Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Emanuel Cleaver for yielding, and I thank my subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Hill, for a very good characterization of the project we are undertaking here.

I will emphasize two things.

Number one, at a moment when we are working hard to find ways to work in a bipartisan fashion in the public interest, this is landmark legislation. As Mr. Hill pointed out, we passed it in the last Congress with a vote of 410-13, and that was the result of a very comprehensive and fairly technical negotiation around the fine points of insider trading.

The second thing I would point out is that everyone in this Chamber should agree that law is to be made in this Chamber, not in the chambers of unelected judges throughout the land. While Mr. Hill is correct that there has been a vast body of court-made law around insider trading developed over the generations, that is far from ideal and, frankly, an abrogation of the legislative responsibilities of the United States Congress. So, we are where we are.

We have attempted to make clear and clear up a great deal of the uncertainty, the reversed convictions, the activities in the Second Circuit that have overturned convictions and created uncertainty in the law. This is an effort to make clear what I think everyone understands, which is that if you trade on information that you know to have been wrongly obtained or that you wrongly obtained or that you recklessly disregard was wrongly obtained, you are doing something wrong. In this case, with the passage of this legislation, it will be clear that you have violated the law.

I am excited for the passage of this legislation because I am a believer that it is, in fact, the elected legislators of this country and not the judges, as important as their role may be, who should determine what we consider wrong in statute and what we punish people for doing.

Finally, of course, it is essential that everyone out there have confidence in our markets. Every time there is another headline about an insider trader or a reversed conviction of insider trading, that confidence is damaged. So, I applaud the bringing of this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I must say, as much respect as I have for Mr. Huizenga--I have been around here a little while--I think this may be the first time I have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the regulators deserve deference on this, that the regulators are not asking us to make a statutory change. I have never heard that in this Chamber--this Chamber--which, under Article I of the Constitution, is charged with writing the laws of this country.

Apparently, my Republican friends, who don't typically defer to regulators, are now saying the SEC is, at best, neutral on this law.

Is there damage?

I would urge anybody who wants to know about that to read the activities of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the overturning of conviction after conviction of hedge fund managers and others around points of technical complexity.

We make the laws. We don't ask the regulators whether they would like us to, or whether they would cheer us on in making laws. We make the laws. If we are going to send people to jail, if we are going to stop the confusion of judge-made law, let's do our job and pass this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the first-place placement of Staples High School We The People: The Citizen and the Constitution Connecticut regional competition.

The We The People program helps students develop in-depth understanding of the Constitution through building their understanding of civic duty, teaching valuable research skills, and expanding their knowledge of government and its inner-workings.

Ensuring a better future for Southwest Connecticut requires our students to be able to articulate a vision for our country that reflects the basic principles in the Constitution that we revere. Staples High School's We The People team's success is proof of how our Constitution's principles and values will be carried on by ambitious and passionate future generations. I am proud that several of Connecticut's state champions come from the Fourth Congressional District, with Staples High School included in those ranks. Later this April, the Staples We The People will compete in the National Finals against teams across the country.

Madam Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues join me in congratulating the following students: Alexia Abrams Rivera, Natalie Bandura, Zachary Bishop, Oliver Clachko, Ruby Coleman, Jake Fitzpatrick, Matthew Genser, Alex Harrington, Eli Herman, Elizabeth Kuehndorf, Jared Leonard, Rishabh Mandayam, Talia Perkins, Aidan Rogers, Thomas Sargent, Lucia Schnirring, Allison Schwartz, Katherine Simons, Katherine Smith, Krishin Wadhwani, Julian Weng.

I join the community of Westport and the Fourth Congressional District in recognizing the accomplishment of these students and teacher, Suzanne Kammerman.

The words have almost all been said. Search your soul. Consider your oath. And I add four more words: Reflect on your legacy.

My friends, which way is history flowing right now? Will Donald Trump join the pantheon of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan? Will his 33 percent approval ratings and the condemnation of principled Republicans consign him to the heap of reviled demigods with Joseph McCarthy and Andrew Johnson?

Where he goes in history, you go in history, unless, today, you make a stand.

Madam Chair, I would like to thank Mr. Smith and Mr. Khanna for their leadership on this amendment and just express my disappointment at the statements made by my friend, Mr. McCaul.

I never imagined that an amendment that essentially restated congressional authority as detailed in the Constitution would ever get characterized as a propaganda win for Iran, as a pro-Iran thing; and I would remind my friend, Mr. McCaul, that, yes, the President stepped away from a military conflict that might have been justified as an act of self-defense.

I am not in the practice of praising the President on this floor, but he took a prudent course a few weeks ago. There is absolutely no guarantee he will do so again.

This amendment does one simple thing. It is not unprecedented. Its precedent is the United States Constitution, which vests war-making authority when it is not in self-defense, as Mr. Smith points out, exclusively in the Congress. Now, we may or may not like that idea, but it is the principle that we swore to uphold.

And I would just remind the Chamber that, every time we allow a Democratic or a Republican President to go to war without an authorization in this Chamber, we shirk our constitutional duty. We fail to back our warfighters with the full and robust voice of the United States Government.

Mr. Speaker, one of the proudest moments of my career in this Chamber was the passage of the Affordable Care Act, not because it was perfect--it wasn't--but because it changed the lives for the better of tens of millions of Americans. Now, of course, we are threatened with repeal.

Mr. Speaker, here is what repeal would look like by the numbers. Overturning the ACA would raise the number of uninsured people in the United States by 20 to 21 million people. Due to preexisting conditions, more than 100 million Americans could face higher health insurance premiums or the possibility that they might not get insured at all.

Now, remember, as you consider the claim from my Republican friends that they will preserve preexisting condition coverage, remember that they promised for 10 years to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and they didn't do it. Then they promised to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, and they didn't do it. So when they promise to preserve preexisting conditions, take that with a grain of salt.

But this is not just about the numbers. This is about real people in my district. People like Tom, who was able to start his own business once insurance didn't tie him to his job, or Robert, who was forced into bankruptcy by healthcare costs, but doesn't have to fear that anymore because of the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I do not exaggerate when I say that repealing or striking down the Affordable Care Act would be a tragedy of enormous proportions. I ask all of my colleagues to join the fight to protect Americans' healthcare.

Madam Speaker, I am not in the habit of praising the President from this perch, but I do want to say that I am very pleased that we are not in yet another shooting war in the Middle East today.

I think we came very, very close, and I appreciate that the President had the courage to stand down some raids that, undoubtedly, would have led to a response and led to another war in the Middle East.

I know he does that at the risk of being criticized for potentially damaging American credibility, but we are not in a war today. That is an argument for history.

What is not an argument for history is that any aggression, any military action against Iran, must be approved by the Congress of the United States. It is clear in the Constitution that a decision to go to war must be made in this building.

I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to reflect on the reason for that. If we are going to sacrifice blood and treasure, the Representatives of the people must make that decision, not one individual at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Now is the time for us to consider whether another Middle Eastern war makes sense for the people of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that I shy away from sharp partisanship in favor of the negotiation and compromise required for law to be made.

I marvel every day at how rarely the pragmatic common sense of the American people is given voice in this Chamber. But, Mr. Speaker, there are moments for calculation, for prudence, for compromise, for the careful weighing of competing interests, and there are moments for clarity and conviction.

This is such a moment. The time has come, Mr. Speaker, for the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment inquiry into President Trump. From the moment of his inauguration, this President has shown contempt for the truth, has attacked our institutions, and has ignored the Constitution he swore to defend.

He has refused the oversight which is Congress' long-established right and duty. In recent weeks, he has refused to comply with subpoenas, he has ordered administration officials to refuse to testify, and he has asserted executive privilege of unprecedented scope with respect to attempts to alter the Census.

That we have not slouched closer to autocracy is due to the strength of the democratic safeguards and protections that we have built and defended for two-and-a-half centuries. Most Americans sense the danger and have reacted, most recently, by electing a House of Representatives with the power and desire to check this President. The President has persistently refused to acknowledge or acquiesce to that power.

Mr. Speaker, the Framers of the Constitution placed the power of impeachment, not in the courts, but in the Congress so that this body might consider not just the facts and the letter of the law, but the broader interests of the Republic. I have, until now, been conflicted about those interests.

Impeachment, along with the right to declare war, is the most awesome power of the Congress. The politics of impeachment are messy and uncertain and might, in the short run, serve the President's narrow political interests.

But look at where we are today. Republicans in this Chamber cheer, or justify, or stand woefully silent in the face of behavior for which they would have impeached a Democratic President many times over. Our best and most proven ideas cannot get even a hearing in the United States Senate. Unless we restore respect for the law, respect for truth, and respect for common decency, we cannot hope to solve any of our other pressing problems.

The American people should understand that opening an impeachment inquiry is not removal of the President. Given the behavior of the United States Senate, that outcome is probably out of the question. An impeachment inquiry will be a fair consideration of the facts that the American people must understand with both sides fairly and openly represented.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I will be asked if my motive today is to pressure the Speaker of the House whose leadership of this Congress has been superb. It is not. She leads us today in the epic mission of defending our democracy. That mission requires a vigorous debate and competing ideas, but it also requires care, discipline, and a measure of deference.

I represent the people of southwestern Connecticut, the Constitution State. From my house, I can walk to the hill where General Israel Putnam made a daring escape from the British cavalry in 1779, so that Americans would never have to answer to a tyrant for their opinions, politics, or religious beliefs.

Just up the road is the town of Ridgefield where General David Wooster and 20 young patriots died in April of 1777 so that Americans would be spared ever living under a capricious and arbitrary power.

Mr. Speaker, there are moments for careful calculation, for weighing political expediency and conflicting interests, and there are moments for clarity and conviction. This is that moment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the opportunity we have today to lead on the crisis of climate change.

The climate change crisis is unlike any other that we have faced. It cannot be defeated on the battlefield; it cannot be cured; it cannot be wished away; and it, certainly, can no longer be denied.

What we can do is what we have always done and lead the community of nations to address a problem that would leave our children and their grandchildren with an unbelievable crisis and possibly a planet that they can no longer inhabit.

The Paris climate agreement was a set of targets that we developed that are not mandatory. The Paris climate agreement is about making a statement that this is a problem and a crisis, and that America will lead.

Today, this Chamber has an opportunity to say, yes, we will lead. We will not hide from the problem. We will not let this crisis distract us. We will lead.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9 today and to send a statement to the world that, as we have always done, we will lead on this global crisis.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the London Philharmonic Orchestra for its remarkable work as an artistic and educational body. Since its foundation m 1932, the LPO has helped spread the joys of music through live and recorded performances, playing throughout Asia, Europe, and the United States, and recording pieces for film and videogame soundtracks. On April 16, 2019 my district will host the Philharmonic for their first-ever performance in the State of Connecticut.

As one of the leading orchestras in the world, the LPO has used its reach and influence to promote music education, foster participation in the arts, and enhance performance skills with students from all socio- economic backgrounds. The London Music Masters, created by LPO Chairwoman and Greenwich-native Lady Victoria Robey, has given 1500 inner-city London students the opportunity to develop their musical skills and to model themselves after mentors both in and outside of the program. Through this program and many others, Lady Robey and the LPO have shared their love of music and made an invaluable contribution to youth development.

Music is a uniquely powerful force. It brings people together, speaks volumes when words cannot, and enriches the lives of all who encounter it. The London Philharmonic Orchestra has touched the lives of its audience and established itself as an irreplaceable part of the musical world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about a word that is everywhere, a word that is the response to every idea that we come up with, and that word is ``socialism.''

It is a scary word. It is a magical word. It is the word that comes up every time Democrats propose a plan to better educate America's children--socialism; to make the elderly more secure in their retirement--socialism; to make healthcare available to people in this country who still can't see a doctor--socialism.

It is a magical word because, if you say ``socialism,'' then it allows you to hide the fact that you actually don't have a counterplan, that when the Democrats say here are a bunch of plans to make healthcare better and you don't have a plan, you just say ``socialism,'' and that could end the conversation.

It is a magical word because it allows you to distract from the fact that, if you actually do the things to better educate America's children or to make America's retirees more secure in their retirement or to make healthcare more available, that costs a little money. The problem with that is that, for my Republican colleagues, that money needs to go into tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country and for corporations. That is a problem.

By the way, it is not a new thing. This has been going on for 100 years. I have a quote here from President Reagan. He is talking about Medicare here:

And behind it will come other Federal programs that will

invade every area of freedom as we know it in this country

until, one day, we will awake to find that we have socialism.

Ronald Reagan promised us that Medicare, probably one of the most successful programs this country has ever put forward, would lead to socialism. It goes back before that.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who did so much to make for the decency that is endemic in this country after the Depression, the Securities and Exchange Commission so that our capitalist economy would be a fair economy, the progressive income tax so we could actually fund our military and fund education--all socialism. He was a traitor to his class. He was a socialist. This goes way back.

So having quoted Ronald Reagan, let me quote another great leader, Inigo Montoya, in ``The Princess Bride.'' He says: ``You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.''

So what does socialism mean? What is socialism?

Here is the dictionary definition. It is a system in which there is no private property or a system in which the government owns the means of production.

What is that? Is Medicare socialist? At Mount Sinai or Sloan Kettering, are those hospitals or doctors working for the government? Of course not.

Was Dodd-Frank socialist? No. Dodd-Frank put in place regulations that have allowed JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo, and all those banks to be more profitable than ever before. That is not socialism.

What is particularly interesting is socialism is just a lot of government in your economy. I took time to look at States where government is actually a big part of the economy. You can look this up, Mr. Speaker.

There is an article called, ``The Top Five Most Socialist States.'' West Virginia, Alaska, Wyoming, Mississippi, and Arkansas are the five States with the largest percentage of government spending as part of their economy--deep, deep red States. The top five socialist States, Republican.

Now, what about those socialist States that my Republican friends call socialist? Here are a couple of them: California, New York, Massachusetts--that is Taxachusettes.

California: My friend, Devin Nunes, the Representative from California, because they are trying to take plastic out of the Pacific Ocean, called California socialist.

These are the economic powerhouses of the Nation. They have GDPs that look like small countries. They have innovators; they start companies. And the reason for that is because innovators and business people want to start businesses in communities where there are good schools, access to healthcare, and people have the wages to actually buy their products.

So, Mr. Speaker, don't be fooled by that magical word, ``socialism.'' Socialism is what is used to address every effort that we make to make for a more fair and just society. That is not socialism.

These things--increased wages, better healthcare, and better access to education--are not socialism. They are in the finest tradition of making sure that opportunity is available to every American and that the American Dream will not die.

Madam Speaker, on March 27, 2019, I was unable to be present for the vote on the motion to agree to H. Res. 252, offered by Rep. Torres of California. Had I been present for rollcall No. 131, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

Madam Speaker, today, I join the rest of Connecticut in mourning the loss of State Rep. Ezequiel Santiago. Zeke was a dedicated public servant and a dear friend who was taken from his family, and his community, far too soon. Zeke was kind, welcoming, and a strong leader. He dedicated himself to bettering the Bridgeport community and those around him.

Raised in Bridgeport, Zeke entered politics at a young age, volunteering on numerous campaigns before running for office. He was a tireless advocate for underrepresented and minority communities, bettering the lives of thousands of his fellow citizens. His work was integral in securing funding for community organizations that benefitted families and children like the South End Community Center, the Sheehan Center, and the YMCA. Without any pomp or self- aggrandizement, he dedicated his life to doing the hard, necessary work that makes our government function.

Zeke's loss is felt by everyone lucky enough to know him and has created a hole that will not soon be filled. A grateful state and nation will strive to preserve his memory and carry on his legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. And I also thank the ranking member. I very much appreciate his comments that he will support this concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I will just observe, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, that we have seen our politics twisted into almost unrecognizable form by the unprecedented attacks of the President on the Department of Justice, on the FBI, on the investigation as a whole.

This report must see the light of day and must be made available to the American public for a catharsis that will allow us to start with the facts, to understand what happened and to rebuild the faith that the American people did and should have in the Department of Justice, in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and in the government in general.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Congress, in strong, bipartisan fashion, passing this bill so that the American people will understand that the truth will be out there and it will help fix our politics.

Madam Speaker, it is Valentine's Day, and we have all spent the evening together, which is kind of funny. We did it in the service of keeping the government open with a bill that funds the government in a strong, bipartisan vote, and that is a good thing.

But, Madam Speaker, Valentine's Day will never again be a truly happy day because, of course, it is the 1-year anniversary of the Douglas shootings in Florida in which 17 young people, with their lives ahead of them, had those lives snuffed out at the end of a gun.

It is a particularly poignant moment for me and for those of us from Connecticut because we still can't forget, of course, the 20 children, 6 to 7 years old, and six adult staff who lost their lives in December of 2012 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.

So, Madam Speaker, I just rise to point out that we are hearing a lot tonight about an emergency declaration; and if 30,000 to 40,000 Americans, including these young angels, losing their lives every single year is not an emergency, I don't know what is.

This House, after 8 years of inaction and pathetic moments of silence, moved a bill, H.R. 8, for universal background checks out of committee yesterday. The least we can do as an institution is to take the small step of passing that bill into law to keep young and all Americans safe.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 624) to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to carry out a study of Rule 10b5-1 trading plans, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in support of H.R. 624 and to recognize the bipartisan fashion in which this bill is being brought to the floor and, in particular, thank Ranking Member McHenry for his work on this bipartisan bill.

It is terrific to see the first bill out of the committee and onto the floor be not only a bipartisan bill, but the kind of thing that I think we should be able to find agreement on in this Congress.

We have a robust debate in the committee and in this Congress around the question of how we establish well-balanced regulation on the capital markets and the financial services industry. That is a good debate in which the answer is always moving, but it is terrific to see that we can agree that wherever there is an opportunity either for fraudulent behavior, insider trading, or rent-seeking to occur--that is to say, when there is an advantage for a particular player in the market--that the parties can come together to move legislation like

Mr. Speaker, I thank very much Madam Chairwoman for yielding, and, again, to the ranking member. It is a delight, as I said before, to come right out with a bipartisan bill that really addresses the fundamental question of confidence in our markets.

H.R. 624--and I will be proud to vote for it and urge my colleagues to do the same--closes a number of technical loopholes that have allowed corporate

insiders over time flexibility to actually trade possibly on inside information. That, of course, has the effect of causing regular investors to wonder whether they want to compete with that sort of player in the market.

H.R. 624 is a terrific bipartisan, thoughtful bill right out of the gates in the Financial Services Committee.

I want to just take 30 seconds, though, to reflect on the fact that at this point in time, there is currently no Federal law explicitly prohibiting insider trading. That requires the SEC and the Department of Justice to rely on general antifraud provisions in the law to go after people suspected of insider trading.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to urge the committee, the chairwoman and the ranking member, to reflect on the words of U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who wrote: ``But if unlawful insider trading is to be properly deterred, it must be adequately defined. The appropriate body to do so, one would think, is Congress.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman and ranking member for their hard work on this bill. I hope we can take it to the next step of making it very clear that insider trading itself is a crime for the lack of confidence that it generates in our capital markets.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the chairwoman and the ranking member, and I urge passage of H.R. 624.