Jack Reed

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Van Hollen, Kim, Alsobrooks, and Blunt Rochester in introducing the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, a bill that will finally define the offense of insider trading. This legislation is desperately needed because in the absence of a statutory definition, the courts have cobbled together a dizzying array of interpretations of anti-fraud statutes, creating what is an inconsistent and complicated body of common law for deciding insider trading cases. What should be simple has become unnecessarily complex.

Indeed, Judge Jed Rakoff, who has presided over many insider trading cases before the Southern District of New York, wrote in a recent opinion that ``the crime of insider trading is a straightforward concept that some courts have somehow managed to complicate.''

Consider the following hypothetical example. A financial analyst receives information about XYZ Corporation's earnings from a company insider, like an executive or board member, before this information is publicly released. The analyst then shares this inside information with her portfolio manager, who subsequently trades in XYZ stock.

I suspect most Americans would agree that the portfolio manager was given an unfair advantage.

But the courts are not so sure. They have left an open question whether this very trade would constitute illegal insider trading. Experts agree that this kind of judicial uncertainty is one reason among many of why Congress must clarify the law of insider trading.

Current SEC Chair Paul Atkins said in response to questions for the record that ``following several high-profile insider trading cases, in 1988 Congress adopted the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act, but despite the statute's name, did not define `insider trading' because of lack of consensus of how to define it. Almost four decades later, the situation is even muddier as courts have applied the concept to various fact patterns.''

Former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara have written that ``[t]he shoddy state of American insider-trading law affects everyone. Prosecutors and regulators are stuck enforcing laws that are ill-suited to 21st-century misconduct. Lawyers struggle to tell their clients what they can and cannot do within the bounds of the law. And ordinary Americans are left asking whether financial markets are stacked in favor of those who skirt the rules.''

Columbia Law School Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., noted that ``there is general agreement today that the law of insider trading has grown overly complex and technical. As a result, it is hard for the public to understand its logic or for practitioners to give advice with respect to the scope of the prohibition. Moreover, to the extent that insider trading is judge-made law, disparities and inconsistencies among the U.S. circuit courts becomes inevitable because there is little in the way of a definitive statutory text to provide precise guidance.''

State regulators agree too. For example, Maryland Commissioner of Securities Melanie Senter Lubin has stated on behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association that ``defining the standards for insider trading liability by statute would add greater clarity and consistency to this important area of the law.''

This is precisely what my colleagues and I are doing in our bill. We are seeking to finally distill the offense of insider trading to clear bright line rules. Simply put, if a person trades a security on the basis of information that the person is aware is material and nonpublic and is aware was wrongfully obtained, then that person has engaged in unlawful insider trading.

Under our legislation, insider trading would be prohibited if a trader knows or has reason to know that her information was wrongfully obtained, for example, through theft, bribery, hacking, misappropriation, or a breach of a fiduciary duty for a personal benefit. We do not intend to restrict those who take the time to independently develop their own information from publicly available sources from trading on the independently developed information.

By cracking down on those who rig securities markets to favor the well connected, our legislation provides everyday investors with a fair shot at seeing some returns after investing their hard-earned savings. Incidents of insider trading and the perceived pervasiveness of the practice have for years served to validate the public's worst assumptions about Wall Street culture. It is time we clearly define what is appropriate under the law and take this meaningful step towards improving the integrity of our securities markets for professional traders and retail investors alike.

I would like to thank my Banking Committee colleagues for working with me on this legislation, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting the Insider Trading Prohibition Act.

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Van Hollen, Kim, Alsobrooks, and Blunt Rochester in introducing the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, a bill that will finally define the offense of insider trading. This legislation is desperately needed because in the absence of a statutory definition, the courts have cobbled together a dizzying array of interpretations of anti-fraud statutes, creating what is an inconsistent and complicated body of common law for deciding insider trading cases. What should be simple has become unnecessarily complex.

Indeed, Judge Jed Rakoff, who has presided over many insider trading cases before the Southern District of New York, wrote in a recent opinion that ``the crime of insider trading is a straightforward concept that some courts have somehow managed to complicate.''

Consider the following hypothetical example. A financial analyst receives information about XYZ Corporation's earnings from a company insider, like an executive or board member, before this information is publicly released. The analyst then shares this inside information with her portfolio manager, who subsequently trades in XYZ stock.

I suspect most Americans would agree that the portfolio manager was given an unfair advantage.

But the courts are not so sure. They have left an open question whether this very trade would constitute illegal insider trading. Experts agree that this kind of judicial uncertainty is one reason among many of why Congress must clarify the law of insider trading.

Current SEC Chair Paul Atkins said in response to questions for the record that ``following several high-profile insider trading cases, in 1988 Congress adopted the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act, but despite the statute's name, did not define `insider trading' because of lack of consensus of how to define it. Almost four decades later, the situation is even muddier as courts have applied the concept to various fact patterns.''

Former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara have written that ``[t]he shoddy state of American insider-trading law affects everyone. Prosecutors and regulators are stuck enforcing laws that are ill-suited to 21st-century misconduct. Lawyers struggle to tell their clients what they can and cannot do within the bounds of the law. And ordinary Americans are left asking whether financial markets are stacked in favor of those who skirt the rules.''

Columbia Law School Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., noted that ``there is general agreement today that the law of insider trading has grown overly complex and technical. As a result, it is hard for the public to understand its logic or for practitioners to give advice with respect to the scope of the prohibition. Moreover, to the extent that insider trading is judge-made law, disparities and inconsistencies among the U.S. circuit courts becomes inevitable because there is little in the way of a definitive statutory text to provide precise guidance.''

State regulators agree too. For example, Maryland Commissioner of Securities Melanie Senter Lubin has stated on behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association that ``defining the standards for insider trading liability by statute would add greater clarity and consistency to this important area of the law.''

This is precisely what my colleagues and I are doing in our bill. We are seeking to finally distill the offense of insider trading to clear bright line rules. Simply put, if a person trades a security on the basis of information that the person is aware is material and nonpublic and is aware was wrongfully obtained, then that person has engaged in unlawful insider trading.

Under our legislation, insider trading would be prohibited if a trader knows or has reason to know that her information was wrongfully obtained, for example, through theft, bribery, hacking, misappropriation, or a breach of a fiduciary duty for a personal benefit. We do not intend to restrict those who take the time to independently develop their own information from publicly available sources from trading on the independently developed information.

By cracking down on those who rig securities markets to favor the well connected, our legislation provides everyday investors with a fair shot at seeing some returns after investing their hard-earned savings. Incidents of insider trading and the perceived pervasiveness of the practice have for years served to validate the public's worst assumptions about Wall Street culture. It is time we clearly define what is appropriate under the law and take this meaningful step towards improving the integrity of our securities markets for professional traders and retail investors alike.

I would like to thank my Banking Committee colleagues for working with me on this legislation, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting the Insider Trading Prohibition Act.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Bus Operator Safety and Security Act with my colleague from Missouri, Mr. Hawley. Our bipartisan bill will address a growing safety concern facing the transit industry: protecting the bus operators who serve as the backbone of our Nation's public transportation system.

Bus operators are being subjected to physical assaults, chemical attacks, and exposure to biohazards for simply carrying out their essential work. In my home State, a Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, RIPTA, busdriver was sprayed in the face with insecticide after asking a passenger to pay their fare. In Missouri, a Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, KCATA, busdriver was attacked with a baseball bat. In Ohio, a Central Ohio Transit Authority, COTA, busdriver was punched in the face after a passenger reached around a partial operator barrier, and in Pennsylvania, a Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, SEPTA, busdriver sustained slash wounds to his face and abdomen when attacked by a passenger. The list goes on.

These attacks are part of a growing nationwide trend. Indeed, assaults on transit workers have increased by more than 36 percent since 2023, with an average of 43 assaults each day in 2025. These alarming statistics underscore the urgent need to better protect the dedicated operators who keep our public transportation systems running safely every day.

To address this growing crisis, the Bus Operator Safety and Security Act would require all new, federally funded buses to be equipped with protective barriers around the operator's seat, providing bus operators with a safer and more secure workspace. These barriers are not cosmetic; they are lifesaving. They fully enclose the operator's workstation, preventing unauthorized entry and protecting operators from physical assaults, thrown objects, chemical agents, and other dangerous hazards. while maintaining a clear line of sight so operators can safely perform their jobs.

This is a simple, commonsense solution. These barriers cost between $3,000 to $7,000 per bus, yet they can mean the difference between a bus operator making it home safely at the end of the day or becoming the victim of a violent assault.

I am pleased that the bill is supported by the Amalgamated Transit Union, ATU, the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, TTD, the SMART Transportation Division, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, and the Transport Workers Union of America, TWU. And in Rhode Island, the bill is supported by RIPTA and ATU Local 618. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hawley in supporting this commonsense legislation and in working to include it in the next Surface Transportation reauthorization.