Sean Casten

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5377. I want to start by thanking my colleagues across the aisle for passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. My predecessor campaigned on it, and I wouldn't be here otherwise, so I thank them all. It is important to understand we need to pass this bill to undo the damage done by that bill and the hurt it gave to middle-class families, teachers, and first responders across the country. From the very first tax code in 1913, we have included allowing a deduction for State and local taxes for the simple reason that we shouldn't tax people twice. It is not just going back to 1913. Our Founders got that point as well. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 32 wrote that independent and uncontrollable authority to raise their own revenues for the supply of their own wants would be a problem. What Hamilton understood is that certain services--roads, schools, fire departments, and libraries--are better and more efficiently provided by local authorities, and when we double taxation, we create a fight between Federal and local authorities for finite resources to the detriment of those critical local services. Repeal the State and local tax deduction in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Madam Speaker, this should not be a partisan vote. This is a vote about America. It is a vote about our democracy and our oath to the Constitution. We all took an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We all know that what President Trump did was wrong. We all know it is wrong to withhold foreign aid for a political favor. We know it is wrong to ignore congressional subpoenas. We know it is wrong to default to silly partisan and process arguments rather than to rise and defend this beautiful, but all too fragile, democracy. When those in elected power abuse their position for personal advantage, it is on us to somberly uphold and defend the responsibility that the Founders bestowed on us. So, when my colleague talks about partisanship, I would remind him of those great words of Lincoln. I am paraphrasing him slightly: When one party would inflame partisanship rather than let the Nation survive, I am proud to be the party that would accept partisanship rather than let the Nation perish. So in this moment the answer is clear, not because we want to impeach but because we must. So, Madam Speaker, when you vote in a few hours, don't vote your party; vote your character. That is how you are going to be judged, and that is how we are all going to be judged.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th birthday of the city of Darien, Illinois. On December 13th, 1969 the communities of Marion Hills, Brookhaven, Farmingdale and Hinsbrook united to incorporate as the city Darien. Today, Darien is known as ``A Nice Place to Live,'' which perfectly describes this city. The area was initially inhabited by the Potowatami and Ottowa Native Americans with the surrounding waterways serving as their trade routes. The farming communities of Cass and Lace were established along a stagecoach line in the early 1800s. An inn, tavern and post office served 15 stagecoaches that transited the area. Today, Darien continues to serve as a transportation center with easy access to the commuter train line, as well as Interstates 55, 355 and 294. The six square mile town is home to approximately 6500 families. Darien is a vibrant, growing community dedicated to its citizens. The Indian Prairie Public Library has grown from a volunteer-operated bookmobile to a state-of-the-art facility that is a center for learning and community activities. The Park District Sportsplex includes three National Hockey League sized ice rinks as well as an indoor soccer field, enabling children and adults from surrounding areas to hone their athletic skills. Civic pride and a commitment to others is demonstrated by organizations such as the Darien Woman's Club, Rotary Club, Chamber of Commerce, Good Work Sunny Patch Project, VFW, and the Darien Lions Club, which is one of the largest in the state. These groups serve others through food pantries, holiday giving, clothing drives, art and writing events, and scholarships. It is an honor and privilege to congratulate Darien on its 50 years of growth and accomplishments. I congratulate Mayor Joseph Marchese, the City of Darien's Birthday Committee, and each of its citizens on this wonderful milestone.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, prescription drug prices are out of control. Year after year, we see prices rise. Old drugs become unaffordable, and new drugs may cost more than a house. That is why I support H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act. This bill would change the lives of the 89,000 seniors on part D in my district and over 600,000 people on private health insurance plans in my district. One of those, in particular, is Liz Phelan. Liz lives in Algonquin, Illinois, and retired after 38 years of public service. In 2007, she had a double transplant: a kidney and a pancreas. She is alive today for two reasons: One is the generosity of a donor, and, the second, the antirejection drugs that she has to take to keep her alive. Those drugs alone cost $662 every 3 months, out of pocket, but because she needs additional medication, she hits the Medicare coverage gap, where she is on the hook for the balance of her costs. H.R. 3 would be a game changer for Liz. It would lower her prescription drug costs to $2,000 because H.R. 3 would create, for the first time, a cap on how much seniors need to pay out of pocket in Medicare. It would make sure that the drugs she needs to survive do not increase above the rate of inflation. For Liz and for the millions of other Americans who face high-priced medicines, we must pass H.R. 3.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today on Dr. Dieter Martin Gruen's 97th birthday, in support of his nomination for the Presidential Medal of Freedom. On November 4th, my colleagues, Representative Bill Foster and Representative Chuck Fleischmann, joined me in supporting Dr. Gruen's nomination for the highest civilian award in this country. Dr. Gruen has dedicated his life to science and made monumental contributions to shaping the United States as a leader and world power in technology, innovation, and national defense. For nearly eight decades, Dr. Gruen has worked to enhance American technology development as a former Manhattan Project Scientist and Argonne National Laboratory Distinguished Fellow. Born in 1922, Dr. Gruen is an internationally esteemed German-American chemist, inventor, and innovator who immigrated to the U.S. from Nazi Germany in 1936. Throughout his career, Dr. Gruen has been driven by his curiosity and commitment to science--allowing him to make critical contributions to nuclear fission and fusion, solar energy, energy storage, and conservation. Specifically, Dr. Gruen has made several key technological advancements such as the nuclear submarine reactor cooling design and purification of uranium used to end World War II in the Pacific theater. Through this work and countless other selfless endeavors, Dr. Gruen has been recognized by the international scientific community with numerous awards--including from Argonne National Laboratory, Northwestern University, and the Patent Law Association of Chicago--for his pioneering research in chemistry, physics, along with the emerging fields of materials and nanoscience. I had the great pleasure of sitting down with Dr. Gruen earlier this year at his home in Downers Grove. What was intended to be a thirty- minute meeting became a two-hour conversation where I heard countless stories about Dr. Gruen's work on the Manhattan Project in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the nuts and bolts of nuclear fission technology, and his unique journey to the United States. At 97, Dr. Gruen still sees the world as a place of vast opportunities for technological innovation. His optimism has been a source of inspiration and encouragement in my work as a Member of Congress as we tackle critical issues facing our society. Dr. Gruen has continued his lifelong commitment to science by actively funding the building and demonstration of his novel solar cell technology in collaboration with the University of Illinois at Chicago. For the reasons mentioned here and many more, I sincerely believe that Dr. Dieter Gruen should be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his lifelong contributions to science and technology that continue today. Dr. Gruen's tireless efforts to solve future energy challenges have seldom been exhibited by an individual. Humble and unpretentious, Dr. Gruen has been and remains the embodiment of a dedicated American and pure scientist. I congratulate Dr. Gruen for his decades of accomplishments and exceptional contributions to science and the national security interests of the United States. I cannot think of a more deserving citizen for this award, and today I wish him the happiest of birthdays.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I seek to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the Burgess amendment and in support of the underlying bill, the United States Export Finance Agency Act of 2019. The science is really clear. The climate crisis is here, and we are already seeing its devastating impact. Despite the best efforts of the current administration to the contrary, the United States must be a global leader in acting to combat the climate crisis. Leading in climate action will not only protect our future from the worst impacts of climate change but will make our Nation more competitive and enable U.S. companies and workers to own the clean energy technologies and jobs of tomorrow. I was proud to work with all of my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee to introduce an amendment in markup that added strong environmental protections to this reauthorization. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4863 provides important reforms to the Ex-Im Bank to ensure it is able to support America's exporters in the 21st century. Let me describe precisely what this amendment would eliminate. It would eliminate a new office focused on supporting renewable energy-related exports so that we can make these products here in the United States and sell them around the world. It would eliminate a new target that 5 percent of Ex-Im's financing goes to support renewable energy-related exports. It would eliminate a requirement that the Ex-Im Bank consult with local communities to ensure that U.S.-financed projects are not causing harm. It would eliminate a direction from Congress that the Ex-Im Bank establish an accountability mechanism to provide persons who may have been negatively affected by an Ex-Im project to find resolution. And it would eliminate required disclosures of the estimated CO2 emissions expected to be produced from Ex-Im supported projects. Mr. Chairman, these provisions were carefully crafted by the committee to protect the environment and support American workers. However, all of those environmental reforms would be eliminated by the Burgess amendment, harming our efforts to compete with China on new environmental technologies and undermining Ex-Im's efforts to responsibly finance projects around the world. Why? Because of this theory about economics. Let me be very clear. Coal is dying right now for the same reason that clean energy is rising, because of economics. Does it cost money to build new projects? You bet it does. Where I come from, that is called an investment, especially when you replace a 1950s technology with a high marginal operating cost with a new, modern technology that doesn't cost anything to operate. Claiming economics in defense of blocking clean energy is foolish. It is irresponsible. It ain't leadership. It is cowardice. It is irresponsible. This is the time we have to stand up and lead, and I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the chairwoman of the committee.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, has the gentleman from Texas closed?

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the amendment under consideration has nothing to do with moving the Ex-Im forward. Instead, it eliminates needed reforms in the underlying bill to modernize the Bank and bring it into the 21st century. It takes this bill back toward the past rather than looking toward the future. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misguided amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2513. As a member of the Committee on Financial Services, I have witnessed firsthand Representative Maloney's commitment to advancing this important piece of legislation, and I am so glad that we are discussing it on the floor today. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The need for sunlight is especially urgent today as it relates to the involvement of foreign bad actors in our economy and our political process. We have, all of us here, taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but regardless of whether you take that oath, I would submit to you that all patriotic Americans feel that obligation. I certainly do, and this bill is a furtherance of that oath. Before I got here, I was a CEO of an LLC. In fact, I was the CEO of a lot of LLCs. I couldn't even tell you how many LLCs I was the CEO of. And the reason is, because like a lot of modern companies, we set up a corporate structure to have a nested set of LLCs that could isolate liabilities to be matched to different rounds of investors in our company. Now, that is a great feature of LLCs, but as is so often the case, a strength is also a weakness. It is a weakness because if it allows us to hide investors who want to use our financial system in a nefarious way--like to launder money--they can take advantage of that strength. And that is why this bill is so necessary. Because companies like mine already collect the data. Because FinCen data is already classified as FISMA high, which is the highest level of cybersecurity for government agencies. So the argument that data of all filers is not protected is simply not true. But ultimately, because sunlight is the best disinfectant, and because we are in a moment when too many powerful people are seeking to hide their sources of capital, putting the trust in our government and financial system at risk. This is the right bill for business. It is the right bill for our financial system. And it is the right bill for our country.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 1815, the SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Testing Act. I thank Chairwoman Waters and Subcommittee Chair Maloney for their leadership on the Financial Services Committee and their unwavering dedication to protecting investors. That is exactly what this bill does. It is a pro-investor bill that has one goal: that the SEC ensures disclosures made to retail investors are clear and concise so that Americans can make informed investment decisions. We are not here to relitigate the proper duty that brokers owe to investors. Instead, this bill is about making sure that disclosure documents convey information to investors effectively. We would never let companies post warning labels in ancient Greek, yet we too often allow disclosure documents--say, for conflicts of interest--to be written in jargon that is unintelligible to anyone without a law degree. Merely providing information to investors is not enough. We have also to make sure that information is understood. Whether it is buying a house, sending your kids to college, investing in your retirement, or just saving for a rainy day, the American Dream depends on our ability to invest in our future. This bill protects Americans by doing pretty basic market research to ensure that legally required disclosures can be understood by the average investor. Disclosures are already legally mandated to disclose information about fees, comparisons of investment advisory services, conflicts of interest, and much more, but just because those forms are provided to investors doesn't mean that investors understand them. As we all know, the biggest lie on the internet is that ``I have read and understand the terms and conditions.'' So we should not assume that just because an investor has been provided a disclosure agreement means that they understand it. Now, in point of fact, the RAND Corporation--this was what my colleague referred to--conducted this investor testing--we agree--with 1,800 individuals, 31 qualitative, in-depth interviews. This is what they concluded: ``Nearly 90 percent of respondents opined that the relationship summary would help them make more informed decisions about investment accounts and services . . . but interview discussions revealed that there were areas of confusion for participants, including differences between types of accounts or financial professionals.'' There were no changes made after that. Yes, they did the surveys, but many did not know and still do not know the difference between account types or financial professions. Others didn't appear to have synthesized the information in ways that they could apply it. In other words, consumers want these disclosures. Qualitative testing shows that what they are getting is not informing them properly, and that is why this bill is so important. The SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Testing Act would build on SEC's investor testing efforts and require the agency to engage in a robust iterative process for any existing or future disclosures intended to help retail investors make investment decisions. Specifically, the bill anticipates that the SEC will test those documents used by retail investors when selecting an investment professional to work with, assessing an investment recommendation, or deciding to purchase or sell a security. This would include testing of, for example, brokers' trade confirmation statements and investment advisers' brochures that detail business practices, fees, conflicts of interest, and disciplinary information. In short, if we are going to rely on disclosures, we need to make sure the disclosures work. We use market research to convey simple and important messages. Take an example: We don't put warnings on a box of cigarettes that says that in multiple peer-reviewed papers, scientists have found that prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke increases your risk to certain types of cancers, and those results are less than 5 percent likely to have been the result of sampling error. Nobody would understand that. We say, ``Smoking kills,'' because our job is to communicate. We would be delinquent if we weren't equally clear in this case. We are talking about disclosures like Form CRS that would require financial professionals to deliver to their retail customers a short and simple disclosure form to clarify the scope of their customers' relationship and companies who offer them financial services. A consumer disclosure has to do more than just protect the discloser. If an investor doesn't understand what is being disclosed, then we cannot say that anything was truly disclosed. We must make sure that investors know what is being disclosed, and that is what the bill does.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. This isn't a mandate on high to dictate to the SEC what the disclosures should say but rather says that it must do qualitative interviews to confirm that investors understand the disclosure. That is why the AARP has endorsed the bill, as well as the Financial Planning Coalition, the Consumer Federation of America, and the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards. This is a narrowly tailored bill that applies to a number of disclosure statements that Main Street retail investors rely on. It does not apply to disclosures that are relied on primarily by sophisticated institutional investors. When I was growing up, there was an ad on television for a discount menswear store called Syms. At the end of every commercial, their president, Sy Syms, would say, ``An educated consumer is our best customer.'' We owe nothing less to the American people, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Huizenga amendment, and I want to clarify a couple of points. The bill gives the SEC Office of the Investor Advocate a larger role to prioritize which disclosures to test. The bill also says that once testing is completed and is found to be clear, there is no need to do further testing unless there are substantive changes. To argue that every single bill is going to have to be reviewed every single time is not an argument that is made in good faith. The question here on the amendment is simply: Should we exempt one single form from the broad discretion given to the SEC in this rule? It is not clear to me why you would exempt Form CRS from investor testing, unless you don't want investors to understand the fees, costs, or conflicts of interest of investment professionals. We know, through the testing that was done, that Form CRS appeared to be helpful for investors who had already read similar documents and who had more investing experience. And we know from the testing that was done that Form CRS, as currently written, is not that helpful for investors who haven't otherwise read similar documents. We can't tie the SEC's hands in determining which disclosure documents need further investor testing. But if we are sitting here and believe that we have an obligation to look out for the best interests of the American people, for investors, for Main Street investors, then the only choice before us is to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do so.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gottheimer amendment. I would like to thank my friend, Representative Gottheimer, for his amendment and for his longtime support for seniors and their financial health. This amendment rightfully highlights that the SEC should take into account the unique circumstances that seniors face in making investment decisions when they do their investor testing. The financial health of seniors is critically important, and I am delighted that this bill has the support of the AARP and the 38 million seniors who they represent across our country. I stand with them in making clear that effective disclosure testing is imperative for facilitating informed decisionmaking for Americans trying to save and invest their hard-earned money. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Gottheimer amendment.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Wagner amendment. The wealth that Americans hold in their retirement accounts, in their 401(k)s, in their IRAs, all the places that they hold their wealth, the fees they pay on that wealth, the returns they earn on that wealth do not care when the law was written, or the form was processed. We know, we have evidence, that many of the existing disclosure documents intended for retail investors are not well understood by their target audience. So I would ask you: What is the cost to your wealth of another percent a year in asset management fees? What is the cost to you, to your wealth, of another percent a year compounding in the growth of your wealth? Multiply that by all the Americans who make their investments. Billions, trillions of dollars. This amendment was offered as a way to protect people. It is protecting people, but it isn't protecting investors. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney) to offer amendment No. 4.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chair, H.R. 1815 was drafted specifically for SEC disclosures that are required to be delivered to or intended or substantially likely to be materially relied on by retail investors, but not by sophisticated institutional investors like mutual funds or hedge funds. Representative Sean Maloney's amendment clarifies that this bill is intended to protect retail investors. That is a commonsense amendment, which allows the bill to achieve our goal, which is to ensure that mom- and-pop investors are able to use the disclosures intended specifically for them. I thank Representative Maloney for this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of H.R. 1815, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, spelling, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House, including the changes now at the desk.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2722, the SAFE Act. Among the many disturbing revelations in the Mueller report, we learned that Russian intelligence officers successfully infiltrated the computer network in my home State at the Illinois State Board of Elections. They accessed the personal information of millions of voters and stole thousands of voter records before being detected. As far as we know, this breach has not affected the results of any subsequent elections, but it desperately underscores the need for much greater election security moving forward. Now, officials in my home State and others around the country have worked tirelessly to secure these vulnerabilities over the past 3 years, but without the help of the Federal Government, they can only do so much. It is past time that we step up and give States the resources they need to ensure our elections and our voters are safe in the upcoming election. Our democratic system depends on the consent of the governed. That is far too fragile to take lightly. And our constituents' trust and the independence of our democracy depend on it. Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for the SAFE Act on the floor today.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chair, the Great Lakes Advisory Board plays an essential role in providing the EPA with the technical, environmental, and local expertise needed to carry out the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. This board is one of over 1,000 advisory boards that operate across the Federal Government. This past Friday, the Trump administration put all of those boards at risk by signing an executive order eliminating one-third of Federal advisory boards. These boards provide technical expertise on topics as diverse as animal health, safe pesticide use, trade, and offer useful third-party review of scientific research conducted at Federal agencies. The Trump administration order is, in a word, arbitrary, and it presents a clear threat to the ability of agencies to have the best information when making fundamental and far-reaching decisions. While my amendment is specific to the Great Lakes Advisory Board, I have offered this amendment to underscore the importance of preserving funding for all of these boards. The executive order is a mistake. It is another stunning escalation in this administration's war on science, and the American people deserve better.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 986, the Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act. I was proud to vote in favor of H.R. 986 yesterday to rescind the Trump administration's dangerous effort to weaken lifesaving protections for people with preexisting conditions under the Affordable Care Act. The Trump administration has been obsessed and relentless about undoing the historic and meaningful gains made under the ACA. Here, that means undermining the stability of the healthcare market and allowing States to promote junk, so-called short-term, limited-duration insurance options that directly discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. Let us not forget that before the ACA, a woman's gender was, in effect, a preexisting condition. One-third of women who tried to buy health plans on their own were either turned down or charged a higher premium. Republicans have no plan to improve healthcare, only to roll back the progress made in the ACA, putting the health coverage of the 52 million Americans with preexisting conditions in jeopardy. I am proud of the progress that this House has made to protect Americans' health coverage, and I look forward to continuing action to expand access and lower healthcare costs.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Madam Speaker, this is in response to the attorney general's claim that the President has constitutional immunity from prosecution. Mr. Mueller writes: ``We were not persuaded by the argument that the President has blanket constitutional immunity to engage in acts that would corruptly obstruct justice through the exercise of otherwise valid Article II powers.'' He goes on at some length to talk about what that standard is, but I want to read the footnote in that section. ``A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. . . . ``Impeachment is also a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President . . . '' That is from Volume II, page 178.

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.