Joseph D. Morelle · TranslatePolitics.com

House of Representatives

Providing for the Condemnation and Denouncement of Socialism in All Its Forms, and for Other Purposes

2026-09-01

“Here's what I think. We should be talking about high gas prices. We should be talking about the high cost of groceries. But instead we are talking about socialism. We already talked about that. It's a waste of time. It won't do anything. I want to talk about how the other side is not helping families. I want to talk about how their bill would restrict voting access. I want to fight against them. We should make sure people can vote in November. I don't want this resolution to pass.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, on this floor this afternoon, we should be debating legislation to lower gas prices. We should be debating legislation to lower the cost of groceries. We should be debating legislation to rein in the most corrupt administration in the history of this country. That is what I heard when I went back home in Rochester and spent the last several weeks talking to people who are fearing for the futures of their families, who are fearing not being able to pay their medical bills, who fear not being able to pay their mortgage, who fear having to make tough decisions about childcare and putting food on the table. Instead, we are debating a nonbinding resolution. It is a nonbinding resolution which they said gives the sense of Congress. We have already given the sense about socialism less than a year ago. It has already passed this body, but we keep doing it. I guess we will keep saying it because we have nothing else to do and because we are not prepared to address the rising costs of gas and groceries and the challenges that families are facing. We are also calling for the enactment of a bill that has already passed the House. This is the important work this Congress is taking up today, passing a resolution that calls for the passing of a bill we have already passed and calling for the enactment of a resolution which we have already enacted. By the way, that bill, the SAVE America Act, would restrict access to the ballot box for millions of Americans, in particular, women, rural voters, students, and people of color. The SAVE America Act would effectively end vote by mail in the United States. It would force States to surrender private voter information to the Department of Homeland Security. If enacted today, the SAVE America Act would instantly throw the upcoming midterm elections into chaos. Mr. Speaker, House Democrats will continue to fight back because, despite the continued efforts by the President and his allies, our elections are safe. They are secure, and there is nothing more important in this moment than our collective efforts to ensure Americans are given every opportunity to render their verdict in November. House Democrats will make sure that happens, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like what my friend said. He talked about concentration of power. But the real concentration of power is in the presidency. Congress has done little to nothing to stop it. The other side is trying to concentrate power! They want to change election rules to help themselves. This bill would disrupt elections. It would cause chaos. The other side wants chaos to get more power. We need to stop them.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I share with Chairman Steil many things we agree on. He is a good friend, but his suggestion that this is about the concentration of power--concentration of power? What we have seen in the last 2 years is the concentration of power at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and a Congress that has done little to nothing about establishing our Article I prerogatives. When it comes to appropriations, when it comes to the impoundment of money, when it comes to the illegal activities in Iran, which has put hundreds of billions of dollars of American money spent over there, which has made us less secure, cost the lives of 18 Americans, that is a concentration of power. We ought to talk about that. We should be having that conversation about Article I powers and reestablishing Congress' rightful role. Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about concentration of power, Republican Members, including my friend, have made clear the SAVE America Act would take effect immediately upon passage. With just 63 days before this election, this bill would upend elections in every State across this country. Regarding concentration of power, Members of this body know that States begin mailing millions of ballots just 3 weeks from now, and yet, we would pass this concentration of power to put further power concentrated in the hands of one individual at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. How are these election administrators supposed to comply with this new Federal law should it take effect? It is election malpractice, frankly. The committee heard months ago from an election director on the ground who called this effective date unworkable. The purpose of this change, which is in this resolution, is clearly to throw election administration into disarray, because elections in chaos are easier to disrupt and subvert. That is why President Trump unleashed an angry mob on the building on January 6, 2021, to create chaos, undermine confidence in our election system, and literally create a dangerous situation, all in service of overturning an election that he lost. This change is irresponsible. It is the ultimate move to concentrate power in the hands of one individual. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez), my friend.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You want to condemn any form of socialism. But your resolution is too broad. It says the government owning shares in companies is socialism. The current president bought shares of Intel and other companies. Maybe that's socialism too by your definition. How can the government regulate companies it owns shares in? Will we procure fairly from other companies when we have a stake in Intel? I would take more care with this bill's language. Many of my colleagues would be concerned about a president having the government buy private companies. But they are quiet now even though Donald Trump did this. They would protest if Joe Biden did it. Think about it.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will just note that in the text of the resolution it talks about how socialist ideology necessitates the concentration of power, but the whereas is essentially any form of socialism. I am just sort of curious, as I read it, it denounces socialism in all of its forms. I just ask the question of my colleagues. The current administration has entered into 39 announced deals, has invested $28 billion of American taxpayer money, and $8.9 billion of that was to purchase 433 million shares of Intel. We now have a 9.9 percent stake in Intel-- which sounds like socialism to me, the government control or ownership of the means of production--15 percent of MP Materials, 5 percent of Lithium Americas, and another 5 percent of its joint venture with General Motors. Frankly, if it comes to government ownership of private industry, which it does, as a capitalist I said this, I actually voted on the resolution when it came before the House before, but I wonder: If the United States Government gets into the habit of purchasing shares and ownership of a chip manufacturer, Intel, does that mean when it comes to procurement that we are somehow compromised? Can we choose another chip manufacturer to the disadvantage of American taxpayers because we are part-owners of the company that is competing for our business? How will we regulate companies now where we have a vested interest in the profitability because the American taxpayers are part owners of that company? I would have taken a little more care with the resolution because you would have to argue that perhaps the most socialist President in recent memory is Donald Trump because he is having American taxpayers own shares of private companies. I would think there would be a number of Members on my friends' side of the aisle that would have distress about such a measure taken by an American President. I can imagine if Joe Biden was taking ownership of Intel how we would have heard people screaming about it, but they are oddly silent because the would-be dictator of America, the would-be king, has decided that he is going to invest American money in private companies. I just would be curious to see what people's response is to that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to make it sound like the other side is wasting time. I'm going to ignore the parts of the resolution that are new and talk about the parts we already passed. I don't want to talk about socialism or voting. I want to talk about gas prices and a war instead.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When the gentleman began to speak and said this was a simple resolution on socialism, I thought perhaps he hadn't read his own resolution because it also creates incredible barriers to people registering to vote in America and engaging in self-government, which has been the whole point of this Republic for 250 years. I am glad he did indicate, though, that this is also including efforts to make it harder for Americans to vote. However, I would say this: I know this is so important that we pass this resolution, except I would also remind the body that we passed this resolution a year ago condemning socialism, so we are doing here just the same thing. I guess next week we will do it again and again and again, but we have already done this, and we have also passed the awful SAVE America Act several times here as well. Rather than focusing on gas prices and the ill-advised illegal war in Iran, which has raised the price of groceries and gas, which has spent hundreds of billions of dollars not authorized by the Congress, we stand here talking about a resolution that has two parts, both of which have already passed. That is what we consider a critical measure to consider, a nonbinding resolution today on two things we have already done in the House, but I guess that passes for progress in some people's minds. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like the other party. The other party is bad. They waste time. They want to make it harder to vote. They want to keep people from voting. The other party spreads lies about our elections. The other party makes costs go up. They don't keep their promises. People don't like Congress. This is all the other party's fault. We should vote no on this.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as if we didn't waste enough time participating in yesterday's purely performative exercise at the Rules Committee, here we are again. After zero floor activity for the last 5 weeks, House Republicans have brought to the floor a nonbinding resolution calling for enactment of the SAVE America Act. I was recently asked by a constituent: ``What is a nonbinding resolution?'' And I effectively said: A nonbinding resolution is a statement of how Congress feels, but it does nothing. So here we are taking up a nonbinding resolution of how we feel. And in an ironic twist that would be comical if it weren't so sinister, this resolution, this nonbinding feeling of Congress, stokes fears of a repressive totalitarian dictatorship while in the same breath affirms House Republicans' obsession with subverting Americans' right to vote-- the same House Republicans that have ceded entirely Congress' constitutional authority to one single person. Absurd doesn't begin to describe this. This resolution, this nonbinding resolution, asks the House to condemn government ownership of private industry, yet under Donald Trump's administration, the Federal Government has spent almost $28 billion of American money acquiring stakes in dozens of private companies--$28 billion. Now, personally, I believe in capitalism, but if my Republican friends want to debate socialism, they should start with the shareholder in chief who sits in the Oval Office. Mr. Speaker, after hearing from their own constituents about the affordability crisis in America and the corruption in this administration for the past 5 weeks, House Republicans are wasting time on a vote for a resolution condemning a political philosophy, a resolution which has already passed the House, and calling for the enactment of a bill aimed at making it harder for Americans to vote--a bill which I also note has already passed this House. This bill would make it harder for married women and veterans to vote, a bill that would essentially gut mail and online voter registration, a bill that would force States to hand out voter rolls to President Trump's Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised we are here today because one thing is clear: As costs are skyrocketing for American consumers, Republicans are afraid to face their constituents at the ballot box. The White House and congressional Republicans have failed the American people, and the only remaining option is to try to keep Americans from voting at all. They want bills like the SAVE America Act to disrupt election administration and keep millions of eligible voters away from the polls. The President has issued illegal executive orders to block ballot access for millions of Americans, including an unlawful attempt to weaponize the United States Postal Service and eviscerate vote-by- mail regimes in States across this country because the President says mail-in voting is fraudulent, even though the President himself voted twice in the last few weeks by mail. This administration has defunded and gutted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, and its support for election administrators. And of course, the President and his allies continue to actively spread mis- and disinformation about the integrity of our elections. Maybe that is the point: to cause a lack of confidence in our election writ large and get people to question the very legitimacy of our long tradition of self-governance. House Democrats will continue to fight back because, despite continued efforts by the President and his allies, our elections are safe and secure. State and local election administrators, both Democrats and Republicans, not the President, will continue to run elections in this country. States will do it. Local and State election administrators will do it, not the President of the United States. The courts will continue to reject unlawful attempts by the Department of Justice to force States to turn over their voter rolls. As of earlier this month, the Department of Justice's record in these cases now is 0 for 23. There were 23 cases brought in Federal court, and the Department of Justice has lost every single one of them in their effort to force States to turn over voter rolls. House Democrats' objectives are straightforward. Every eligible American must have a meaningful opportunity to cast a ballot, and those ballots must be counted fairly and accurately. There is nothing more important in this moment than our collective efforts to ensure Americans are given every opportunity to render their verdict in November, and despite the best efforts of House Republicans, we are going to make sure that happens. Mr. Speaker, in a recent poll, Congress was found to have a 15 percent approval rating. Mr. Speaker, 15 percent of the American people approve of the job Congress is doing today. Some might understandably think that number is low, but frankly, after participating in this absurd exercise, I am surprised it is that high. With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, would this entirely symbolic resolution Republicans are seeking to advance today do anything to lower gas prices? Would this pure messaging bill do anything to make your groceries less expensive? Would this resolution do anything to hold all the crooks in the White House accountable? The answer is simple. It would not. Promises were made to the American people, but they have not been kept. The American people deserve better than this. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

House of Representatives

Stop Insider Trading Act

2026-07-22

“I don't like this bill. It does two things. I don't think it should pass. It doesn't stop politicians from trading stocks. It lets them keep their stocks. It lets the President trade stocks too. I don't like that. It also makes it harder to vote. It is worse than Texas and Florida. It would change voting 90 days before an election. That's bad. I think it will mess up the election. I think that's the point. I want the bill to fail.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying this. The bill before us is a crude combination of two completely unrelated bills--the so-called Stop Insider Trading Act and the Voter ID Act. The Voter ID Act is, of course, already a crude reformulation of the SAVE America Act. I have addressed both parts of the bill individually. Neither of them deserves passage. Frankly, neither of them deserves much serious debate. The first, the so-called Stop Insider Trading Act, is not a stock trading ban. Despite what everyone has said today, it simply is not. Get the bill. Download it. Read it. It doesn't require people to sell stock that they own. The bill is a vote to allow Members of Congress to continue to own and trade individual stocks. I don't know how to be clearer than that. The bill would let Members of Congress keep every single share of stock they own. The bill would allow Members to liquidate their holdings at any time, obviously when it is profitable for them. There is no divestiture required in this bill. The bill does nothing to rein in the unprecedented, absurd, and deeply offensive corruption currently taking place in the White House. The bill is silent on the President. I would note again that so far this year, the President has traded more securities than the entire Congress combined, all 535 Members of the House and Senate. Does anyone believe for a minute that the President has less influence on the markets than individual Members of Congress? Judge that for yourself. Then there is the second fully distinct part of this bill: voter suppression provisions taken right from the SAVE America Act. House Democrats support voter identification. Democrats have included responsible ID provisions in the Freedom to Vote Act and have offered amendments at committee making this point crystal clear. The bill before us, however, would create a more restrictive regime than any currently in use in this country. It is more restrictive than Florida and more restrictive than Texas. The bill would eviscerate mail voting as we know it, forcing voters to include photocopies of their ID every time they mail a ballot. This measure is so extreme the Republican Governor of Ohio, Governor DeWine, vetoed a similar statewide measure because it would burden voters without preventing fraud. This bill would throw our elections into chaos, the effective date being October 20 of 2026, 90 days from today, right in the middle of this midterm election. In 90 days, tens of millions of Americans will have already cast their ballots by person and by mail. This bill would upend the November midterms, and that is exactly the point. That is exactly the goal. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rehash again of the President's top legislative priority: the SAVE Act. I urge its defeat. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like that. I want taxpayers to spend more money. More money for my program.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I go back to a comment I made earlier in my opening about the timing of this bill and the effective date. Ninety days from now is October 20, 2 weeks before election day. There will be millions of ballots, mail-in ballots, absentee ballots. Several years ago, this Congress passed the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. For uniformed and overseas persons who are eligible to vote, UOCAVA ballots will already be en route to voters. Voters will have already cast ballots, perhaps in the millions, by that time. How are election administrators across the United States supposed to comply with this new Federal law dropped right in the middle of the final weeks of the 2026 midterm elections? It is effectively election malpractice. It is creating discord. It will create countless questions. I don't know who is going to pay for the retraining. I don't even know how one would do the retraining. Election workers are going to be stuck, as I envision it, with envelopes which will need to have not only photocopies--by the way, I don't know where any of this information gets stored after the fact. Is it going to be in a vault somewhere? Is a voter's driver's license or proper ID going to be kept somewhere? By the way, how will they make sure that when someone, as they will no doubt do, puts their ID in their ballot, eliminating any chance that they have secrecy of their ballot--who is managing that? The local election administrators? They are going to train all their workers within 2 weeks of election day on a brand-new system that has never been done anywhere in this country. I went through this in the Rules Committee. Most of the IDs in most of our States, even the most conservative States in America, have broader ID requirements than this. Student IDs are not allowed. Most States allow it. All kinds of IDs that people have, they won't be able to use them anymore. Texas won't be in compliance. Florida won't be in compliance. The Governor of Ohio just vetoed a bill like this, which effectively criticized the intent of the bill and said it wouldn't do anything for voter security. How does this all happen? The purpose of the change is to throw election administration into disarray. I don't know how we can see it otherwise. At the very least, if you were thinking about this, you would make it effective next year or the year after to give local administrators time to prepare and probably give them some resources so they could do all manner of things necessary to comply with admittedly a bad law. But at least it would be something you could say with a straight face was serious or an attempt to be serious. This isn't serious. This is creating discord. It is reckless. It is irresponsible and ultimately will, once again, put the question in front of American voters of: Are they really sure they should have confidence in our system? I think it is clear some people want Americans to doubt our system, which, by the way, they should have confidence in. These election administrators, Democrats and Republicans, at the local level care deeply about their work. They see this as a sacred trust. People are getting in and voting, and there is no design to have all manner of things that they suggest happen. It is simply not true. That is why people will look at this and will look at January 6, 2021, and will look at all these things and conclude rightly that all we want to do is create discord and subversion of this democratic system. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), my colleague, friend, and partner on the Committee on House Administration.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I gave up my stocks when I came to Congress. This bill would let me keep them. I could still do a lot to help my investments. That's wrong. We should stop it. Make politicians sell their stocks. This bill won't stop insider trading. It just pretends to do something. A Republican bought stock and it went up a lot. This bill would let that keep happening. That's not good.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Roy, whom I have had a chance to be in a number of meetings with on this issue, about restoring faith and trust in America. Recognize, I came to Congress and sold all of the stock that my wife and I owned. At the time, as I recall--it has been many years--Microsoft, Google, Alpha, a number of technology stocks. If I had come here under this bill, should this become law, I would be able to continue to hold onto all of them. Honestly, depending on what committees I serve, I can do a great deal to make sure that my investments were guarded, that they were protected, that they were furthered. It is not supposed to be the way this functions. That is not what we have been talking about. Holding on to stock when you are in a position to affect markets is wrong. Simply put, it is wrong. We should end it. Require the divestiture of stock by Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, and members of the courts. That is what we should be doing. Anything less than that, particularly when you continue to hold stock, continue to trade by selling stock, when it is appropriate for you and your portfolio, and even to be able to take dividends from stock you own and reinvest and buy more stock--that is allowed under this bill, as well. Others have pointed out Democratic Members and recognized them. There are glaring examples here. However, to reiterate the point, this bill would not prevent insider trading. It would just trick the American people into thinking we are trying to do something about corruption when we are not. Take one glaring example. In December of last year, a Member of the House Republican leadership purchased up to $250,000 in private shares of Elon Musk's xAI. Within days, the Department of Defense announced an expanded partnership with xAI to provide Grok AI tools. Convenient timing, no doubt. I am sure most Americans would love to have participated in such convenient timing. This Republican Member of leadership, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, including on the subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation, just happened to buy xAI stock shortly before the Department of Defense's announcement. They sure did. That is what they did. It gets worse. Earlier this year, Elon Musk's SpaceX acquired xAI soon thereafter. SpaceX launched an initial public offering, and the value of the xAI shares this Member of Congress had acquired skyrocketed. In fact, the Member may have made as much as a 60 percent return on the Member's investment, if liquidated at the right time, potentially a $150,000 profit on a $250,000 initial investment. That is extraordinary. Yet, this bill that the Republicans are purporting would restore trust in America would not have in any way impeded the ability of a Member to do that. If that isn't extraordinary, if that is not an indictment on what is happening here, I don't know what is. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi), my dear friend.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The bill is weak. It will not stop corruption. You can still own stocks and make money from your power. This bill is a sham.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I suggest the gentleman from Missouri ought to read the bill before the House because everything he just said would not be cured by what he just talked about. In fact, you may still, under this bill if it became law, and thankfully it will not, you could still own stock, Mr. Speaker. Let's say you own Boeing stock and you happen to be on the Armed Services Committee or a Defense appropriator, Mr. Speaker, and you sort of say to Pentagon officials: Boy, I really like this equipment that Boeing is producing or Northrop Grumman if you happen to own them, or other companies, great companies, but you may own stock in the company. There are many ways for you, Mr. Speaker, to drive up that stock price and wait as the owner of that stock to manipulate the situation until the stock price rises and then you sell it. That is a trade. That is ownership of stock. Mr. Speaker, that is the ability to influence stockholdings you have when you come to Congress. This doesn't divest it. The gentleman made a great speech, and I really appreciate it. Unfortunately, it doesn't have anything to do with what the bill does. Besides, Mr. Speaker, you can have private stock. There are reports that people have purchased private stock in companies that then became public that then were sold to public companies and made windfalls here. Mr. Speaker, you could still do that under this bill. You can engage in crypto, Mr. Speaker. You can buy commodities, and you can participate in the prediction markets. The notion that somehow Americans should see this bill pass and relax and suddenly feel as if the people making public policy decisions in Washington suddenly won't be doing anything in their self-interest but will, instead, be doing it in the interest of the American people--it is a word I used earlier--I contend, is exactly what this is. It is a sham. This will not fix anything, and that is what it is intended to do, to not fix anything, but to make people believe that we have addressed it. We haven't addressed anything. That is not what this bill is. Mr. Speaker, when you add the element of really trying to subvert this election, there is nothing that argues for this bill. This isn't even a partial way of getting it done. This is a diversion, and it is intended to get people to feel better about something when they shouldn't feel better at all. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want this bill to include the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court. President Trump traded a lot of stocks. He traded more than all Congress. This bill won't stop him. I don't think it will make people trust us. It has a big hole. We should include everyone if we really want to fix this.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I yield to my friend, I didn't say this in my opening comments, but it is remarkable, if we are working so hard and endeavoring to convince the American people that they can have faith in what we do as it relates to insider information and moving markets, I find it extraordinary that we would not include the President, Vice President, or members of the Cabinet or the Supreme Court in a bill to make sure that they are not participating. In fact, this is well known, and it has been well reported: Since Inauguration Day of last year, President Trump has had more trades individually than have all the Members of the United States House and Senate. That is 535 Members, and do you know who out-traded them all combined? President Trump. He is not in this bill. He is not in it. The Vice President is not in it. The Supreme Court is not in it. In fact, the President, Truth Social, is about to enter into selling access through an app that people will pay for that will give them information on market moves. It is extraordinary that we would somehow suggest that we are protecting the public's interest, that we care deeply about restoring faith in Washington, when there is a hole that you can drive many semi- trucks through if we are really trying to clean up this country and restore faith with the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), my colleague from the Appropriations Committee.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like this bill. It won't stop insider trading. It has parts that don't belong. It would change election rules before an election. I think Republicans just want to cause chaos. I don't like that they added voter ID rules to this bill. I think it will make voting harder. I think it asks too much of voters and election offices. This bill will cost a lot. It will not help anyone.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what we are considering here today is a remarkable display of cynicism, even for this institution, even for this Republican leadership team. The American people are desperate for us to clean up the culture of corruption that pervades Washington. Americans see their elected leaders on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue enriching themselves, some to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. Headline after headline: Members of Congress tipping off insiders to reap huge payouts from prediction markets, and Members of Congress buying up private stocks just days before Pentagon announcements that will balloon their financial portfolios. What are Speaker Johnson and House Republicans doing about this? They are pretending here on the floor today to address the issue. They are pushing the so-called Stop Insider Trading Act, a name meant entirely to trick the American people. This bill, quite simply, is a sham. The bill allows Members of the Congress to continue owning and trading stocks. That is right. The so- called Stop Insider Trading Act actually allows Members of Congress to own and trade stocks. Even this half measure--or should I say quarter measure--goes too far for Republican leadership. How do we know? What is the tell? How do we know that the Republican posturing is all performative and that Republicans do not want a stock trading bill ban to become law? They have added a poison pill to this bill. They have added provisions that have absolutely nothing to do with stock trading and everything to do with their obsession with the 2020 election. That is right, the SAVE America Act is back, yet again. The American people keep cutting the head off this bill, flooding phone lines of their Members and Senators, demanding we block this anti-voter bill. So far, their voices are being heard. The resistance is working. Like the Hydra, these heads keep growing back: the SAVE Act, the SAVE Act again, the SAVE America Act. They have attached it to CRs, continuing resolutions. They attach it to a spending bill, funding the State Department and other completely unrelated agencies. The President tried to force it on the American people through illegal executive orders blocked by the courts. Now, Republicans come limping back from a losing fight. Sometimes you should just stop. Let's acknowledge the reality of what we are doing here: Republicans have corrupted their so-called stock trading bill with a decaying piece of the SAVE America Act corpse. The bill we are considering today would force voters in America to surrender photocopies of their photo IDs in their mail ballot envelopes. This isn't just a voter ID bill. It is a bill to destroy vote by mail, something the President routinely rails against, despite the fact that the President routinely uses mail-in voting himself, the kind of double standard Americans have come to particularly enjoy from this President. It is a bill that would dispatch millions of American voters to Kinko's--some of us are old enough to remember Kinko's; I guess it is now FedEx--or Staples or the public library to scan and print their IDs, to shove those IDs into their mail ballots, risking their constitutional right to a secret ballot if not packaged properly, to send their ID copies off to election offices in the hopes that the ballot will be counted, that the ballot won't be discarded on the counting room floor. Some might ask why these ballots would be at risk of being thrown out. It is because the bill would explicitly exclude forms of voter ID that millions of Americans are accustomed to using today. You use your student ID, your ballot will be thrown out. Your concealed carry permit: Ballot thrown out. Your employer ID: Ballot thrown out. Your Tribal ID without an expiration date on it, which is common on Tribal IDs, you get the picture: Ballot thrown out. I could go on and on. Those sitting at home watching this might think they know that Washington, D.C., is a dysfunctional place, but they can't be that irrational, can they? Surely, election officials and voters would have time to prepare for this seismic shift in American elections, right? Sorry to say, they would be overestimating how much House Republicans care about voters, about election officials, about elections themselves because this bill would take effect in 90 days. When is 90 days from today? Well, it is October 20, 2026, 2 weeks before the midterm elections. That is right, Republicans are trying to force a massive change to American voting law--eradicating mail voting as we know it--right in the middle of the final month of an election, 2 weeks before election day. We still have a system where the time, manner, and places of elections are run by State legislatures, State officials. By October 20, those State officials, State legislatures, will have already mailed out millions of ballots to voters. Voters will have already returned some of these ballots. What are election officials to do? Count the ballots cast with student IDs on October 19 and shred the ones that arrive after that, on October 20? Is that what they are going to do? Who is going to train election officials about what IDs to accept, what to do with mail ballots missing photocopies, and when will they do it? There will be chaos, complete shambles. This bill is plain absurdity, written in ink printed in the Congressional Record. Lest we forget, confusion is the point, chaos is the point. Republicans know that they will lose in November. They know that people strongly, strongly object to their handling of the economy, the war in Iran, and the immigration fiasco, which has resulted in the death of American citizens. They know the verdict in November will not be kind to them and shouldn't be, so they have one hope at winning--disruption, disarray, subversion. That is why they have redrawn congressional maps from coast to coast in the middle of this year, of this term, the middle of this decade. That is why they keep trying again and again to change the rules in the middle of the game. If they want to force States to make massive, extreme, last-minute changes just days before the midterm elections--States forced to retrain staffs, reprint ballots and ballot envelopes, and the process-- with what time, what money? Some might ask who is going to pay for all this. This is a seismic change. It won't be Washington, not House Republicans. They are too busy trying to pay for an unconscionable war in Iran, a war that has led to the tragic deaths of 18 American servicemembers, a war that no one asked for and certainly no Americans want. Republicans will send American taxpayer money to the Middle East but not to local election offices. They simply don't care about them. They don't care about the price of their gas, the price of their groceries, the sanctity of their ballot. They do not care. Again, I ask, who will pay for this? Sorry to break it to the viewers watching this, but they will. Their family, town, city, county, State, local election administrator, Republican and Democrat, are required to bear the burden of this change. This is an unfunded mandate, plain and simple. I remember hearing for years from my Republican friends: no unfunded mandates. This is the mother of all unfunded mandates, 2 weeks before an election, costing tens of billions of dollars. They are going to get stuck with the bill. This is a fiat from a Washington awash in corruption telling Americans how to run their elections. Do you know who else will pay for this? America's democracy. I say again, this bill is not about voter ID. It is about ending a voter's ability to cast a free and fair ballot. For the sake of American elections, I strongly, strongly urge the House to reject this zombie bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

House of Representatives

Fec Administrative Improvements Act

2026-07-13

“I want this bill to pass. Our election rules are old. We should change the rules. I want to thank my friends. They work hard on election issues. One friend is a leader. The other friend is also a leader. The FEC asked for this bill. They want us to change the rules. The bill will make it easier to file election reports. The reports should be electronic, not on paper. Electronic reports are faster. That's good for the public. Voters should know where campaign money comes from. The Supreme Court says this is important. The bill will also change how committees spend money. I care about modernization. I want everyone to vote for this bill. I hope the Senate and the President support the bill. That's all. I yield my time.”

Official Congressional Record

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I agree again with my colleague and friend Chairman Steil, this is a meaningful, bipartisan bill to ensure that the public receives important information about election-relevant communications. I was happy to cointroduce this bill with several members of the Committee on House Administration, both Republican and Democratic. I thank Chairman Steil for his leadership and Congresswoman Lee and Congresswoman Sewell for their work on this. As people may know, Congresswoman Lee and Congresswoman Sewell, in particular, work hard on election administration issues as the leaders of the committee's Elections Subcommittee. As it becomes harder to find common ground in Congress, I commend my cosponsors for their work on this and other issues important to the work at hand. The bill we are considering today, the FEC Administrative Improvements Act, would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require campaign committees to file their electioneering communications with the Federal Elections Commission in electronic format as opposed to on paper. As the FEC has informed Congress: ``Compared to data from paper reports, data from electronically filed reports is received, processed, and disseminated more easily and efficiently, resulting in the better use of resources.'' I couldn't agree more. In contrast, paper filings take days to be available to provide critical information for the public, so modernizing our campaign disclosure functions is a commonsense reform for those of us who live in the 21st century, and we are grateful we have an opportunity to do that. However, there are substantive reasons to make this change as well. The Supreme Court has long recognized that disclosure requirements are vitally important: Disclosure provides the electorate with information as to where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent. American voters are best equipped to choose leaders when they have the most fulsome, up-to-date information at hand. The FEC Administrative Improvements Act would also tackle another bipartisan legislative recommendation from the FEC, allowing committees to make disbursement in ways other than by check. The Committee on House Administration--and I think I speak for colleagues on both sides--cares deeply about modernization. Modernizing Congress has, in recent years, driven thoughtful and bipartisan work by committee members to improve the function of this institution. Our interest in modernization extends to the FEC, so H.R. 8738 will bring the FEC into the modern era and aid every American voter as they exercise their fundamental rights. Given the bipartisan agreement on the bill, I hope we can move it rapidly from the floor to the Senate and then to the President's desk for signature. Again, I thank my colleague Chairman Steil for his courtesies and leadership on this. Madam Speaker, very simply, I thank the chairman and my colleagues. I look forward to what I hope is a unanimous or near-unanimous vote in the House on this important legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

House of Representatives

Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act

2026-07-13

“I support this bill. I thank the sponsors. I thank the chairman. I want this bill to pass. All members should vote yes. That is all.”

“I think this bill is good. We need to do more. Billionaires and secret money hurt our elections. People don't trust the government. The Supreme Court made it worse. We must change how we run campaigns. I will work on this for a long time. The people should control the government, not outside money.”

Official Congressional Record

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I concur with my colleague about the importance of making sure that we don't have involvement of foreign entities into our politics. If I can just opine for a minute, I do think in many ways one of the real challenges facing this country right now is a lack of faith in their government and Americans losing trust and losing faith. Part of that is because of the broad influence of money just generally in our politics. You see billionaires contributing hundreds of millions of dollars. We see the influence of dark money, of super-PACs. I am looking forward to over the next several months working with my colleagues, and over the next several years, if need be, to repair some of the damage to those relationships and let the people of this country know that the democracy which we celebrated 250 years of this month that it is in their hands, that they are ultimately the sovereigns, and that there weren't outside influences. But I think that is becoming harder and harder to be able to make that point and to convince people of that without dramatic changes in the way we finance our campaigns and the way that the public dialogue engages. Frankly, I am disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision just this month related to coordination between super-PACs and party committees and individual candidates. I think there is much to do. If we are going to have the ability to persuade American citizens that their government is theirs, we are going to have to take out the influence of all manner of people. Certainly, this bill is a step in the right direction. I see my colleague, the sponsor of the bill, has arrived, so I will certainly let him address the House. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“This bill will close a loophole. Right now people from other countries can give money to some ballot initiatives. The Federal Elections Commission said that's allowed. They recommend we change the law. This bill will do that. I thank the sponsors and I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I also want more laws to crack down on people giving money secretly in elections. This bill is a start. We should do more.”

Official Congressional Record

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bipartisan bill, the Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act, will close a loophole, as my colleague and friend, Mr. Steil, the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, has indicated, that currently allows foreign nationals to contribute to State and local ballot initiatives, as well as recall referenda. This change is needed because the Federal Elections Commission previously determined that the Federal Election Campaign Act's foreign national prohibition does not actually reach ballot initiatives that do not appear to be linked to an office-seeking candidate at the Federal, State, or local level. The FEC often sends legislative recommendations to Congress, adopted on a bipartisan basis, to update and strengthen our campaign finance regime. This very bill has been included in their recent recommendations. In fact, this bill is among the highest priority legislative recommendations from the FEC. I thank the bill's sponsor, Congressman Fitzpatrick, as well as the bill's co-lead, Congressman Golden, for their important work on this issue. I am glad to see the House taking seriously the risk of foreign interference in domestic elections. In that spirit, I encourage my colleagues to consider other comprehensive democracy reforms to close loopholes. House Democrats' Freedom to Vote Act, which includes the DISCLOSE Act, would crack down on foreign campaign spending, and I think it is well past time for Congress to do something to stem the tide of dark money, including foreign money, in American elections. This bill is a start, and I think I would continue to urge us to do more. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗