Tennessee......................................................     9
The Honorable Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Representative from the 
  state of Illinois..............................................    13
The Honorable Larry Bucshon, a Representative from the state of 
  Indiana........................................................    16
The Honorable Rashida Tlaib, a Representative from the state of 
  Michigan.......................................................    21
The Honorable Pramila Jayapal, a Representative from the state of 
  Washington.....................................................    30
The Honorable Claudia Tenney, a Representative from the state of 
  New York.......................................................    34
The Honorable Abigail Spanberger, a Representative from the state 
  of Virginia....................................................    36
The Honorable Chip Roy, a Representative from the state of Texas.    42

                               Witnesses

The Honorable Andy Kim, a Representative from the state of New 
  Jersey.........................................................    49
The Honorable Angie Craig, a Representative from the state of 
  Minnesota......................................................    51
The Honorable Warren Davidson, a Representative from the state of 
  Ohio...........................................................    53
The Honorable Steny Hoyer, a Representative from the state of 
  Maryland.......................................................    59
The Honorable Richard Hudson, a Representative from the state of 
  North Carolina.................................................    62
The Honorable Sara Jacobs, a Representative from the state of 
  California.....................................................    63
The Honorable Troy Nehls, a Representative from the state of 
  Texas..........................................................    66
The Honorable Mike Quigley, a Representative from the state of 
  Illinois.......................................................    69
The Honorable Nikema Williams, a Representative from the state of 
  Georgia........................................................    72

 
                               MEMBER DAY

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2023

                 Committee on House Administration,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:38 a.m., in 
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Steil, Loudermilk, Griffith, 
Murphy, Carey, Lee, D'Esposito, Morelle, Sewell, Kilmer, and 
Torres.
    Staff present: Tim Monahan, Staff Director; Caleb Hays, 
Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel, Acting 
Parliamentarian; Nick Crocker, Deputy Staff Diector; Hillary 
Lassiter, Chief Clerk; Jordan Wilson, Director of Member 
Services; Cade Alcock, Assistant Clerk; Ryan Arient, Staff 
Assistant; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Khalil Abboud, 
Minority Deputy Staff Director; Matthew Schlesinger, Minority 
Oversight Counsel; Eddie Flaherty, Minority Chief Clerk; Owen 
Reilly, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Andrew Garcia, 
Minority Staff Assistant.
    Chairman Steil. The Committee on House Administration will 
come to order--in part to have Mr. Murphy no longer be speaking 
ill of me for attending late.
    [Laughter.]
    I am very concerned about what any motion might be for my 
tardiness. Sincerest apologies.
    I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the 
Chair may declare a recess at any time.
    Thank you all for participating in the Committee on House 
Administration's Member Day. Our Committee has jurisdiction 
over a broad range of issues.
    One of our primary responsibilities includes oversight over 
the day-to-day operations that keep the House of 
Representatives running. This includes oversight over House 
officers, the key leadership across the legislative branch, 
like the Architect of the Capitol, as well as the countless 
administrative and technical functions of the chamber.
    Further, as part of our official duties demonstrated this 
week, we authorize the budget of committees and individual 
member allowances, known as the MRA.
    House Administration also has a role to play in considering 
potential updates to the STOCK Act.
    We want to hear from members as we examine ways to make 
improvements and increase transparency and accountability. We 
have also increased our education and outreach efforts, 
alongside the Ethics Committee, to ensure members fully 
understand current rules on trading stocks and the reporting 
requirements.
    This committee also oversees the management of important 
historical and national institutions, such as the Library of 
Congress and the Smithsonian Institution. We must ensure all 
taxpayer-funded entities are being good stewards of taxpayer 
dollars.
    That being said, we are tasked with ensuring the 
legislative branch as a whole is operating effectively and 
transparently for all members, staff, and most importantly, the 
American people.
    House Administration also has oversight over the security 
in the House of Representatives and on Capitol Hill, with 
Capitol Police, the House Sergeant at Arms, and the Capitol 
Police Board all under our jurisdiction. We must ensure both 
safety and access for the millions of Americans who visit the 
People's House.
    Especially with our campus now fully accessible to the 
public, thanks to the House Republican majority, our 
responsibility is even more imperative to guarantee we provide 
a safe, secure, and open campus.
    Also within our committee's broad jurisdiction is the 
oversight of federal elections on behalf of the House of 
Representatives. However, our role is limited and we must keep 
the federal government in check from overstepping onto state 
sovereignty, which is protected by the United States 
Constitution.
    Our goal is promoting faith in our elections process and 
outcomes by promoting policies that make it easier for eligible 
Americans to vote and harder to cheat. When Americans have more 
confidence that their ballots will count, they are more likely 
to vote.
    To do so, we will hear from state and local elections 
officials on what is working and what isn't working in 
elections across our country. From there, we will help 
facilitate discussions on best practices that states can 
consider and ensure that federal policies don't get in their 
way.
    Today we will hear testimony from our colleagues on these 
various topics.
    Thank you to everyone who has taken time to testify before 
our committee today. We appreciate you making the time. I look 
forward to hearing your testimonies and having productive 
conversations which will better aid our work to strengthen this 
institution and serve the American people.
    I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5 
minutes for the purpose of making an opening statement.
    Mr. Morelle. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, for calling the 
meeting.
    I thank the members appearing before us for their testimony 
today. I have the utmost respect and admiration for our 
colleagues who are testifying.
    I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that you allow me to treat the 
witnesses as hostile, particularly Messrs. Armstrong and 
Krishnamoorthi.
    [Laughter.]
    I am grateful for them all being here. This is of 
particular importance because at our core this committee is a 
customer service organization. You are our customers. The 
feedback we gather today will go a long way toward allowing us 
to make the institution of the House stronger, which, in turn, 
leads to all of us being able to have better representation for 
our constituents.
    The committee has a--as you indicated, Mr. Chair, and it 
bears repeating--a diverse jurisdiction, ranging from Capitol 
security to oversight over the museums and national cultural 
institutions, to election administration, the regulation of 
campaign finance.
    I know in previous years, although I was not a member of 
the committee, I understood that members have testified about 
each of these issues to help inform the committee about its 
work. I look forward to that tradition continuing today.
    Just last week we heard testimony from committee chairs and 
Ranking Members on the funding for the various committees of 
the 118th Congress, which, in turn, helped to inform us on the 
resolution that I know we will be considering later today. I 
think it is a testament to how much this committee values the 
input from our colleagues and the members, their perspective, 
particularly on a bipartisan basis.
    I join with you and Members of the Committee in welcoming 
people, and I am grateful that they are here this morning. Look 
forward to their testimony.
    I will yield back.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
    Without objection, all Members' opening statements will be 
made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to the 
Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. today.
    Today we will hear from three panels of members wishing to 
speak on policies within our jurisdiction. Each Member will be 
recognized for 5 minutes. Once all Members of the panel have 
delivered remarks, any Member wishing to be recognized for the 
purpose of questioning the panel should signal to the Chair.
    We will begin from my left to right for opening statements 
and begin with you, Mr. Kelly Armstrong.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. KELLY ARMSTRONG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    For 1,026 days, the House of Representatives was closed to 
the public. Over the course of this period, appointed 
leadership within the administrative bodies of this institution 
pushed the limits on the curtailment of civil liberties and 
historic norms of the U.S. Congress.
    The House Sergeant at Arms and the U.S. Capitol Police 
instituted operational changes that hindered access to 
legislators and increased surveillance on Members, staff, and 
the public.
    On March 12, 2020, the Sergeant at Arms barred open access 
to the House Office Buildings in response to COVID-19. In this 
unprecedented move, the public was prevented from freely 
entering the House Office Buildings to engage their legislators 
and redress their grievances, a constitutionally protected 
activity under the First Amendment.
    More than 1 year later, the Sergeant at Arms modified this 
protocol and instituted an official business visitor program to 
allow an extremely limited number of individuals to enter into 
the House Office Buildings.
    This OBV process granted access to individuals who were 
pre-registered with the Sergeant at Arms, presented a form of 
identification to be checked by relevant staff, and issued a 
badge corresponding with the location of the pre-arranged 
meetings. The OBVs were subsequently prevented from moving 
through the buildings without a staff escort.
    This process, which was ostensibly predicated on guidelines 
from the Office of the Attending Physician to address the 
COVID-19 pandemic, remained woefully inadequate, poorly 
implemented, and chilled the ability of constituents to 
petition their Members of Congress.
    These policies culminated in an act as a significant 
obstacle, if not an outright deterrent, to a considerable 
number of Americans wishing to exercise their constitutional 
rights.
    Following leadership and law enforcement failures that left 
the U.S. Capitol vulnerable on January 6, 2021, congressional 
law enforcement bodies initiated or proposed a variety of 
programming changes that furthered the alarming trend of data 
collection and surveillance.
    At the direction of then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, 
retired Lieutenant General Russel Honore led the Task Force 1-6 
Capitol Security Review, which made several recommendations to 
address security issues facing the Capitol.
    Among the most contentious were advising that screening 
procedures and background checks be implemented. The review 
stated that, as part of an effort to decrease insider threats, 
the Capitol should apply background checks to each holder of an 
identification card, a process that would deviate from the 
longstanding practice of deferring to employing House Members' 
hiring decisions.
    The Task Force 1-6 report suggestion for enhanced 
background checks and intelligence-gathering policies coincided 
with a Sergeant at Arms initiative designed to identify threats 
from individuals working within the Capitol complex.
    Then Sergeant at Arms Walker testified before the House 
Appropriations Committee that his office had developed an 
insider threat awareness program, in coordination with the 
intelligence community, Department of Homeland Security, and 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to identify employees who 
lose their compass and individuals whose allegiances have 
changed.
    This policy, whether it was implemented or not, combined 
with Sergeant at Arms Walker's subsequent rationale, should 
cause concern for Members from both parties because of numerous 
unanswered questions and a lack of robust statutory guardrails.
    Regardless of whether the discussed insider threat 
awareness program-proposed background checks or pandemic-era 
visitor policies are warranted, these initiatives should not be 
developed in the isolation of institutions governed by 
appointees of the majority, regardless of which party holds 
power.
    Rather than utilizing a surveillance program designed with 
no apparent concern for civil liberties or concern for 
constitutionally safeguarded functions, this body must engage 
in a transparent legislative process that is unambiguous, 
protective of speech, and defends the rights of all who come to 
the United States Capitol.
    While I know it is not this committee's jurisdiction, I did 
this in Rules last night on the First Amendment. I did it last 
week in Energy and Commerce on data collection by the 
government. I am going to go back to a subcommittee hearing 
with DHS in front of us about a domestic surveillance program.
    What is in this committee's jurisdiction should be--this 
place is the center of democracy in the free world and it has 
freedom of movement for any one of our constituents who wants 
to come here. We can't lose that. We can't have people 
utilizing whatever excuse they can to do domestic intelligence 
gathering on our staff, the press, or any of our constituents 
who come here to redress their grievances with government.
    We have to get better at this. This is the existential 
threat that our citizens face from our own government in the 
21st century.
    I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you all, and I 
yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Armstrong follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Armstrong, for 
your comments on that really important topic.
    Mr. Cohen, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVE COHEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. It won't take that long. It is a 
very simple request. That is that this committee look into 
changing the identifying articles that we have to identify the 
states in the tunnel between Rayburn and the Capitol where we 
have our subway.
    For time immemorial, we had the flags of the states that 
were beautiful and represented the states fairly clearly. We 
took them down when Mississippi's flag, with the Confederate 
flag part of it, became a controversy. Mississippi now has 
another flag called the Magnolia Flag. I presume we have still 
got the other 49 flags. The expense would be one flag for 
Mississippi.
    I would suggest we put the flags back up. There is no 
reason to have them down when there is not a Confederate flag 
among them.
    I think the coins, to be honest, are rather blah, kind of 
like a 1930's black-and-white movie with the sound not very 
good. They are just awful. You don't see it. It doesn't come 
out at you and you go, ``Oh, that is Georgia or Virginia,'' or 
wherever. It just doesn't show.
    You could put up the flags and the coins or you could just 
get rid of the coins. The Senate still has the flags. I would 
think we are the 50 states, the United States, that you look at 
it, and I think it would be nice, more attractive, and local. 
It has kind of cured itself of the problems, the Confederate 
flag.
    With that, I thank the Chairman for having the meeting. I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
    That was an issue I was unaware of. I appreciate you coming 
in and sharing that with us.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Chairman Steil. Thank you, 
Ranking Member Morelle and Members of the Committee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to testify before you today about the need 
to ban Members of Congress from trading individual stocks, 
bonds, and other similar financial instruments.
    Maintaining the public's faith in government is pivotal to 
preserving Congress' institutional legitimacy. Frequent reports 
of suspicious stock trades, failures to comply with the STOCK 
Act, and revelations that Members of Congress can actively buy 
and sell the stock of companies they regulate or to which they 
appropriate money have shaken the public's faith in Congress' 
ability to make decisions purely in the public's interest.
    This leaves our constituents on occasion with the 
impression that we are serving our own financial interests, 
rather than their interests.
    That is why it is crucial that we prohibit Members of 
Congress from trading individual stocks, bonds, or other 
similar financial instruments. Members should not benefit from 
insider financial information obtained as a result of their 
positions, nor should they have financial interests cloud their 
policymaking.
    A congressional stock trading ban is extremely popular with 
the American people. Overall, three-quarters of voters support 
prohibiting Members of Congress from trading stocks while 
serving in office. The support holds true across partisan 
lines, with 70 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Republicans, 
and nearly 80 percent of Independents in favor of a stock 
trading ban.
    Nonpartisan experts also strongly support these commonsense 
reforms. This level of cross-partisan public and expert support 
is a mandate for comprehensive action in this Congress.
    Last Congress, I worked collaboratively with Democrats and 
Republicans who share the fundamental goal of fighting 
corruption and rebuilding confidence in our institutions. There 
is no better evidence of that common purpose than the many 
strong bipartisan proposals which exist, such as my own 
bicameral, bipartisan Ban Conflicted Trading Act.
    While the specifics of different pieces of legislation 
differ, their spirit is the same. That is why I am optimistic 
that in this 118th Congress we can work together to develop and 
pass comprehensive, bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ban 
congressional stock trading.
    That said, it is important that any final legislation 
include a set of policies that would address the multiple 
related problems that arise from Members owning and trading 
individual stocks. Specifically, as seven other Members and I 
stated in a letter to Speaker McCarthy last month, any final 
legislation on a stock trading ban should include the following 
three components.
    First, it should cover all Members of Congress, their 
spouses, and dependents under the age of 18.
    Second, it should require them to either divest prohibited 
investments within 120 days of an effective date, place such 
investments in a truly qualified blind trust, or it should 
require them to diversify such investments by placing them in 
widely held, diversified mutual or exchange-traded funds or 
U.S. Treasury bills, notes, or bonds.
    Third, it must contain clear enforcement mechanisms and 
penalties that are sufficient to ensure Member compliance, 
while omitting any gimmicks, carve-outs, or exemptions that 
undercut the purpose of the legislation.
    The American people widely support these policies across 
partisan and ideological lines and have given us a mandate to 
pass clear and comprehensive legislation. There is just not any 
excuse not to act any further on this particular issue. It 
should be a top priority of this Congress to finally pass this 
legislation.
    In July 2022, then Leader McCarthy promised to take action 
on a stock trading ban should he become Speaker. I respectfully 
encourage Speaker McCarthy to follow through on this commitment 
by bringing strong, comprehensive legislation which meets the 
above principles to the floor as expeditiously as possible.
    I also respectfully request this Committee, the House Admin 
Committee, to hold a bipartisan hearing, at least hold a 
hearing on this particular issue, putting in place a 
congressional stock trade ban, and work in a bipartisan fashion 
to advance comprehensive stock trade ban legislation.
    To summarize, I respectfully request that you folks please 
hold a hearing on this issue as soon as you can.
    Again, I thank you for your time. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Krishnamoorthi follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
    Mr. Bucshon, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. LARRY BUCSHON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I will start by expressing my appreciation to the Chairman, 
the Ranking Member, and the Members of the House Admin 
Committee for hosting Member Day and for soliciting input from 
fellow Representatives on actions the House of Representatives 
should take to improve operations within this body.
    I want to bring the Committee's attention to what I 
consider an urgent need to increase the accountability in the 
Office of the Attending Physician.
    I think most of you know that I was a doctor before I was 
in Congress. Many of you are no doubt familiar with the office, 
as it provides medical assistance and advice to Members of 
Congress, Justices of the Supreme Court, congressional staff, 
and visitors to the United States Capitol. I have spoken to Dr. 
Monahan concerning my thoughts on this subject.
    As you know, the Attending Physician is a medical officer 
assigned by the Department of the Navy. Individuals assigned to 
the position generally serve for an extended period. In the 95 
years the office has existed, only seven individuals have 
served--except, of course, the first one served for 40 years. 
The current Attending Physician has held the role since 2009, 
and I am not passing judgment on him.
    Though much of the OAP's, Office of the Attending 
Physician's, work occurs behind the scenes, it has repeatedly 
come to the attention of Congress and the public over the last 
3 years in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Concerns were 
raised that the office can be used for political purposes, that 
the Attending Physician is or was forced to act without using 
science to justify their actions, and there is a lack of 
accountability for OAP decisions. Actually, it can put the OAP 
in a very difficult spot.
    During the 117th Congress, I worked with then Ranking 
Member Rodney Davis and staff of the House Administration 
Committee to draft H.R. 4862, the Office of Attending Physician 
Independence Act. I intend to reintroduce this legislation in 
the coming weeks. Though I believe past work on the language 
has brought it to a good place, I certainly invite additional 
feedback from Members or committee staff on how we can make 
this better.
    The Office of the Attending Physician Independence Act 
would change the process for selecting an Attending Physician 
and create additional accountability for the role. It would 
resemble the process that we currently have for selecting and 
maintaining the Architect of the Capitol.
    Specifically, the bill would establish a commission to 
recommend individuals for appointment to the position of 
Attending Physician. The commission would recommend at least 
three individuals who are medical officers of the Navy for the 
role. The President would select one of these three individuals 
to serve as the Attending Physician and then be Senate 
confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate.
    The individual selected as the Attending Physician would 
serve for a specific period of time yet to be determined, with 
the option of being reappointed, potentially multiple times.
    Finally, the Office of the Attending Physician would be 
subject to oversight by the Committee on House Administration 
and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
    My goal is to ensure that the Office of Attending Physician 
is one that all Members can respect without concern that its 
actions or advice are based on anything other than science and 
reason.
    Again, thank you for the opportunity to weigh in. I look 
forward to working with all of you on this important issue.
    Thank you. I yield.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Bucshon.
    Ms. Tlaib, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. RASHIDA TLAIB, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman Steil and Ranking 
Member Morelle, and, of course, our House Members on this 
Committee. Thank you so much for allowing us to come before 
you. Much of the work that you do here directly impacts how 
effective we are in serving the residents that elected us.
    Two years ago, Mr. Chair, I discovered that the young 
parents on my staff based in the district were not offered the 
same access to childcare. If you are based in Washington, DC, 
you had access to childcare facilities offered by the House. 
However, our whole team based in the district was not afforded 
any help or assistance with childcare.
    We all know disparity in childcare benefits between D.C.-
based staff members and staff based in the home district. Right 
now, many of you, it could be shocking to you all to realize 
that.
    Based on feedback and challenges faced by staff in our 
districts, I urge the committee to ensure childcare benefits 
are equitable among all congressional employees.
    I, along with many of my colleagues, welcomed the expansion 
of authorities for the development of childcare subsidies 
program for staff under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2023.
    This will allow, Mr. Chair, funding to be used for 
childcare in the House of Representatives and gives the 
Committee on House Admin the authority and responsibility in 
implementing this program.
    Childcare is one of the biggest challenges for 
congressional staff, in maintaining congressional staff, and 
hurts our retention of very well-experienced and talented 
members of our staff. You all know retention really, truly does 
impact consistency of services for our residents.
    It is also not lost on any Member of the House that the 
cost of childcare varies greatly from state to state. The 
challenges with cost and access are inherent to any discussion 
on childcare and cannot be discounted as you begin to implement 
this program.
    As we know, according to various reports, the annual cost 
of, like, infant care in Michigan, for instance, is $11,000. In 
New York, it is $15,000. Again, it varies state to state.
    We should make sure, and we already know we can, and should 
make sure that this considerable expense is easier on our staff 
and that we are fair when we do implement it.
    I strongly believe that a program mirrored off of the 
student loan repayment program could prove successful for 
offering childcare subsidies to both our district office 
employees, as well as our Washington, DC.-based office staff.
    Again, it is not a perfect program, though, by the way, but 
it can, again, offer some sort of guidance as you think about 
how to implement this program. I welcome the opportunity, Mr. 
Chair, to assist and partner with the Committee on House Admin 
to develop benefit programs for the offices to provide more 
benefits, again, for all employees.
    I further urge the Committee to please conduct a needs 
assessment. Talk with the Members and parents. I know, as 
somebody that was a young parent working for the House Majority 
Floor Leader in the Michigan Legislature, how challenging it 
was to travel between various communities and, of course, 
making sure that we cover such a large geographic area, many of 
us multiple counties, multiple cities, and so forth.
    Again, I greatly appreciate your time and attention to this 
critical matter to help our offices ensure that their staff and 
their families can thrive while they work for our various 
offices and on behalf of our families.
    Thank you, and I yield.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Tlaib follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Ms. Tlaib.
    Thank you all for your testimony.
    We now have time for Members here of the Committee to ask 
questions. We will do this somewhat informally. Just signal to 
the chair if you have a question of our panelists.
    I will recognize Mr. Morelle.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
    First, I wanted to just ask Mr. Armstrong, I know that when 
I was in my previous iteration as a Member of the Rules 
Committee, you came off and talked about individual rights, 
civil rights, civil liberties. I appreciate your commitment to 
it.
    I think, though, in understanding what you are saying, I 
think even you would agree there needs to be some balance. I 
mean, as much as this is open and Americans have the right, 
obviously, to come to their seat of government, there needs to 
be protections to make sure that we adequately secure the 
place.
    Could you just further elaborate on how you would seek to 
achieve that balance?
    Mr. Armstrong. Sure.
    Mr. Morelle. Or do you not?
    Mr. Armstrong. No, no. Absolutely.
    Mr. Morelle. Maybe the premise to my question is wrong.
    Mr. Armstrong. This is the fantastic push and pull that 
exists here, and this is why this Committee is so important. We 
have former law enforcement on this end.
    If you give law enforcement a job to secure what they will 
call priority targets in a hard structure, they are going to 
put up fences. They would put up a moat. They would put 
alligators in the moat if they could. They would do background 
checks on everybody. They would do all of those things. Their 
job is to protect the Capitol and the people who work in the 
Capitol.
    It is this Committee's job to balance those most 
restrictive means with what we want to accomplish for our 
constituents. Outside of anything else, that was my biggest 
problem with this program. It never came in front of this 
Committee. It never came in front of an open and robust debate.
    There are a lot of--I mean, there are always going to be 
balances to people who are in public life. The reality of what 
occurred, I mean, there are a ton of different questions.
    If they are doing background checks on my employees, what 
if something is flagged? What happens next?
    Mr. Morelle. So you are----
    Mr. Armstrong. Because my employees don't work for Speaker 
Pelosi. They don't work for Speaker McCarthy. They work for the 
citizens of North Dakota. Can they ban them from the building?
    I am an ex-defense attorney. I very much would hire a 
convicted felon who has gone through that process. He is going 
to flag on a background check.
    Are they doing it to the press? They get badges.
    I mean, the question isn't about concerning and protecting 
this building. The question is about this Committee being 
involved in making those final decisions.
    Mr. Morelle. I see. Okay. You are not arguing one way or 
the other about which techniques----
    Mr. Armstrong. Oh, I have very----
    Mr. Morelle. I know you--yes.
    Mr. Armstrong. I have very strict--I have very significant 
personal opinions----
    Mr. Morelle. I am sure you do.
    Mr. Armstrong [continuing]. which may be in the minority on 
some issues.
    Mr. Morelle. Your argument here is that the Committee ought 
to have a more robust process as you are determining what that 
balance is appropriately.
    Mr. Armstrong. I think domestic intelligence gathering in 
general is a very dangerous path to go down. When your stated 
message from law enforcement--and I don't care if they work for 
Ms. Tlaib or Mr. Armstrong or whoever--when your stated 
position is we are going to check their social medic accounts 
to see if employees have lost their way, that should be very 
scary. I mean, there is a reason we very strictly define things 
for criminal activity. That is very ambiguous depending on the 
lens through which you are reading it.
    Mr. Morelle. Got you. No, I appreciate that very much.
    Ms. Tlaib, first of all, you point out something I think 
all Americans face, not just our district office employees, and 
I know you and I would see eye to eye on this, that the 
challenge--particularly for women, because, let's face it, even 
in our very progressive, advanced society women are still 
primary caregivers for children across the country--that having 
women back in the workforce, protecting them, allowing them the 
opportunity to advance in their careers is still a problem when 
it comes to the cost of childcare.
    I don't know if you want to comment further, but I think 
this is----
    Ms. Tlaib. No, I think, for me, my goal is to make sure 
that you all apply it equitably. Again, I had no idea that our 
district staff had no access to childcare. Even the childcare 
program that is here, which is much more affordable and 
everything, there is a 2-year waiting list. It is broken. I 
know that.
    The fact that my district-based staff didn't have any sort 
of access to some sort of assistance, especially because we 
know that we did the student loan program primarily because 
retention and it was very hard. We are not a corporation. I 
know we don't have that kind of resource and stuff and we have 
to be careful with the public tax dollar.
    I think for our families, they do want consistency in 
services, they do want to build out. I want our staff to be 
able to stay longer with us as they grow their family. I really 
think it has become a challenge when our district staff, again, 
is not offered the same kind of benefits. I just think it is 
unfair.
    Mr. Morelle. Got you. It is more about the equitable 
treatment of Washington versus our district office personnel. I 
appreciate that.
    With that, I will yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields 
back.
    Mr. D'Esposito, did you have a question you wanted to ask?
    Mr. D'Esposito. Not so much a question, but more of a 
comment regarding Mr. Armstrong's testimony.
    I think what is important is that since this Committee has 
been put together and we have had our opportunity to meet as a 
caucus, one of the things that is a priority is to make sure 
that any sort of politicization of the Capitol Police is 
removed from what is going on, on this Hill. I think that there 
is a good step in the right direction.
    As someone who has worn the uniform, as someone who has 
responded to those calls, something that is very important is 
when you respond to a 911 call or you are called to help 
someone, no one ever asks whether you are--what political party 
you are from. That should not only be in the street, but it 
should be here on Capitol Hill.
    I know that I am going to do my best to work to make sure 
that this Committee is a part of every decision that is made 
and to remove any politics from the Capitol Police.
    Chairman Steil. Yield back. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Griffith, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Bucshon, would you have any objection if we tinkered 
with your bill a little bit and took the President out of it?
    One of the things that I am anxious to do is to start 
recognizing Congress has certain prerogatives. It doesn't 
matter who the President is, somebody on our side, I am not 
sure what that formula ought to be, but somebody on the 
legislative branch side ought to be picking all of these people 
who work for the legislature in the end.
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes, obviously, I want to bring more 
accountability to the office. I did work with Rodney last 
Congress and this what is we came up with. This is a starting 
point, not an end. Absolutely I want us to work together.
    It actually benefits the Office of the Attending 
Physician--I talked to Dr. Monahan--that it puts them in a 
better place, because they don't have the feeling that there is 
any political influence on their decision making as a physician 
and the advice that they give.
    I am absolutely open to whatever this Committee thinks will 
work and that we can get across the finish line to accomplish 
those goals.
    Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that.
    Congresswoman Tlaib, if you can help me out, because I am 
probably doing something wrong. We have childcare in my office 
for the folks but we don't pay for it. They pay for it 
themselves. The House has the childcare available but we pay 
for it--but we don't pay for it in our office. Is that 
something I am----
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes, it is just an affordable option. We do--I 
believe we do offer.
    Mr. Griffith. Okay.
    Ms. Tlaib. It is much, much more affordable, according to 
my D.C.-based staff.
    It is available. They do pay for it themselves, but it is 
at a lower rate, sir.
    Mr. Griffith. Okay. I just want to look into that, because 
I agree we should have options for our staffs back home.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
    Mr. Griffith. In some areas there might not even be 
adequate childcare available, and that is always an issue, 
particularly in rural areas like I represent. Alright.
    Mr. Armstrong--if I might continue, Mr. Chairman, I am 
going on a roll.
    First, let me say I like your concept. We will have to take 
a look at it. I am actually one who has had on the payroll a 
convicted felon in the past. If they have paid their time and 
they are doing right in society today, that doesn't cause me a 
great concern.
    It does cause me some concern that somebody might be 
flagging them and what is my role. If they find something and I 
haven't been told about it, that is one issue. How deep are 
they diving? As you said, isn't that my job as the person who 
is actually hiring them?
    Would you like to respond to that?
    Mr. Armstrong. That was my question with the original thing 
anyway, is I didn't know what the remedy was, what the due 
process was. I mean, I generally don't like domestic spying in 
general. I think we should all be in that case. Take it away 
from that side of it.
    I am not--a policy change from intelligence leadership or 
Capitol Police leadership----
    Chairman Steil. Will the gentleman check if his microphone 
is on?
    Mr. Armstrong. Oh, sorry. Okay.
    Chairman Steil. We can hear you clearly, but I don't know 
there are others who may not be able to.
    Mr. Armstrong. When you are making a drastic change about 
anybody who has an employee card that gets into this building 
about what you are going to require and do all of those things, 
you should probably lay out how that works after you find 
something. Like, again, they can't fire my employee but could 
they bar them from the building?
    Every member of the press, conservative press, liberal 
press, print press, TV press, has a badge.
    There is just, without real significant guidelines in place 
for how that happens, just the opportunity for abuse exists. I 
am not sure what the remedy would have been to begin with. I 
mean, I get an MRA. I get to spend it how I want. I get to hire 
who I want. My LD can't do the job if he is barred from coming 
into the building because of a background check. Nothing of 
that was ever laid out, and that is a real problem.
    Mr. Griffith. Anything else you want to add at this time? 
Alright.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
    I appreciate all of our panelists here.
    I just have a quick question and maybe a comment.
    In regards to Ms. Tlaib, to what is really an important 
issue: How do we make sure people have availability for 
childcare?
    The D.C. campus is a shared expense where it is subsidized 
by the House, and Members who utilize that service or staff who 
utilize that service for their children are also paying in, in 
a structure that I think you correctly identify as an issue as 
we think about staff who are at each of our respective homes, 
me, Wisconsin, you, Michigan.
    Mr. Bucshon, we are going to definitely be looking into the 
issue that you brought up about how some of these appointments 
are made. That was really crystallized I think on this 
Committee's work on our oversight of the Architect of the 
Capitol, which is a very complicated process for that 
appointment. It is something I think we need to work with our 
colleagues in the Senate to reestablish the authority of 
Article I, which I know is dear to Mr. Griffith's heart as 
well.
    Then, finally, if I could just ask a very brief question of 
you, Mr. Armstrong. Could you just comment on how we should be 
thinking in this Committee, when we are doing our oversight 
over the Capitol Police Board, the Capitol Police structure, 
depoliticizing, as Mr. D'Esposito said, how do we--how should 
we be thinking about protecting due process rights for 
individuals, either staff or individuals who want to visit the 
Capitol campus?
    Mr. Armstrong. The first answer to that is recognize that 
they have a tough job. This is a tough place to secure. This is 
a tough place to secure on a random Wednesday. They are going 
to bring you proposals--you are lucky you have law enforcement 
on your Committee--that from their perspective work.
    The single best way to do it, whether it is in an open 
forum or a robust forum, is that you have to be involved in the 
final decision. It is every elected Member on this Committee's 
job to weigh the balance of absolute security for access to 
redress your grievances with your government.
    If they are making decision--and then my personal request 
to each and every one of you, if you are making a force change 
posture, if you are making any of those things, background 
check, security, any of those things, make sure you clearly 
delineate out what the process is if that is picked, because 
that is one thing law enforcement--I mean, they are not the 
prosecutor. They are not the defense attorney. They are not the 
judge. Their job is to protect us, our staff, and the people 
who come here. It is your job to figure out how do you deal 
with that next.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much. I couldn't agree more 
that we should be more involved in our oversight role as it 
relates to a whole host of agencies, including Capitol Police. 
Appreciate your testimony today.
    We will pause while the next panel comes in and assembles.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Steil. We thank the Members for joining us here 
today for an opportunity to hear from our colleagues on the 
work that we do here on this Committee.
    We are going give each Member of our witness panel here 5 
minutes for opening statements, and then we will open it up to 
Members of the Committee to question our witnesses. We are 
going to go from my left to the right, starting with Ms. 
Pramila Jayapal.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. PRAMILA JAYAPAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much, Chairman Steil, Ranking 
Member Morelle, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today.
    I would like to address the ethics problems created when 
Members of Congress own or trade individual stocks.
    Eleven years ago, President Obama signed the Stop Trading 
on Congressional Knowledge, or the STOCK Act, into law. The 
STOCK Act clarified that Members of Congress were liable under 
existing insider trading law and required disclosures for any 
securities transactions.
    While this law created more transparency and scrutiny over 
Members of Congress who practice dubious trading techniques, 
lawmakers and their spouses can still purchase and sell stock 
in corporations that they are responsible for regulating.
    Last year, an investigation revealed countless violations 
of the STOCK Act. Despite these violations, government 
officials suffered few fines or penalties for their misconduct.
    Even more concerning, the fines and penalties that were 
enforced served as little deterrent to the future violations of 
the law. For example, the penalty for violation of the 
disclosure provisions in the STOCK Act is at minimum $200. 
Compared to the significant profits that Members may make from 
a conflicted asset, this penalty is a drop in the bucket.
    Last Congress, Congressman Matt Rosendale and I introduced 
the Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act, with 
Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Steve Daines leading in 
the Senate. I look forward to reintroducing this bill with my 
colleague Matt Rosendale and also Congressman Ken Buck.
    This bipartisan, bicameral bill bans Members of Congress 
and their spouses from owning and trading individual stocks, 
bonds, commodities, futures, and other securities.
    Our bill also has exceptions. It does not ban common, 
widely held investments that do not present a conflict of 
interest and are suitably diversified. The bill gives Members 
180 days to come into compliance after its enactment, with a 5-
year deadline for complex assets such as hedge funds or venture 
capital funds.
    The Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act is 
distinct from several existing proposals because it does not 
allow for the creation of qualified blind trusts.
    While blind trusts are well-intentioned, they are often not 
truly blind. In fact, blind trusts may be known or easily 
discovered by their grantor. For example, if a Member holds 
millions of dollars in stock of one corporation and this stock 
is placed into a qualified blind trust, they can be reasonably 
confident that they don't own alternative stock for an extended 
period.
    To ensure that Members do not pose such conflicts of 
interest during their public service, full divestment is 
necessary. As full divestment is a big sacrifice--we recognize 
that--our bill permits the deferral of taxation on capital 
gains on investments that Members and spouses divest under its 
authority.
    There are several proposals in the House and Senate to 
address stock ownership in Congress, and what is good about 
that is many of these are bipartisan proposals and it is an 
issue that Members, both Democrats and Republicans, are 
passionate about.
    That is why I am proud to have this bipartisan bill and 
also to be working with other Members who also have strong 
bipartisan bills to put together what could be the strongest 
proposal that we can do.
    As long as Members of Congress are allowed to hold and 
trade stocks, the door to corruption remains open, and we lose 
credibility with our constituents who are relying on us to make 
sure that we are doing what is in their best interest, not in 
ours.
    The American people widely support a stock ownership 
legislation across partisan lines, and they are calling on 
Congress to act. I hope that in this session we will be able to 
finally pass a bipartisan proposal to address congressional 
stock ownership.
    I remain available for any questions.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jayapal follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Ms. Jayapal.
    Ms. Tenney, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLAUDIA TENNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Ms. Tenney. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Steil and 
Ranking Member Morelle and the House Administration Committee, 
for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today.
    I serve as co-Chair of the House Election Integrity Caucus. 
Our caucus was founded after the 2020 election and currently 
has almost 70 members. The Election Integrity Caucus is driving 
commonsense policy solutions that restore faith in the 
democratic process and improve the administration of elections.
    Today, I want to discuss two of these proposed solutions.
    First, we recently introduced a resolution calling for an 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit individuals who 
are not citizens of the United States from voting in federal, 
state, and local elections.
    Multiple jurisdictions around the nation, including New 
York City, San Francisco, Vermont, and the District of 
Columbia, have attempted to water down our sacred right of 
citizenship by extending the right to vote to noncitizens. It 
is time to restore confidence in our elections and rebuild 
faith in our self-governing constitutional republic by making 
it explicit that only American citizens are permitted to vote 
in U.S. elections. This includes local, state, and federal 
elections.
    Second, the Members of the House Election Integrity Caucus 
are renewing our push to federally ban what are known as 
``Zuckerbucks.''
    As you know, Mark Zuckerberg was able to spend nearly $300 
million influencing election officials around the country in 
2020. In a surprise to no one, 92 percent of Zuckerberg's money 
went to Democratic districts where it was used to boost 
turnout, register voters, and enhance ballot harvesting 
operations.
    In the 117th Congress, the Election Integrity Caucus led 
the charge to ban Zuckerbucks and successfully pressured the 
Facebook CEO to end his blatant electioneering in the 2022 
midterms.
    We are not stopping our fight, because shady groups are not 
stopping theirs. Last month, DeKalb County, Georgia, accepted a 
$2 million election grant despite a statewide ban on such 
donations.
    Without a federal ban, left-wing groups and others will 
continue trying to buy off our election officials and unfairly 
influence the process. Our End Zuckerbucks Act amends Section 
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code to stop shady nonprofit 
organizations from providing direct funding to official 
election organizations. This includes any state, local 
government entity or any government election organization.
    Big tech giants should not be able to bypass state 
legislatures and directly shape the policies of the boards of 
election or election administrators. Our bill closes this 
loophole that left-wing and some other nonprofits are using to 
exercise inappropriate and corrupt influence over our 
elections.
    Thank you once again for the opportunity to discuss these 
important issues with you.
    I am grateful to your leadership, Chairman Steil and I look 
forward to continuing the partnership between the Election 
Integrity Caucus and the House Administration Committee.
    Thank you so much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Tenney follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Ms. Tenney and thank 
you for your work on this important issue.
    Ms. Spanberger, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, A 
     REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Chair Steil, Ranking Member 
Morelle, and Members of the House Administration Committee, for 
providing us with the opportunity to testify today and for 
providing me with the opportunity to testify on a matter that 
is foundational to our responsibility of representing the 
American people--and that issue is trust.
    Last April, many of you in this room heard directly from 
experts on the need for reforms that can rebuild this trust. At 
that hearing, Mr. Chairman, I believe you highlighted in your 
statement that it is important to, quote, ``provide confidence 
to the American people and that we avoid the appearance of an 
impropriety''--and I couldn't agree more.
    Members of Congress, both those who sit on this Committee 
as well as those who are elsewhere in the Halls of Congress, 
have access to privileged information not generally available 
to the public. That is the nature of our jobs, and that is the 
trust that is afforded to us.
    Every day we attend closed-door briefings, sometimes 
classified briefings, we hold special hearings, and we 
participate in private meetings, often with CEOs of publicly 
traded companies.
    We, the people's elected officials, have access to 
information that can move markets. We, those who have been sent 
to Washington, DC, to represent our constituents, are expected 
to use this information to make smart decisions, not to benefit 
our personal financial portfolios.
    However, trust has broken down, and major contributors to 
this breakdown include the perception of conflicts of interest, 
the never-ending parade of suspiciously timed trades, and 
Congress' refusal to put guardrails on our own ability to buy 
and sell stocks while in office.
    Ten years ago, Congress passed the STOCK Act. This law was 
meant to prevent lawmakers from using private information for 
their personal benefit. It was intended to build back trust.
    While the STOCK Act has increased transparency and put in 
place an ethical standard by which Members should hold 
themselves accountable, its ultimate goal has not yet been met. 
The STOCK Act has not erased unethical or questionable 
activity, nor has it erased the public's perception of such 
activity.
    Instead, we find ourselves in familiar territory. Congress 
has an abysmal approval rating. Trust is at an all-time low. I 
consistently hear from frustrated citizens across Virginia and 
the country who are far from surprised when yet another 
headline pops up in the news about a politician using their 
position in a committee or their access to information for 
personal gain.
    Unfortunately, these reports of suspicious trades by our 
colleagues are nothing new. After the Great Recession, we saw 
trades that caused enough consternation among the American 
public that it finally forced Congress to pass the STOCK Act.
    Yet the STOCK Act has not gone far enough, and we need to 
accept that the STOCK Act has not yet achieved its mission. The 
law expects that Members of Congress will police themselves, 
but that has not yet worked.
    During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we heard a 
familiar refrain. Reporting showed Members buying and selling 
stocks of companies that made cleaning supplies, medical 
equipment, and pharmaceuticals, long before most of the public 
was aware of the coronavirus' severity.
    These violations of trust were not constrained to either 
party. Lawmakers on both sides of the law were repeat 
offenders.
    To think that at the start of a once-in-a-generation global 
pandemic, lawmakers found time in their schedules to buy and 
sell stocks? This is the issue at hand.
    They made these transactions at the expense of doing their 
jobs--at least that is how the public perceives it.
    They bought and sold these stocks instead of preparing for 
the pandemic--at least that is how the public sees it.
    They used their time with their often-precious and jam-
packed schedules to make a dollar, to call in a trade, rather 
than update their constituents, check on their local healthcare 
providers, or seek more resources for nursing homes--that is 
how so many constituents perceive it.
    Since 2020, report after report has highlighted Members 
buying and selling stocks in companies with whom they met. 
Reports have made very clear that lawmakers routinely vote on 
legislation that will impact their individual stock portfolios 
in a profitable way.
    That is why we must hold ourselves accountable and show the 
American people that we are working for them. That is why our 
bipartisan TRUST in Congress Act can and will make a 
difference.
    The TRUST in Congress Act would require that Members of 
Congress, as well as their spouses and dependent children, 
either divest their assets completely, place their assets in a 
widely held diversified fund, like mutual funds or ETFs, or 
place them into a qualified blind trust. These assets would 
stay in a blind trust for the entirety of their tenure on 
Capitol Hill,
    My colleague Congressman Chip Roy of Texas and I introduced 
this bill in 2020 after hearing about these reports that I 
mentioned. The TRUST in Congress Act is the most bipartisan 
bill tackling this issue. It has more than 50 cosponsors thus 
far this Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. There is 
strong enthusiasm across the political spectrum and at home.
    This January was the third time we introduced this bill, 
and I do hope it is the last. Representative Roy and I are 
hopeful to have honest, fruitful, and effective conversations 
about how we can move this legislation forward and restore the 
trust that people should have in Congress.
    I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Spanberger follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Ms. Spanberger.
    Mr. Chip Roy, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

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

    Mr. Roy. Thank the Chairman, thank the Ranking Member, 
thank the Committee for your time. Glad to be here with my 
friend, the gentlelady from Virginia, Abigail. I appreciate it. 
We have now done this for three Congresses, and I think it is 
important.
    I don't come here saying that I think I have got all the 
answers or that I know exactly what we should do or shouldn't 
do. It is hard.
    Here is the simple thing: We don't want to be projecting to 
the American people that we are somehow making decisions, when 
we are doing our job here, that is connected to our own profit, 
our own personal financial stake.
    I think the transparency that was embraced a decade ago was 
a step in the right direction so that people can understand.
    We also, as going through all this, know the burdens that 
go with that and so forth. We know that when you have Members 
coming into Congress, if they have to divest themselves 
entirely of their life's work, dump their equities between 
November election and January 3, that may not attract a whole 
lot of people to want to come serve in Congress.
    We have got to find a way to do this that recognizes the 
reality that if you are trading equities in the middle of while 
you are doing your job, that raises certain questions, it just 
does, if I am sitting on the Judiciary Committee and we have 
got an antitrust bill before us to break up Google, or to 
debate the size and scope and power of Big Tech, or if we are 
having conversations and somebody has a big position in Tesla 
and they are advancing EV mandates and that we should be 
investing in batteries, or if you are a Texan and have 
significant ownership in oil and gas and that might raise 
certain flags.
    I do and have had. My wife's family, grandfather, worked 
for Phillips Petroleum in Phillips, Texas, just up there north 
of Amarillo.
    The reality is we have got to send a signal to the country 
that we are not profiteering--or, the other side of this that 
people don't talk about very often, we are not actually making 
decisions on policy because of our position and choosing to 
take a walk on some policy choice or engage in some policy 
choice because of some position that we might have financially.
    I think this is something that we should take up, but I 
think it should be one of those where we are sitting at a 
roundtable and we figure out how to do this the right way. 
Because I have talked to people. We embraced the idea of 
broadly traded mutual funds is a good place to land, blind 
trust.
    I have had several Members come up to me and go, ``Well, I 
tried to look into a blind trust because I wanted to send a 
signal that I was not doing something I shouldn't be doing, and 
it is really complex and hard.''
    Well, maybe we could simplify that. Maybe we can come up 
with a structure that makes it work so that you can take your 
life's work, move it over here, and have true blindness, to the 
gentlelady's point earlier.
    What I think we have got to do, though, is address it. This 
can't be one of those things that we just kind of walk along 
and avoid it. Let's sit down, figure out how we are going to do 
it, and do it in a way that the American people actually 
believe that we are doing it for their best interest and not 
just to score political points. This isn't just to say, ``Oh, 
look at us, we have got a big win that we have cleaned up 
Congress finally.''
    We need to do something here that just sends a signal that 
we get it, we shouldn't be day trading while we are voting on 
the crap that our day trading is affected by.
    With that, I will yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Roy follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Roy.
    We are now going to take names. We are going to go throw 
people into a queue, do it a little bit informally, and jump 
around.
    I am really excited about this topic and appreciate the 
work that you are both doing in this space. I think one of the 
big concerns is sometimes the appearance of impropriety that 
exists amongst the American public.
    One of my goals and commitments here is to restore trust, 
accountability, transparency to the American people about how 
Congress is operating, and that includes that appearance of 
impropriety that I think can exist.
    In your research on this bill and in this space, do you 
think that we need a solution that is broader than just Members 
of Congress in the House and the Senate, that we should also be 
looking at the executive branch as well? Or do you think that 
the focus should remain mostly here between Members and 
Senators?
    Mr. Roy. Do you want to?
    Ms. Spanberger. I will go first on this.
    I want to have broad ethics reforms for everyone. That 
would be an ultimate goal.
    Chip and I have chosen to focus our legislation on 
Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, because, 
quite literally, we need to get our own house in order.
    Notably, the executive branch has really strong and in some 
case very similar requirements related to divestiture for many 
executive branch employees, which I think can serve as an 
important model.
    Broadly speaking, I support the notion and the principle of 
expanding this across branches of government, but I think that 
we have a responsibility to get it right with us. We wanted to 
be focused in creation of our legislation and so focused it on 
Congress, on the legislative branch, but I have no opposition 
to expanding it more broadly.
    The intent here is to really get it right. The judicial 
branch versus the executive branch versus the legislative 
branch, understandably, we have different priorities. We are 
the one taking votes and moving markets. It does seem that we 
should be addressing that issue. We are the ones who get people 
to elect us and deserve that trust.
    Mr. Roy. I would answer it in general agreement. Probably a 
little bit more aggressively in the view of we should apply 
this to the coequal branches because every opinion the Court 
hears is touching on these issues. Every one of the, frankly, 
to my political philosophical chagrin, the executive branch has 
a whole heck of a lot to do with the regulatory state and 
impacting business maybe in ways that none of us have the power 
directly. I mean, there are individuals who work for agencies 
who have significantly more power than any one of us do.
    I think we should absolutely be looking at that across the 
board. I cosponsored legislation with Senator Cornyn--or I did 
the companion--applying to the judiciary the same kind of 
transparency that we had in Congress. I think we ought to be 
figuring out how to treat the branches equally.
    Chairman Steil. I tend to agree with you that I think this 
is broader. I think one of the areas I think we are also going 
to have to explore is what I would call senior staff as it 
relates to that. As we know, some of those folks are as equally 
involved in the decisionmaking process as some rank-and-file 
Members here.
    I think we have some great examples of where things have 
been done correctly. We see that in some of the executive 
branch agencies where there are some IRS tax treatments that 
allow Members to be able to escape from some of their previous 
investments when they come into Congress so that they will 
remove that appearance of impropriety, one of the things we are 
going to work on this Congress.
    I appreciate your time.
    I am going to yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle. 
Again, if Members want to get in the queue, just signal to me.
    Mr. Morelle.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank the 
witnesses for being here.
    I went through this personally. Near the end of my first 
term, I decided--I didn't have a lot of stock. I was a public 
official for far too long, I am sure, to gain much. Sold 
everything, put it into exchange-traded funds and mutual funds.
    I assume neither of you object to those kinds of broader 
vehicles to invest in?
    Mr. Roy. No. In fact, the legislation contemplates exactly 
that.
    Mr. Morelle. Yes.
    I would say this, and I think, as the Chairman said, I tend 
to agree that something shouldn't be done unilaterally within 
one branch of the government. I really do think that the genius 
of the Founders in creating three separate branches means that 
each has significant power and authority to regulate the 
activity of American enterprise, commerce, all things that we 
do. If we are going to apply this, it seems to me it ought to 
apply equally to all the people who help make decisions and 
govern the country.
    A couple things that I would just note, and perhaps you 
meant this when you referenced tax treatment. If Members come 
in and are required to sell equities and have to pay 
significant capital gains, there ought to be, I think, ways to 
adjust. I know I did when I sold everything. The tax bill was 
significant. It didn't give me pause, I did it anyway, but, I 
mean, that is like an additional, almost like a penalty 
required.
    I don't know if either of you want to comment on that.
    Mr. Roy. If I could address that, Ranking Member.
    I agree. That is one of those things that I think we have 
got to work through, that you don't want to make it a 
disincentive for someone to serve. It is like, ``Okay, well, I 
have worked up a life and I am going to have to liquidate all 
these, take a tax hit.'' They may not be able to do that. I 
think there are ways we can address that and we should. That is 
what we need to thoughtfully do.
    I would make one other point. You talked about your course 
of action. My course of action, probably rather stupidly, has 
been I have just sat on what I had, which was fairly modest in 
the grand scheme of the world, since I have come in. It is just 
sitting there. Whatever handful of equities I owned I haven't 
sold. That is not a great financial strategy. They are 
literally just sitting there.
    Mr. Morelle. I am not a financial adviser, but I agree with 
you, that doesn't sound like the best financial----
    Mr. Roy. Right. My point is, in part because I didn't want 
to, especially once we were going down this path, look like I 
was trying to game the system at all.
    I will give you one other example. There was a pipeline 
company that was running a pipeline through my district in the 
Texas Hill Country. I was chastising them for running the 
pipeline under two rivers that are west of Austin.
    I sought counsel from Ethics and I said, ``Alright, I am 
about to rip into these guys and I hold equity in this pipeline 
company that I had before I ran for Congress. If I sell that 
now, what does that look like?'' They advised, ``You may not 
want to sell that now, because you are publicly beating the 
snot out of them for running this pipeline under the river.''
    That just shows you the world we operate in, and we ought 
to figure out a way to avoid that if we can.
    Mr. Morelle. Well, I agree. It is interesting you said 
that. In my prior life, I was in the New York state Legislature 
and owned some health insurance stocks and then was named the 
Chairman of the Insurance Committee. I said to my adviser or 
broker, whatever, financial adviser, please do not buy any 
more, do not sell any more. It felt awkward still to own it.
    I do like, I mean, the notion of divesting, but to think 
about the tax implications so we are not unduly
    [inaudible].
    The last comment I would make too is, particularly when it 
is service of your senior staff members, if we are going to ask 
people to sacrifice to come into government to play a role that 
benefits society, I think we have to compensate people well 
enough to justify at least giving back some of the sacrifice 
they are going to have to make.
    That is why I think even around, I think for us, around 
compensation of Members, et cetera. I know people don't like to 
touch the subject and no one is clamoring in the public for 
Members of Congress to be making more money.
    I do think you will have a hard time attracting quality 
candidates if they know, first of all, compensation hasn't 
changed in, I don't know, a decade or more, and you will be 
divesting your financial investments for the opportunity to 
serve here.
    It is a privilege, but I think we all collectively need to 
think about how to balance those interests so we can continue 
to attract quality people who wish to serve not only in 
Congress but on staff and in senior positions throughout the 
government.
    I won't ask you to comment. That is just my opinion.
    I will yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I will comment to say--and understand, none of us 
ever want to touch that subject. It is curious to me that we go 
through this, and we have got the constitutional amendment--
which has an extremely interesting history tied, by the way, to 
a Ph.D. student at the University of Texas in Austin, about how 
that amendment got adopted in the 1990's. I actually think it 
is a good amendment. I actually think it is a good thing that 
you can't affect your existing salary in the current Congress.
    We vote all the time on salary increases for judges, for 
executive branch officials, and yet, we are in this kind of 
infinite do loop here as a political matter.
    It seems to me that, looking across the entirety of the 
three branches, in my belief, if you are truly looking at the 
branches equally, then we need to think about that, and we need 
to think about how all of those rules and how compensation and 
stuff plays into that.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Griffith.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much.
    I do like the idea of spreading it across other areas. We 
have all heard of executives in the--people in the executive 
branch who got paid pretty good salaries, had important 
positions, were in a place to influence contracts being let, 
and sometimes sole source, and making millions in the private 
sector as well.
    That creates a concern. I have heard it from my 
constituents, who don't normally pay attention to those things. 
They don't like that.
    On the other side of that coin, not being a person who grew 
up with means and not having lots of equities, as I often joke 
with my constituents, I sold all of mine and got my $6,000 and 
reinvested it elsewhere. My tax bill wasn't too high, because 
it wasn't much to start with.
    I do have a small community swimming pool that we purchased 
to save it from being condoed 30 years ago. While I am not on 
the board, I am obviously very interested in what goes on 
there. I grew up there and about 25 of us bought it.
    Do you all have some kind of a de minimus or a small, 
closely held exception? Because, obviously, I am going to want 
to be involved. I go there almost every day in the summer when 
I am not traveling or up here. Obviously, I am involved in 
that.
    Like I said, there were about 25 of us that got together, 
purchased it out of distress, saved it from being condoed, and 
it is still there serving the community. Some years we make 
money, but most years we don't.
    Mr. Roy. I mean, I would defer. I don't think there is a 
specific de minimus exception, but there certainly should be or 
we certainly should have that conversation. There is always in 
this conversation the what ownership do you have in a business 
that you created and then who owns that and all that. I just 
think we got to look at the whole corpus of that.
    Surely, what you are just describing, those are the kinds 
of things that the goal is to exempt, because you are not 
trading on that.
    Ms. Spanberger. Yes. Our bill touches publicly traded 
individual stocks. If you cannot take a vote that would move 
the value of your community swimming pool--and to my dear 
colleague from the Commonwealth, I would argue that you likely 
can't--that may be something that would go on your financial 
disclosures, because under the STOCK Act----
    Mr. Griffith. It is on there, right.
    Ms. Spanberger [continuing]. people should know that you 
have interest in that, but that is not something that you could 
say, ``Oh, the community swimming pool industry is going to go 
under, let me get out of that really quickly, because I am 
ahead of that loss.''
    Because it is not a publicly traded stock, it would not be 
part of our legislation, but it would still fall under the 
STOCK Act and transparency.
    Mr. Griffith. Some of the stock trades from time to time, 
but it is not publicly traded. It is usually a discussion 
amongst the people who currently own it and the people who are 
currently members of the pool.
    Mr. Roy. A big, big profit center, is it?
    Mr. Griffith. Not large, but--a moment of personal 
privilege, Mr. Chairman.
    I did that when I didn't have kids, and then years later I 
had kids. They have grown up there. They work there. Best 
investment I ever made. I didn't make any money, but I got a 
lot of memories for myself, but particularly for my children, 
who all grew up there, and a big part of their childhood is 
that pool.
    Mr. Roy. That is fantastic.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back?
    Mr. Griffith. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. Mr. Murphy, did you want to be heard?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir. Thank you. I will make this brief.
    I will tell you, there were at least two individuals in the 
last Congress that blatantly sold stocks right before the CHIPS 
Act and made millions. Why this wasn't taken up in the last 
Congress is beyond me. We know who those individuals are, and 
that nonsense doesn't need to happen again.
    I will tell you, temptation is real. I read about COVID, 
and I still read lots of medical literature about the second 
week in February in the journal Nature. It raised just a big 
red flag. I made a bunch of phone calls and I thought to 
myself, ``Boy, this is going to be something.'' I literally 
thought to myself, ``Well, gosh, the market is going to tank, I 
need to sell this stuff.''
    Then literally, thank God, I took my pulse. I literally did 
just the opposite. I called Vanguard--and I had already been 
managing mutual funds--and I handed it over to them.
    I think that is really, honestly, what we need to do and I 
will just give an example for that. Obviously, any fund that 
you need.
    It it is an absolute blight on Congress that we have 
individuals who are taking advantage of our positions of 
leadership and knowledge for personal gain.
    I applaud you guys. I just ask my chief to get on the bill. 
I am going to encourage our leadership as much as possible to 
get this bill passed. It should have been passed last session.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Steil. Appreciate all of our panelists, in 
particular, I think, on this really important topic. It is 
something this Committee is going to review, because I think we 
have an opportunity to do the work to get it right, to make it 
a nonpartisan event, and to work to continue to restore the 
trust and integrity of this institution for the American 
people.
    I appreciate your testimony today. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you.
    Chairman Steil. This Committee, we are going to gavel out, 
take a 5-minute break, and gavel back in.
    Without objection, each Member, including our witnesses, 
have 5 legislative days to insert additional material into the 
record or to revise and extend their remarks.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	

    If there is no further business, I think----
    Mr. Morelle. May I just--I just want to thank you, if it is 
Okay.
    Chairman Steil. Please.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you and the Members and the witnesses. 
This was really an important conversation, the first time I 
have had the privilege on this Committee of having a Members 
conversation.
    I thought the comments on both sides were very thoughtful. 
These are important issues. Obviously, the work of this 
Committee will continue, because Congress is always going to be 
meeting new challenges.
    I just want to thank you and my colleagues. I thought this 
was a very fruitful conversation.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. I thank the Ranking Member. I think it was 
a productive conversation. I think it really sets us up for 
some great opportunities to find some nonpartisan solutions 
here on Capitol Hill and to advance this institution.
    If there is no further business, I thank the Members for 
their participation.
    Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
  

                                  [all]