i have been trying to come up with an answer because people keep asking me. i realize that the answer is, how about, i don't know, how about you workshop it. you troubleshoot. keep trying stuff until people forgive you. i don't know. how about you figure it out. >> watch book tv every weekend on c-span2. >> u.s. house is set to begin legislative work in just a couple moments. a couple of bills on the calendar today. members expected to finish work on an insider trading bill and they'll start work on a voting rights measure. now to live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of light, we give you thanks for giving us another day. once again we come to ask -- we come to you to ask wisdom, patience, peace, and understanding for the members of this people's house. give them the generosity of heart and the courage of true leadership to work toward a common solution to the many

ssues facing our nation. as true states men and women, may they find the fortitude to make judgments to benefit all americans in their time of need. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider. mr. schneider: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minutes from each side of

the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. schneider: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. for one minute. mr. schneider: madam speaker, climate change is an immediate and existential threat to our national security, economy, and the future we leave to our children. this is a global problem that requires urgent international solutions, but the trump administration is dangerously squandering this crucial moment. quite simply we are running out of time. by formally beginning withdrawal from the paris climate agreement, the president is ceding leadership on climate and undermining efforts to a cleaner energy economy. as signatureor countries around the world meet for a conference in madrid, i'm introducing a resolution joined by more than 100 of my house colleagues as original co-sponsors condemning the administration's actions.

this resolution sends a strong message that the house opposes the president's reckless, irresponsible decision to abandoned the agreement and we stand ready to follow the agreements we made. i urge my colleagues to join me in this call for global action and critically needed u.s. leadership. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina ask to be recognized? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: thank you,ers smfment -- thank you, madam speaker. yesterday it was reported that wages in south carolina rose faster than expected this year and will continue to rise. i was alerted to this by gary, david, and christopher thompson on wboc by i heart radio. i'm grateful for president trump's actions to increase wages by reducing taxes and regulations. according to doug, the economist with the university of south carolina school of

business, this is the best jobs market we have seen in a generation. u.s.c. economist says workers are in high demand right now and we are seeing strong wage growth as a result. this includes wage growth to workers across the pay scale with those on the lower end benefiting the most. by creating jobs, raising wages, and consistently working to promote opportunities, president trump is continuing his record of keeping his promises. i am grateful that president trump is focused to work for american families and jobs despite the failed russian hoax and today the impeachment hoax. in conclusion god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california want to be recognized? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i want to talk about the administration's moves to cut hundreds of thousands of people from snap.

mrs. davis: our nation's security net for those faced with food insecurity. by the usda's own estimates, nearly 700,000 people will be hurt by this policy. 700,000, that's appalling. that's 700,000 people who will struggle to feed themselves while they work towards getting back on their feet. that's 700,000 people who will have to decide whether to pay their bills or go hungry. but this doesn't just affect those who will be cut from the food assistance program, this affects everyone. snap dollars are spent in local small businesses and help bring money to struggling communities. simply put, this will make more people go hungry and hurt our communities in the process. in congress, we work together on this issue. we reached a consensus and we passed bipartisan legislation. so this policy is not what we

passed. and it's not what the american people want. i'm calling on this administration to sthop cruel policy. i yield back. -- stop this -- to stop this cruel policy. i yield back chingt the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to memorialize roanoke businessman mr. biddle porterfield iii who contributed greatly to the arts, education, and business community throughout southwest virginia. mr. cline: among the many civic leader schaap roles, he served on california council on higher education, was president of the museum of art and roanoke valley chamber of commerce, in addition of being chairman of both of roanoke valley business council and united way of roanoke valley. he believe in roanoke's potential and knew the star city to play a pivotal roll in the development.

as a native and leader, he believed it was his life's purpose to serve others and his community. i'm grateful for the commitment and passion that he had for the roanoke valley and wish to extend my deepest sympathies to his family for their loss. may they find peace in knowing his legacy of service will live in through the countless lives he touched. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to call attention to an urgent issue in upstate new york. yme and particular-borne diseases are expanding. from 2017 to 2017, lyme disease cases roads by 78% in my district and approximately half of adult deer ticks in the state carry the bacteria that

causes lyme disease. mr. delgado: we should be doing all we can to address this and address in more effective ways to both diagnose and treat this disease. that's why this week i along with fellow members of the bipartisan lyme disease caucus introduced legislation to supplement congressionally appropriated funding for research with the stamp out lyme disease act. our bill would create postage stamp to raise awareness about the disease and directly support medical research to treat and cure particular borne illnesses. i urge -- tick born illnesses. i urge the house to take up this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize the repeal of prohibition. n this day in 1933, the 21st

amendments was ratified. today throughout pennsylvania breweries, winery, and distilleries have become one of the commonwealth's fastest growing industries and agribusinesses. pennsylvania's home to more than 300 wineries which produce more than 1.6 million gallons of wine each year. this equates to roughly $1.4 billion in economic impact. recently woody lodge winery, a disabled veteran and female owed business wracked up -- racked up six awards including two best in category awards. the craft beer industry is also booming. each year craft brewers pump nearly $6 billion in pennsylvania's economy and responsible for more than 100,000 jobs and generates $2.2 billion in wages. the past three years pennsylvania's been the number one producer of craft beer in the nation. as we look back on 13 long years of prohibition in this country, raise a class to how far we have come in the 86 years since. thank you, madam speaker.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. this past week i had the privilege to join speaker pelosi and several of my colleagues at the 2019 united nations framework convention on climate change in madrid, commonly known as cop 25. ms. brownley: our visit sent a mebling. no matter what the current president says or does, the american people stand behind the international fight to combat climate change. we are still in. our only chance to stop the climate crisis is for the entire world to come together on solutions to stop pollution, protect public health, and build a clean energy economy. i was greatly encouraged and reinvigorated by the world leaders i met in madrid who are deeply passionate and

understand the urgency in finding ways forward on this global crisis. i pledge to bring that passion back to the house as a member of the select committee on the climate crisis as we continue our work to put together an action plan for both congress and our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today owners valley farm larry and joanne snyder who reside in pennsylvania's ninth district and farm is is located counties. one 6 their trees was selected by the first lady and president to go to the white house. it was personally delivered

last week by the family to the white house where they were greet bide first lady melania trump. the farms has been in the family for over 200 years. mr. mousse er: this is the first time one of their trees has won a national christmas free contest. there are over 13,000 christmas tree farms across the country. making this a truly remarkable accomplishment. i would like to thank the schneider family for their contribution to this wonderful tradition and making pennsylvania and particularly pennsylvania's ninth district very proud. thank you very much. adam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: it's been a year since democrats took become control of the house. we have passed health care,

raising family wages by making bold investments in rebuilding our nation's infrastructure and cleaning up corruption in washington and getting government to work for the people again. we have sent 275 bipartisan bills to the senate where mitch mcconnell is refusing to work on them. these bills include legislation to strengthen coverage for pre-existing conditions, ensuring equal pay for equal work, fighting back against the debilitating effects of climate change. we voted to give 33 million americans a long overdupay raise by raising the minimum wage, provided gold star families with much-needed tax relief. yet mitch mcconnell described hymn as the grim reaper and won't take up any of this legislation. we are busy doing the work of the american people. we have passed over 375 bipartisan bills sitting in the senate. it's time for the senate to take these bills up and address the urgent prior toifs the american people. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentlelady rom michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. last week, tragedy struck the south line community in oakland county, michigan, as we learned of the death of trayvon tyler. just 17 years old he died from compleations following knee surgeries. tray trayvon was a beloved member of the southline community and a member of the southline east high school football team. his coach called him the nicest, most fun loving, caring kid. he walked with a pretty big pep in his step, always said hi to everyone, everyone loved him and he was a little bit of a jokes tembings r. he had a big laugh and always made you smile. trayvon's incredible family, freppeds, classmates and teammates are all heart broken by his passing. his life was cut tragically short but he will always be

remembered by that smile, his laugh, his friendship and his contributions to our community. today, we are called to live our lives more like tre', with joy and love at the forefront. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following mess a -- message from the secretary of the senate on december 5, 2019, at 9:04 a.m., that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 5277. with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, cheryl l. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 5277, an act to amend section 442 of title 18,

united states code, to exempt certain interests in mutual funds, unit investment trusts, employee benefit plans and retirement plans from conflict of interest limitations for the government publishing office. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> madam speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 741 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 7, house resolution 741. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 4, to amend the voting rights act of 1965 to revise the criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the act, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by

the amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary; and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any oint of order to consider in the house the resolution, h. res. 326, expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding united states efforts to resolve the israeli-palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state solution. the amendments to the resolution

and the preamble recommended by the committee on foreign affairs now printed in the resolution, modified by the amendments printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. the resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble, as amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one hour. >> thank you, madam speaker. for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from arizona, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of the resolution all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members be given five

legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. raskin: on wednesday, the rules committee met and reported a rule, h.r. 741, providing for consideration of two measures. first, the rule provides for consideration of h.r. 4, the voting rights advancement act of 2019, under a closed rule. the rule self-executes a manager's amendment offered by chairman nadler and provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on the judiciary. it provides one motion to recommit. additionally it provides for the consideration of h.r. 326, expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding efforts to resolve the israeli-palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state solution under a closed rule. the rule self-executes two manager's amendments offered by chairman engel. it provides for one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on foreign affairs. madam chair, the voting rights act of 1965, as you know, is one

of the great legislative achievements of american history. it is perhaps the greatest single statute of the 20th century in a century of great statutes, including the national labor relations act and fair labor standards act. but the voting rights act was born out of the blood, sweat, and tears of the american civil rights movement. in the wake of freedom summer and murders of schwerner, cheney and goodman and other civil rights heroes and after the famous march on washington where dr. king made his i have a dream speech. the voting rights act transformed american politics. by bringing into our elections millions of voters who had been disenfranchised far century after the civil war ended. it changed the nature of politics in the deep south and across the united states and it changed the politics of the united states congress as well.

theoretically, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments had solved the problem of disenfranchisement after the civil war. the 13th amendment abolished slavery, the 14th established equal protection and the 15th banned discrimination in voting. t after the dismantling of reconstruction, african-americans were subjected to a regime of disenfranchisement that included violence, terror, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, poll taxes, and an ever-expanding panoply of deviced and tricks an tactics to keep black people from being able to register to vote and to participate in elections. the civil rights movement and president lyndon johnson fought for the voting rights act which passed in 1965, which includesed -- which included a pack odge of strong remedies targeting discriminatory voting practices and devices in areas where discrimination was most

egregious and virulent. a key component of the voting rights act was section 245erk preclearance requirement which covered states -- which compelled covered states, that is states to which it applied, to stop discriminating and to subject all changes in their voting practices to the department of justice or to the united states district court for the district of columbia. states were covered if they had used illegal voting discrimination devices like literacy tests, poll taxes and character exams and if fewer than 50% of the people were egistered to vote. or allowed to par days pate. now, the voting rights act was challenged immediately in litigation called south carolina vs. katzenbach but in 1976 this esupreme court rejected targets

-- arguments that the voting rights act violated the constitution. the supreme court said congress may use any rational means to ffect yulely -- effectuate the constitutional prohibition on race discrimination in voting. it upheld the preclearance requirement against attack. specifically it was said by south carolina that it violated the so-called equal footing doctrine but the supreme court said the equal footing doctrine applied to the admission of states, not to the -- not to congress' power under section 5 of the 14th amendment or section 2 of the 15th amendment. so, all of this worked for the voting rights act to ush for the a new era of real democracy in america. the preclearance requirement meant that the states and counties and jurisdictions that had been discriminating had to submit to the department of justice or to federal court

their plans for changes. and that worked to enfranchise millions of voters across america. it worked for the election of thousands of african-american elected officials at the local, state, and federal level. and the genius of section 5 was that jurisdictions had to submit potentially discriminatory changes before the harm took place. because anybody can go ahead and sue under section 2 after an election is over but then it's too late. because the harm has already been done. the election has taken place. even if you win in court, the court is not going toed or aerorerun of the election. it's not going to require all the voting to take place again. so it's too late at that point. section 5 puts the burden on the potentially discriminating parties to prove that they're not discriminating when they make changes in voting laws. it works all the way up until

2013 when the supreme court rendered its 5-4 decision in shelby county vs. holder. in the shelby county case struck down the section 4-b formula for which states were covered. declaring that this formula was now out of date because it went back many, many decades. to the 1960's and 1970's. and that the congress would need to update the formula to address current needs in the field and to show that the formula relates to the current problems that we are targeting. so. the court said specifically that coverage was based on deng kids-old data and -- on decades-old tai ta and eradicated practices like literacy tests that don't exist anymore. so when it got struck down, dozens of states and counties

that were previously required to preclear changes related to voting didn't have to do it anymore and they began very quickly, almost instantly, to roll back various kinds of voter protections. and to pass strict voter identification law, to pass massive voter purges, to implement cuts to early voting, to close polling places and so on. i'm going to read to you from one of the witnesses who testified before the house judiciary committee, kristen clark, the president and executive director of the lawyers' committee for civil rights who said we have vetted complaints from tens of thousands of voters in shelby, many revealing systemic voting discrimination. in short, this is how shelby has impacted our democracy. first we've seen the resurgence of discriminatory voting practices, some motivated by intentional discrimination, and this has been most intense in the very jurisdictions once

covered by section 5678 they range from consolidation of polling sites to make it less convenient for minority voters to vote, to the curtailing of early voting hour the purging of minority voters from the rolls under the pretense of list maintenance, strict photo i.d. requirement, abusive signature match verification requirement the threat of criminal prosecution and more. second, we've seen increased levels of prere-calls trance among elected officials who institute and reinstitute discriminatory voting changes with impunity. third the loss of public notice regarding changes in voting practices that could have a discriminatory effect is significant. fourth the public no longer as the ability to participate in reviewing practices before they take effect. . fifth, the preclearance process has now lost. six, the status quo not sustainable. civil rights organizations are stepping up to fill the void created by the shelby decision

at insurmountable expense. finally this will be the first redistricting cycle in decades in which redistricting takes place without the voting rights act. that's one example of testimony that we got from all over america about what the shelby county versus holder decision meant by dismantling section 5 by not giving out section 4-b of the voting rights act. now, h.r. 4 is doing precisely what the supreme court invited us to do in the shelby county decision. to pass a new coverage formula for the voting rights act preclearance requirement based on new data and a new formula designed to address current contemporary problems. the judiciary committee and the house administration committee had a combined total of 17 hearings, nine on the judiciary side with its subcommittee on the constitution and civil

rights and liberties, and eight in the house administration committees subcommittee on voting rights. and they heard about restrictive and discriminatory practices taking place in numerous states across the country, including texas and georgia where after the end of preclearance georgia voters faced a myriad of new voting barriers, including the closure of more than 200 precinct polling place, spoiled voter registration materials, purging of more that a -- man a million voters in a racially discriminatory way. restrictive voter i.d. laws. and systematic rejection of absentee ballots, and more. we also looked at north carolina which passed a so-called monster voter suppression law which resulted in race discrimination in accessing the polls, including

the closure of dozens of polling sites and long voting lines. the law eliminated same day voter registration, reduced early voting by a week, and curtailed satellite polling sites for elderly and disabled voters and so on. madam speaker, this legislation s the product of massive legislative inspection of voting conditions across the united states of america today. and it threads the needle that was offered to us by the supreme court in the shelby county decision by amending the voting rights act to revise the section 4-b criteria and providing other voter protections at the same time. specifically, the bill creates a new coverage formula that applies to all states and hinges on a finding of repeated voting violations in the preceding 25 years. it establishes a process for reviewing voting changes in jurisdictions nationwide

focused on a limited set of measures, such a voter i.d. aws h.r. 326, for more than 20 years american presidents from both political parties and israeli prime ministers have supported reaching a two-state solution that establishes a democratic palestinian state to coexist peacefully and constructively side by side with a democratic israel. middle east peace talks have favorite the two state solution and opposed settlement expansions, moves toward unilateral annexation of territories, outside the framework of negotiations with israel. 2002, president bush stated, my vision is two states living side by side in peace and security. in 2013, president obama reiterated this exact same commitment stating that negotiations will be necessary but there is little secret about where they must lead. two states for two peoples.

this resolution emphasizes the sentiment of the past 20 years of peace talks by expressing the sense of this house of representatives that only a two-state solution to the israeli-palestinian conflict can ensure israel's survival as a secure democratic state and political the legitimate aspirations for a secure and democratic palestinian state. it further expresses the sense that any u.s. proposal that fails to endorse a two-state solution will put a peaceful end to the conflict only further out of reach. and i will reserve the remainder of my time. and yield to you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. he -- the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from arizona for 30 minutes. mrs. lesko: thank you, madam speaker. i thank representative raskin for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the right to vote is of paramount importance in our republic. we all agree on that. prohibitions against discriminatory barriers to the right to vote have been grounded in federal law since the civil war. and more recently through the voting rights act of 1965. we all agree discrimination should have no place in our voting system. however, the majority would have us believe that the voting rights act does not prevent any of this and would rather pass this partisan legislation for a federal takeover of elections. i anticipate that the 2013 supreme court case, shelby county vs. holder, will be brought up many times today, but i'd like to point out to my

democratic colleagues that in that decision the supreme court only struck down one outdated provision of the voting rights act. this provision, section 4-b, was struck down because it was outdated and it had not been updated since 1975, and it violated principles of equal state sovereignty and federalism. h.r. 4 is quite simply unconstitutional. as the supreme court had held that federal crofrle a local election -- control over local elections is allowed only when there is proof of discriminatory treatment in voting. further, i believe it's important to point out that other very important provisions of the voting rights act remain in place, including section 2

and section 3. section 2 applies nationwide and prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or the ability to speak english. section 2 is enforced through federal lawsuits just like every other federal civil rights laws. and the united states and civil right organizations have brought many cases to enforce the guarantees of section 2 in court and they may do so in the future as well. section 3 of the voting rights act also remains in place. this section authorizes federal courts to impose preclearance requirements on states and political subdivisions that have enacted voting procedures that treat people differently based on race in violation of he 14th and 15th amendments.

if a federal court finds a state or political subdivision to have treated people differently based on race, then the court has discretion now to retain supervisory jurisdiction and impose preclearance requirements as they see fit until a future date at the court's discretion. this is all valid now without this bill. section 3 has been utilized recently, in fact. u.s. district judge lee rosenthal issued an opinion in a redistricting case that required that the city of pasadena, texas be monitored by the justice department because it had intentionally changed its city council districts to decrease hispanic influence. states should be allowed to implement their own laws regarding their elections and voting security to ensure all results are accurate on

election day. states and local governments know more about how to handle their elections than bureaucrats in washington, d.c. i applaud states and local governments who are taking the necessary steps to modernize and secure their elections. or example, in arizona my home state, we have made continual progress on improving voter turnout and participation. mr. rass conditions said that the section that was -- mr. raskin said that the section taken out by the court was genius. well, i believe the object sit is true. arizona was -- the opposite is trufmente arizona was under this outdated preclearance formula and i can tell you personally that this section was not genius. both arizona democrats and

republicans alike thought having -- to have to preclear every single decision that elected election officials made with the federal bureaucrats in washington, d.c., was a total disaster. arizona now has free, open, and secure elections despite not being under this federal control preclearance anymore. nearly 80% of arizonans vote by mail. we have a robust, online voter registration system so it is easy to register to vote. we have approximately one month of early voting. while arizona has made voting easier and more accessible for voters, we have also made our elections more secure. by outlawing the practice of ballot harvesting. in arizona we believe it should

be easy to vote and hard to cheat. the policies in arizona seem to be working as we have seen in election after election that voter turnout continues to grow. a couple months ago i had the opportunity to participate in a field hearing in phoenix, arizona, to discuss the voting rights act. there, i spoke with staff of the maricopa county recorder, an elected democrat. she relaid to me how disappointed they were to not have been asked to testify at this hearing and they felt that they had not been able to speak to the story of the successes in arizona and why they were very concerned about h.r. 4. they did not want the federal government preclearing every single decision they made. think about it. they don't want to have to go back to the federal government every single time they change

early ballots or voting locations. they instead are making great progress and strides. voter turnout has soared. they don't want bureaucrats in washington, d.c., slowing down important and time sensitive decisions. this rule also includes h.res. 326. i am curious why my democratic colleagues decided to bring forward this nonbinding resolution. as opposed to bringing up h.r. 336, i bill i am personally a proud co-sponsor of, which is identical to the text of s. 1, the strengthening america's security in the middle east act of 2019, which passed the nate by a vote of 77-23, totally bipartisan, on february

5, 2019. instead of the nonbinding resolution, we have before us today h.r. 336 would take concrete steps to counter the b.d.s. movement against israel. instead, i am saddened the democrats brought up this resolution, a resolution that rebukes and ties the hands of the trump administration and embarrasses israel. in fact, the resolution xpresses state it -- the proposal must be put forward that's consistent with previous administration's proposals, completely undercutting the trump administration. this should not be a partisan issue. with only democrat sponsors. not one republican co-sponsor. as this bill has. we should not be handicapping our president.

my colleagues tell me there could have been a bipartisan bill however this resolution singles out settlement expansion and annexation. smeeze are some of the most delicate issues in our bilateral relationship with israel. it shines a spotlight on them in the middle of an ongoing and contentious time in israel. the resolution spells out specific palestinian authority demands without listing critical israeli preconditions. such as acknowledging israel's right to exist as a jewish state with an undivided jerusalem as israel's capital and providing assurances for israel's safety and security through a demilitarized zone. as a whole, this resolution disproportionately criticizes the israeli government while failing to recognize the

dangerous actions targeting innocent israelis that further remove the possibility of peace. we already voted to support a two-state solution over the summer. in h.r. 2- in a bipartisan manner. so why do we need this partisan bill? and so, i urge opposition to the rule and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you. my good friend from arizona chides me for having described section 5 of the voting rights act as genius which is amazing to me because this has been a bipartisan national commitment and bipartisan commitment in congress since 1965 when it passed on a bipartisan basis, since 1982 when it was rethoffersed on a bipartisan basis, and since 2006, when president bush signed it as well

and celebrated it. so we've had presidents bush, clinton or ba ma, a continuous array of presidents supporting it, and congresses supporting it. if you don't visit, here's what happens. the naacp legal defense fund testified to us about legislation -- successful litigation they had in texas against a restrictive voter i.d. law that had discriminatory racial impact, they won on section 2 but it was too late. who was elected in texas? a u.s. senator, all 36 members of of the house of representatives, a governor, lieutenant governor, and so on. the reason why section 5 is genius and we need to restore the precoverage formula is because it requires states to submit in advance laws that could be potentially discriminatory. i was amazed to hear, again, the language of federalizing control and federal takeover of elections when this has been a

bipartisan commitment for decades, grounded in the constitution of the united states, which tells us in article 1, section 4, we can regulate elections. section 2 of the 15th amendment saying we can regulate elections to prevent race discrimination. section 5 of the 14th amendment. and the republican guarantee clause which tells us we must guarantee to the states a republican form of government which means representative government based on democracy. finally, i will allow my friend portray what's going on in her state her way she paints a lovely picture, i would just refer to page 25 of the judiciary committee report which says in arizona, polling places were closed throughout the statemark with significant populations of latino voters in advance of the 2016 election, maricopa county, 31% latino, closed 171 polling places. mojave county closed 34. and so on. there's another story to be told there which is embodied in the work.

i now yield two minutes to my friend from new jersey, mr. got himmer. mr. gottheimer: thank you for yielding me time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gottheimer: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of the rule which adopt bipartisan language i swro deuced with my good friend, congressman tom reed and congressman ted deutsche, reaffirming the united states' ironclad commitment to providing security stirnse historic ally israel, which is key to america's national security in the region especially in our fight against terror. this vote puts to rest the splinter view on putting new conditions on aid to israel and reinforces our commitment to aid. i want to thank chairman engel for his leadership on this issue and including our language in the manager's amendment. as we have seen, israel, the democracy in the region, faces threats like no other country. rocket attacks from terrorist

organizations inlewding hamas, hezbollah and islamic jihad as well as iranian backed forces in sir rasm vital supports for israel including missile defense elp ours ally defend itself. that's why in 2016 under though ba ma administration, the u.s. and israel signed a 10-year memorandum of understanding, constituting the largest pledge in american history. ppt 2 million invested in the united states. we know this aid helps save countless lives a and we know the united states is better off when israel is equipped to defend itself. that's why i led a bipartisan amendment with my colleagues, congressman reid and conman deutsche, which reaffirm ours commitments to this with no

exceptions. our amendment was co-spon wered -- co-sponsored by 36 other members, republicans and democrats. i thank my colleagues for their support of this bipartisan assistance. this language is necessary because of the extreme and misguided views of some, especially several running for our nation's highest office, who seemingly believe assistance to israel should be held hostage until israel makes con setions -- concessions according to their beliefs, including how israel treats gaza is which is controlled by the terrorist organization hamas. we must stand together to reject that view. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pll raskin: i yield the 10 seconds. mr. gottheimer: when israel is attacked it must have the ability to defend itself. we commit ourselves to strengthening the u.s.-israel relationship and provide vital security assistance to the key

democracy in the region. thank you so much, i yield back. mr. raskin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the yom from arizona is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, madam speaker. i yield four minutes to my good friend, the representative from yale, mr. -- from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the celt is recognized. mr. davis: thank you to my good friend, ms. lesko, thank you for your participation in the election subcommittee hearing in phoenix. also, madam speaker, i want to thank you personally for your hard work in making sure that every person throughout this great nation gets that opportunity to vote and for your work in furthering civil discussion and civil rights in your career. thank you for that too, madam speaker. i do rise in opposition to the rule for h.r. 4 today. the voting rights act is currently in place. the bill that we will debate -- we will be debating tomorrow is not a re-authorization of this important and historically bipartisan legislation that has

prevented discrimination at the ballot box. it has only been since the u.s. supreme court decision in shelby county v. holer that democrats have decided to politicize the voting rights act. this landmark decision left the vast majority of the voting rights act in place. what it struck down was a 40-year-old data and formula used to determine which states were to be placed under the control of the department of justice known as preclearance. the supreme court deemed this data and formula was no longer accurate nor relevant for our country's current climate. the 2013 opinion held that regardless of how to look at the record, no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the pervasive, flagrant, widespread and rampant discrimination that faced congress in 1965 and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the nation. so what does h.r. 4 do? it doubles down and would

attempt to put every state and jurisdiction under preclearance. this is a bill to federalize elections. regardless of what my colleagues have said in this institution today. during last night's rules committee meeting it became clear that the majority was unable to determine the number of states or jurisdictions that would be covered by this preclearance if h.r. 4 were to become law tomorrow. apparently, we have to pass this bill before the american people can even find out if they would be subjected to it. this is a proposition that the majority knows is bad policy and a nonstarter for myself, my colleagues in this chamber and those in the other body across this capitol. the supreme court too. but perhaps most importantly, the thousands of local election officials across the country who would be crippled if this bill were to ever become law. h.r. 4, the voting rights advancement act is not a voting rights act re-authorization bill. this is only about preclearance

and the democratic majority giving the department of justice control over all election activity. while it's not in my committee's jurisdiction in the house administration committee on the subcommittee on elections, our subcommittee on elections majority held seven field hearings and one listening session across the u.s. encome passing eight different states and over 13,000 miles of air travel. even with this garr gant wan effort, the democrats were unable to produce a single voter who wanted to vote and was unable to cast a ballot. this is a great thing. we ought to celebrate it. credit should be given to the voting rights act for helping to achieve this. the 2018 mid-term election produced the highest voting turnout in four decades. according to data from the census bureau. especially among minority voters. that again should be celebrated. sections two and three of the voting rights act that are doesn'tly in effect are continuing to safeguard the public from discrimination at the ballot box.

every eligible american who wants to vote now country's election should be able to cast a ballot. that's why we have the voting rights act, a great example of a bipartisan solution that is working to help americans today and protecting americans from discrimination. unfortunately, h.r. 4 is just a political attempt from the democrats to give the federal government more control over how state run their lexes. i have now seen four voting bills from the majority come to this floor. all have one common theme, that's to federalize elections. i urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. raskin: i yield five minutes to the yom from alabama, ms. sewell who has been such a nag niff -- magnificent leader on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. sewell: thank you, mr. speaker. today i proudly rise to support the rule of h.r. 4, the voting rights advancement act of 2019. voting rights are primal.

they have he -- they are the cornerstone of our democracy. no right is more precious to our citizenship than the right of all americans to be able to vote. when americans are not able to cast their ballots, their votes are silenced. and we, especially as elected official, should be alarmed. if any american who wants to cast a ballot is unable to cast a ballot. what h.r. 4 does is it restorers the voting rights act of 1965 by giving a new coverage formula. in fact, the roberts court specifically said in striking down section 4-b that it was outdated. and so, h.r. 4 is our effort, the efforts of two, three committees, hours of testimony, lots and lots of stake holders, lots and lots of people who were

american citizens, not able to vote, it is that effort that led to a narrowly tailored new coverage formula. that the coverage formula doesn't look back to the 1960's or 1970's. it looks back 25 years. 1994 and going forward. and it requires adjudicated violations of voting discrimination. it is narrowly tailored and it hits the mark as to what the supreme court requires us to do in sing that congress, congress could feel free to update its coverage formula. the supreme court in roberts and his opinion, said that voter discrimination still existed. it admitted that it still existed. and h.r. 4 is our effort to actually provide a modern day voter coverage formula that will allow states and jurisdictions with the most egregious forms of

discrimination to be required to prekyler. you know, the shelby vs. holder decision originated out of shelby county, alabama. i'm honored every day to represent alabama's seventh congressional district. it is a district that knows all too well the importance of voting. you see, my district includes not only birmingham and montgomery but my hometown of selma, alabama. and it was on a bridge in my hometown that our colleague, john lewis, and so many other foot soldiers bled on that bridge. for the equal right of all americans to be able to vote. this is exactly what h.r. 4 does. it restores to the full protection the voting rights act of 1965. and in so doing, it un-- it provides a mechanism by which the most egregious states and localities must preclear before the elections. it's so hard to unring the bell

once an election has taken place. so section 2, while it has been used to litigate and to be able to get good results, it only can occur after the election has taken place. . so i say to you, mr. speaker, it's not only an important piece of legislation to our nation, to ensure every american, american, 18 has the ability, who's years of age or older, has the a ballot box.s t's clear to me that since the shelby vs. holder decision so many states have now instituted discrimination laws. some of them have been in the fraud, but the brennan center and so many voter have found that fraud happens minusculely in every election.

it's not about voter fraud, it's about voter suppression, suppressing the voice of certain that's s, and un-american, mr. speaker. ust in the 2018 mid-term elections alone highlights the voter discrimination that occurred. in georgia, the republican for governor used his power as secretary of state to 53,000 voter registrations on hold, nearly 70% of which to african-american voters. in north dakota, republicans stablished a new requirement that voters must show an i.d. a residential in street address. p.o. ot enough they had a box. that law was a barrier to americans f native who live on rizer vaguses -- boxes tions and use p.o. rather than residential addresses. s my colleagues have shown, in arizona, in maricopa county, hich i my my colleague

exists -- there's still -- the speaker pro tempore: you are recognized. sewell: i say this is a eminole piece of legislation that will restore for the people, republicans and be about making sure it's easier to vote, not harder to vote. to vote for eagues the rule and for the underlying i yieldion, h.r. 4, and back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from arizona. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. speaker. yield five minutes to my good friend, the representative from new york, mr. zeldin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. eldin: thank you, speaker. thank you to congresswoman lesko for yielding and for your strong rule.tion to this is a be clear, h.res. 326 partisan, ill-timed resolution. this past summer, members of to the floor ame and passed almost unanimously a strong statement opposing he boycott divestment and

sanctions movement as well as much of the language that's in h.res.326.ution, -- h.res. 326. a watered down version what we passed last summer. there is nothing in this that we didn't already pass almost unanimously last summer. so what happens? we woke up the day after that last summer, sed and the republicans wanted to pass resolution with teeth. and i know we have a lot of strong bipartisan support for legislation with teeth. 336, legislation that passed the senate with almost 80 votes. but unfortunately for some of my colleagues, they woke up the next day, instead of wanting to teeth, gislation with that would do something about it, do something about that we made.atement that

we've been seeing this resolution pass as the main effort for the second half of this year. israel has been hit by over 2,600 rockets and and -- mortars and most were sent from the gaza past into israel in the year alone. last week, every headline in the egion was israel being bombarded by over 150 rockets, and that was just one moment in time. not resolution fails to only recognize these latest ttacks but all the persistent assaults on innocent israelis by palestinian terrorists. otice, this resolution is reprimanding israel, but it says palestinian terrorists. my friend on the other side of the aisle, when he was giving remarks, was reprimanding israel, and didn't say anything about palestinian murdering innocent americans or innocent israelis.

othing about the pay to slave program that palestinians financially reward terrorism and about violence, nothing hamas denying humanitarian aid, jihad an obligation, saying they do not recognize state.as a jewish this reality is lost in this resolution. completely fails to mention that israel has made repeated attempts to offer peace to the palestinian authority. time and again, the palestinian uthority has rejected peace proposals because they refuse publicly and privately to accept in israel.ate this resolution is silent on theamental facts that shape way israel has dealt with this constant threat on its border. this resolution chooses to reference president obama's olicy towards israel while intentionally leaving out president trump's policy, partisan outcome for this resolution.

upport for israel in this chamber has long been bipartisan, and for whatever choosinghe majority is to advance their resolution tomorrow that is going to have of the most partisan votes to ever take place regarding the history of representatives. congratulations. h.res. 326 undercuts the administration's efforts to alliancen our critical with our greatest ally, israel, nd the timing of this vote is fooling no one. this resolution is a clear rebuke to the trump reversalation's recent of the obama administration's u.n. ing of israel with security council resolution 2334. pass se democrats want to bipartisan legislation with h.r. they should bring 336, which already passed the senate, as i mentioned, with support and isan was introduced by congressman michael mccaul in the house. petition discharge

led by congressman mast of this bill that has almost 200 signatures on it. came to a vote in this chamber, it would pass. we focus on passing legislation that gets through house, it's already been through the senate, it will be igned by the president, and we'll be doing something about that strong statement that we made last summer? i urge all my colleagues to vote against this rule and against resolution, and i back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized -- the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you, madam speaker. i will observe is that the gentleman from new york oddly attacking a resolution for being a recycled version of language we've already adopted a massive bipartisan basis in the house, and then he closes by

for this resolution being partisan and divisive in some way. obviously, those two things don't match up. i now happily yield to the entleman from texas, mr. doggett, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. you.oggett: thank voting rights guarantee all of americans ights when are obstructed from freely articipating in elections, our democracy is imperil. this bill, six long years key ue, restores a provision of the voting rights ct that was wrongfully nullified by republican-appointed justices. ow troubling that a law that lyndon johnson long ago secured in is being obstructed while our home state of texas we have ecome ground zero for voter suppression. state republicans have illegally purged voting rolls. they eliminated mobile voting to

senior voters.nd they enacted a cumbersome voter law, and they illegally gerrymandered our state. 100 voting split precincts to create the district which i serve today, creating of the most crooked districts that weaken the and accountability of congress members. a three-judge federal court, two republican-appointed judges, unanimously condemned redistricting as intentional racially its iminatory intent in work. fortunately, the texas civil texas, roject moved lulac and other groups have challenged the suppression, but essential to offer the protection that they and our deserve. we need preclearance in texas. we need preclearance to clear obstacles that republicans are insistent on imposing to assure that our

a nonvoter -- a state.onparticipation for democracy, let's support h.r. 4. i yield back. mr. raskin: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the now recognizes the gentlewoman from arizona. mrs. lesko: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i consume. if we defeat the previous question, i will bring to the h.r. 2207, the protect innovation act of 2019, as the st people know ill which will eliminate the medical device tax. madam speaker, i ask unanimous insert the text of my amendment in the record along ith extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. madam speaker, h.r. by mr. kind oduced

253 wisconsin, and it has bipartisan co-sponsors, myself.g since the medical device tax was affordable care act, commonly known as known thatfolks have it was detrimental to innovation to to patient access necessary devices and treatments. 2.3% excise tax has been twice because we know it's bad policy. so what are we waiting for? be m speaker, we should bringing legislation to this can that showcases how we work together. the american people need to see united on issues as important

as this. to stand together when opportunities like these arise better the lives and truly our constituencies. just that.oes three peaker, i yield minutes to my good friend, the indiana, tive from mrs. walorski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. walorski: thank you, madam speaker. i ask my colleagues to oppose the previous question. if we defeat the previous question, republicans will amend the rule to include the repeal tax.e medical device the medical device tax takes unless anuary 1, 2020, congress acts. time is of the essence. the aisleiends across continue to waste our time and nergy and more importantly clock time that we need to stop

from going into effect. with s a bipartisan bill 253 of us co-sponsoring it. asking is that the 253 co-sponsors get an opportunity this expires to say stop from stop the wheels grinding. let's do something that counts americans, for senior citizens who are the of a lot of these medical device implants. of life, quality oftentimes it brings the important f very quality of life to seniors. hospital.in the it's been proven. to up on people's feet engage back in the workforce and their part of the american dream. of having nothing happening in a bipartisan way,

fellow americans are watching what's happening in if 253 of us agree n this today, we can stop this onerous tax. we can stop costing health care exorbitant amount of to all of ent down our constituents. this is a big deal in the state of indiana, where i come from. do in the state of ndiana with 300 medical device manufacturing companies supporting nearly 55,000 nationally, jobs, the industry directly employs over half a million people. it's no understatement to say that thousands of jobs are at medical device tax comes back in 26 days. when the tax was in effect for years of 2015 -- 2012 2015, interest we lost, almost 30,000 jobs nationwide,

government data. madam speaker, we should be focusing on important, urgent, like this.issues e can do something we can do something to make our constituents and our nation better. i urge my colleagues to support this important bill, 26 days to go, we can work together. over 250 of us are co-sponsoring this legislation. i ask on behalf of every citizen, everybody working in the medical device industry and for the sake of our own economy, let's do something that makes sense for this country. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from maryland -- mr. raskin: we're prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, madam speaker. in closing, h.r. 4 is totally partisan.

without one republican co-sponsor. and resolution 326, another totally partisan bill. ties the trump administration's hands and embarrasses rail -- israel. i urge no on the previous question, no on the underlying measure and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you very much, madam speaker. i want to thank my friend from arizona who rightfully invites us to focus on legislation that will bring us together. the gentlelady from indiana, who i have not had the good fortune of meeting yet, accuses mauve wasting not just time but something called clock time which sounds like a really low blow. but in any event, i think our legislation actually will bring us together and should bring us together. the rule is for two pieces of

legislation that i thought ought to have and would have complete bipartisan support. the first is simply to update the preclearance coverage formula, section 4-b in the voting rights act, as we were instructed to do by the supreme court in the shelby county vs. holder decision. the voting rights act is the product of massive political and social struggle in the country to make america move forward, but it has been supported by huge bipartisan majorities in 1965 and 1982 and 2006. and yet today, our friends across the aisle now attack it as a federal takeover of state elections. which is absolutely flabber gasting that the republican party, the party of lincoln, is now attacking the voting rights act and the preclearance requirement for being some kind of assault on federalism when it vind waits the right of all americans to vote.

as we are not only authorized to do under the 14th and 15th amendments, but are obligated to do around the republican guarantee clause to make sure all americans are in a representative relationship with their government. i invite them to come on back over to the side of the voting rights act. obviously we are all for a two-state solution as american presidents of both parties have been for for the last several decades. so i invite them to come back over for that too. this resolution cannot be both a tired rehash of everything we've done in the past as was claim bud also some kind of partisan depar tchur. the partisan departure is on their side. i urge a yes vote on the rule, a yes vote on the previous question and i yield back the balance of my time. i prove the -- i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. pose pez. -- those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

mrs. lesko: on that, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman asks for the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 2534 and to insert extraneous material thereon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 739 and rule 1, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2534. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from alabama, ms. sewell, to propre-side over the ommittee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h r. 2534 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the securities and exchange act of 1934 to prohibit certain securities trading and related communications by those who psess material, felon public information. -- nonflick information. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equal by guy -- equally divide and cron -- divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on financial services. the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, and the gentleman, r. huizenga, each will control

20 minutes. ms. waters: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: i rise in support of h.r. 2534, the insider trading prohibition act, introduced by representative jim himes. this bill creates a clear definition of illegal insider trading under securities laws so there's a codified, consistent standard for courts and market participants to better protect the hard-earned savings of millions of americans and bring certain toyota u.s. securities market. for nearly 80 year the securities and exchange commission, the s.e.c., has sought to hold corporate insider accountable for insider trading through general statutory anti-fraud provisions and rules it has promulgated under those provisions. this has resulted in a web of

court decisions that generally prohibit insiders with a duty of trust and confidence to a corporation from secretly trading on material nonpublic corporate information for their own personal gain. these insiders are also generally prohibited from tipping outsiders known as tippees, who then trade on the information themselves even though they know it was wrongfully obtained. because there isn't a statutory definition of insider trading, there is uncertainty around who is subject to insider trading prohibitions and with various court decisions, liability for this type of violation has shifted. for example, in 2014, an appeals court added a brand new requirement that the tippee must not just know that information was wrongfully disclosed, but must also know about the

specific personal ben in it insider received. this decision has severely hampered the s.e.c.'s ability to prosecute insider trading cases and accordingly -- and according attorneybahara, former for the u.s. southern district of new york, i quote, provadse a virtual road map for savvy hedge fund managers to insulate themselves from tippee liability by knowingly macing themselves at the end of a chain of insider information and avoiding learning details about the sources of obvious confidential and improperly disclosed information, quote-unquote. so i am pleased that this bill codifies existing case law and overturns this new controversial requirement, creating a clear, consistent standard for the

s.e.c., the court, and market participants to follow and does so in a way that, as columbia law school professor john coffey testified before one of our skis -- subcommittees, and i quote, expands liable in ways that should not be controversial, quote-unquote. i would like to commend representative himes for his efforts since the bill was marked up in may in committee to ensure that it fairly reflects existing law. in addition to extensive outreach to current and former regulators and prosecutors, investor advocates and institutional investors, mr. himes also repeatedly engaged with our colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle. as a result, ranking member mchenry will offer an amendment which will remove unnecessary ambiguities, clarify the intent of the bill to reflect existing

insider trading case law, and ensure that the bill preserves the s.e.c.'s ability to bring bad actors to justice under other related insider trading laws. so i plan to support this amendment as a reasonable bipartisan compromise. i urge all members to support this commonsense bill that makes the definition of illegal trading very clear for all. so that the s.e.c. can effectively crack down on corporate insiders who illegally trade on inside information. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: thank you, madam chair. cracking down on bad actors in insider trading is a nonpartisan activity. this hurts everyday investors

and make ours marks less efficient, accurate and reliable. current law prohibits trading on material insider information in breach of a fiduciary duty under the anti-fraud provisions of federal securities law. the securities and exchange commission and department of justice are the federal agencies tasked with enforcing insider trading. both agencies regularly use their authority by bringing insider trading cases against bad actors who violate our insider trading laws. the s.e.c. has not asked nor bill, however, unlike other bills that republicans have voted for out of this house in the past month. moreover, democrats have not pull fumly identified a problem within the current body of the law that inhibits the prosecution of bad actors who illegally trade on material, nonpublic information. as it's written before us on the floor at this moment this bill could potentially create more confusion and uncertainty within the law of insider trading. it could expand liability for

good faith traders which would hurt the efficiencies of our markets, chill vital information gathering and weaken investor confidence. republican and democrat s.e.c. chairs alike work vastly different approaches to enforcement matters, have expressed concern over congress codifying a prohibition on insider trading into one single statute. specifically they voiced concerns that congress would write a law that could be both overly broad and too narrow at the same time. i share their concerns with the bill as drafted before us today and i'm pleased to hear that the chair has indicated that the majority will be accepting the ranking member's amendment shortly. i'm concerned that the current version of the bill, however, does not include an explicit personal benefit test as set forth by the supreme court precedent. i'm troubled that an unclear phrasing such as, quote, related to the market, is overbroad and will allow judges and prosecutors to expand the law.

i'm also concerned that the bill as drafted lacks an exclusivity provision that would make this bill the law of the land. finally, the rule of construction section is troubling because the financial services committee has not had a chance to debate this specific language. i fear that this language could add more confusion and uncertainty around insider trading laws with rogue judges and prosecutors using the language to ex-pan the bounds of insider trading law. i do believe that the ranking member's amendment goes a distance in clarifying that but as i will talk about, i will be having an amendment later on as well that i believe further clarifies that. drafting a statute that appropriately and accurately captures the subleties of insider trading case law and regulation that was been shaped an finessed over decades into one single statute isn't easy, to say the least. achieving bipartisan support also isn't easy, especially when it involves nuance and technical substance such as the body of

insider trading law. my colleague, ranking member mcren -- mchenry will be offering an amendment to improve the bill by including some republican priorities and improving the bill to better track current insider trading law. as i mentioned, i will be offering an amendment as well in an attempt to further clarify and improve this proposal. so while we are unsure exactly what the final product will look like here, i want to commend both mr. himes and ranking member mchenry for working together to attempt in reaching a bipartisan agreement to improve this bill with the amendment and to make it clear that it is congress' intent to codify existing law without broadening it into new areas. i hope the author of the legislation will accept my amendment as well. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. .

ms. waters: thank you. i now yield to the gentleman from connecticut, who's also the strategic e technologies and advanced research subcommittee of the permanent select committee on intelligence, and a valued member of the financial services may ttee, such time as he consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. himes: thank you, madam chair. much, madam y chairwoman, for yielding. delighted today by our consideration of h.r. 2534, the prohibition act, because after years of work, we a going to produce bipartisan product which actually does address a insiderant challenge in trading law, and that is, in date, there has xisted remarkably no specific statutory prohibition on insider trading. believer, as i know everyone else in this chamber

s, if we are going to create criminal or civil liabilities, the congress of the united how s should make specific and when and under what circumstances we do so, and that's what we're doing today. to report in bipartisan fashion, but let me back up for a second, for those the committee n r watch this particular space closely, why it's important. insider trading is an activity who has somebody information that they have been which theyith or for have paid or come by in some is used to shion secure a market advantage. they have information that others don't. trade on that information. that allows them to get a material gain. there's a problem with that because quite apart from the insiders t it's only or those people who are not acting based on their talent or their intelligence or their hard but acting based on who hey know or, worse yet, who

they might have paid, that they are the ones who benefit from our capital markets. i think that notion sort of strikes at the fundamental sense all carry that we around. but in as much as this behavior profoundly damaging to the capital markets, which hallmark of the united states, and it's damaging because those capital markets confidence that millions of american families have out there that their hard-earned savings can be put into the market, invested and fair oyed in a way that's to them, that will create a return, and that they are doing field, notel playing competing with people who may have an inside advantage. the good news here, in the us, we ons preceding have prosecuted insider trading, but we have done so under nti-fraud provisions of the securities acts that were passed in the early 1930's, and as a

result, there's not a fit between good the concept of fraud and the concept of insider trading. mr. huizenga's point, as he knows, this has led of vast body court-determined law, starting 1984 the dirks decision in ten g through materia, car per, hagen, culminating in the decision by the second circuit leading then to decision at the supreme court in 2016. all of these dayses -- these have mentioned created uncertainty about the nature of liability and have resulted in convictions of people who behaved in ways that would intuitive sense of right and wrong. so because of this uncertainty, overturning of convictions, now is the moment for us to finally do what we are which is to make it very clear what the law of the

land is. moment has come to pass this legislation, and i'm comes after say it years of working with experts ike the aforementioned professor john coffey, past and resent commissioners of the securities and exchange commission, consultation with prosecutors as well as with defense attorneys. this is a fairly fiddly and technical area of the law, and it was my intention over the years to make sure we crafted good law which created liability behavior but which did not in fact create liability for little like doing a extra work to secure an advantage in investments. it was also very, very important to me that this be done on a basis.san there's really nothing partisan about this bill. neither party believes in insider trading or wants to insider trading. this is not a question of balancing regulation or allocating public resources. is a question of clarity of law. so i want to close, apart from

been the g that's track record of the establishment and writing of this legislation by thanking mchenry and r ranking member huizenga. there will be an amendment by ranking member mchenry, which the democrats support. it does improve the bill. inis not really a compromise the sense it actually makes for a better bill, but i'm pleased work,y after a lot of hard this is in fact the product of some very robust engagement and the he democratic republican representatives in this chamber. that is not easy to achieve so i these circumstances, want to start first and foremost y thanking chairwoman waters and chairwoman maloney for their again, mr. and, mchenry and mr. huizenga, understanding what is a technical corner of the law and in good faith amendments, including some ideas hat we will shortly be taking up. and then finally, as every member in this chamber knows, done ork happens and gets and leads to success only because of the commitment and very, very hard work of the

both sides of the aisle. so before yielding back my time o the chairwoman, i do want to specifically thank caitlyn bradley, bill, david fernandez, from the financial services staff, mark schneider, y legislative director, and from my is predecessor staff. the republican side, jamie. with that i urge pass anning of law -- passage of this law. it will be a good thing for the confidence in our markets, it ill be a good thing in reassuring the american public we can get things done on a bipartisan basis and on that urge passage of h.r. 2534, the insider prohibition and with that yield my time back to the chairwoman. the chair: the gentlewoman from reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. r. huizenga: madam chair, at this time i'd like to recognize member of the capital markets subcommittee, the mr. eman from wisconsin,

steil, for as much time as he consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. steil: our districts touch in the middle of lake michigan. i have never been to that part my district and maybe you haven't either, but i appreciate you yielding. to urge support of the insider trading prohibition act. thank chairwoman aters, ranking member mchenry, as well as mr. huizenga and mr. on this their work important piece of legislation. as we've seen far too often in partisanship, poison pills can get in the way of progress and good ideas. of us at our core agree on. although this took a little bit of time, i'm pleased we came today reaching agreements from earlier in the week. spent my time working for a period of time at a publicly traded company. i saw firsthand the importance markets that operate efficiently but also fairly.

have ns of americans retirement accounts, 401-k's and their s as it relates to retirement, and it's critical that those individuals can rely on the markets that they are relying on for their end of life. americans are investing in these markets and investments, the integrity of which are critical. they need to know we're fighting n their behalf to ensure the game is not rigged, to help in favor of a privileged few. bill includes, in particular, important clarifications that will improve insider ty to police trading. it also incorporates changes upported by the ranking member in an amendment i offered that i think provides important to allow the government to go after the bad guys. is will ensure the bill targeted at bad behavior and does not inadvertently prevent engaging in legitimate trades. it strikes the balance that i

want to crucial if we have a vibrant and trustworthy public markets. again, want to urge my colleagues to support this nonpartisan legislation and i yield back to my colleague from michigan. thank you. reserve.nga: and i the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. serving the we're re balance of our time. he chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. huizenga: madam chair, i now recognize the distinguished the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, for such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. i thank the ranking member of the capital markets subcommittee, mr. huizenga, and for his good work. in committee, working on mportant legislation for economic growth, and for his michigan.ts in

madam chair, preventing and actors for illegal insider trading is one of the top priorities of republicans on the house financial services this illegal use activity hurts everyone, mainstream investors, as well as efficiencyty and the of our markets. insider n material information, in breach of a fiduciary duty, is currently court-made law. under the anti-fraud provisions securities laws that we have. the securities and exchange commission and the department of the power to bring nsider trading cases and both agencies regularly exercise this power and have done so for decades. our body of insider trading laws have been developed through judicial des of precedent to invest -- to protect investors.

regulations have -- that have been developed over decades into a single difficult.really it's a very difficult undertaking. a very delicate iece of legislating that must occur. both republicans and democrats hat have served on the securities and exchange commission have expressed concerns about congress drafting accurately at captures this extensive and expansive body of law without it into new areas or vertently, perhaps, perfectly by design, in some areas. oreover, bipartisanship is never easy. it's a give and take. it's a difficult process. i appreciate the gentleman from himes, for his willingness to work with us in a bipartisan manner. the floor today is not perfect, and as the

gentleman from connecticut i have several concerns with this bill. have concerns about the lack of an explicit personal benefit test consistent with supreme precedent. i'm concerned that ambiguous currently in the bill, such as, quote, relating to the quote, is ripe for activist judges and over-zellous and private plaintiffs to exploit, leading to greater uncertainty for involved in investing. that's not what we want. thats not what we seek and should not be this undertaking. and i also don't believe that's my colleague of from connecticut in the drafting of this bill. i'm also troubled that the rules committee print before us does include an exclusivity provision, establishing that insider trading aw rather than just an

additional action around insider trading. finally, the rules committee includes a rule of construction section that has et to be vetted through the financial services committee. and without a full understanding this implications of language, the bill could open he door for activist judges, overzealous prosecutors, trial lawyers. not good for investors. that's not good for our markets. anyone outsideor of a narrow few that personally fees around gh lawsuits. which iment, which i -- will offer in a minute, addresses some of these appreciate my colleague from connecticut and i appreciate the chair of the services committee, ms. waters, for their engagement to a can actually come bipartisan agreement on this important act.

republicans continue to support sensible bipartisan trading bills, such as the one that chairwoman waters or she ought forth brought forth as the first action of our committee on this house floor in this congress. rules for rent corporate insider act. starting out with the fact that we'll be tough on bad actors for the financial services committee and doing it in a bipartisan way shows our seriousness. and this bill before us is an addition to that seriousness hat we take against bad actors on our area of jurisdiction. finally, i would say this. we currently have, out of decades of lawsuits, decades of regulatory enforcement, we have he greatest clarity on insider

trading ever had. in this nation. and that's due to two supreme court cases in particular, getting serious rules of the road. and thing clarity is good. what we want out of this legislation is to put in statute what is confirmed and established currently in the marketplace and currently in the courts of law. this is not to create more confusion or more lawsuits, but rather codify what is a well regulated, bright line space that we currently have. we want to take that consistency we see that we currently have, and make it statute. that's why i've engage sod deeply over the last five months, or republicans have engaged deeply with democrats over the last five months to come to some reasonable

conclusion on this important matter of banning insider trading. so congress will have its say. i believe we'll have a bipartisan vote for final passage. if my amendment is adopted. i would hope that that would take place. we've had good conversations along that line and i think we have workable language that could be acceptable to all in this body. so, i want to thank everyone who has par days pated but most particularly, mr. himes of connecticut. while we don't agree on every issue, heck, i don't think you get re-elected in connecticut if you agree with me on every issue, nor you in north carolina in my district, but bipartisanship is a hard thing. but if we're going to do big, important things, if we're going to do big, important things, we have to try for that. and when you're in the majority, it's, well, it's implicit. you have more votes than those in the minority. so democrats could pass this

bill on their own. they could. and if they wanted to just use this as a political issue they could just jam the language they have. they could. right? but it was your willingness to reach out so that we could actually have a big, bipartisan vote rather than a narrow victory. that is also something that is a marker that most in this country don't hear about. we actually do talk. with emay disagree on big things. we may. from time to time chairwoman waters and i have had public disagreements. and -- but at the same time we've been able to come to terms on important things in our jurisdiction and get things done. so while that is not the everyday case for this congress, when it happen, i think we should actually acknowledge it. not that anybody is going to pat us on the back for it but we should acknowledge it. so with that, i thank my colleagues on the democrat side of the aisle for their work, i

thank my colleagues on the republican side for their work as well. with that i yield back to mr. huizenga. mr. huizenga: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for closing. mr. huizenga: i am prepared to close, before we get to the amendments. so madam chair, i would like to take this time to, again, congratulate the work that has been done. i do believe that there is additional work that is before us. i will be having an amendment that i will be offering a little later on and at this point, i think as it's coming together, there still is not going to be total agreement or total unanimity, you'll see with the ranking member's amendment, a

number of republicans who will join that bill. i believe that with the adoption of my amendment you'd see even fourth republican support of the underlying bill. there will be some dissent. there's dissent within the industry. there's dissent within those prosecutors and the regulators as i noted, beth republican and democrat chairs of the s.e.c. nd commissioners of the s.e.c. have said that having congress act on this particular issue will set off a new chain of events, a new set of legal challenges, that will take years to settle in the courts as well. and they are comfortable with the options that they have, the way current law has settled. having said that, again, as the ranking member had said, in an attempt to codify a number of

those supreme court rulings, it is commendable. i tend to be one who believes that congress has a responsibility to review and look at and examine whether they should codify precedent. i find it interesting that -- on both sides this happens. within the regulators, everyone seems to pick and choose a little bit as to what subject area they would like to codify and what subject area they would continue to like to have flexibility based on those lawsuits. but in this -- at this time the ranking member and his work with the gentleman from connecticut has made significant progress and i look forward to adopting the gentleman from north carolina's amendment and the potential adoption of my amendment as well as we move forward. with that, i will yield back the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: madam chairwoman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: madam chairwoman, h.r. 4863, the insider trading prohibition act is a long overdue piece of legislation that simply spells out the definition of illegal insider trading. under the securities laws, it creates clarity for participants in financial -- in financial markets and empowers the s.e.c. to punish bad actors. as we have discussed this bill is supported by groups including the counsel of institution -- the council of institutional investor, california state teachers retirement system, the north american securities administrators association, healthy markets, and public

citizen. and so i'd like to thank the ranking member, mr. mchenry, for his very kind comments. i'd like to thank him for his cooperation. i'd like to thank him for recognizing that it is possible to have bipartisan legislation and i'd like to thank him for recognizing that mr. himes has worked very hard to ensure that he would have this as bipartisan legislation, rather than simply having the democrats try to run roughshod over the opposite side of the aisle to get this done. with that i urge all members to vote yes on this important bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on financial services printed in

the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee's print 116-39, shall be considered as adopted . the bill as amended shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in house report 116-320. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read. shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the opponent. shall not be subject to amendment. and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 116-32 0.

for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. mchenry: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk wiz designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 116-320, offered by mr. mchenry of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: as i mentioned a few minutes ago, i have concerns with h.r. 2534, the insider trading proings act, in its current form. mr. -- trading protection act, in its current form. this codifies law not expanding it. i would like to thank the bill's sponsor, mr. himes, from connecticut, and his staff, for

their diligence and patience working with us over the last few months and other the recent thanksgiving holiday for both of our staffs, as well as the waters staff as well. and i want to thank mr. himes for agreeing to support this amendment in order to make this underlying bill a bipartisan approach to codify insider trading law and punish bad actors. my amendment reflects republican priorities discussed at our may markup such as the inclusion of an explicit personal benefit test consistent with supreme court precedent. removal of the novel rule of construction section from the rules print of this bill, and a clarification of ambiguous words to ensure judges and prossculetors know that this bill is not intended to expand r create new insider trading

liability. the bill as drafted does not explicitly include the so-called personal benefit test, a significant element of insider trading law that prosecutors must currently satisfy in certain insider trading cases. month case, the supreme court noted that in order for a violation to have occurred, the insider or tipper providing the material nonpublic information must have received a direct or indirect personal benefit, include bug not limited to, pecuniary gain, reputational benefit, or a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend. including an explicit personal benefit test as set forth by the supreme court ensures that this important test cannot be read more broadly by judges than the supreme court has allowed. and also, prevents activist

judges and overzellous prosecutors from reading the test out of law entirely. my amendment clarifies ambiguities within, quote, related to the market, end quote, phrasing in the underlying bill. this phrase, relating to the market is not a legal term defined been the existing body of insider trading law nor is it defined in this bill. it's entirely plausible for an activist judge or rogue prosecutor to interpret this phrase far more broadly than the drafts of the bill intended. the amendment provides a limiting principle by applying only to nonpublic information that has or is reasonably expected to have a material effect on the mark price of a security. this ensures that a statute that will capture cases where the recipient -- where the receipt of material nonpublic

information was not from the company itself but from another sort source. this is referenced in the supreme court's 1987 carpenter decision. finally, my amendment strikes the rule of construction is section underlying bill that was not reviewed or debated in the house financial services committee. i believe this provision is at best unnecessary and at worst could have been read as giving a congressional stamp of approval to a poorly reasoned judicial set of decisions. as such my amendment would ensure that congress' intent is to simply codify existing law. not expand liability or create additional defenses for those accused of insider trading. this is about codifying what is already existent. period, end of statement. new that being said, my amendment does not achieve all republican goals that we have previously outlined in our committee markup.

in committee hearing. unfortunately, the bill, even if it's amended by this amendment, contain an ot exclusivity provision to make exclusive law of the land for insider trading. while my amendment does not make allowill perfect, it does congress to exercise its article produce a to comprehensive insider trading time and does so in a bipartisan manner, that is simply -- we believe, codifies current insider trading aw without expanding liability to good-faith people innocent under the law. the chair: the gentleman's time expired. mr. mchenry: i thank you for the adoption and thank you for the working on this. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the entlelady from california seek

recognition? ms. waters: to claim the time although i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, recognized.dy is ms. waters: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'd like to thank ranking member mchenry for offering this 2534, to help r. further ensure that this codifies the ll law against insider trading in a fair manner. marked up the bill in committee in may, i understood colleagues blican had several concerns with the ill but never less voiced their -- nevertheless voiced havingupport in hopes of their concerns addressed before the bill made its way to the house floor. day, those of the concerns was wanting additional reflectedat h.r. 2534 the current judge-made law aside insider trading

from the controversial 2014 that has urt decision been subject to criticism from sides. after months of discussion with bill's sponsor, himes and ranking member mchenry crafted this amendment to do just that. it would clarify that -- it require the s.e.c. to establish some personal benefit cases involving liability, nonpublic t material information that forms the basis related to may be either a specific security or to if that information to haveve a -- expected a material effect on the market price of that security and emove the rule of construction to avoid confusion and ambiguity is to ensure that this act

not the exclusive means by which the s.e.c., the department of or private litigants may pursue insider trading. accepted, i ment is believe that the bill would provide the s.e.c. with clear authority to bring to justice corporate insiders and unfair advantage of confidential information. in addition, because the bill the same terms identified in the current case law against trading, the s.e.c. and market participants can easily what those terms mean. again, i thank ranking member chenry for strengthening the bill, and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from sponsor of this important legislation, mr. himes. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized.

mr. himes: mr. chairman, what s the balance of the time available? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. himes: thank you. i want to welcome the amendment by mr. mchenry. e raised four substantive points. three of those points are incorporated in this amendment, which we are very happy to accept. i think it is, again, not a compromise but an improvement of the bill. in my very much -- very little remaining time, we did discussions about exclusivity. as the ranking member knows, the a law re is to create under which insider trading is prosecuted. is the objective. as the ranking member knows, it's a fairly complicated including hen you're specific exclusivity language, and ultimately, that was not member'sin the ranking amendment -- proposed amendment here. but we should continue to work make sure this is about clarifying and simplifying and making more efficient rather than making more complex.

with that i will yield time back to the chairwoman. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the question is on the amendment ffered by the gentleman from california, mr. mc -- north carolina, mr. mchenry. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider mendment number 2 printed in house report 116-320. for what purpose does the entleman from michigan seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 house report 116-320 of red by mr. huizenga michigan. the chair: pursuant to house 739, the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the michigan.from mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chair. and i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huizenga: mr. chair, i'll be belief. bill ncerned that the before us today focuses on awareness of information rather than the use f wrongful information in connection with security trading. specifically, this bill defines quote, aware of material and nonpublic communicating material and nonpublic information as wrongful only if by information was obtained way of or its communication or constitute theft, bribery, misrepresentation, espionage, a violation of computer data and intellectual property protection and privacy laws, conversion, misappropriation, and other deceptive means and any breach of fiduciary duty, contractual a code of conduct, or a personal confidence or trust. violates the bill's prohibitions on trading with and ommunicating material on

nonpublic information so long as this person, quote, knew the information was wrongfully obtained, actively avoided gaining such knowledge or ecklessly disregarded the wrongful use, communication, or attainment of this information. it does not matter under the bill whether they know the method by which the method was communicated or if benefit came from communication information. so in short, mr. chair, i believe that this would in turn judges and st prosecutors go after individuals, regardless of their profit from actual wrongful actions. it's why my amendment is very simple. would strike all occurrences of the phrase aware of and word using -- the word using. words, you can be aware of something but if you are not actually use that information, why would you be a criminal standard?

my amendment would have the can be f limiting who prosecuted under this bill to people who actually use wrongful to gain a profit, and as we all know in our lives, rumors all kinds of time. us all the whether it's about our work life or family or whatever might be in the , somebody neighborhood -- it's hard to know what information is actually rue or accurate. is this ave currently assumption that being aware of omething makes you criminally liable versus actually using that information. current bill could allow prosecution of people that traded and are simply aware of perhaps would have traded regardless of their awareness of that information. prepared to support this underlying bill with the amendment. my

i was pleased to see the adoption of the amendment from from north n carolina. i believe these are perfecting amendments. believe these are issues that need to be further addresses. and while i, too, have some exclusivity and some of the other things that the gentleman from north discussed, i believe that this particular issue is of and it is e sufficient enough and pull my nt enough to support across the finish line as we move forward on this. so i urge all my colleagues to accept this perfecting amendment, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the hat purpose does gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: i strongly oppose representative huizenga's

that replaces the bill's standard of illegal nsider trading while, quote, quote-unquote, material, nonpublic information while using, quote, material information. this narrow standard is law, istent with current would severely weaken the bill and would create substantial hurdles to the benefit of bad actors and to the deriment of s.e.c. detriment of s.e.c. if the amendment is adopted, the s.e.c. would have to prove that reason for traded was because of a specific piece of information. that means that s.e.c. would time proving its case in court unless it had an mail from a defendant explaining his motive for trading. ot many bad actors engage in illegal insider trading. oreover, such a change would

benefit insider traders at hedge funds or other market because they irms would merely have to tell the judge that they had other theirs or data to support trade. the s.e.c.'s existing rule, 10-b-5, clearly states that appropriate standard is, quote, unquote., changing it to use, quote, as representative huizenga's do, dramatically and substantially weakens the to prosecute rity insider trading. so i would urge my colleagues to amendment offered by mr. huizenga, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady has the only time. balancers: i yield the of my time to the gentleman from connecticut, the sponsor of this legislation, mr. himes. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. r. himes: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chairwoman waters. i rise in reluctant opposition because it hasnt

been a hallmark of this process hat i enjoyed working with mr. mchenry and mr. huizenga. the reason i rise in opposition is really two or three-fold. one, as mr. huizenga may recall, the original draft of make it would prosecutable, to prosecute somebody who is in possession of material nonpublic information and my republican friends correctly pointed out that we of often in possession information that we may not be aware of. certainly if you were to take a inbox you would know that to be true. at the suggestion of the epublicans, we put the word aware of. while mr. huizenga is acting in chairwoman waters is right, if we go to a use require it would prosecutor to get into the motivation of why somebody made a trade. prove they ave to made this trade because you had inside information.

in support of mr. huizenga's good faith, i coming nd where he's from, but let's also face it. he confluence of circumstances where you have material nonpublic information and you going to do that trade at precisely that moment is a very, very rare event. so while i understand where mr. huizenga is coming from, what i instead of t is, creating probably an impossible let's torial burden, acknowledge if in that very rare event where you want to make a to be in you happen position of material nonpublic nformation, let that trade go by. that's rare enough it shouldn't, i think, in any way -- somebody this pent time in industry, compromise the effectiveness or efficiency of this capital market. in ctantly, i stand opposition to mr. huizenga's amendment. i hope he will nonetheless underlying bill and yield back the time to the chairwoman. ms. waters: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from

back.rnia yields the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. amendment is not agreed to. mr. huizenga: mr. chairman, i the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. huizenga: yes. is chair: a recorded vote requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, c., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 195. and the nays are 230.

the chair: on this vote the yeas 196. the nays are 231. the amendment is not adopted.

there being no further amendments, under the rule, the committee rises. he chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had h.r. 2534 deration and pursuant to house resolution 739, i report the bill, as resolution back to the house with further amendments adopted in the ommittee of the whole.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has under consideration it the bill h.r. 2534 and pursuant to house resolution 739, reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with further amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the amendment. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the securities and exchange -- securities trading and related communications by those who possess material, nonpublic information. the speaker pro tempore: passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. miss walters: i ask for -- ms. waters: i ask for the yeas and nays. a speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is ordered. the ayes have it. ms. waters: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman california requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 408. the nays are 14. he bill is passed.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 410. the nays are 13. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 741 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 57, house resolution 741. resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 4, to amend the golden rights act of 1965 to revise the criteria for determining which

states have political subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the act and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the house resolution 326, expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding united states efforts to resolve the israeli-palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state solution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this 227.the yeas are the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 228. the nays are 196. question is

ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the it. have the resolution is adopted. the gentlewoman from arizona. mrs. lesko: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226. the nays are 196. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members will take their conversations off the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my marks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. without objection. mr. payne: madam speaker, i rise today to commemorate one of my district's most venerable churches. this year marks the 75th anniversary of the peaceful zion baptist church in east orange, new jersey. it has been known as a sanctuary and runs a food pantry for those in need of a meal. it provides clothing for those who could use a warm coat or socks. the community -- the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order.

the gentleman may resume. mr. payne: the community of peaceful zion is so strong that members have been known to bring food to ailing families. everyone is there for one another. congratulations peaceful zion baptist church. they are the blessed beacon of loving care in my 10th district of new jersey. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> this morning, speaker pelosi

announced that yesterday's hearing in judiciary will quote, whip leading constitutional scholars and give congress no choice, no choice, but to impeach the president. let's take a look at who exactly testified in yesterday's impeachment hoax. professor karlan donated went after the 13-year-old president's son. professor gerhardt donated money to president obama and hillary clinton hoinlt and worked .gainst and professor feldman just over a month into his presidency, however, professor turley who voted against the president had this to say.

impeachments have been to be based on proof not presumption. abuse of power, impeachment with this fact pattern is an abuse of power by the house of representatives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: we do have a very solemn responsibility to uphold the rule of law. but it is important to note that democrats and the majority in the house have worked every day for the american people. among the 400 bills that we have supported are h.r. 1986, protecting americans with pre-existing conditions, legislation that i have worked on for almost a decade, the equality act, paycheck fairness

to treat women fairly. climate action now and other legislation to recognize the crisis in climate change. national flood insurance, which is desperate for my constituents in texas, directing the removal of armed forces from hostilities in the republic of yemen and then of course a signature bill that i have written over a two-year period, the women against violence act and rovides $291 million for our law enforcement and prosecutors. timely, let me say, i was very proud to stand with h.res. 183 condemning anti-semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the value that define the people of the united states and condemning ain't muslim against minorities. we have been working on behalf of the american people and we ask the other body to work and

we are doing it for the goodness of our nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> the energy economy of pennsylvania's 12th congressional district is creating good-paying jobs across the commonwealth and our nation. our district is happy to welcome thailand-based natural gas company. next week, b.k.v. will be opening an office and will join other natural gas companies that are creating jobs, giving back to the community and helping our rural district thrive with the resources under our feet. this plays an important role in our national energy port fole

1/20th cing 1/10 to natural gas. it lowers energy costs and creates an independent energy supplier. and our country -- natural gas companies have helped with community revite laysation and robust economy. present and future of p.a.-12 is bright because of the natural gas energy and for the benefit of our community, state and nation, i will continue to support its growth and expansion in congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> row bow calls, mentioning them is enough to make one's

bloods boil. it interrupts our time with family and friends and scam people out of their money and make calls look local local. in 2018, americans collectively received 48 billion robo calls. i co-responsed legislation and final e voted to the law. it extends the statute of limitations on violation. it requires phone companies to authenticate where calls are coming from and help customers block them at no extra charge. and it requires continued work by the federal government to combat emerging robocall methods. this is a clear win for the american people and shows what we can do here when we work together. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition?

>> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> 40 virginia localities have declared themselves second amendment sank tu areas and stand against infringements. across my district, thousands of citizens are rallying outside meetings to show their strong support for the rights of gun owners. virginia has always been a cradle of constitutional rights. there is no divide between our rural and urban populations. all of us want to defend our rights as citizens of the united states of america. i represent the same district that james madison represented in the first congress, the right to bear arms when he wrote it into our constitution. i'm a proud supporter of the 2nd amendment and people are speaking for their constitutional rights. james madison would be proud. i know i am. thank you. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentlewoman from seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. on the second day of salt, my constituents have said they send more money to washington and get back less than any other state in the country. the salt pact compounds the impact on new jersey and forces our residents to. for every dollar that new jersey sent to washington, we got back 82 cents and puts us in 49th place, almost dead last in state return on state dollars. and meanwhile states like kentucky got $2.35 for every dollar they sent to washington. nearly three times what new

jersey gets. the 2017 tax bill unfairly targets states like mine who pay more than their fair share. we fund projects in kentucky and we don't see it in infrastructure, for example, in our state. we need to restore the salt reduction cap and we need to continue to power the nation's economy. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise to congratulate williamsville high school who won the class 3-a fblet championship, the school's first ever. on friday night in illinois, the williamsville bullets rallied late to win 46-42 game against

byron high school and byron leading 42-39. they stonewalled bryon to force a turnover. the bullets marched down the kneeled and mccormick scored a game-winning touchdown. the bullets offense set a record with 550 yards of total offense. brandon bishop set a record for receiving yards with 230 and quarterback connor mccormick with a record 335 passing yards and four touchdowns, the williamsville football team has made central illinois proud. they never give up spirit. their spirit was on full display and it is a testament to the hard work of these young men. i con great coach william ko nmp ns and the williamsville bullets. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does gentleman seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i would like to join the united states coast guard in welcoming the recently commissioned u.s. coast guard mcshan and boasts short response times which will help control the post from south jersey all the way down to the caribbean. this cutter was named after the late master chief who served the coast guard for over 20 years and she was a first black woman to earn the title of master chief petty officer. the cutter was commissioned with the help of seven brothers and sisters and boarding the cutter for the first time and raising the flag so the ship could set

sail. i'm excited to see the u.s. coast guard center cape may flourish with the cutter and honored to have a hero like angela mcshan. we are proud of her and the coast guard and in south jersey. thank you, madam speaker. . . without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today to honor the lives of those who fought and those so victim yantly during the attacks at peril harbor -- harbor. on december 7, 78 years ago, the happened.e our nation was attacked in one of the most horrific events that happened on our soil. that day that will live in infamy compelled the united states to enter the second world

war. destroyed the u.s.s. arizona, 169 aircraft, and most pacific fleet rocked the nation to its core. killed o: the attack almost 2,500 service members lus 49 civilians and wounded 1200 more -- 1,200 more. they were sons and daughters, they were brothers and sisters, all, they were heroes. and today we stand with those and ost family and friends we stand with the heroes who have defended and those who freedoms o defend our today and our way of life. mustst never forget and we always honor their sacrifice. i yield back. for peaker pro tempore: what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? > i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. in january, house democrats ledged to get the work for the people and take action to uplift the lives of everyday americans.

progress wed of the made and the proposals we have advanced that would have real eaningful impacts on our communities. unfortunately, our partners in the united states senate have abdicated their responsibility same. we have sent over 300 bipartisan ills to the senate so far this year, and not one has been taken up for a vote. this includes legislation to our communities safer by enacting universal background checks on all gun sales. that would raise the minimum wage, safeguard our with ons, protect people pre-existing conditions, and ensure equal pay for equal work. the re elected to serve american people, and i'll keep fighting alongside my colleagues to advance legislation that improves the lives of everyone who calls our home. mr. morrelle: i call upon the united states senate to do the same. speaker.u, madam the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman recognition? seek without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

you, madam thank speaker. madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 4, the voting rights act.cement the right to vote is sacred and must not be infringed upon. sadly, our nation's long and bloody history of racial voter lately that but suppression has been supercharged by the terrible ecision in shelby county vs. holder. this case gutted key protections voting rights act, allowing the states to prevent accessing ups from the polls, closing polling locations and even purging voter polls. i will be pleased to vote in upport of h.r. 4 which will ensure every citizen has the ability to vote. h.r. 4 will create a new repeated ormula for voting rights violations in the last 25 years and establish practice-based preclearance to focus administrative what

narrowly on ew suspect voting practices. with the house approving h.r. 4, major step forward, and i urge prompt action by the other body. thank you and i yield back the time.e of my the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: madam speaker, next week leaders from ukraine, germany, and russia will meet to discuss a road forward ukraine.in president zelensky was elected a clear mandate to bring to end russia's illegal war on ukraine. the question we must ask, peace, at what cost to liberty? invaded legally ukraine, already leading to the deaths of over 14,000 ukrainians and the displacement of millions. he enemy of liberty seeks to undermine democratic institutions that have secured peace in europe since the second world war ended.

these sensitive negotiations, freedom lovers stand shoulder to shoulder with ukrainian people. american will -- america will not tolerate any nation that ukraine into a sham peace that only rewards kremlin aggression. injoin with ukrainian people welcoming a just peace in ukraine. however, any peace agreement annot provide legal cover for russia's land grab. peace can only come to europe when russia respects the of ukraine's borders. madam speaker, liberty on the uropean continent hangs in the balance. today, we must do what is right and stand with ukraine's people tomorrow she will have a lasting peace and europe as well. thank you. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. give a hardy o congratulations to our panthers, the river ridge high school

on winning their first-ever state championship. 3 district congress is so incredibly proud, and a dramatic game, our panthers prevailed setbacks early on to defeat opponent.e this is a testament to the countless hours of training put team as s dedicated well as the support of its coaches and our parents. legendary as basketball coach phil jackson once said, the strength of the eam is its each individual member. the strength of its member is the team. so please join me in recognizing ridge high school football team, the panthers. their orey parker, for outstanding accomplishment. congratulations, panthers. speaker., madam the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced , the of january 3, 2019 gentlewoman from michigan, ms.

is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. s. tlaib: thank you, madam speaker. today, representing the congressional progressive caucus and our special order that we push forward on agendas, especially around economic justice issues. to join many of my colleagues today as we talk about housing for all across the united states of america. going to recognize minnesota, from congresswoman ilhas omar -- ilhan omar. madam speaker, i rise today to discuss the basic and

that so many of us take for granted, the right home.afe and stable last week, families across this country gathered around in their dining rooms to give thanks and families d, but many in my home district were not sitting around for a holiday dinner. instead, they were facing an indescribable tragedy. thanksgiving, a 25-story out in a public housing building in the riverside neighborhood of minneapolis, where i grew up. lives, ple lost their and more than a week later, esidents are still in the hospital recovering from their injuries. ofer the brave men and women the local fire department cleared the scene and controlled we discovered an reality.believable

these homes were not equipped with sprinklers. you see, these buildings are so that it is exempt from laws hat require such lifesaving equipment, and that isn't the issue thatous safety our public housing residents are forced to endure. been a ban on building new public housing since the 1990's. in fact, the building that sustained the fire was built in 1960's, and the federal underfundings been repair and mapt assistance -- aintenance needs of homes for years. n minnesota, the backlog of repairs has a total of $300 million. these homes half century old, they are practically being held together ith little more than hope and

masked tape. make no mistake, we as lawmakers for the onsibility deplorable conditions of our for the using and deplorable and unsafe conditions that millions of americans are in today. this is our fault. government has all but abandoned public housing. continue to pretend hat we can see the crumbling buildings in our districts. to ignore the ue hundreds of thousands who because e homelessness of waiting lists for housing assistance. goes beyond the homeless population. millions of americans are living single day in fear of eviction. americans are paying ore than half of their income

in rent. 6,300 people are evicted every single day. congress call ourselves leaders if we continue crisis?e this i, for one, refuse to continue down that path. it's time for a bold and progressive solution. will be introducing legislation that ensures every public housing unit in this is equipped with sprinklers so that we never see devastating tragedy like the one that befell on the district.of my and we will be demanding ccountability from h.u.d., requiring the agency to report are actly how many units not fitted with sprinklers and how much money the agency needs this glaring hazard. but that's not enough.

last month, i introduced would or all act, which make an historic investment of housing on in public and low-income housing and build of 12 million new homes over the next 10 years. bill would also ensure that public housing residents are access to important wrap-around services, like assistance, childcare, and financial literacy courses. important, my bill would make sure public housing of ing is a mandatory part our federal budget. meaning, that the government ouldn't be able to abandon these new homes or neglect their upkeeping. housing would not be treated like -- public housing be treated like any other important guaranteed

of assistance. like social security and medicare. is bold, egislation it's also absolutely necessary. human being has a right to safe and affordable home, and without historic investment in our public housing stock and accountability for the safety of our residents, we will tragedies like the ones that claimed the lives five people in cedar riverside last week. and inot let that happen, will not let that happen. thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to congresswoman tlaib -- rashida tlaib, allowing me to have this conversation today, and i yield back. s. tlaib: i recognize my good colleague from california,

congressman gomez. thank you so much, madam chair. i want to thank the congresswoman from michigan for special order on such an important issue. when you look at inequality in america, you have to start with housing. inequality often is started by how much a person their family, to house their kids, to house their members. in order to solve for to solve thee have housing crisis. in order to solve the housing acknowledge ve to and rectify america's shameless istory of discriminatory housing practices, policies and block es like redlining, busting that denied low-income communities of color access to creating the and housing disparities that are still prevalent today. homeownership is how we build wealth and determines our family's likelihood of

success. n america, where you live determines where your kids go to school and in america it determines how far you commute to work, an america, it determines how far you are from a grocery store and healthy options for food for your family and what public services are available to you. but unfortunately many low-income individuals and people of color have been denied this opportunity and we still have an opportunity to make amends and rectify the situation. the tax code is one of the most powerful tools we have. that is why i re-introduced the rent relief act. this bill aims to reduce the rent burden by creating a tax credit for families that are paying more than 0% of their income in rent and utilities so that no family should be forced

to choose between paying rent or meeting their basic needs. this will put more money in the pockets at a time when wages have remained stag innocent. this bill has the potential to transform lives and provides millions with the opportunities and provide opportunities to climb the economic ladder by redistributing the benefits of home ownership to the lowest income earners. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this important piece of legislation. and with that, i yield back. tabetabe i now recognize my good colleague from new york. correspondent correspondent i thank you for hosting this special order and for our chair presiding during this very critical conversation. we are here to talk about one of

the most core important issues which is housing. each and every year, it feels as though our wages remain stable or the same rent is going up and becomes harder and harder to afford the very things that keep ourselves alive, health care, housing oy education. in 2008, american households lost $16 trillion in wealth. many saw their funds depleted and more than half of all renters in america, they were rernt burdened in 2015 meaning they spent 0% or more of their income on rent. we are at one of the worst renter crises in a generation and at a time when the country is at its wealthiest, we are seeing populations that are homeless at its highest rates

since the great depression. but there is another way. when we start to legislate housing as a human right, we begin to change our priorities. nd we think of it less and first and foremost -- we move away from looking at housing as for-prot commodity and to reward for all americans at an affordable rate that can be accessible to all working people in america. that's one of the reasons why i have introduced a place to prosper act which includes provisions like universal rent, disclose sure requirements on corporate land lords. we also know that the area of housing and construction is one of the largest -- one of the

largest contributors to carbon emissions, which is why we have introduced the green new deal on public housing. and what that says is it works and aims to decarbonize the public housing stock in the united states of america. it's what must be done. it's in accordance with the science and changes the value system through which we approach housing away from the volatile boom and bust spec youlative environment and have a secure economic environment. and i yield back to the chair. i recognize congressman blumenauer. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate your courtesy on me to speak on this and organizing what is one of the most important discussions that this congress

needs to have. housing is fundamental. fundamental. it has been the major source of wealth generation for millions of middle-class americans and even greater source of wealth accumulation for upper income americans. but sadly, it has been a source of discrimination and widening income inequality because of decades of system attic discrimination by the federal government against people of color and especially against african-americans. i'm embarrassed in my community, returning world war ii veterans were denied opportunities to live in neighborhoods where they could afford it. the redlining practices denied them the opportunity to be able o secure government-financed

lending. we had practices in the real estate industry that actively steered people away from certain neighborhoods. we had areas where people resisted allowing people of color to move in. and the federal government did not enforce constitutional anti-discrimination provisions. madam speaker, the consequences of decades of neglect, discrimination and underinvestment is visible today in most american major cities. it's obvious in my community where we are seeing a homeless population that is persistent and growing. we are seeing in communities large and small people who are rent burdened as my colleagues have already referenced.

half the people paying more than a third of their income, many of them over half. if they can qualify as renters at all. and the federal government has duced its modest housing footprint. not being involved in new housing construction for low and extremely low-income people. here's no way, despite ben carson's mum bow, jumbo, they can be self-sufficient. they need government direct assistance and the failure to adequately house them plays out in our streets. inadequate housing has health consequences. we are watching now some of america's hospital systems realizing that fact and investing in housing opportunities and wrap-around

services because people who are not adequately housed actually cost society far more. we're watching steps that are being taken in the private sector to recognize that this is the quickest way to close that income inequality gap. it is the quickest way to strengthen communities. in fact, it has profound consequences for education. children who are housed not in concentrated poverty, but housing poferts that integrate them into broader communities performance in schools without increasing the number of teachers and without increasing the per capita spending for people. where those children live is the most profound indicator of future academic success. i have been troubled with this

issue for years. his summer, i spent time developing a report on why the federal government needs to get back into the housing game. it's entitled "locked out, reversing housing failure and unlocking opportunity." and it's available on my website. madam speaker, i'm deeply concerned that we finally recognize housing is a fundamental right. the united nations recognized it as a fundamental human right in 1948. and we are a long way from that point. we need to invest in reducing the shortage of 7 million affordable rental homes available to extremely low-income people. no state, no state has an adequate supply of affordable homes. i propose building 12,000 new

public housing units and fully funding all the maintenance need in existing housing stock rather than slowly starving the authorities and their ability to maintain adequate housing stock. i think it's past time toll create a renter's tax credit to cover the difference between the rent and wages or making section 8 vouchers an entitlement program available for all who qualify. yes, it will be expensive, but we are already spending huge amounts of money subsidizing housing. the problem is that the subsidies go to people who need the help the least. the mortgage interest deduction provides most of the support for people at the upper income levels, people who already have

housing. in countries around the world that don't have a mortgage interest deduction, there is no great variation in home ownership rates. we can adjust that now. there is an opportunity for us, and i propose equalizing the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction by converting it into a credit so it treats people at various income levels equally. i also think it's past time to eliminate a mortgage interest deduction for second homes, and instead invest that money to help people who don't have housing today. it may seem to some that these are ambitious. but i would suggest that the costs of past discrimination, the cost of inaction costs us

far more in terms of wasted human potential and increased law enforcement, increased health costs and poor academic performance. i deeply appreciate my colleagues coming forward with this discussion and working on provisions that can make a difference. we just had the republicans pass the largest transfer of wealth in america's history, adding $2 trillion to our national debt and doing nothing to deal with the housing crisis. in fact, it created housing burdenens in states by wiping out the deduction for state and local income taxes, for instance. i think it's time for us to stop paying for failure and reassess our policies to reverse past discrimination and do things that will make a difference for american families.

and i yield back to my colleague. >> i recognize my good colleague from pennsylvania, dwight evans. mr. evans: i thank my colleague from the great city of detroit and michigan for showing us leadership. none of us are home until of us are home. none of us are home until all of us are home. an organization in my district that has empowered the individuals to break the cycle of poverty and homelessness. starting with permanent supportive housing, safe, affordable housing is the basis of stability and well-being. secure housing improvement improves outcomes and help our

children perform better in schools and break generations of cycles of poverty. secure housing out of reach for many low-income families. lacking a fixed address makes it harder to land a job, enroll children in school, apply for assistance and benefits. affordable housing shortage is a isis in my district and in many other cities and neighborhoods across the nation. i represent philadelphia, a city hich has a poverty rate around 25%. let me repeat that. a city with a poverty rate of about 25%. ost low income renters spend at

most low-income renters spend at least half their income on housing. this leaves no room for unexpected expenses such as medical bills which can quickly send vulnerable families into housing inability, eviction, and sometimes homelessness. we must increase funding for programs that help the most vulnerable. including children. people with disabilities. and steenors. such as homeless assistance grants and the housing choice voucher program. those living in poverty include 400,000 in the city of hiladelphia struggling to find safe and affordable places to live. over 40,000 families are on the philadelphia housing authority waiting list. 40,000 on that list. most low income renters in philadelphia receive no

government assistance with their housing costs. drive manage to rely on alternative arrangements to secure shelter. these are steps that we can take to address this growing crisis. we must invest in preserving existing public housing and improve health and safety through increasing funding for the public housing operating fund and the public housing capital fund. in the city of philadelphia, the philadelphia city council recently passed a right to council for -- a right to ounsel for law, to provide lawyers for low-income families facing eviction. the lack of access to legal representation has led to unjust evictions. i'm an original co-sponsor of the eviction protection act which created grants to provide

legal representation to those facing eviction. two members who stood here are also members of the ways and means committee as i am. we all recognize that we can use the tax code to lift our neighborhoods and boost our stability in housing. yes, we can use the tax codes. i'm happy that my colleagues from the ways and means committee, we should work together on that i support the expense of low-income housing tax credits for securing extreme low-income housing. to bring capital to unserved regions. access to affordable housing is a right. access to affordable housing is a right. it's time congress acknowledges that fact. all americans deserve quality homes. all americans.

none of us are home until all of us are home. i want to stress that message. none of us are home until all of us are home. i thank the lady, again, from detroit and michigan for showing this leadership, to bring us together, to talk about a subject that's very key to a lot of our survival. it is extremely essential that we have that opportunity. but it starts with leadership and it starts today. we need to be relentless on the to be -- i e need thank madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time, thank you. ms. tlaib: i now recognize my good colleague from illinois, mr. garcia. mr. garcia: thank you,

congresswoman tlaib, madam speaker, colleagues. i want to thank congresswoman tlaib for bringing this subject of the affordable housing shortage across our country. i want to speak about the i affordable housing crisis unfolding across this country, affecting thousands of my constituents in the city of chicago. throughout the chicago area there are just over 90,000 affordable, available rental homes but the national low income housing coalition stimates that there are over 326,000 low income renter households. that's right. less than one in three households in chicago have access to affordable housing. the immense lack of housing is making it impossible for low income communities to stay in our city. it is strans forming my

district, driving communities of color away from areas where they have lived for many, many decades. according to the chicago community trust, chicago has lost more than 100,000 african-american residents in the past 10 years alone. the neighborhood in my district has lost more than 20,000 latino residents and nearly 10,000 african-americans over the past 15 years. five years ago, chicago city council passed an ordinance encouraging transit-oriented development. i believe that improving transportation and mobility for our neighborhoods and tiing that to affordable housing is critically important.

however, we know that development when done incorrectly can lead to gentrification, displacement, inequitable outcomes. since chicago's ordinance passed, only one affordable housing development has been completed. another is getting off the ground. i am planning to introduce legislation to incentivize equitable transit oriented development, legislation to create federal funding for affordable housing to be built near public transit so workers can get to and from jobs, school, and health care as well as to take advantage of the city's fine cultural amendments. -- cultural amenities. this will be a crucial step in addressing the enormous probs we are addressing today. if we can address the topics

raised by the many speakers who are bringing home the urgency that congress needs to act in this field of needed affordable housing, we can become a better country. for that, i want to thank congresswoman tlaib for taking the niche ty and for hosting this discussion that can benefit our country. thank you and i yield back. ms. tlaib: i would like to recognize my colleague from massachusetts, kangwoman pressley. ms. pressley: thank you for your leadership on this and so many social justice issues. appreciate you organizing this special order hour. i hope in some way it assures the american people that we have not lost sight of them and that this congress continues to lead and to legislate on those issues of care, concern, and consequence to the american people. i know this is the number one constituent call that my

district office receives and i'm not alone in that. housing first is not just an approach to ending homelessness. it is a fundamental truth that should guide everything we do in these chambers. when we speak our our -- speak of our priorties and speak of the important work we hope to do here, housing must come first. housing is the foundation of everything and therefore must be foundational to everything that we seek to accomplish here as a body. housing is a critical determiner of health and wealth and must be the foundation of our fight for greater justice for all. i'd also like to reiterate some of the points made earlier regarding our young people learning. earlier today we heard from some young people about many of the barriers and obstacles to their readytons learn and housing was chief amongst them as we see our families destabilized by growing

gentrification and displacement and more families experiencing homelessness. this is certainly a contributor and a barrier to their readiness to learn. it is traumatic to not have a home. i want to thank my sister in service, representative ilhan omar, for providing us with a vision of the future of housing, housing as a right, housing as a guarantee, howing for all. in cities across the country, the housing supply lacks both in quantity and quality. and according to the national low-income housing coalition, in my district, the massachusetts 7, 2/3 of residents and renters and those at minimum wage must work at least 84 hours a week to afford a decent one-bedroom at fair market rent apartment. hen housing is in such and perpetually deteriorating supply, we must ask ourselves,

where do we expect people to go? when housing prices continue to skyrocket and we're constantly redefining affordability to hide that reality, where can people go? for decades, this nation's public and affordable housing supply has been chronically underfunded. any serious solution must match the scale of this unprecedented crisis. states must act. cities must act. and the federal government must act. how we choose to spend our money is a direct reflection of our values. representative omar's homes for all act invests a total of $1 trillion into our nation's affordable housing stock. i was proud to be an original co-sponsor of homes for all just as i was proud to co-sponsor senator warren's american housing and economic mobility act. however, it is the work of activists and agitators on the ground that has pushed this issue to the fore. while there's still much to do, i am heartened by this efforts of my colleagues and i associate

myself with all of their thoughtful and impassioned comments and legislative proposals highlighted during this special order hour. we must continue to mobilize, to organize, and to legislate until homes for all is no longer a promise but a guarantee. thank you and i yield. ms. tlaib: thank you so much. i know for my district, detroit, throughout the 11 other surrounding communities, for us, being the third poorest congressional district in the country, housing is critical. critical not only for economic stability but also in providing a safe haven for many of our families across the district. poverty is complex. a number of factors including state and federal policy barriers and racial and gender inequities have increased in so much increased poverty especially among children. it requires a deep public investment in housing and other infrastructure, health care

access and public school investment. coupled with criminal justice reform, policy december sined to repair a history of segregation an continued exploitation. less than a year, madam speaker, into its enactment, the opportunity zone program has already resulted in millions of dollars of wasteful spending and possible corruption. from cities like chicago, baltimore, to the city of detroit, billionaires were able to divert public tax dollars through a tax break called the opportunity zone that was supposed to lead to access for housing for our most vulnerable, for communities like mine. instead, madam speaker, what we heard from an investigative -- by by pro public ka propublica titled, how a grant to help the poor went went to an nba owner. it suggests that opportunity zones in the trump tax scam had

designated census tracks that didn't meet the criteria. and that political donations and influence has overridden the law to reward donors with tax breaks intended to help the poor. billionaire dan gilbert's quicken loans company donated $750,000 to president trump's inauguration fund. hosted ivanka trump in 2017 for a panel discussion. and last year, dan gilbert watched the mid-term election returns at the white house with president trump who has called gilbert, quote, a great friend. in return, madam speaker, three census tracts in downtown detroit where gilbert owns valuable property was selected for these large tax breaks through the opportunity zone. according to articles multiple studies have found that property values in those zones increased because of this tax break. at least one of those census tracks did not meet the poverty

requirement for being an opportunity zone and appears to have been designated solely due to political influence. if we're going to talk about housing injustice, impacting and helping ensure that housing is a human right we need to take out the corruption and political influence. email exchanges revealed quicken's executives working in concert with the white house to designate tracks with gilbert's investments as opportunity zones. madam speaker, quicken loans' lobbyists were directly involved in the selection process at every level. lobbying the city, state, and federal officials to include gilbert's investment zones in the opportunity zone law. so i'm asking us as we stand for housing for all that we need to restore public trust now federal government which has been eroded with the rules that have been applied unevenly here and seem to reward the wealthiest and best connected among us. it appears that a tax program supposedly designed to benefit the poorest among us is being

used to reward political donors and wealthy investors. i asked the committee on ways and means to investigate the actions by billionaire dan lbert and also asked for a response to some of those questions. that's why instead of tax breaks for the wealthy and billionaire-led development i have proposed the boost act. it would give $3,000 to $600 to families making less than $100,000. it would instantly lift up 45% of americans living in poverty now. millions of children would be instancely lifted out of poverty. the boost tax act would be fund by raising the trump tax act. you saw a number of tax breakers in wealthy that only benefited the folks that are corporate led, that have actually been tainting our process to get access to affordable housing in this chamber. i ask my colleagues as we propose many fixes to access to affordable housing, to repair

some of the historic segregation zoning laws, and the continued exploitation among many of our neighbors, that we also make sure that we ensure that corruption within our government is not expanding and that we're holding those accountable that it's trying to taint that process. i appreciate my colleagues, members of the congressional progressive caucus, in standing strong for housing as a human right. many of the proposals you see many propose alsos -- proposals have really clear oversight. things like the opportunity zone are not the direction that we need our country to go. in i'm looking forward to introducing legislation that would not only, after preeling the opportunity zone, but actually use it for land trust, community trust funds, things that were going to be rooted within communities and help those that, again, are seeing home ownership among communities of color decrease, seeing increases between 30% to 50% of

their income going towards rent. i think the way we have to do it is those proposals, making sure we're implementing it in a way that is just and fair. thank you so much and i would now like to yield to my good colleague from texas, congressman al green. mr. green: thank you very much, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady for the opportunity to speak. and i commend her for her stellar effort to bring justice to the housing circumstances in our country. i am honored to say that i did visit her congressional district and we had a field hearing that was quite successful. she truly is engaged, involved and making a difference in her community. madam speaker, i was there in 2008 when we had the housing crisis. i remember when secretary paulson came before the committee and he was there in need of some funds for what were

called toxic assets. he was there because the market was in a freefall. he was there because there was an imminent crisis that had to be contained. and i remember him asking for a large sum of money with few pages, probably less than five pages. he wanted us to infuse capital into a process that would allow us to purchase these toxic assets. thate was indicating to us this was an emergency and he did not ask for hundreds of millions of dollars. he did not ask for tens of billions of dollars. he requested hundreds of billions of dollars. and i do recall that i spoke to

constituents, and being the judicious person that i was, i did pay attention to my constituents who encouraged me and insisted that i not bail out the big banks. that was the language that was used. do not bail out the big banks, al. i was judicious, i listened to my constituents. and when we took the vote on the loor to accord the some $700 billion-plus, i remember standing over in the door and looking at the vote and i could also see the stock market at the same time. and as the bill was failing, the stock market was crashing. it was a day that i will never forget. i went back home. i visited with my constituents. the constituents said to me, al, what is wrong with you? you did not vote to save my

401-k. you let the market fall. you could have voted to support us. i learned an invaluable lesson that day. the lesson is this -- there are times when you have to do what you know to be the best thing, even when your constituents might stand in opposition to it. that's the lesson that i carry with me to this day. i came back, we had a second vote. and i voted for the funds necessary to deal with the toxic assets. one of the reasons why i was so concerned about this was because i understood what was happening. there were instruments that were in the marketplace that were not suitable for everyone. we had something called a 327 and a 228. three years, two years of a fixed rate and then 27 years or 28 years of a variable rate. this was not suitable for everyone.

we had no doc loans. meaning no documents necessary and you could walk in and work out some means by which you could acquire a loan. we had negative amortization, a process that allowed you to at some point continue to owe more than you initially borrowed. we had something called the yield spread premium. the yield spread premium allowed the person who originated your loan to originate a loan for you for an amount in excess of what you qualified for. here's how it worked. that person would check to see what you were eligible for as a rate. you could qualify for a loan at 5%. but at that time, because of the yield spread premium, the person originating could come out and say, good news, i have a loan for you for 8%. you qualified for 5%, you get a loan for 8% interest, and the person would never have to tell you that you qualified for the

5%. the money between 5% and 8% was called the spread. and the yield on that spread could be shared with the person who originated the loan and the lender. the yield spread premium. poor people, well, people who were of little means, who acquired homes with these 3-27's and 2-28's that i mentioned, where the rate would go up and down, they lost homes. it is said that in the african-american community, a generation of wealth was lost. a generation. the community is still recovering from the 2008 down turn. i believe that -- downturn. i do believe that we have to reconsider how we address housing in this country. there are some people who are born into poverty. they're not born into plenty. and for those who are not born into poverty, it is not easy to work your way to plenty. so we have to have housing as a

means by which they can acquire and accumulate wealth. one of the things that i've tried to do, and there are many things that can be done, but is to use something called alternative credit scoring. this is where will you score a person's light bill, gas bill, photo bill, cable bill, and use that information, with the traditional credit, to allow that person to have maybe the little additional help needed so as to acquire a loan. it is a pilot program. we have passed a bill out of committee. it is h.r. 123. this piece of legislation will allow many, many persons with little credit, because they haven't been in the credit market, to get a home. many people who are paying now x number of dollars for rent will be able to acquire a home for x-minus some amount. meaning less than what they are paying for rent.

they will be able to acquire a home. i'm pleased to say that many of the prudential agencies are in agreement and are encouraging this. just today we had a hearing with the housing subcommittee and mr. montgomery, who is the head of f.h.a. was there. and i will be visiting with him. he and i agreed to have an appointment so we can talk about these things and see what we can do to help with home ownership for persons who are not born in the suites of life and many who now find themselves living in the streets of life. this is something that is an imperative. it's a moral imperative. it's something that we have to do because we want to have a just society. and a just society would afford an equal opportunity to all, to have a place to call home. in the richest country in the world, every person ought to have a fair opportunity to have a place to call home. i thank the gentlelady for tile -- the time that you've allowed me to share, and i encourage you

to continue on your mission to bring justice to those who find themselves living in places that, quite frankly, most people in congress would not live in under any circumstances. but unfortunately we're not doing enough to help others to be extricated from the circumstances of which we speak. thank you, and i will yield to you. thank you. ms. tlaib: thank you. i'd now like to yield the rest of my time back to the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. ms. tlaib: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. schweikert: all right, thank you, madam speaker. all right. what we're going to do today is actually sort of a little follow-up with a couple other things sprinkled in here. i want to walk through both, once again, some of the numbers, some of the good things that have happened. i want to talk also about h.r. 3 and -- which is a reference pricing bill that has gone through ways and means in regards to pharmaceuticals, that actually i don't think anyone actually understands what the

underlying mechanisms are on how europe and those actually do set drug pricing, and to understand the rationing that will be coming with that. first off, what's the greatest threat to our society? i'm going to argue it's actually becoming -- the coming mountain of debt and it's not republican or democrat. it's called demographics. there's 74 million of us. w.h.o. are baby boomers -- of us who are baby boomers. 74 million baby boomers born in an 18-year period, and we have our earned entitlements coming and we functionally have no cash in the bank for them. so this board is really, really important and i can't believe i don't see it in everyone's office here. this is a 30-year window. let's actually just pull out social security and medicare. you do realize if you remove social security and medicare from the number, we have $23 trillion in the bank. now, this one is not inflation adjusted, so these are raw

numbers. but $23 trillion, $23.1 trillion, if you want to be accurate, in the bank. but when we roll social security and medicare in and their financing costs, the money that has to be borrowed to keep the promises, we're functioning at $103 trillion in debt. it's math. it's not republican or democrat. it's demographics. we're getting older as a society. since 1971 our birth rates have been below replacement rates. we need to deal with the reality of math. but, as this place now succeeds, we will make math partisan, but he math will always win. and it breaks my heart because there's things we can do, policy-wise, that make it work, that keep us under that -- or right about that 95% debt to g.d.p., and we survive our demographic bubble.

but we have people around here that say crazy things that have no basis in economics, no basis in the math, no basis in our demographics, and the cruelty they're bringing down on our society and my 4-year-old daughter, and destroying her future, because the unwillingness to own a calculator. so one more time, if we pull social security and medicare out of our 30-year window, we have $23 trillion in the bank. if we put them back in, we're $103 trillion in debt in that 30-year window. remember, just the growth of social security, medicare, health care entitlements, just the growth, every five years, just the growth equals the entire defense department. so when you hear some of our brothers and sisters on the left come behind the microphone and say, if we would just reduce defense spending, you can wipe out all of defense spending and in five years, you're back where

you began. that's the reality of our demographics. how many people have you heard come behind these microphones in the last year, other than myself and maybe one or two that we work on these things -- it's silent. because it's really hard to talk about. it's really difficult. it's scary. and it's the single thing that destroys our economic vitality for the future. but once again it would require owning a calculator. this is -- lots of people's fault, but it's congress' fault but it's decades old. here's where most of that comes from. if you take the math, a couple that retires today, it's not their fault. this is just math.

they will have put in $161,000 into medicare and they'll receive just shy of $500,000 out. so take that functionally $300,000 plus difference and multiply it times 74 million and now you understand the driver of our debt. and you'll hear people come ehind the mike tone -- the microphone and say, it's waste and fraud. or we don't tax rich people enough. those are absurd. the percentage of tax revenues as a percentage of g.d.p. are within the margins. waste and fraud, we need to deal with it, but it's a fraction of these numbers. we're about to come up on the two-year anniversary of tax reform. this last fiscal year, unlike every economist that the left brought us to out of the crazy, and i know that's mean, but it's true, things that are being said on this floor when we debated

tax reform, reforming our system, revenues are going to crash, the world is coming to an end, it's armageddon. we went up over 4 hkt in what they call receipts growth last year. our problem is we spent dramatically more than that. i think our spending was pushing almost 7% growth. because we had so many things added into spending. most, about half that 7% is once again this demographics. but we grew revenues even with the tax reform slightly over 4%. there should have been joy around here. if you think about where we are economically uric all saw the application for unemployment today, 0,000 down from what the projection was. once again demonstrating the labor markets are a miracle. they are remarkable. we have not -- i have not, i don't think there's anyone living today, that has lived in

a time that's this economically stable when you look at our labor markets. when you look at wage growth. the lack of inflation. there should be joy. on this floor. talking about the miracle of our brothers and sisters that were being written off just a couple of years ago because they didn't have a high school education. they didn't have a certain skill. they're going to be part of the permanent underclass. it turns out those folks that were willing to write those brothers and sisters, those mericans off were wrong. that population and i hate this term but we use it, those lower car tiles of economics, education, skill

actually cares about these things, last year, a single woman, no partner in the house, 7.6% growth in wages. these are numbers i can tell you from being on the joint economic committee for ages. every economist would have said we're out of our minds looking at numbers like that twhrest joy? the fact soft the matter is there's been more progress in the last 24 months, our brothers and sisters who have physical issues. have had substance abuse issues, criminal records. these sorts of things coming back into the labor force. u-6 's this thing called data, u-4 day tark you see the unemployment rate, the workers, marginally attached, haven't been look, quit looking. and the number of those who are moving into the labor force that we barely give any credit for when we see the top line number because the top line number is

those who are looking, there is an economic miracle happening right now when you see the robustness, the stability of our labor markets. shouldn't the debate on this floor be, it's working for our brothers and sisters we always said were poor, we were writing off, something is working for them, how do we keep doing more? how do we keep adopting the policies that are working and avoid the crazy policies of just a couple of years ago that didn't work, that punished these preponderancelations. these are ethe folks who had just a really crappy decade. they fell further behind every single year. there's some math out there and it's not all put together. i'm being maybe a little pathologically optimistic here but there's some preliminary numbers that last fiscal year could be the very first year in odern times where income

inequality did not grow and potentially shrank. it's not because wealthy people didn't make more money, it's because poor people made a lot more money than they had before. where's the joy? twhrest discussion of how we do more of this? and it turns out for all those out there who are busting their back sides, paying into programs like social security and medicare, why aren't we being honest with them that the scale of the unfunded nature is devastating? if you're a young person today, understand, when you hit your peak earning years, your tax rate will have to be double today's, just to maintain these basic earned benefits there is a path but that path requires a whole bunch of things. that's going to be my very last board i'm going to put up, you've got to have incredible economic robustness, economic vitality, an immigration system

that maximizes economic vitality, a regulatory system that maximizes, family formation incentive, technology adoption incentives, all these things. there's a path to deal with this. and then what happens this week? the discussion of h.r. 3, which is the drug reference pricing model and almost no one actually has read it or understood the actual mechanisms it's offering. why do i bring this up as par of an economic discussion? part of the miracle that we are about to live is we are about to live in a time where technology, if we legalize it, is about to crash the price of health care. technology, something that looks like a big kazoo you blow into, tells you you have the flu. instantly update yours medical records on your phone. if we make it legal, could instantly order your anti-virals. then the other side, when i talk

about the health care technology, it's a whole string of things. that will keep us healthy. but the other side is we're about to live in a time of miracles. the single shot cure for hemophilia. it's here. it's going to be really expensive. hemophilia is also really expensive. we should be talking about ways to have more of these disruptive pharmaceuticals that take care of hemofill ark ample l.s., crohn's, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia. we're on the cusp of having drugs that stabilize or cure those. these are small populations. but remember, 5% of the population with chronic diseases , 5% of the population with chronic diseases, are the majority of our health care spending. if we go back to the slide here. remember the majority of what's about to hit us over the next 30

years is medicare. it's health care spending. what happens if you crash the price of health care? one of the ways you do that is you cure people. then the democrats are pushing a piece of legislation that sounds really good. hey, we're going to lower drug prices by reaching out to a handful of european countries and getting their prices and then you condition go more than that or we'll give you a 95% -- actually ereverse it, 1,950% tax. except you have to understand. i know this board is hard to read. but we're going to use the great britain model. what if a year of you being health -- what is a year of you being healthy worth? it's an honest question. that's what is about to be imported into the country. what is, for you, your family, your child, what are you willing to believe is the value of a

year of snelt because if you're in great britain, their model, their formula, is $38,000. so if this breakthrough pharmaceutical would make you healthy for one more year and it costs more than $38,000, it's not purchased. it's not part of the formulary. that's what the democrats are saying we need to import into this country. so you understand, the democrats are about to say, a year of you being healthy is not worth $ 38,001. i don't think they know that. i don't think anyone has actually read it or understood how these handful of european countries build their pricing mechanism but they do it by scarcity. they say hey, i know this would cure you for the next year but you're out of luck. it's over $38,000 here in great britain so you're on your own. at a certain level this is incredibly cruel.

how could you look someone in the eyes and say, i value your life aters $38,000 for a year of you being helly but that's the cruelty that's being discussed because at first it sounds really wonderful. we're going to lower drug prices by using reference price bug the fact of the matter is how do you tell americans that what this means is not only will you not have these things to keep you healthy anymore, but they're going -- because they're outside the price window, but the other thing is, there was a major report put together early this week that also said all those drugs we were just talking about, a substantial number of them, 100-plus, that are in the pipeline, that are about to cure our brothers and sisters who are part of that 5% of the chronic conditions that is the majority of our health care spending, those cures are going to stop because they're really expensive, really risky, really hard to put together. the vast majority of them failed so they sort of roll the dice and say, if we succeed, we get a

fairly decent payday but it's going to pay far whole lot of failed drug trials. we're about to make a policy decision as a country, we're not going to cure you. ou get to suffer and the pharmaceutical industry, for all the frustrations they are, will go back to what they were doing a couple of decades ago and say they're just going to do a derivative on an existing drug, so they have very little research costs, know what they profit margin is, it's nice and safe to do. the things we did on this congress, republicans did, where we did the cures act a few years ago, where we created a pipeline to cure people, that pipeline is about to get crushed. you've got to understand the cruelty of this. and this is actually, i mean, it's just math. this is what other countries do on their formula. so if you really wanted to crash

the price of pharmaceuticals, it turns out yes, there's a whole list of things that are bipartisan, the way you deal with the capital that's used for the investment, the way you do the patent the way you actually allow competing type of biologics and others to come to market. but there's another crazy thought experiment that almost no one has ever talked about. do you realize that half the pharmaceuticals that will be picked up today, so half the pharmaceuticals, someone is going through a drive through or walking into the pharmacy right now, half of them will not be used were oil -- or will not be used properly? just part of the thought experiment. will not be used or will not be used properly. that'll cost the country about a half trillion dollars this year. it is 16% of the total u.s. health care expenditures because people don't take their prescribed pharmaceuticals

properly and they get sick and they die. turns out we have all sorts of things we could do today but it requires being creative and lest face it, this is -- and let's face it,s that creativity as well as a math-free zone. the little bottle that has the top that tells you when grandma opened it so you know she took her pharmaceuticals to keep her alive, we have that technology. it's not very expensive. changes drug efficacy usage because you know when you took it. how many know someone with multiple pharmaceuticals to take, take them at different times throughout the day. we have a tech knoll, ring yours phone, rings the family's phone. there are technologies, things that could change almost a half trillion dollars of expenses a year.

this is dramatically this is dramatically bigger than blowing up the cures that are coming. but it requires some creativity to understand that those half of the pharmaceuticals that will be picked up today will not be taken properly. another proposal, and -- do it as more of a thought experiment. for really high-value pharmaceuticals, go look in your own personal medicine cabinet right now. how many of them are still sitting in there? they're just getting old. you did not take them. they're just sitting there. why don't we package those high-value ones in a double-player blister pack or a pod that keeps them sterile and llow you to return them? maybe there's folks in our society that those really expensive pharmaceuticals, if they were returned and could be redistributed, they'd still be sterile, there are creative

ideas where you could have this massive disruption in the price that we as americans put out in our drug costs, but it requires some creativity instead of the arrogance of, we're basically going to blow up your future. because that's what's being proposed to us. but this number is stunning. if i came to you and said, if you could change the way pharmaceuticals are used and have them -- the efficacy of proper use, it is 16% of all the health care expenditures of this country. i threw this slide in, it's more back to -- remember how we were just talking about medicare? and functionally that is the ultimate driver of our future debt. and unless we have a disruption in health care costs, not debates about how we finance, but disruption in the cost, let me give you a single example of

what the investment in cures means. i know this chart's almost impossible to read. but the simple point is, about 30% of medicare spending is going to be diabetes. a single cure, now diabetes is complex. we know it's more than, you know, the production of insulin. there may be an -- there's auto immune responses, there's -- autoimmune responses, there's one and two. it's complex. but do the thought experiment with me. if you cured diabetes tomorrow, almost 30% of that unfunded liability of medicare goes away. that's why it is so incredibly important we are investing in these cures that h.r. 3 is about o destroy. we always either start on the

other hand with this slide. we're trying to make a simple point that if we can get the policy correct here, we can have amazing futures. the united states can have an amazing future. but we've spent almost a year here. 2019 we have functionally done nothing. you remember all the promises of, we're going to work bipartisan because we have a republican senate and obviously the left -- democrats control the house here, we're going to work together, we're going to do all these creative things together, we are going -- and we've done none of it. we've spent lots of time on impeachment. we've pushed out a handful of bills that were just almost crazy in their policy sets to satiate the ral radicalized base of the -- radicalized base of the democrats. i'm sorry, i know that's mean, but it's true. so let's take a step backwards and pull out our calculators and

understand once again that 30-year window, $103 trillion of debt. if you actually normalize it to nflation adjusted, ok, so it's -- today's discount rate -- i'm not even sure. it would probably be in the $83 trillion of debt, inflation adjusted. so here's our argument. get the things that grow the economy right. we've demonstrated getting the tax code right has produced a miracle of economic growth in the way of labor participation, our brothers and sisters, people are working. and it turns out those have cascade effects on everything from health to people -- there will be falls in substance abuse use. we see great things happening. but with economic growth we have to get immigration correct. we have to get trade correct. we have to get the way we regulate using technology instead of a 1938 model of fill out lots of paperwork and shove

it in a file cabinet and when you screw up, we pull out the file cabinet so we can sue you, instead of using crowd source technology where we know if you screw up, we catch you instantly. and we can fix it right then. there is amazing changes here -- there are amazing changes here. population stability, how do you encourage families? how do you build immigration system -- an immigration system that actually is more talent-based so you maximize economic growth so we can keep our economic promises? how do you encourage people to be in the labor force? one of the very odd things we see in the data is december a year ago, suddenly we saw in the data statistics millennial females moving into the labor force at substantial numbers. but millennial males are still substantially underperforming. why? is this the opioid crisis? are there other factors? we need to know those sorts of things because it turns out when

we have entire core tiles of our population -- cortiles of our population that are underwe are forming in the labor market, it -- underperforming in the labor market, it has really bad societal cascade events. let's work on policies that get as many folks who are interested, whether you be in retirement age or that millennial male, what do we have to do as a society to encourage, to prod, to push for you to be in the labor force, because that's important not only to you as an individual, but it's really important to the country's economic stability. technology disruption. we just talked about the curetive drugs that are coming. we also can talk about the sensors and the other things that are going to allow us to stay healthy. how do we update the laws so that thing like that isn't illegal? there's a reason you didn't go to blockbuster video last weekend. technology changes. we need to make sure our law

sets are sympathetic to the changes that can reduce our prices in health care, to protect the environment and so many other things. yet we are decades behind in the way we write laws here and understanding how to future-proof those laws so when we have disruptive technologies -- and anyone that's really interested in this, pull out your phone, go to a search engine, go look up m.i.t. ambient air capture. and look at the miracle they have. if what they've published is correct on the -- now the price per ton, they believe they can pull co-2 right out of the air, or do it right over a smokestack, if those numbers are correct, we now have a major change in co-2 emissions in the world, because our ability now at amazing prices to be able to pull it right out of the air, these technologies are here. why are we -- aren't we here

talking about them on the floor and how to encourage more of it and how to get it rolled out in society here and across world? because if you actually care about global warming, or climate change, whatever the current pop term is, turns out there's amazing technology disruptions that are here, the only problem is they don't allow you to control other people's lives. they just solve the problem. and are we about solving the problem or just the control freaks that are often the members of this body? and then other things. the earned entitlements. you've earned your social security, you've earned your medicare. are there things we can do in those benefits to encourage you to stay healthier, to stay -- if you feel like it, to work, to actually say, instead of taking your benefits, say, how long -- if we gave you a spiff, would you wait? there's a number of tinkering you can do here that actually make the programs much more sound. and if do you it altogether, we believe we have a model that

provides an economic future where we're not destroyed by the growing debt. but there is no single answer. it's going to have to be almost a holistic approach of lots of types of policies woven together, and every single one of them needs to be about the reality of our demographics. and now the experiment i will ask you all to engage in. watch the floor this week. and see how many people will ever come behind these microphones and talk about the economic growth and survival of this country, because of what's about to happen, the debt that's about to crush us. and the fact that we're not talking about it. instead, we're busy basically doing levels of absurdity around here. the cruelty you've just also subjected my 4-year-old daughter , you her economic future

should all be ashamed yourselves. ourselves. myself. because there is a path. the problem is, this path doesn't identifyly satiate those who have just gone so extreme. but the math is real, the math works. and the math, madam speaker, the math always wins. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman, for 30

minutes. mr. grothman: thank you. obviously most of the newest -- newspapers, so far as people still read newspapers, most of the tv shows in the last month, have focused on the impeachment hearings. and we all know that at the end of the day, impeachment or no impeachment, president trump is not going to be removed in the next year. so the question is, why are we spending so much time on impeachment? and i have felt in the long-term future of america, the most significant thing going on right now is what is going on with immigration policy in the united states. and as long as this impeachment hearing has taken the top of the page in the newspaper, immigration is at the bottom of the page. and i believe one of the primary reasons for keeping immigration before the public is they don't want the public to know what's going on in immigration, or what isn't going on in congress with

regard to immigration. t its worst, we allowed over 140,000 people in this country in may. president trump has been asking for help in this crisis and he's gotten no or virtually no help from congress. nevertheless, things that president trump has done on its own has reduced that figure, if only temporarily. i mention again 145,000 people caught in process -- and processed in may, and probably over another 10,000 people not even processed. that number has gone down to around 45,000 in september, and we believe it will be even lower in october. this is largely because of things that president trump has done on his own. he's negotiated with the mexican government to a certain extent

under threat of traferse to put mexican troops -- tariffs to put mexican troops on the southern border. the mexican government is patrolling the interior of its country for people trying to work their way north, and president trump has reached agreements with the triangle of countries of central america, countries of guatemala, el salvador and honduras, that they are currently taking people coming from further south who need asylum. president trump has also began, we wish he was doing more here, but began building a wall and we are working our way towards adding another 450 miles of wall by the end of next year. this is a significant improvement of what it should be, but we are stillwell short of where we want to be. what should congress be doing or what should we be focusing on while congress is spending time

debating impeachment? first of all, we have a shortage of detention beds. so when i.c.e. is trying to remove people from this country, there are a lack of beds to place people in. there is no reason why, given the amount of money we are spending here, that should not be taken care of. there have been requests for another 5,000 people in the border patrol. and there are still unquestionably people streaming across this border every month who aren't even counted, because we are not taking care of them. but there are other things that can be done as well. there's the trafficking victims protection act. you know, some people talk about children being separated from their children, from their parents. this is something that congress can solve on their own. right now if children try to come here, single children, from mexico and canada, they're returned to their parents to make their families whole.

in a loophole in the law, if children come here from countries other than canada and mexico, we are bound to keep them and separate them from their families. congress should act ocongress should act and the same law that applies to mexico and canada should apply to venezuela or honduras or guatemala. we have no business in allowing this to continue, people coming here while their parents are in another country. we have the flores settlement in which right now people have to be released after being detained for 20 days. given the slowness of the court system, it is not unusual for people to have to be released prior to the time when a hearing takes place. again, congress should act and end time on that rather than

continue to spend time on impeachment. we continue to have a problem with sanctuary cities in which hen we want to remove people even from incarceration type of acilities or from jails, sanctuary municipalities are not allowing us to remove people. even criminal people. congress should act and congress has not acted so that we do not allow these sanctuary cities to forbid access to the jails from i.c.e. to remove people from this country. another thing that should be done is something should be done about the credible fear standard. and when people are allowed in this country and when people are not allowed in this country. but again, congress has refused to act. i want to point out that we can do all these things without

being anti-immigrant. something that hasn't been noticed in the most recent year, over 800,000 new people were sworn into this country and president trump is ding nothing to reduce that figure. as a matter of fact, that 830,000 figure is well over the 700,000 figure of the relatively recent past. president trump is a friend of leem immigration but we have to stop being a friend of illegal immigration. in other things that encourage people to come here, secretary carson is going to the bat and trying to keep our limited low income housing stock available for our own citizens and not people who are here illegally. it would be good if congress stepped up to the plate and said we're going to put our homeless veterans ahead of people who are in this country illegally. president trump is also trying

to put work requirements in the snap program and let's be honest. if we have a program giving away free food without a work requirement, that is an inducement for people from other countries to come here. congress should again convene and bring bills to the floor that put a work requirement with snap benefits. a work requirement with snap benefit making it a less advantageous welfare program would stop sending a message for the rest of the world to come in the country. so in summary, there are a variety of things that have to be done and the congress should be acting on and that the mainstream media and even the conservative media should be paying attention to because they're going to affect the future of this country for the next 10 or 20 or 30 years, like the impeachment inquiry

which is we know are going nowhere, although the impeachment inquiries are keeping other things off the page. we need more detention beds. we have to change the credible fear standard so that less people are able to come in this country without doing something -- without having a genuine fear. we have to change the 20 days in the flores settlement so we're not required to release people in the country. and above all we have to change the trafficking victims protection act so we can remove children from this country and send them back to their parents in central america. i don't know why with so many people in this institution purporting to claim that they want families together, we do not amend our current laws and do with other countries what we already do with mexico and canada, and that's tell

unaccompanied minor you belong with your children, we're not going to separate you from your parents. congress is not acting, and i think one reason they're able to get away with not acting on this is because the papers are filled with impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, all day long. so in summary, i hope we pay attention to the number of people coming into this country. i hope we congratulate president trump on the things he was able to do without congress doing anything. congratulate him on the reduction of, play with my mind ere a little bit, reduction of over 70%, about 75% reduction in the number of people who are processed in this country compared to four or five months ago. but i also think we have to pay attention though things that we are not finishing at this time. and i hope the media and the

american public does not take its eye of the immigration ball while we focus on the impeachment hearing. i hate to say it but i do believe one of the reasons why some people want to keep impeachment in the news, as long as impeachment dominates the news we are not talking about congress' neglect in doing what they should do to secure our border an make sure that the people coming here are people coming here for legal green cards, legal work visas and eventually being sworn in as legal citizens. thank you and i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. grothman: absolutelying looking around here, looks like the crew is ready to go home, i move that the house now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to ad journ. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands