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







                    THE BIDEN - HARRIS BORDER CRISIS:
                           NONCITIZEN VOTING

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-96

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary






    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]









               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
56-763                    WASHINGTON : 2024 
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
MATT GAETZ, Florida                      Member
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Georgia
CHIP ROY, Texas                      ADAM SCHIFF, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           J. LUIS CORREA, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             ERIC SWALWELL, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          TED LIEU, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida                  Vacancy
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio

                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                         CHIP ROY, Texas, Chair

TOM McCLINTOCK, California           MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, 
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina               Ranking Member
KEVIN KILEY, California              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   CORI BUSH, Missouri
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          BECCA BALINT, Vermont
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        Vacancy

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
         AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff 
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                      Tuesday, September 10, 2024

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
The Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Texas....     1
The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the 
  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from 
  the State of Pennsylvania......................................     3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     6

                               WITNESSES

Cord Byrd, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State
  Oral Testimony.................................................     9
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    12
Rosemary Jenks, Immigration Accountability Project
  Oral Testimony.................................................    14
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    16
Cleta Mitchell, Founder, Election Integrity Network
  Oral Testimony.................................................    23
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    25
Andrea E. Senteno, Regional Counsel, Mexican American Legal 
  Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
  Oral Testimony.................................................    37
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    39

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
  and Limited Government, for the record.........................    61

Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking 
  Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited 
  Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
    An article entitled, ``Republicans Seize on False Theories 
        About Immigrant Voting,'' Sept. 5, 2024, The New York 
        Times
    An article entitled, ``Cleta Mitchell, Trump push false 
        claims of noncitizen voting,'' Mar. 13, 2024, NPR
    An article entitled, ``False claims about noncitizens voting 
        are having a real impact,'' Aug. 30, 2024, NPR
    An article entitled, ``Elon Musk's misleading election claims 
        reach millions and alarm election officials,'' Sept. 10, 
        2024, The Washington Post
    An article entitled, ``Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive 
        Videos About Noncitizen Voters,'' Sept. 7, 2024, The New 
        York Times
    An article entitled, ``Biden's voter registration executive 
        order is targeted by GOP,'' Jun. 30, 2024, NPR
    A report entitled, ``Noncitizen Voting: The Missing 
        Millions,'' May 5, 2017, Brennan Center for Justice
    An article entitled, ``Top GOP lawyer decries ease of campus 
        voting in private pitch to RNC,'' Apr. 20, 2023, The 
        Washington Post
    An article entitled, ``Rep. Chip Roy says election deniers 
        and Project 2025 contributors helped draft SAVE Act,'' 
        Sept. 4, 2024, Media Matters
    A document entitled, ``Voter Registration List Maintenance: 
        Guidance under Section 8 of the National Voter 
        Registration Act, 52 U.S.C. Sec. 20507,'' Sept. 2024, 
        U.S. Department of Justice

 
                    THE BIDEN-HARRIS BORDER CRISIS:  
                           NONCITIZEN VOTING

                              ----------                              


                      Tuesday, September 10, 2024

                        House of Representatives

        Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:40 p.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Chip Roy 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Roy, McClintock, Bishop, 
Kiley, Hageman, Hunt, Fry, Armstrong, Scanlon, Nadler, and 
Balint.
    Mr. Roy. [Presiding.] The Subcommittee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on 
noncitizen voting.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    I thank our witnesses for being here today.
    Governments derive their just powers from the consent of 
the governed. As Americans, we know that to be the self-evident 
truth listed in the Declaration of Independence. It really was 
something truly unique at the time and in human history.
    We, as American citizens, are not ruled. We govern. The way 
we do that is at the ballot box. President Biden and Kamala 
Harris' border crisis poses a direct threat to this fundamental 
right, and it is intentional.
    Radical progressive Democrats near universal opposition to 
both H.R. 2 and the SAVE Act proves that this is all by design. 
Now, less than two months before the 2024 election, this threat 
could not be more real.
    Last week, I released a 36-page report detailing the scope 
of the border crisis. The report illustrates how the Biden-
Harris open border policies are fundamentally remaking America. 
More specifically, it analyzes how the massive influx of 
illegal aliens under this administration on top of the millions 
of noncitizens already living in the United States could upend 
Federal elections for years to come.
    Since President Biden and Kamala Harris took office, over 
8.5 million illegal aliens have crossed the Southern border; 
5.6 million illegal aliens have been released directly into the 
United States; almost two million illegal aliens that we know 
of have evaded Border Patrol as what are called gotaways. Taken 
together, at least 7.5 million illegal aliens have entered the 
United States since January 2021, and they are living in every 
corner of the country.
    This year, the foreign-born population hit a record of over 
50 million, 15.6 percent of the total population, the highest 
level in U.S. history. Conservative estimates show noncitizens 
make up about 30 million of that population, but it very well 
could be much higher.
    Noncitizens will vote in the 2024 election because our 
system not only makes it easy to do but incentivizes doing so. 
The Biden-
Harris Administration baselessly claims that it is 
extraordinarily rare for noncitizens to illegally vote in 
Federal elections.
    A 2014 study from professors at Old Dominion University and 
George Mason University estimated that 6.4 percent of 
noncitizens, 1.2 million individuals at that time, illegally 
voted in the 2000 election. The study concluded that 
noncitizens very well may have tipped the 2008 Minnesota Senate 
race in Al Franken's favor and drove President Obama's victory 
in North Carolina.
    We can debate the merits of that study, but the point 
remains: It would only take a few thousand noncitizens voting, 
much less than 1.2 million estimated, to impact the outcome of 
our razor-thin elections.
    In the 2020 Presidential election, regardless of what you 
think, Arizona was carried by about 10,000 votes; Georgia by 
about 12,000 votes; Wisconsin by about 20,000 votes, and 
Pennsylvania by 81,000 votes.
    Democrats know this, which is why they try to downplay and 
distract from the issue. The other side also loves to point out 
that, quote, ``It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote.'' 
That is technically true. They fail to mention that the Supreme 
Court's interpretation of the National Voter Registration Act 
of 1993, or the NVRA, literally prohibits States from verifying 
citizenship during the voter registration process. This means 
it is impossible for States to enforce the law on the front 
end.
    Consequently, the primary defense against noncitizens 
registering to vote is a literal box-checking exercise on a 
voter registration form. This is the only barrier the American 
people have to ensuring that only citizens vote.
    Because of the Supreme Court ruling, in Arizona, an 
individual who can prove they are a United States citizen is 
given a full ballot that includes all Federal, State, and local 
elections. Someone who cannot prove they are a United States 
citizens is given a Federal-only ballot, meaning they can vote 
in Presidential, Senate, and Congressional elections. That is 
the upside-down world that we have created.
    As of August 9th, there were over 41,000 Federal-only 
voters in Arizona who could not prove they were U.S. citizens. 
Think about that.
    The absurdity of the NVRA doesn't stop there. It also 
forces States to provide voter registration forms to applicants 
for driver's licenses or welfare benefits. This presents 
multiple opportunities for noncitizens to register to vote. 
Every State in the Union allows noncitizens to get a driver's 
license. Nineteen States and D.C. even allow illegal aliens to 
get a driver's license. Millions of noncitizens, including many 
illegal aliens, are eligible for welfare benefits.
    We know the NVRA is broken because noncitizens are 
registering to vote and voting.
    Since 2021, Texas has removed over 6,500 noncitizens from 
its voter rolls. Over 1,900 had voting histories; since 2022, 
Virginia has removed 6,300 noncitizens from its rolls; Alabama 
removed 3,251 noncitizens from its rolls; and Ohio identified 
597 noncitizens, 138 had voter histories.
    The States that are doing the right thing and removing 
noncitizens from the voter rolls are fighting with one arm tied 
behind their backs because they get almost no help from the 
Federal Government and Democrat-run States appear to have made 
little to no effort to clean their voter rolls of noncitizens.
    I introduced the SAVE Act to ensure that noncitizens, 
whether knowingly or unknowingly, do not take advantage of our 
flawed voter registration system. The bill is a simple bill 
that requires States to obtain proof of citizenship before 
registering an individual to vote in Federal elections.
    A recent poll found that over 80 percent of Americans 
support requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. The 
SAVE Act's proof-of-citizenship requirement will ensure that 
noncitizens do not register to vote, but it is easier for U.S. 
citizens to comply with than driver's license applications in 
States like New York and Pennsylvania.
    The bill also requires every State to identify and remove 
noncitizens on their voter rolls and gives them immediate no-
cost access to Federal resources containing citizenship data to 
do so.
    Finally, it imposes penalties on officials who illegally 
register noncitizens to vote.
    It passed the House in July with five Democrats supporting 
it. Unfortunately, 198 Democrats, including every Democrat on 
this Subcommittee, voted against it.
    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has refused to hold a 
vote on the bill in the Senate, and President Biden even 
threatened to veto it.
    Now, Democrats are threatening to shut down the government 
because they are so vehemently opposed to preventing 
noncitizens from voting.
    So, I ask my Democrat colleagues one simple question: Why? 
The answer is obvious. The colleagues want citizens to 
illegally vote in the 2024 election and future elections, is 
the only reasonable explanation after forcing years of chaos on 
the American people. They believe this will help their election 
prospects and advance their quest to fundamentally remake 
America. As Congress, we have a constitutional and moral 
obligation to ensure that does not happen.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her opening statement.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I would like to begin today by acknowledging that this is 
our first Subcommittee hearing after the passing of our dear 
colleague from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee. Sheila was a fierce, 
fierce advocate for her constituents and an ardent defender of 
American civil rights, particularly voting rights. Her 
contributions to this Subcommittee and to Congress and the 
country will be deeply missed.
    Of course, I wish that she were here today to push back on 
the lies, the innuendo, the half-truths, the speculation which 
form the basis for this hearing.
    This week, less than two months before the Presidential 
election, House Republicans have threatened to shut down the 
government unless the Senate agrees to pass the antivoter bill 
under consideration in this Committee today.
    The SAVE Act would impose unnecessary obstacles on the 
ability of American citizens to register and vote, and would do 
real tangible harm to our democracy by preventing American 
citizens from voting; by causing chaos at election bureaus, and 
by undermining faith in election results.
    This legislation, crafted with the help of election deniers 
and some of the architects of Project 2025, is part and parcel 
with Republicans' ongoing effort to undermine faith in our 
elections and to create unnecessary barriers to casting a vote, 
particularly by suppressing the votes of young Americans, 
communities of color, and language minorities.
    Former President Trump and his allies are once again using 
the same old playbook, spreading a noncitizens voter lie as 
part of a cynical campaign to undermine faith in our election 
systems.
    In 2016, the former President lied when he claimed that 
millions had voted illegally only in the States that he lost. 
They didn't.
    In 2020, he lied about the security and accuracy of mail-in 
ballots and claimed that voter fraud was the reason he lost 
that election. It wasn't.
    Now, he's lying again, this time about noncitizens voting, 
to set the stage to challenge the 2024 election results, if he 
loses.
    The repetition of those lies doesn't make them true, but it 
does make them propaganda. The SAVE Act and this hearing are 
part of that propaganda campaign.
    We've seen time and time again here in Congress and in 
State legislatures across the country that bills combating 
noncitizens voting are really about politics, not policy. These 
bills are not rooted in reality, but are, instead, widely used 
to stoke anti-immigrant fear and hatred.
    Now, they are being used to sow distrust in our elections 
as well. Because contrary to the claims you'll hear today, 
noncitizen voting is extremely rare, and the so-called evidence 
that our colleagues and their witnesses cite has been 
repeatedly discredited with both large-scale studies and even 
basic internet research.
    The lack of a rational or evidentiary basis for this 
legislation is far from the only serious problem with the SAVE 
Act. This bill would be a disaster for eligible American voters 
and lead to the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of 
American citizens.
    We know that bills like the SAVE Act which require onerous 
and unnecessary proof of identity or citizenship to vote, or 
register are more likely to suppress the votes of American 
citizens, especially in communities of color and those with 
many recently naturalized citizens--more likely to do that than 
to prevent the infinitesimally small number of noncitizens who 
might mistakenly cast a ballot.
    We've seen the dangers of these types of laws in the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where I reside, and elsewhere. In 
2012, the Pennsylvania legislature passed an onerous voter ID 
law to combat the equally nonexistent problem of in-person 
voter fraud. That law's requirements would have 
disproportionately burdened low-income, minority, elderly, 
military, and disabled voters. It would have disenfranchised 
over a half million eligible voters who were unable to easily 
obtain the limited forms of ID that were required. Civil rights 
advocates challenged that law on behalf of Pennsylvania voters 
and won.
    Troublingly, the SAVE Act goes even further than that State 
law, including requirements to register for a Federal election 
that would burden every eligible American voter, but especially 
those that don't have ready access to documents like a 
passport, specialized REAL ID, or a birth certificate. It would 
impose additional burdens on already registered voters who 
simply want to change their address or party affiliation.
    It would require States to use unreliable database 
information to verify citizenship, and election officials would 
be charged with purging suspected noncitizens from voter rolls 
in a way that inevitably targets naturalized American citizens 
who are eligible voters. That's something we have already seen 
happen in States like Alabama, Texas, and some of the others 
that the Chair mentioned.
    The SAVE Act, if it were to become law, would take effect 
immediately in the days immediately preceding the 2024 
election--throwing States' voter registration processes into 
chaos. It would provide even more opportunities for extremists 
to waste time and taxpayer dollars with baseless lawsuits and 
frivolous election challenges.
    So, here's the truth: Voters are already required to 
declare they're U.S. citizens under penalty of law. That is 
because every State has prohibited noncitizen voting in Federal 
elections since the 1920s, and it has been a Federal crime for 
nearly 30 years.
    Because it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote and 
register in Federal elections, doing so could result in 
significant jail time and deportation. It defies common sense 
that large numbers of noncitizens would intentionally risk 
these dire consequences to vote.
    Think about this: The criminal act of noncitizen 
registration and voting, by its nature, creates a long paper 
trail of registration forms with addresses; ballots, paper 
ballots, et cetera.
    Every reliable study ever done on this topic has determined 
that noncitizen voting in State and Federal elections is 
vanishingly rare and usually the result of a mistake. One such 
study conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice using data 
from the 2016 election found that, out of 23.5 million votes 
cast in jurisdictions with high noncitizen populations, 
election officials found only 30 votes were cast by suspected, 
but not even proven noncitizens. That's one ten-thousandth of a 
percent of the votes cast.
    So, the facts simply don't justify the hysteria or the 
threat to American citizens' franchise. Even the former Chair 
of this Subcommittee, Speaker Mike Johnson, has admitted that 
claims of noncitizen voting in Federal elections were not 
provable.
    The bottom line is the SAVE Act won't prevent noncitizens 
from voting in U.S. elections because they don't, but it will 
stop Americans from voting, and that's unacceptable.
    Look, the reason we're having this hearing now is that 
Congress must fund the government by September 30th to avoid a 
shutdown. House Republicans have shown by their failure to 
engage in good-faith budget negotiations or pass the number of 
appropriation bills that need to be done they aren't really 
interested in the basic duties of governance, but they do want 
to stay in power and to gain power in the Senate and in the 
White House. That's why they are supporting this voter 
suppression bill instead of working to fund the government over 
the next 20 days.
    So, here we are, holding this farce of a hearing on a 
dangerous bill targeting a nonexistent problem, a bill that has 
already passed the Republican-led House, but is a total 
nonstarter in the Senate. Rather than making it harder for 
American citizens to vote, we should be protecting and 
expanding access to the ballot box by passing bills like the 
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
    It is deeply disappointing that Republicans have chosen, 
instead, to spend this Subcommittee's time appeasing the former 
President and extremist election deniers ahead of November. 
Democrats, however, intend to keep working to ensure that every 
eligible citizen will cast their vote and have their voices 
heard, because that's what the American people deserve.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady. I see we're off to an 
agreeable start, as we always are.
    I, too, want to say that we will miss the gentlelady from 
Texas and her presence here in the Subcommittee, and I, too, 
wish she were here for a, no doubt, spirited debate, and may 
she rest in peace.
    The Chair of the Committee not being present, I would now 
yield to the Ranking Member for his opening statement.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I also want to start off by commenting on the unfortunate 
absence of our late departed friend, Sheila Jackson Lee.
    Mr. Chair, Republicans rely on the false premise that there 
is widespread noncitizen voting to advance dangerous 
legislation like the SAVE Act and other burdensome, unnecessary 
measures requiring proof of citizenship to vote in Federal 
elections. In fact, it is measures like the SAVE Act that 
represent the true threat to the right of American citizens to 
vote.
    As with so many of the Republican majority's proposals, 
proof of citizenship requirements for voting in Federal 
elections is a solution in search of a problem. American voters 
are already required to declare that they are U.S. citizens 
when registering to vote. Federal law already makes it a crime 
for a noncitizen to vote or to register to vote in Federal 
elections.
    The consequences for noncitizens who vote are so dire that 
it strains credulity to believe that they are doing so in 
significant numbers, especially when the criminal act, by its 
very nature, creates the evidence of the crime.
    The data that we have on this so-called problem backs this 
up. Every credible study has concluded that noncitizen voting 
in Federal elections is practically nil. That has not stopped 
Republicans from making the wild charge that noncitizens vote 
in significant numbers, even though, as former Chair of this 
Subcommittee and the current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson 
said, ``it is not provable.''
    So, Republicans and their extremist MAGA allies at 
organizations like The Heritage Foundation, the incubator of 
the nefarious Project 2025 blueprint for a potential new Trump 
Administration, have resorted to spreading deceptive videos 
about noncitizen voting on social media, as The New York Times 
recently reported.
    We've seen the MAGA playbook, and these extremists have run 
some version of this play for years now. Indeed, without a 
doubt, it is the same playbook Donald Trump is again relying on 
to delegitimize the 2024 Presidential election, so that he has 
a pretext for challenging the results if he loses.
    How do we know that? Because the very same people behind 
his efforts to overthrow the 2020 election, based on lies and 
deception, are now spearheading the effort to advance the SAVE 
Act.
    One of them, Cleta Mitchell, who was on the now infamous 
2020 call during which former President Trump asked the Georgia 
Secretary of State that he, quote, ``just wanted to find 11,780 
votes,'' is even at the witness table today. In other words, 
Cleta Mitchell participated in the plot to steal the 2020 
Presidential election, and the Republicans have the nerve to 
call her as a witness in front of this Committee today.
    Ms. Mitchell now Chairs the so-called Election Integrity 
Network, which The New York Times referred to as an effort to 
recruit, quote, ``election conspiracists into an organized 
cavalry of activists monitoring elections.''
    Given her history as a lieutenant in Mr. Trump's efforts to 
overturn election results, are we, or the American public for 
that matter, supposed to find her testimony credible, when she 
alleges widespread noncitizen voting? We're not that stupid.
    The SAVE Act and the false premise of widespread noncitizen 
voting underlying it is based on the same tired conspiracy 
theories we have all become accustomed to hearing from the 
other side. It is not just some ridiculous talking point meant 
to question the legitimacy of the upcoming election. These 
burdensome, unnecessary proof-of-citizen measures are also an 
extension of the Republicans' insidious decade-long effort to 
suppress the voting rights of American citizens, especially 
those of color, those from emerging ethnic, and language 
minority groups.
    Contrary to what the majority might say, measures like the 
SAVE Act will weaken the right of every American, of every 
eligible American citizen to vote--all to address a nonexistent 
problem cooked up by MAGA extremists ahead of the next 
election.
    Imposing onerous proof-of-citizen requirements to register 
for a Federal election will burden every American, will burden 
every eligible American voter, but especially those who do not 
have ready access to documents like a passport, birth 
certificate, or military service record. It will 
disproportionately impact voters who are poor or elderly or 
disabled, as well as military service members overseas and 
women who have changed their names after marriage.
    Based on previous State-initiated efforts to require proof 
of citizenship to vote and efforts to purge suspected 
noncitizens from State voter rolls, we know for a fact that the 
SAVE Act will disproportionately impact naturalized citizens 
and language minorities, who also tend to hail predominantly, 
though not exclusively, from racial and ethnic minority groups, 
the very groups that Federal voting rights laws are also 
intended to protect. It will further heighten the risk that 
election officials charged with purging suspected noncitizens 
from voter rolls will target naturalized American citizens and 
language minority communities.
    I wish I could say that these are unintended consequences, 
but the truth is, to the bill's supporters, voter suppression 
is a feature, not a bug. I would suggest to the Chair that the 
important constitutional prerogative of protecting voting 
rights entrusted to Congress would be better served if this 
Subcommittee focused on advancing measures like the John R. 
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would strengthen the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, rather than holding a hearing on a 
bill that is based on a false premise, has already passed the 
House, and is dead on arrival in the Senate.
    With that, I look forward to the witness testimony, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Roy. Without objection, all other opening statements 
will be included in the record. We will now introduce today's 
witnesses.
    The Honorable Cord Byrd. Mr. Byrd is the Secretary of State 
for the State of Florida. He previously served in the Florida 
House of Representatives, where he was a member of the Public 
Integrity and Elections Committee, including a term as Vice 
Chair of the Committee. Mr. Byrd also Chaired the State 
Redistricting Committee and served as Vice Chair of the 
Judiciary Committee.
    Ms. Rosemary Jenks. Ms. Jenks is cofounder and Policy 
Director of the Immigration Accountability Project, a nonprofit 
organization that works to advocate and educate the public on 
questions of immigration policy. She has worked on immigration 
policy in a variety of organizations for more than 30 years.
    Ms. Cleta Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell is a Senior Legal Fellow 
at the Conservative Partnership Institute and the founder of 
the Election Integrity Network. She has worked in private 
practice for many years counseling clients on campaign finance 
and election law matters.
    Ms. Andrea Senteno. Ms. Senteno is the Regional Counsel of 
MALDEF's Washington, DC, office, where she oversees the 
organization's legislative and regulatory work and litigation 
activity. Previously, she served as a Legislative Staff 
Attorney at MALDEF, working on immigration and voting issues.
    We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and 
raise your right hand?
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you about to give is true and correct to the best of 
your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in 
the affirmative and they have been seated.
    Please know that your written testimony will be entered in 
the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you 
summarize your testimony and limit it to five minutes.
    I'm going to advise you all that votes are being called 
imminently on the floor of the House. They have been called. 
When were they called? All right.
    We are going to proceed, and we will make a decision on 
whether we go through some of you or all of you, depending on 
the vote time, but I would like to move forward a little bit.
    So, Secretary Byrd, if you don't mind starting, you have 
five minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF CORD BYRD

    Mr. Byrd. Good afternoon, Chair Roy, Ranking Member 
Scanlon, and the Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to be here today.
    In 2004, the bipartisan Baker-Carter report, prepared by 
President Jimmy Carter and Chief of Staff to President Reagan 
James Baker, stated that, quote, ``fraud in any degree and in 
any circumstance is subversive to the electoral process,'' and 
that ``the best way to maintain ballot integrity is to 
investigate all credible allegations of election fraud and 
otherwise prevent fraud before it can affect an election.''
    Voter fraud includes voting by noncitizens in Federal 
elections. Every illegitimate vote of a noncitizen negates the 
legitimate vote of a citizen. Nationally, preventing 
noncitizens from registering to vote and voting is the No. 1 
priority of States committed to election integrity.
    To put the issue in context, Florida has approximately 13.5 
million active registered voters and that number changes every 
minute of every day. According to USCIS services, 94,100 
Floridians became naturalized U.S. citizens in 2023 alone. That 
is a large number but, in elections, small numbers matter. As a 
reminder, in 2000, only 537 votes in Florida determined the 
outcome of the Presidential race. Miami-Dade County alone, 
Florida's largest county, has over 715 precincts. A single 
illegal noncitizen vote in each precinct can change the outcome 
of a Presidential election.
    The NVRA of 1993 introduced national procedures for voter 
registration. It mandates that any person who applies for a 
driver's license may, if eligible, submit a voter registration 
application for Federal elections and must swear or affirm that 
he or she is a U.S. citizen.
    Remarkably, however, Federal Courts, most recently 
including the U.S. Supreme Court, have interpreted the NVRA to 
prohibit States from requiring proof of citizen at the time a 
person registers. In effect, Federal law forces the States to 
use the honor system. This is unacceptable.
    Florida needs the assistance and cooperation of the Federal 
Government to properly verify the citizenship status of persons 
in the United States. The Federal Government has plenary 
authority over who becomes a naturalized citizen and is the 
only source for citizenship status verification. The challenge 
States face is that there is not a Federal legal status 
database that is current and reliable.
    While the issue has garnered the attention of other States, 
and now, thankfully, Congress, Florida has been addressing this 
challenge for more than a decade. In 2012, after filing a 
lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, Florida 
became one of the first States to receive access to DHS's SAVE 
database for purposes of voter registration. Florida relies on 
this database to verify a person's citizenship status.
    To be frank, the SAVE database is neither time-nor cost-
efficient and it requires an alien registration number, which 
States occasionally do not possess, to access the information. 
Perhaps most importantly, the database also lacks the most 
current information, which requires further time-consuming 
investigation. Indeed, because of the lack of timely 
information, States are sometimes unable to verify a person's 
citizenship status. This, too, is unacceptable.
    Thankfully, under your leadership, Chair Roy, the House 
passed the SAVE Act to address the deficiencies in Federal law 
that, unfortunately, make it difficult for States to maintain 
clean voter rolls.
    Thank you, also, for taking Florida's advice and amending 
the SAVE Act to require the Federal Government to proactively 
provide immediate notification when a resident of the State is 
naturalized.
    Because States face challenges with verifying citizenship 
on the front end, they must do so on the back end. Clean voter 
rolls become even more necessary for ensuring clean elections. 
Florida has robust voter roll maintenance procedures to 
identify registered voters who are not U.S. citizens.
    The names of potential noncitizens are reported weekly to 
the Florida Department of State, which then conducts a manual 
case-by-case investigation to determine whether the person is 
registered to vote and to confirm whether the person is, in 
fact, a U.S. citizen using the SAVE database. Once the 
investigation is complete, and if the Department determines 
that the person who is registered is a noncitizen, due process 
is afforded, and the noncitizen is prohibited from voting.
    Florida is committed to ensuring that all eligible 
Floridians can vote. However, we are equally committed to 
preventing election fraud and protecting the integrity of 
Florida's voter rolls.
    Despite conducting a fair and honest election in 2020, 
Florida did not rest on its laurels. In 2022, for example, 
Governor DeSantis signed a law creating the Office of Election 
Crimes and Security. This is not a fake or contrived issue. In 
Florida, we are prosecuting and convicting noncitizens who are 
attempting to fraudulently influence our elections.
    Florida law States that ``a person may become a registered 
voter only if that person is a U.S. citizen.'' In 2020, 
Floridians amended the State constitution to make clear that 
``only a citizen of the United States'' shall be eligible to 
vote. That amendment passed with more than 80 percent of the 
vote.
    Floridians have changed our State's constitution; we have 
strengthened our laws; we have engaged in litigation, and we 
have an office dedicated to investigation election crimes. The 
only impediment to doing more is the Federal Government. That's 
why States need action from our Congressional leaders, so we 
can fulfill our Constitutional duties under the law.
    In conclusion, I leave you with the words of Mark Twain who 
said, ``Citizenship is what makes a republic . . . .'' I 
implore you to work with the States to ensure that our Republic 
remains strong by only allowing American citizens to vote in 
American elections.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Byrd follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Roy. Secretary Byrd, thank you very much for that.
    Ms. Jenks?

                  STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY JENKS

    Ms. Jenks. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and the 
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this 
hearing.
    I'm Rosemary Jenks, Cofounder and Policy Director of the 
Immigration Accountability Project, IAP. As the name implies, 
we focus exclusively on immigration policy and how it impacts 
America, including our elections. IAP is also a founding member 
of the Only Citizens Vote Coalition.
    As you know, the Immigration and Nationality Act makes an 
alien who falsely claims U.S. citizenship--for example, by 
registering to vote or who illegally votes--inadmissible to the 
United States and deportable from the United States. The 18 
U.S.C. 611 also makes it a Federal crime for a noncitizen to 
vote in a Federal election.
    Based on data from the Census Bureau and the Department of 
Homeland Security, we estimate that there are currently around 
30 million noncitizens residing in the United States. The open 
borders policies of the Biden-Harris Administration have added 
at least 7.5 million of these noncitizens on top of regular 
legal immigration in just the last almost four years.
    Obviously, this massive population of noncitizens would 
have no impact whatsoever on our elections if they were 
securely prevented from voting. However, the requirements of 
the 1993 Voter Registration Act, or ``motor voter law,'' and 
the 2002 Help America Vote Act, make it virtually impossible to 
prevent noncitizens from registering to vote, either 
accidentally or intentionally.
    Neither a driver's license nor a Social Security number 
provides proof of U.S. citizenship. All 50 States and the 
District of Columbia issue driver's licenses, including REAL 
IDs, to lawfully present noncitizens, while 19 States also 
issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
    Moreover, every alien who is authorized to work in the 
United States is eligible for an SSN. The Biden-Harris 
Administration has been handing out work authorization 
documents like candy to inadmissible aliens, with SSN issuances 
following close behind.
    So, we have Federal voter laws that do not require proof of 
citizenship to register to vote, combined with a massive 
population of noncitizens with valid driver's licenses and 
SSNs. When you add to that President Biden's unprecedented 
Executive Order 14019, along with the huge network of NGO's 
receiving billions of dollars in Federal, State, and local 
funding to provide services to the millions of illegal aliens 
being released into our country by the Biden-Harris 
Administration, you have a recipe for fraud.
    There are strong indications that some of these NGO's are 
providing the aliens with voter registration forms. For 
example, the contract New York City signed with an NGO called 
Homes for the Homeless to provide migrant housing includes a 
requirement that the NGO, quote, ``provide and distribute voter 
registration forms to all persons.''
    Imagine you're a new arrival to the United States with 
limited English proficiency. If a government official, whether 
at the DMV or some other agency, or an NGO paid by the 
government to take care of you, hands you a form and says, 
``Just check this box and sign your name,'' you're probably 
going to comply. As soon as you do, you are guilty of a 
deportable criminal offense. You have, essentially, been 
entrapped into a criminal act by a government agency or NGO, 
acting either with indifference or with nefarious purpose.
    Do we at IAP believe that millions of noncitizens are going 
to show up at polling locations to vote in November? No, but 
some surely will. The problem is that, once a noncitizen's name 
is on the voter roll, that name can be attached to a ballot and 
voted.
    In States that automatically mail ballots to registered 
voters, a ballot will be mailed to whatever address the 
noncitizen provided, whether it's the address of a migrant 
shelter, a hotel, a homeless shelter, or a residence. What will 
happen to that ballot and others like it? Will it be harvested, 
filled out, placed in a drop box?
    Opponents of requiring proof of citizenship to register to 
vote, including every Democrat on this Subcommittee, dismiss 
those who support it by saying it is already illegal for 
noncitizens to vote, but they know noncitizens, including 
illegal aliens, do register and vote. Otherwise, why would H.R. 
16, the amnesty bill that all the Democrats on this 
Subcommittee have cosponsored, explicitly allow DHS to waive 
illegal voting for amnesty applicants? Why would H.R. 3194, an 
amnesty bill that three of the Democrats on this Subcommittee 
have cosponsored, and the Biden-Harris Administration wrote, 
automatically waive both illegal voting and false claims to 
citizenship?
    Why is it OK if even one American citizen's vote is 
canceled by an illegal vote? What if it's your vote? It's time 
to pass the SAVE Act.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jenks follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Roy. I thank you, Ms. Jenks.
    Ms. Mitchell?
    Ms. Mitchell, can you hit your microphone?

                  STATEMENT OF CLETA MITCHELL

    Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Chair, thank you. Ranking Member and the 
Members of the Subcommittee, I'm Cleta Mitchell, Senior Legal 
Fellow at the Conservative Partnership Institute.
    There are several reasons why the SAVE Act is absolutely 
necessary. Safeguarding American voter eligibility is and does 
exactly what the title says; it safeguards American voter 
eligibility, and it's desperately needed to secure the 2024 
elections.
    The SAVE Act will reverse a decision of the U.S. Supreme 
Court from 2013 in which the Court ruled that only Congress can 
direct and decide the content of the Federal voter registration 
form to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register and vote 
in U.S. elections.
    Quite simply, the SAVE Act would do what the Supreme Court 
determined in 2013 that only Congress can do, which is to 
safeguard eligibility for voting in Federal elections by 
requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote.
    With the borders opened on January 21, 2021, by the Biden-
Harris Administration, and illegals pouring across our borders 
by the millions, and being taken who knows where in our 
country, the SAVE Act has become absolutely vital to protecting 
our elections from illegal voting by noncitizens.
    Not only will the SAVE Act require documentary proof of 
citizenship to register to vote, but it also contains other 
components that are vital for the 2024 elections.
    It requires that States compare their existing voter list 
to citizenship data, to identify and remove noncitizens who are 
already registered.
    It establishes a new criminal penalty for those who 
knowingly register noncitizens to vote.
    It requires Federal agencies to make available to the 
States, at no cost, citizenship data that State and local 
election offices can, in fact, confirm citizenship of persons 
registered or seeking to register.
    One important aspect of the SAVE Act would be to ensure 
that the 22 States who allow same-day registration--meaning 
that a person can register and immediately be allowed to vote--
will not be eligible to vote until having provided proof of 
citizenship. This requirement alone will interrupt one of the 
biggest threats to the integrity of the 2024 election--the 
organized roundup by political advocacy groups of scores of 
illegals to register and vote them on the same day, before 
anyone can determine if those individuals were eligible to vote 
in the election.
    Democrats oppose the SAVE Act, ostensibly, because it is 
already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal election. 
Yes, it is, and it is also illegal for millions of people to 
swarm across our borders without documentation, but, 
nonetheless, this administration, under Border Czar Kamala 
Harris, has adopted just such a policy of opening the door and 
letting anyone and everyone into our country--illegally, 
already against the law.
    If the Democrats sincerely want to keep noncitizens from 
voting, then let me ask you: Where are the enforcement actions 
from the Department of Justice? Where are the memos to U.S. 
Attorneys across the Nation warning about potential violations 
of the prohibitions on noncitizen voting? Where is the FBI 
hotline to report suspicious registrations of illegals? When is 
the Merrick Garland press conference announcing that it's 
illegal for noncitizens to register and vote in the election, 
and violators will be apprehended, prosecuted, and deported? 
Did I miss that public education campaign? I must have--because 
it doesn't exist.
    The Democrats' plan for 2024 is to change the electorate. 
If they cannot persuade the American people to want their 
Marxist policies for America, just import voters who don't 
speak the language; don't have a shared commitment to our 
country and our national principles. Get them into the very 
porous voter registration system and collect their votes.
    Just Facts researcher James Agresti published a report that 
a conservative estimate is that there will be, based on his 
past experience, between one and nearly three million 
noncitizens who will vote in the 2024 election.
    Democrat-controlled cities like San Francisco, New York, 
and Washington, DC, have granted voting rights to noncitizens. 
Leftist groups have fought the citizenship question on the 2020 
Census. Every Democrat in Congress voted against putting the 
citizenship question back on the Census.
    Every Democrat in Congress also voted no to apportioning 
U.S. House seats based on citizenship instead of population. 
Why? Because California would have lost four U.S. House seats 
in 2010 and three more in 2020 if only citizenships--if only 
citizens had been counted for apportionment of the U.S. House. 
That's not only U.S. House seats; that's seven electoral votes 
for the Democrats. It is why Democrats voted no on reversing 
the decision of the District of Columbia to allow noncitizens 
to vote. For Democrats, noncitizens are their future political 
base.
    Please do the right thing. Pass the SAVE Act. Save our 
elections. Save our country.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Mitchell follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Mitchell.
    As much as I hate to do this, because it's going to cutoff 
Ms. Senteno, I think we need to get over to the floor and vote. 
So, I'm going to apologize profusely. You get more time to 
prepare and we look forward to hearing your testimony. So, we 
will stand in recess while we go to the floor.
    Thank you all very much.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Roy. [Presiding.] I call the hearing back in order. 
Thank you for your patience when we went over to the floor to 
go vote.
    We will now proceed with the final testimony. I apologize 
again because I know that we had to break. Now, the spotlight 
is all yours.

                 STATEMENT OF ANDREA E. SENTENO

    Ms. Senteno. Good afternoon Chair Roy, Ranking Member 
Scanlon, and the Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Andrea 
Senteno, and I am the Regional Counsel of the D.C. Office of 
MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational 
Fund.
    For 56 years MALDEF has worked to promote the civil rights 
of all Latinos living in the United States. I thank you for 
this invitation to appear today.
    The MALDEF focuses its work in five subject matter areas, 
education, employment, immigrant rights, voting rights, and 
freedom from open bias.
    Since its founding, one of MALDEF's top priorities has been 
to secure equal voting rights for all Latinos and to promote 
increased civic engagement and participation within the Latino 
community.
    The MALDEF has litigated numerous cases in court to 
challenge at large systems, discriminatory redistricting, 
ballot access barriers, undue voter registration requirements, 
voter assistance restrictions, and failure to provide bilingual 
ballot materials.
    At 19 percent of the total population, Latinos accounted 
for 51 percent of the Nation's population growth between 2010-
2020. Similarly, the Latino population is responsible for 
significant growth in the U.S. electorate.
    Latinos represent an estimated 50 percent of the total 
growth of eligible voters from 2020 to this year's Presidential 
election. Latinos are expected to make up 17.5 percent of the 
total voting population in the upcoming general election. An 
estimated 1.8 million Latinos become eligible to vote each 
year.
    Despite these facts, there's a misrepresentation that the 
Latino community is still overwhelmingly composed of 
noncitizens. The majority of Latinos, of the Latino population 
is U.S. born and 81 percent of all Latinos in the U.S. are 
citizens.
    Unfortunately, national demographic change is often 
perceived as a threat to too many in political power, and the 
result historically has been persistent at increasing efforts 
to suppress the vote and political power of the Latino 
community.
    These perceptions of the Latino population and its growth 
serves as the basis for unsupported allegations of widespread 
voter fraud often attributed to noncitizen immigrant Latinos.
    Yet, overwhelming evidence has shown that noncitizens are 
not voting in U.S. elections in mass. Noncitizens are barred 
from voting in Federal elections, and it is a Federal felony to 
register to vote unlawfully.
    Every State in the Nation currently prohibits noncitizens 
from voting in State elections. Voters in every State must 
affirm or verify their citizenship to register to vote. State 
election officials must verify a voter's eligibility.
    Numerous studies such as those by the Brennan Center and 
the Cato Institute have shown that there is no significant 
number of noncitizen voting. Multiple efforts to try to produce 
evidence of significant noncitizen voting have failed.
    This makes sense when one considers the unlawful, that 
unlawful voter registration and voting carries deep immigration 
consequences, including deportation and the inability to ever 
naturalize in the future.
    This voter fraud disinformation targets Latinos and voters 
of color. The suppression tactics take the form of things like 
unlawful voter purges, restrictions to language assistance at 
the polls, or restrictions to mail ballots.
    In 2019, MALDEF successfully sued Texas Secretary of State, 
David Whitley, and others, challenging an advisory to country 
registers to single out naturalized U.S. citizens for 
investigation and removal from the voter rolls based solely on 
the fact that they were born outside of the U.S.
    There is an allegation of over 95 thousand non-U.S. 
citizens to be on the voter rolls and thousands to have alleged 
illegally. This claim was based on erroneous information, 
including outdated driver's license information.
    Ultimately, the case settled, and State officials were 
required to change the way that they identified voters to 
investigate as at least 25 thousand voters on those rolls, on 
the erroneous purge list were actually U.S. citizens.
    These types of tactics undermine the public's trust in our 
elections and erode voters' confidence in participating in our 
elections. Unfortunately, H.R. 8281, the SAVE Act, fails to 
meet the needs of many of the voters in the U.S. who need 
Congress to lead the way in safeguarding the right to vote 
against voter discrimination.
    When approximately 30 percent of the U.S. citizen voting 
age population is unregistered to vote, Federal and State 
legislators must work to encourage voter registration of 
eligible voters, not hinder it. Safeguarding each eligible 
citizen's right to vote should not be a partisan issue.
    The MALDEF urges Congress to pass H.R. 14, the John R. 
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. This bill would provide 
voters with necessary and effective tools to push back against, 
to push back and prevent voter discrimination where it occurs.
    We look forward to working with Congress to advance the 
voting rights of all Americans and ensure our elections make it 
possible for every eligible U.S. citizen to register and cast a 
ballot. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Senteno follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Roy. We will now proceed under the five-minute rule 
with questions. I will recognize the gentleman and my good 
friend from California, Mr. McClintock.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are two basic 
questions implicit in this hearing. The first is, should 
noncitizens be allowed to vote?
    The Constitution is silent on this point. So, it falls to 
State legislatures to answer this question for their own 
elections, and for the Congress to answer that question for 
Federal elections.
    The States and Congress have answered that question clearly 
and decisively, that American citizens and only American 
citizens have a right to vote to guide the American Nation. To 
me, that's the most fundamental definition of citizenship.
    I think that's a view held by the overwhelming majority of 
Americans. It's obviously not held by many Democratic officials 
in the jurisdictions that they control. The irony is that so 
many of them just a few years ago were complaining about 
foreign influence in American elections by making internet 
posts. Now, they've got no problems with illegals actually 
voting in our elections.
    That's beside the point. Assuming that most people agree 
that voting in American elections should be the exclusive right 
of American citizens, the next question is, how do we prevent 
the votes of foreign nationals canceling out the votes of 
American citizens?
    To this question the Democrats tell us well, that's a 
nonissue, because there's no evidence that foreign nationals 
are casting votes in American elections. If you look at the 
actual studies, that's simply not true.
    The Chair mentioned the 2014 Old Dominion/George Mason 
University study of noncitizens voting. They concluded 6.4 
percent of noncitizens voting in 2008, and that 2.2 percent 
voted in 2010.
    That's not the only study out there. In 2014 Stanford 
University came to a similar conclusion. They concluded, and I 
quote,

        The proportion of noncitizens who voted was less than 15 
        percent, but significantly greater than zero. Similarly, in 
        2010 we found that more than three percent of noncitizens 
        reported voting. In addition, the analysis suggests that 
        noncitizens' votes have changed significant election outcomes, 
        including the assignment of North Carolina's 2008 electoral 
        votes and the pivotal Minnesota Senate victory of Democrat Al 
        Franken in 2008.

That is before the last four years, when this Administration 
has allowed an additional 7\1/2\ million illegal migrants into 
the country. A population that is larger than the State of 
Arizona, our 14th most populist State with nine Congressional 
districts and 11 electoral votes.
    At the moment, the RCP average tells us that only 1.1 
percent of the vote separates Harris and Trump. So, if two 
percent of those votes is illegal, I guess, that's the 
definition of rare illegal voting. Well, that means that two 
percent of Americans' votes are being canceled out by those 
illegal votes of foreign nationals. That is more than enough to 
decide the Presidential election.
    Even if this was not happening, the mere perception of it 
is enough to destroy public confidence that the vote will 
accurately reflect the will of the American people.
    Now, Secretary Byrd, isn't it true that many States have 
done surveys of their voter rolls and found thousands of 
foreign nationals on them? That many of them have a history 
voting?
    Mr. Byrd. That is correct, Congressman.
    Mr. McClintock. Can you give us any additional details on 
that?
    Mr. Byrd. So, I can tell you, in Florida we have been at 
this process for more than a decade. As I mentioned, we sued 
the Department of Homeland Security in 2012, so we have some 
experience of this.
    Since 2022, Florida has removed over a million individuals 
off the voter rolls. Some of which includes noncitizens. In 
fact, we have two individuals who have recently been arrested 
and prosecuted for attempting to fraudulently influence 
elections in Florida.
    So, this isn't a fake or contrived issue.
    Mr. McClintock. Ms. Mitchell, what do you know on this 
subject?
    Ms. Mitchell. Well, I conclude in my written testimony some 
examples of exactly how problematic it is. How many--I'll give 
you a couple of examples.
    The Public Interest Legal Foundation sued the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania in 2018 to obtain the records regarding 
noncitizens being added to the voter rolls in Pennsylvania. The 
Department of Transportation admitted that there was a quote, 
``glitch in the system that added 100 thousand aliens to the 
Pennsylvania voter rolls.''
    That State, that litigation is still ongoing because of 
efforts by the State, Department of State in Pennsylvania to 
not answer the questions.
    Mr. McClintock. The Democrats have just told us that's, 
don't worry about that. That the penalties are so great that no 
one would dare to illegally vote.
    It's already a Federal crime to cross the border without 
permission to begin with. It's a felony to do so repeatedly.
    As you pointed out, that by definition, has not acted as a 
deterrent for any of these individuals. I know in California 
you can't prosecute somebody for voting illegally, unless you 
can prove they actually knew it was illegal.
    All a defendant would need to say is, hey, they handed me a 
registration form. They sent me a ballot. How was I to know? 
That's a valid point. How many people are in legal jeopardy and 
don't even know it?
    Ms. Mitchell. Well, that this is one of the things that 
people don't realize, is that these are, this is a really 
vulnerable population.
    As Ms. Jenks pointed out in her comments, if somebody hands 
you a form and you don't really speak the language, and 
somebody's shepherding you around and they're responsible for 
getting you benefits, and you're just putting your name on 
things, how do they know?
    That is happening. It is happening as we speak. That one of 
the things that's problematic is that--I also include in my 
testimony, a reference to some announcements by Virginia's 
Governor about removing more than 63 hundred noncitizens who 
are on the Virginia vote rolls.
    Those were people who self-declared. Who realized, oh my 
gosh, we are on the voter rolls, and we're not supposed to be. 
There are several other States that have done likewise.
    So, this is a big, this is not an insignificant problem.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
    Mr. Roy. Thank you. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. We continue to say well, it must be 
like this. We've heard some testimony about removing millions 
of people from the voter rolls in Florida.
    Without any clarification about how much, or how many were 
actually foreign nationals. Without any clarification with 
respect to whether or not they'd actually voted.
    We've heard again about Pennsylvania. There's no evidence 
to back up the assertion that was made, that 100 thousand 
noncitizens have been registered to vote. That's actually been 
disputed repeatedly.
    So, it seems Ms. Mitchell is playing fast and loose with 
the facts to further this conspiracy theory.
    Ms. Senteno, we talked earlier about the civil rights 
advocates in Pennsylvania who challenged a misguided voter ID 
law that would have disenfranchised almost a half million 
people. It would have meant that IDs like care facility IDs, 
retired and veteran, military and veteran IDs, student IDs, and 
more were inadequate to vote with.
    We know that other policies that construct unnecessary 
barriers to voting like the SAVE Act, disproportionately impact 
students, military, disabled folks, elderly folks, minority, 
and low income folks.
    Can you talk about why these types of proposals are such a 
burden on these populations?
    Ms. Senteno. Yes, thank you. I want to start from the 
premise that if a State is going to burden the right to vote, 
there must be evidence to justify it.
    The fact is, that stringent voter identification 
requirements impose real costs on democracy and specifically on 
voters. In 2006, the Brennan Center for Justice found that 25 
percent of African Americans and 16 percent of Latinos did not 
have a current valid government issued photo ID, compared to 11 
percent of all U.S. citizens surveyed.
    So, many State issued IDs, they're generally offered for 
free in States that require votes to display them to vote, but 
the documents that voters must obtain to get those free IDs, 
themselves are not necessarily free. The opportunity to obtain 
those documents are also not equal across different 
demographics and income levels.
    So, just in Texas, to obtain a birth certificate, it's $23 
at minimum. Or, if you need to obtain a certificate of 
citizenship, the price for that is over $1,300 to obtain that 
document.
    So, when you take into account the time and expense 
necessary to gather those documents, it is very clear that this 
puts a disproportionate burden on voters of color, on poor 
voters, on voters with disability, on the elderly, and on young 
voters.
    Ms. Scanlon. That is exactly what we saw in Pennsylvania. 
I'm particularly concerned about suppression of young people's 
votes.
    Particularly, as at least one of the majority's witnesses 
has been an outspoken proponent of making it more difficult for 
college students to vote. Student IDs are not considered an 
acceptable form of ID to vote under the SAFE Act, even if 
coupled with additional proof of citizenship.
    Many young people these days don't have driver's licenses 
or even passports. So, can you talk about why this proposal and 
other similar voter suppression tactics are particularly 
harmful to our young voters, our newest voters?
    Ms. Senteno. Yes. That's exactly right. Obtaining an 
acceptable photo ID can be especially difficult for young 
people. Student IDs are one of the easiest and affordable ways 
for students to prove their identity.
    For the Latino community, this is a particularly concerning 
issue, given that the Latino population nationally is 
comparatively young.
    The median age of Latinos is 30.4 years, compared to 38.9 
for the total population. More than a quarter of K-12 students 
are Latino. This is the future of the U.S. electorate.
    So, when you combine these factors with the expense and 
difficulties of obtaining necessary documents to obtain certain 
types of identification versus a student ID, the result really 
is the suppression of young voters who are more likely to be 
voters of color.
    Ms. Scanlon. Ms. Senteno, according to a recent The New 
York Times article, in late July, MAGA activists affiliated 
with Ms. Mitchell's Election Integrity Network, met on a Zoom 
call to discuss how to keep undocumented immigrants from voting 
in November. A problem they claim inaccurately, to be a looming 
threat to a fair election.
    The article quoted one participant suggesting that school 
enrollment figures be assessed to find neighborhoods with large 
numbers of immigrants. While another activist recommended 
hanging up signs in ethnic neighborhoods, warning people not to 
vote if they were not eligible.
    Reportedly said it's unfortunate, but sometimes the only 
way you can find out is to look for ethnic names. I believe, 
Ms. Mitchell has also advocated for having town watch type 
operations at Departments of Motor Vehicles.
    How does disinformation about noncitizen voting, and voter 
suppression couched as election integrity, predictably lead to 
the targeting of Latino citizens and other voters of color?
    Ms. Senteno. Yes. So, this goes back to the misperception 
of who is the Latino community. The assumption that large 
populations of Latino communities are going to be areas where 
there are mostly noncitizens.
    To assume that Latino populations are inherently all 
noncitizen, it would really be making an assumption based 
inappropriately on race.
    So, voter disinformation in this way, very predictably 
targets Latinos because of that misperception of who we are and 
the assumption that we are not predominantly U.S. citizens and 
therefore eligible to vote in the United States.
    It's incredibly harmful and it will ultimately result in 
the disenfranchisement of Latino voters, of naturalized 
citizens, and voters of color.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady. I will now recognize the 
gentleman from North Dakota.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just start by 
saying thank you for working with me on the underlying bill of 
the SAVE Act in that most people don't know this, but North 
Dakota is unique in the country.
    We are the only State without voter registration. We also 
have what I believe to be the best voter ID citizen voting law 
in the country.
    So, you can do both and it was seriously helpful to make 
sure we could get the bill in a place where it didn't affect 
400 thousand of my constituents every primary and every 
general.
    With that, I yield to you.
    Mr. Roy. I thank my friend from North Dakota. I was proud 
to work with him and the rest of my colleagues to make sure 
that the bill is comprehensive in its impact and what it's 
trying to attempt to do.
    Also, frankly avoids a lot of what is being alleged that it 
would do. Ms. Mitchell, if you might respond to some of the 
allegations that were just made.
    The bill specifically contemplates ensuring through its own 
text that those that are naturalized would get materials and it 
would be a requirement under law that the Federal Government 
would get those materials to States immediately so to avoid the 
problem of those who are naturalized having, not have the 
documentation necessary.
    As well as providing for a mechanism by which an individual 
can go and register to vote with a sworn affidavit of those 
that are there in the, the officials in the local government. 
Acknowledging that they've done what they need to do to present 
the information.
    In other words, we provide every means possible. Would Ms. 
Mitchell agree with that?
    Ms. Mitchell. Yes, Mr. Chair. That is one of the things 
that's really important, is to actually read the bill.
    If you read the bill, then you will understand that there's 
a whole laundry list of types of documentation that can be 
used. There are a couple of failsafe followups. Then, there's a 
catchall, which is, or any other reasonable approach that the 
election officials may decide. There's really no reason to make 
that the boogeyman.
    The problem is that we have a very porous voter 
registration system in this country.
    Mr. Roy. Right.
    Ms. Mitchell. We have to do something to protect the 
integrity of our election.
    Mr. Roy. Would you agree that the construct under the SAVE 
Act is far less onerous than that of numerous States, including 
New York, Pennsylvania, and other States in terms of what they 
have to do for driver's licenses for example?
    Ms. Mitchell. Well yes. Here's the other thing, Congress 
passed the Real ID Law years ago.
    Mr. Roy. Right.
    Ms. Mitchell. To get a real ID, you don't have to be a 
citizen, but you do have to provide either your citizenship 
data or you have to provide your paperwork showing that you're 
in the country legally, that you are a permanent resident with 
a green card.
    So, Congress has already addressed the issue in a context 
which Congress cared about, which is, that we want to protect 
Federal buildings, Federal military installations, and 
commercial aircraft from people who, we want to know who they 
are when they're entering those facilities.
    So, Congress has already taken the step to identify a 
process. I don't know why voting should be any less susceptible 
too improper.
    Mr. Roy. I agree. Secretary Byrd, I'd like to turn to you. 
I appreciate you being here again and illuminating how you guys 
are engaging with it in Florida.
    Does the Constitution give States primary jurisdiction over 
elections?
    Mr. Byrd. It does, Article 1, Section 4.
    Mr. Roy. If the State of Florida passed a law requiring 
proof of citizenship to register to vote in Federal elections, 
if they did that right now, without the SAVE Act, would you be 
able to enforce that law under existing law and precedent?
    Mr. Byrd. We would not. We'd be in violation of the NVRA.
    Mr. Roy. Can you explain that quickly for the average 
viewer?
    Mr. Byrd. Sure. Well, the NVRA prohibits States from 
requiring citizenship documentation on the front end when 
somebody registers to vote. So, in Federal courts in 
interpreting NVRA, most recently the U.S. Supreme Court has 
said that we cannot require that proof of citizenship. We have 
to add the person to the rolls and then only on the back end do 
the list maintenance. So, in essence, we're playing whack-a-
mole with people who we've seen repeatedly register and 
removed, register and removed because we can't require the 
information on the front end.
    Mr. Roy. Am I correct that Florida was only able to really 
truly gain access to the SAVE system because you sued to do so?
    Mr. Byrd. That is correct.
    Mr. Roy. So, States have barriers. To get to the Federal 
Government, to get the information necessary to determine who 
citizens are in the first place, correct?
    Mr. Byrd. That is correct.
    Mr. Roy. Florida sued to gain access to the SAVE system. Am 
I correct that the SAVE system is still inferior in terms of 
you being able to have access to the information needed to 
check citizenship?
    Mr. Byrd. Woefully inadequate, untimely. It costs the 
States money. Many times, we don't have the information 
necessary from the individual attempting to register to vote to 
gain access which then we don't have the verification even when 
we do have access to it.
    Mr. Roy. So, without the SAVE Act, can you as Secretary of 
State be as competent as you feel you should be that we know we 
do not have citizens voting in the State of Florida--
noncitizens voting in the State of Florida?
    Mr. Byrd. It makes it very difficult to fulfill my 
constitutional duties.
    Mr. Roy. I would now yield time to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Hunt.
    Mr. Hunt. The fundamental question that we must answer 
today, is America worth preserving? I, of course, think it is. 
This is the greatest country in the world. I love this country.
    I'm a veteran, served in combat. I'm a United States 
Congressman. I think this is by far the greatest country in the 
world.
    If the United States is a country worth preserving, then I 
think we must protect the integrity of our elections and do 
everything in our power to do just that. I am showed at the 
SAVE Act which has already passed the House in a bipartisan 
fashion is even controversial to many Democrats. They're the 
ones that constantly are shouting about preserving democracy.
    Safeguarding our elections is the bedrock of our democracy. 
It's something that both sides should easily support and agree 
on. They say that noncitizens voting in an election is not a 
real issue.
    If some noncitizens are registered to vote, it's not a 
significant amount to make a difference. Well, in my home State 
of Texas, we just removed thousands of noncitizens from voter 
rolls. Some of these recently hotly contested elections, that 
amount could even be enough to swing an entire election, 
especially this year.
    Undermining the integrity of elections is not an oversight. 
It's a threat to democracy. For all of us, this is about 
democracy. For all of us, this should be about democracy.
    It's time that we as a body acknowledge that threat. Now, 
Democrats on the left aren't just focused on replacing American 
voters. They're focused on replacing American jobs as well.
    Under the Biden-Harris Administration, jobs and foreign-
born workers are significant increasing while jobs for Native 
born workers are declining. Critics say that these illegal 
immigrants are needed because they'll do the jobs that 
Americans won't do. What they fail to say is that Americans 
won't do the jobs when Bidenflation is outpacing their wages 
and fixing the illegal immigration problem with help American 
workers.
    I'll fix the problem for you. The immigration problem is a 
minimum wage issue. It hasn't always been the case. In recent 
years, the left has decided to slowly erode everything that we 
hold dear as a country.
    They want to erode our culture, our history, our 
patriotism, and last, our vote. Do you remember during the 
George Floyd riots when the left wanted to reimagine policing? 
Now, the left wants to reimaging voting.
    So, therefore, regardless of their citizenship, can choose 
our next President. That's not the American way. The left wants 
to reimagine everything that makes America special. They even 
want to reimagine our Constitution.
    One example is a recent The New York Times article speaks 
to itself. The Constitution is sacred. It's also dangerous. 
``One of the biggest threats to American politics might be the 
country's founding documents,'' said the author.
    Now, I'm sitting there right now, and I got to tell you all 
I'm Black and I'm a veteran. I have six forms of government ID, 
six. I've been Black for my whole life. I've been a veteran 
since 2000 when I was at West Point.
    The insinuation that Black and Brown people cannot get an 
ID to vote like every other citizen regardless of your race, 
religion, color, or creed is insulting. I actually refer to 
this as soft bigotry of low expectations. We as all Americans 
should want free and fair elections.
    We aren't making it more difficult for people to get an ID 
to vote. I have an 18-month-old little boy. Do you know the 
first thing that he got when he was born that I had to sign 
for? A birth certificate.
    So, the idea that this costing thousands of dollars and all 
of a sudden onerous and burdensome on Hispanic people and Black 
people like me is absurd. I have a very large family. My mom 
has eight brothers and sisters.
    Every last Black person that I know in my life which is 
quite a few, every last one of them has a government ID. It 
would be insulting to talk to my family and say to them, you 
know what? Sorry, you all. We're Black and it's just so hard 
for you to get an ID like all the White people.
    That's absurd. We as a country have got to reject this 
farce. I speak so strongly against this because I view myself 
as an American first. I'm a veteran. I am a husband. I am a 
Congressman.
    I'm someone that served this country. I'm an educated Black 
man. Somewhere down the line, I am Black, I am proud, and I 
understand that. I never want to do is marginalize a single 
group in this country by saying that you weren't good enough to 
get an ID because my 18-month-old has an ID.
    We as a country have got to clean up our roles to ensure 
that we have free and fair elections regardless of your race, 
religion, color, or creed. That's why I reject the assertion 
that we, no matter what color you are, cannot reach that very 
low bar of having a government ID to figure out to how to vote 
for the leadership and the future of this country. With that, I 
yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his time. I 
recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania for a unanimous 
consent request.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I have some unanimous consent 
requests. First, an article from the September 5th, The New 
York Times entitled ``Republicans seize on false theories about 
immigrant voting.'' A March 13th, 2024, article from NPR, 
``Conservatives are warning about noncitizens voting.'' It's a 
myth with a long history.
    Another NPR article from August 30, 2024, the ``GOP is 
making false claims about non-citizens voting.'' It's affecting 
real voters. An article from this week, ``Elon Musk's 
misleading election claims reach millions and alarm election 
officials.'' An article from September 7, 2024, The New York 
Times, ``Heritage Foundation spreads deceptive videos about 
noncitizen voters.''
    Mr. Roy. Without objection, those will be entered into the 
record.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Mr. Roy. I will now recognize my friend, the gentleman from 
North Carolina. I assume he has no unanimous request for The 
New York Times or NPR articles.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Senteno, I don't know 
if you were shocked. Congressman Hunt just said he has an ID. 
Were you shocked by that or surprised by it?
    Ms. Senteno. Was I surprised? No.
    Mr. Bishop. Do you think generally people who are 
naturalized citizens take pride in that accomplishment?
    Ms. Senteno. I would assume yes.
    Mr. Bishop. Are you familiar with the educational process 
accompanying naturalization?
    Ms. Senteno. Yes.
    Mr. Bishop. Do they impart that becoming a naturalized 
citizen is what you have to do to be able to vote and that you 
have the voting right, the franchise by virtue of being 
naturalized?
    Ms. Senteno. It would be my understanding. I can't tell you 
specifically whether that's part of the curriculum or how that 
comes about.
    Mr. Bishop. Do you think someone who has worked hard and 
followed the process to become a naturalized citizen would take 
offense at the prospect of their vote being diluted by people 
who are not citizens having access to the vote?
    Ms. Senteno. I can't speculate as to what a specific 
individual may or may not believe about their vote. What I can 
say is that the idea that a vote is being canceled out because 
of widespread noncitizen voting is simply false. We have no 
evidence that there is widespread noncitizen voting, and we 
have no evidence that votes have been canceled out by something 
that we haven't been able to prove.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, let me first tell you. I don't have any--
I don't think it requires speculation. I'm pretty sure that 
someone who's driven to become a United States citizen had 
accomplished that landmark in their life.
    I think they'd be proud of the right to vote. I think they 
would be absolutely committed to the idea that folks who 
haven't gone through the same process that they've done and 
accomplished the same outcome should not be voting. Why is the 
lack of evidence that it is happening on a widespread basis a 
reason not to guard against it?
    Ms. Senteno. Because when we know that there is no evidence 
of widespread noncitizen voting but we do know that documentary 
proof of citizenship laws prevent eligible citizens from 
registering to vote, it's simply bad public policy.
    Mr. Bishop. How do they prevent them?
    Ms. Senteno. We have lots of evidence that documentary 
proof of citizenship, restrictive voter laws prevent U.S. 
citizens from exercising their right to vote by preventing them 
from being on the voter rolls.
    Mr. Bishop. Same idea as like Congressman Hunt not being 
able to get an ID?
    Ms. Senteno. Obtaining documentation is incredibly 
difficult for many individuals.
    Mr. Bishop. So, it's the same point he was making. All 
right. How about that, Ms. Mitchell? What about that?
    Ms. Mitchell. Oh, I just don't believe that people in 
this--the vast majority of people are able to get IDs. They're 
able to get their documentary proof of citizenship. They're 
doing it every day by the millions.
    The problem is that we don't care enough about our voting 
system to make certain that we treat it with the respect that 
it deserves. We require it for people to get a real ID, but not 
to register to vote. We make it impossible. We make it very 
difficult for States to be able to ascertain who is and who is 
not a citizen for voting purposes.
    Once they get on the list, I just read during the recess 
that the Department of Justice sent out a memo today to people 
all over the country, election officials, reminding them that 
they are not allowed to remove ineligible voters because now is 
the black-out period. Well, that's not even actually true. It 
just goes to show you that this Justice Department can produce 
a memo of guidance on issues that it cares about.
    Mr. Bishop. When you say it doesn't, it's not a question 
that we, you meant universally, don't care enough about our 
voting. Actually, there's another prospect there, isn't it? 
That is, it's not a question of not caring about our voting. 
It's actually an intention to see to it that the circumstances 
are chaotic enough that a vote that you depend on that cannot 
legitimately cast nonetheless has the opportunity to be cast. 
Isn't that right?
    Ms. Mitchell. That's absolutely right. They throw around 
the insults and the accusations that you're a racist. You're a 
vote suppressor.
    Mr. Bishop. Isn't that the best technique? If you're trying 
to see to it that noncitizens vote and turn the margin in close 
races and you consider that to be essential to your political 
success, then what are you going to do? You're going to say, 
(1) we don't think there's a problem, and (2) you're a racist 
if you suggest that we enforce the law. Isn't that what you do 
if you want to--
    Ms. Mitchell. Absolutely. The other thing is there's always 
this discussion there's no widespread. Well, No. 1, how do we 
know?
    Mr. Bishop. They don't know.
    Ms. Mitchell. How do we know? We don't know. We know that 
noncitizens are registering. We know that noncitizens are 
voting. How do we know whether it is or isn't widespread if we 
don't investigate it, if we don't make it a priority, if we 
don't require documentation? We don't know.
    Mr. Bishop. As is sometimes said, the absence of evidence 
is not evidence of absence. I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I would 
now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming.
    Ms. Hageman. Secretary Byrd, there have been a variety of 
attacks levied against House Republicans for advocating for 
election integrity which includes preventing noncitizen voting. 
They are based on noncitizens--are based on noncitizen voting 
already being illegal. Just because noncitizen voting is 
illegal doesn't mean that it can't occur and we must be 
vigilant in ensuring the strength of our laws.
    The House Rule 10, Clause 2 lays out the general oversight 
responsibilities of the standing committees to analyze, quote, 
``The application, administration, execution, and effectiveness 
of Federal laws.'' Also, quote, ``Conditions and circumstances 
that may indicate the necessity or desirability of enacting new 
or additional legislation.'' Secretary Byrd, very simply, is it 
possible for noncitizens to illegally vote in Federal 
elections?
    Mr. Byrd. It is.
    Ms. Hageman. Do you have examples of this occurring?
    Mr. Byrd. We do. I mentioned the two individuals in Florida 
who've been recently arrested and charged with illegally 
attempting to vote in Florida elections.
    Ms. Hageman. Both of those situations occurred after 
Congress made it illegal for noncitizens to vote, correct?
    Mr. Byrd. That is correct.
    Ms. Hageman. Do you think Congress should consider 
legislation such as the SAVE Act to close the gaps which allow 
noncitizens voting?
    Mr. Byrd. It is absolutely critical.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Is amending the NVRA an important first 
step?
    Mr. Byrd. The NVRA must be amended.
    Ms. Hageman. Can States when administering services such as 
social and medical benefits impact, either intentionally or 
unintentionally, the Federal prohibition of noncitizens voting?
    Mr. Byrd. Yes.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Ms. Mitchell, I want to ask you about 
President Biden's Executive Order 14019 on promoting access to 
voting. Can you speak to some of the concerns with this 
Executive Order?
    Ms. Mitchell. Absolutely. First, I believe that it's 
unconstitutional. Having said that, why is it that the Biden 
Administration has absolutely resisted every effort to turn 
over any of the plans by any of the agencies? The House 
Committee on Administration issued subpoenas in July to every 
cabinet secretary and asking for the plans for implementing 
Executive Order 14019.
    Not a single agency plan has been turned over to the House 
Administration Committee. I included in my written testimony a 
file from a whistleblower who sent to me. He is a U.S. marshal, 
and he sent the Department of Justice guidelines, instructions 
to all the U.S. marshals requiring them, notifying them that 
they are required to offer voter registration materials and 
voter education materials to everyone with whom they come into 
contact, including--and he sent me a file of someone who had to 
be registered to vote who is a prisoner in a Texas Federal 
facility.
    He's imprisoned for violating Federal law because he was 
deported and returned. He's a Mexican citizen. It says that in 
his file. He was registered to vote. They are required to give 
him voter registration materials. That is happening in Federal 
prisons all over the country.
    Ms. Hageman. So, let me ask you. Is it your understanding 
that they are actually implementing the very plans that they 
refuse to turn over to Congress?
    Ms. Mitchell. They're absolutely doing that. We only know--
we get bits and snatches from people--from whistleblowers and 
from various sources but nothing official. If you want to know 
the most, you go to the Demos website which is a left-wing 
organization. They have literally been dispatched by the White 
House to Federal agencies to help them implement this plan. 
They know more about what's going on in these agencies to 
implement this Executive Order than any Member of Congress.
    Ms. Hageman. Are they involved with implementing the 
Executive Order?
    Ms. Mitchell. Yes, they are.
    Ms. Hageman. Have they been--are they in compliance with 
FACA or the Federal Advisory Committee Act in that regard?
    Ms. Mitchell. No, they are not.
    No, they are not.
    Ms. Hageman. So, they're violating FACA in doing this?
    Ms. Mitchell. They are violating that. Yes, they are. They 
brag about all the agencies that they have assisted over the 
last three years with implementing the Executive Order.
    Ms. Hageman. This Executive Order obviously involves these 
various Federal agencies in the voting process. Besides the 
concern that these agencies do not have expertise in this area, 
should the American people be concerned that this will be 
administered by politically appointed officials of the Biden-
Harris Administration?
    Ms. Mitchell. Well, absolutely because the original 
Executive Order required that every plan had to be submitted to 
the White House to the Director of the Office of Domestic 
Policy which at the time was held by Susan Rice. It also goes 
on to say that Federal funds and grants will be disseminated 
through the White House by the Office of Domestic Policy by 
Susan Rice. We do not know to this day who got the grants, how 
much they got. We know nothing about that.
    Ms. Hageman. So, in terms of these plans, were they all 
submitted to the White House for review?
    Ms. Mitchell. We presume that they were because they were 
directed to do that, but we don't know.
    Ms. Hageman. They're being implemented as we speak?
    Ms. Mitchell. They're being implemented as we speak.
    Ms. Hageman. We as Congress have not been able to get our 
hands on the documents?
    Ms. Mitchell. Not a single document.
    Ms. Hageman. I guess I have a question. Why would they want 
to hide this information?
    Ms. Mitchell. That's a good question.
    Ms. Hageman. I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming. I recognize 
my friend from Pennsylvania for a unanimous consent request.
    Ms. Scanlon. Knowing how much you love NPR articles. I 
would introduce June 30, 2024 article, ``Republicans are 
turning Biden's voter registration order into a partisan 
flashpoint.'' Also enter the Brennan Center for Justice report 
entitled, ``Noncitizen Voting: The Missing Millions.'' That's 
the 2017 report we were discussing.
    Mr. Roy. Without objection.
    I will now recognize myself for five minutes, and I thank 
the gentlelady from Wyoming. Question for you, Ms. Senteno. I 
apologize. I think I'm not pronouncing it exactly correct. Ms. 
Senteno, how many Democrats voted for the SAVE Act in July?
    Ms. Senteno. I'm not aware. I can look into it and get back 
to you.
    Mr. Roy. Five--five Democrats voted for it, and three of 
whom are Hispanic, one of whom is Black. Do you believe that 
their vote was a discriminatory vote?
    Ms. Senteno. Do I believe their votes were discriminatory?
    Mr. Roy. Right. Do you believe those votes or they 
supported that or voted for that because they support 
discriminating against minority voters?
    Ms. Senteno. I believe that those votes are bad public 
policy.
    Mr. Roy. Ms. Jenks, you mentioned earlier but I want to 
explore just a little further that last Congress our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle passed legislation, the Dream 
and Promise Act, that in part allows DHS to waive the 
inadmissibility of aliens that illegally voted if doing so is 
deemed to be in the public interest. Now, why would they do 
that if there's not a problem with people who are illegally 
present in the United States voting?
    Ms. Jenks. There's only one reason to do that and that is 
illegal aliens are voting. There's no other explanation. By the 
way, the American Dream and Promise Act that was introduced in 
this Congress contains the same provision. The U.S. Citizenship 
Act that the Biden Administration wrote and submitted to 
Congress in the first week is worse because it actually 
automatically waives noncitizen voting and false claims to U.S. 
citizenship so registering to vote.
    Mr. Roy. How many illegal aliens has the Biden-Harris 
regime allowed into the country in their tenure?
    Ms. Jenks. At least 7\1/2\ million allowed to enter the 
country and remain.
    Mr. Roy. That number comes from public sources, right, the 
government reported sources of the number of releases into the 
United States.
    Ms. Jenks. Correct.
    Mr. Roy. Whether they're unaccompanied children or whether 
they're notices to appear under the parole program, the CBP One 
app, whatever it is that releases under the administration's 
policies, which total somewhere in the range of 5\1/2\ million 
plus the roughly two million gotaways. Is that correct?
    Ms. Jenks. Yes.
    Mr. Roy. So, 7\1/2\ billion people now in the United 
States. If just one percent of those individuals, we're 
talking--doing math in my head really quick. Is that 75,000?
    If one percent of those individuals were registered to 
vote, that's a pretty significant number, correct? That could 
have a significant impact on elections in the States where, for 
example, Al Franken won his Minnesota Senate seat by 300 votes 
where a number of Congressional colleagues of ours have won by 
300 and something votes, where Mariannette Miller-Meeks won by 
six votes. So, would you agree that's a pretty significant 
number?
    Ms. Jenks. Absolutely. It's not just the 7\1/2\ million 
illegal aliens. It's also the rest of the noncitizens who are 
in the country. So, the legal immigrants, refugees, they're 
all--foreign students, all these categories of noncitizens, all 
of them representing 30 million people, some percentages are 
voting.
    Mr. Roy. Ms. Mitchell, there have been concerns stated by 
some colleagues frankly on both sides of the aisle that if we 
pass the SAVE Act today about two months out before the 
election, that will have an limited impact. Now, my perspective 
and my answer, I want to see if you'd agree, is that the SAVE 
Act is effective at the time of enactment. That's how it's 
designed. That is how it's written.
    That 22 States and the District of Columbia allow voters to 
register to vote on election day meaning passing the SAVE Act 
would have an impact all the way up to Election Day. That the 
SAVE Act also requires all States to remove noncitizens from 
their existing rolls through Election Day and give them the 
tools to do so that we discussed, access to the databases that 
we talked about. So, would you agree that even if we pass the 
SAVE Act now or in the coming week or two that it would have a 
massive impact on securing the 2024 election?
    Ms. Mitchell. I absolutely do. That's why I think it's so 
important that you're having this hearing and I think it's so 
important for Congress to pass the SAVE Act for it to become 
effective immediately.
    Mr. Roy. Secretary Byrd, would you agree with that?
    Mr. Byrd. Absolutely. With the SAVE Act or what the NVRA 
prohibits is a systematic removal process. States can still do 
an individualized process per person. If we had more access to 
more information, we could definitely do more list maintenance 
which is critical to ensuring a fair election and trust in the 
electorate.
    Mr. Roy. Without the SAVE Act or something similar, are you 
able to know how many people slip through the cracks and vote 
illegally, the President of United States, and vote in the 
State of Florida?
    Mr. Byrd. It makes it very, very difficult to near 
impossible.
    Mr. Roy. Well, I appreciate that. Now, I'm going to yield 
back the balance of my time. I'm going to recognize my friend 
from South Carolina, Mr. Fry.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Chair, for having this hearing. I think 
this is an incredibly important topic. I'm having a little bit 
of deja vu. I served in the State legislature and even before 
that, I followed the arguments about voter ID.
    The clarion call from the Democrats was this is going to 
suppress turnout, that it's going to limit people from 
exercising their right to vote, that it was going to have 
disastrous effects on South Carolina voting. It has done 
everything but that. In fact, turnout is much better now with 
voter ID in South Carolina and other States.
    So, the arguments against commonsense things that quite 
frankly the American people you ask--this polls incredibly well 
not only among Republicans, but among Democrats and 
Independents, really all parts of our country support this 
except when you cross the Potomac into Washington, DC. You hear 
the Ranking Member say that it's going to have--one said it was 
going to hurt voters because they would have to provide 
documents. The reality is according to the bill for applicants 
without supporting documentation of citizenship, the SAVE Act 
permits State officials to check a variety of State and Federal 
databases.
    Another myth was it would somehow delay their registration. 
The bill text is pretty clear as well, that they would be able 
to do that within 24 hours of accepting that application. So, 
again, I just go back and fundamentally reject because in the 
plain language of the text itself, it does the exact opposite 
of what the Ranking Member was referring to.
    So, Ms. Mitchell, I'm going to you because in your 
testimony--and I really want to explore this--there was a DOJ 
order from President Biden, Executive Order 14019. A 
whistleblower came forward. You were talking with them, working 
with them on a report. Talk to us about what that Executive 
Order was, what it did, and the contents of your findings just 
briefly.
    Ms. Mitchell. Well, the Executive Order is word for word 
the Executive Order that Bill Clinton issued after the National 
Voter Registration Act was enacted by Congress in 1993. The 
difference is Congress did not take any action to authorize 
Federal agencies to spend Federal tax dollars and Federal 
employees' time and Federal resources to register people to 
vote. There's no Congressional authority for it. The Chief 
Executive has no authority to order anything with regard to 
voter registration.
    So, the fact is that it is an order that's based on the 
NVRA. It orders every Federal agency to develop a plan. That 
plan was supposed to be submitted to the White House by 
September 2021. It was to say how this agency planned to 
implement and conduct voter registration.
    More problematic to me are the voter education materials, 
which is a euphemism in Democratic voter parlance for get out 
the vote. I don't want my Federal tax dollars being spent to 
turn out voters because I know the voters that they're going to 
turn out. I don't think that they're treating all citizens 
equally. They're treating certain populations differently with 
our tax dollars.
    Mr. Fry. I would echo that--
    Ms. Mitchell. I don't think it's legal.
    Mr. Fry. --Ms. Mitchell, particularly from noncitizen 
prisoners, right? That's where at least the U.S. marshals and 
the DOJ were going with this. Is that correct?
    Ms. Mitchell. In the Federal Bureau of Prisons, that 
there's no safeguard in the Executive Order saying, now be 
certain that you follow State law and that you don't register 
felons to vote. Be certain that you follow Federal law and 
you're not registering noncitizens to vote. You don't have to 
be a citizen to go into get food stamps or other kinds of 
benefits. You don't have to be a citizen. These employees are 
ordered to nonetheless register them to vote.
    Mr. Fry. That's equally troubling. When you look at the 
legal framework of this, an illegal alien by registering, say, 
with some social services is given an application possibly to 
vote. It might be a mistake. Regardless, they are given that 
option based on this Executive Order. Is that fair to say?
    Ms. Mitchell. That's exactly right, sir.
    Mr. Fry. So, it's pretty easy to get added to the voter 
rolls. It is nearly impossible to get removed.
    Ms. Mitchell. That's exactly right.
    Mr. Fry. Isn't that the conundrum that we find ourselves 
in?
    Ms. Mitchell. That is exactly right.
    Mr. Fry. Isn't that what the SAVE Act would protect, 
prohibit, and fight against is give States that option to 
remove noncitizens from their voting rolls?
    Ms. Mitchell. That's right. To keep them from getting on 
the rolls in the first place.
    Mr. Fry. Why, Ms. Mitchell, then is it so hard to 
understand that or so problematic for my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to think that this was actually a 
pretty decent policy, that noncitizens should not be voting in 
United States elections?
    Ms. Mitchell. Because they don't agree with that premise. 
They want noncitizens to be counted for all purposes. They want 
noncitizens to be voting.
    The State of Vermont controlled by Democrats has now 
extended that right to all noncitizens in the State, San 
Francisco, New York, the District of Columbia. The Democrats 
have voted to--we see the pattern. They vote for noncitizens. 
They vote against anything that would keep noncitizens from 
being recognized as an important and critical part of our 
political system.
    Mr. Fry. So, say one thing and do another. Sounds like 
Washington, DC. Thank you, Ms. Mitchell.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, and I 
thank the witnesses. Let me allow the Ranking Member, the 
gentlelady from Pennsylvania, to insert some more documents 
into the record.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. We've had a lot of discussion here 
about the Executive Order or the voter registration list 
maintenance guidance that the DOJ published just in September, 
making clear that Congressional--that Congress has already 
dictated what has to be done with respect to list maintenance 
and set those restrictions, not that it's anything new by this 
administration. I'd also like to put in a Washington Post 
article, ``Top GOP lawyer decries ease of campus voting in 
private pitch to RNC,'' presentation by Cleta Mitchell at donor 
retreat. Urged tougher rules that can make it harder for 
college students to cast ballots. Second one and finally, 
``Rep. Chip Roy says election deniers and Project 2025 
contributors helped draft the SAVE Act.''
    Mr. Roy. Was there a specific request on the thing you 
mentioned from DOJ?
    Ms. Scanlon. Yes, sorry.
    Mr. Roy. Was it specific--what was the actual document?
    Ms. Scanlon. Just to put in the documents since it was 
referenced repeatedly here.
    Mr. Roy. Got it. OK.
    Ms. Scanlon. Then the Washington Post article and the Media 
Matters article.
    Mr. Roy. Got it.
    Mr. Roy. Without--I just want to be clear. Without 
objection.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Mr. Roy. With that, this concludes today's hearing. We 
thank the witnesses for appearing before the Committee today. 
Without objection, all members will have five legislative days 
to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or 
additional materials for the record. Without objection, the 
hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent 
.aspx?EventID=117612.

                                 [all]