Joseph D. Morelle

“I want the House to pass this bill. It lets Congress pick the head of the Library of Congress and the Government Publishing Office. It also keeps the Copyright Office under Congress and protects its workers. This keeps our copyright system stable and free of politics, which protects millions of jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 10204, the Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act. Apart from a few technical corrections, as my friend has described, this bill is identical to H.R. 6028, which passed the House in June. It updates the appointment process for the heads of two legislative branch agencies: the Library of Congress and the Government Publishing Office. It also creates a new Presidential appointment, subject to Senate confirmation, for the Register of Copyrights, and makes clear that the United States Copyright Office, which is currently part of the Library of Congress, will remain in the legislative branch. I thank the bill’s author, Representative Griffith, as well as Chairman Steil, and their staff for working with us to improve prior versions of this legislation. It did, indeed, take many months, but I appreciated the openness and willingness of the majority to entertain some of the suggestions we made, which I do think make the bill stronger. In addition to ensuring the Copyright Office remains a legislative branch entity, the bill protects the Copyright Office’s workforce, who will enjoy the same rights, privileges, and protections they hold today as Library employees. I do think that is very important. I have long said the Library of Congress should be appointed by Congress, and this bill achieves that important goal. Still, we must make this change thoughtfully and be mindful of the consequences, particularly for the Copyright Office. Copyright authorities are enshrined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, and the Copyright Office has resided in the legislative branch for well over a century. It should remain there, and that is the intent of this bill. The copyright economy, I might add, contributes more than $2 trillion annually to our economy and supports more than 11 million American jobs--but only with a stable, reliable, and apolitical copyright system. This bill helps to preserve it at a critical moment for copyright stakeholders and millions of Library users. The Library and Copyright Office have operated in partnership for more than 150 years, and the Copyright Office depends on the Library’s infrastructure. The Library builds its collections through the copyright deposits, so severing that relationship would harm both institutions. The bill recognizes this: It establishes a significant transition period. It allows the Copyright Office to continue Library support services. It requires the Register to consult with the Librarian before taking any action affecting the Library’s access to copyright deposits. It safeguards the rights of Copyright Office employees. For too long, Congress has allowed its own authority and capacity to atrophy. The Library, Copyright Office, Government Publishing Office, and other support agencies we rely on are funded from a legislative branch budget that amounts to roughly four-tenths of 1 percent of all Federal discretionary spending. If we are serious about legislating on questions as complex as AI and copyright, we must be serious about sustaining the institutions that make that work possible. Mr. Speaker, the bill is not perfect. I don’t know of a bill that has passed this House that has ever been deemed perfect, but it does ensure that the Librarian of Congress can be hired and fired only by Congress and does so while preserving both the Library and Copyright Office as the preeminent institutions in their fields. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend, Mr. Griffith, for his hard work and that of the staff and Chairman Steil. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,’’ and I reserve the balance of my time.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. The Government Publishing Office helps Congress work and gives the public accurate information. Its laws are old and need to fit the digital age. This bill lets libraries keep digital copies instead of printed books, which saves shelf space and helps more libraries share government documents.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9342, the GPO Modernization Act of 2026. I thank my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice) for introducing it. The Government Publishing Office is a critical part of the legislative branch. Without it, Congress simply could not legislate, issue reports, or adequately conduct many of its constitutional responsibilities. It provides the public with one of the essentials of democracy: access to authoritative, accurate information. The statutes governing the government printing office, or GPO, have seen modest updates over the years, including the name change from the government printing office, which I probably said in mistake, to the Government Publishing Office, but much of the law still predates the digital era. This bill further modernizes those statutes, streamlines GPO’s operations, and improves public access to government information. I support these efforts which will help strengthen the GPO’s capacity and, in turn, Congress’ capacity to do its work. Among other things, the bill updates the Federal Depository Library Program, or FDLP, to more effectively provide free, equitable, and convenient public access to government information. For example, it will allow depository libraries to substitute digital copies of government documents for hard copies. Doing so will free up much-needed physical space in libraries and let libraries without room on their shelves take part in the program and continue to serve the public. This bill also includes several improvements to GPO operations, including its procurement authorities and certain personnel policies. Together with the other legislation we are considering today to reform how the GPO Director is appointed, these changes will strengthen the agency and its ability to serve Congress and the public. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Bice for her leadership. I support the legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this resolution and the voting bill in it. The bill would change voting rules right before the election, when states are already preparing to mail ballots. This will cause chaos for local election workers and make it easier to overturn election results.”

“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.”

“This resolution condemns all socialism. But the current administration has spent billions of tax dollars to buy shares of private companies, including Intel. Having the government own private companies is socialism. It creates conflicts of interest when the government buys products or regulates businesses. Donald Trump is acting like a socialist by buying these shares, and Republicans are ignoring it.”

“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).”

“I oppose this resolution. We already voted to condemn socialism, and we already voted on this voting bill. This measure makes it harder for Americans to vote. We should be working on high gas prices, grocery costs, and the unauthorized war instead of voting on the same things again.”

“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).”

“I urge the House to vote against this resolution. It does nothing to lower high prices for Americans. Instead, it wastes time and supports a bill that makes it harder for people to vote.”

“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.”

“I oppose this bill. It forces new voting rules on states just two weeks before an election, when people will already be voting. Election workers will not have the time or money to train for these changes. This will create chaos and make people doubt our elections.”

“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.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 2 of 100

  Only 2% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 43 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 →

“I do not want this bill because it is too weak to stop insider trading. It still lets lawmakers keep the stocks they own and make money from them. We should require members of Congress, the president, and federal judges to sell all their stocks.”

“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.”

“I oppose this bill. It is fake reform that fixes nothing. It still lets members of Congress keep stocks they already own, push policies that help those companies, and then sell the shares for a profit. It also still lets them trade private stocks, cryptocurrency, and commodities.”

“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).”

“This bill stops members of Congress from trading stocks, but it leaves out the president, vice president, cabinet, and Supreme Court. President Trump has traded more stocks than all members of Congress combined. If we want people to trust us, this bill must apply to those leaders too.”

“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.”

“I urge the House to vote against this bill. It does not really stop members of Congress from trading stocks. Republicans also added strict voting rules to it. It forces mail-in voters to include copies of photo IDs just weeks before the election, which will cause chaos and throw out valid votes.”

“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.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill because foreign money should stay out of our politics. Americans are losing trust in our government because billionaires and secret money have too much influence. This bill is a good step toward fixing how campaigns are funded.”

“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.”