Discussion · House of Representatives
Johnny Olszewski, Jr. Democrat
“I am voting against this rule. We should ban members of Congress from trading stocks completely, but this bill only takes small steps. Even worse, it adds rules that make it harder for Americans to vote. I will not support making it harder to vote just to get weak limits on stock trading.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I agree, it is past time that we ban congressional insider trading. No one should benefit from public service, but wouldn’t the easiest way to do that be to just completely ban stock trading entirely, not take the baby steps attached to this bill included in the rule? Still, I was open to voting for the bill, to accept that incremental but wholly insufficient progress. What I am not open to, Mr. Speaker, is accepting modest progress on stock ethics, insufficient progress in exchange for significantly compromising American voting rights, and that is also exactly what this bill would do. It would add unnecessary and unrelated provisions that make it harder for Americans to vote. Republicans can’t even be bothered to provide the IDs they would have Americans be required to have in order to vote. In fact, that was in the bill, and they took it out. That is not reform, Mr. Speaker. That is a bait-and-switch. It is one more ruse by this Republican majority to distract the public from their inability or their unwillingness, or both, to rein in costs and address corruption. The American people deserve so much better. I urge a ``no’’ vote.”
-
Speech on a bill
Signal 30 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysis
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I agree, it is past time that we ban congressional insider trading. No one should benefit from public service, but wouldn’t the easiest way to do that be to just completely ban stock trading entirely, not take the baby steps attached to this bill included in the rule? Still, I was open to voting for the bill, to accept that incremental but wholly insufficient progress. What I am not open to, Mr. Speaker, is accepting modest progress on stock ethics, insufficient progress in exchange for significantly compromising American voting rights, and that is also exactly what this bill would do. It would add unnecessary and unrelated provisions that make it harder for Americans to vote. Republicans can’t even be bothered to provide the IDs they would have Americans be required to have in order to vote. In fact, that was in the bill, and they took it out. That is not reform, Mr. Speaker. That is a bait-and-switch. It is one more ruse by this Republican majority to distract the public from their inability or their unwillingness, or both, to rein in costs and address corruption. The American people deserve so much better. I urge a ``no’’ vote.