On the recordDecember 5, 2019
I thank Chairwoman Waters for yielding me the time. I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment because it has been a hallmark of this process that I very much enjoyed working with Mr. McHenry and Mr. Huizenga. The reason I rise in opposition is really twofold or threefold. Number one, as Mr. Huizenga may recall, the original draft of the bill would make it prosecutable to prosecute somebody who is in possession of material, nonpublic information. My Republican friends correctly pointed out that we are often in possession of information that we may not be aware of. Certainly, if you were to take a look at my email inbox, you would know that to be true. So at the suggestion of the Republicans, we changed the standard from ``in possession'' to ``aware of.'' While I know that Mr. Huizenga is acting in good faith, Chairwoman Waters got it exactly right. If we go to a use standard, it would require prosecutors to actually get inside the motivation of why somebody made a trade. They would have to prove that you made this trade because you had inside information. In support of Mr. Huizenga's good faith, I understand where he is coming from, but let's also face that the confluence of circumstances where you have material, nonpublic information and you were going to do that trade at precisely that moment is a very, very rare event. While I understand where Mr.…





