▶ 0:17:18Now recognize the ranking member, Mr. morelli, to give a statement on the on the bill. >> okay. >> the clerk will please report the bill. >> h.r. 7008 to amend chapter 131 of title five. >> without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Also without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 0:17:51>> amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 708. >> without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as read, and will serve as base text for the purpose of further amendment. Do other members seek recognition for amendment or debate? Mr. morelli? >> yes. Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> Mr. morelli has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause while the amendment is distributed.
▶ 0:18:30>> did you want to strike the last word? Yes. I'm sorry.
▶ 0:19:06It's not. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> strike all after enacting. >> without objection. The amendment is inserted as read. >> Mr. chairman, I reserve a point. >> of order. The gentlewoman from florida reserves a point of order. The gentleman from new york is recognized on his amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:19:27My amendment would strike the text of the underlying bill and replace it with the restore trust in government act, a bill introduced by our colleague seth magaziner to actually ban trading of individual stocks by high ranking government officials. The restore trust in government act would do many things that the stop insider trading act fails to do. For example, it would require members of congress and the president and vice president to divest entirely from their investment holdings when they enter public office.
▶ 0:19:56This requirement would also apply to members spouses and dependent children. Unlike today's bill, the restore trust in government act would bar individuals from trading that is, buying and selling and even holding stocks and other financial instruments. The restore trust in government would also ensure that government officials covered by stock trading prohibitions are unable to write off trading losses from their taxes.
▶ 0:20:21There's extensive support in the house already for the restore trust in government act, to say nothing of the several other thoughtful, sometimes bipartisan bills that have been introduced to prohibit congressional stock trading. Each of these bills would be more effective at stopping insider trading, conflicts of interest and corruption than the bill we have before us today. If speaker johnson were truly serious about banning congressional stock trading, which he has publicly said we would be considering the restore trust in government act today or something substantially like it.
▶ 0:20:50I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to finally ban stock trading by high ranking government officials. That I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Miss torres, Ms. I apologize, miss sewell is recognized. As I look at miss torres. Miss sewell is recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I to support the restore the trust in government act. Um, every day, elected officials make decisions that impact the quality of life for all americans.
▶ 0:21:19But far too often, bad actors take advantage of the sensitive information that is shared within the policy making process to line their pockets for their own financial gain. To be sure, the problem that we're addressing here today is a very serious one. I just do not believe that the stop investor trading act is the right legislation. It does not go far enough to stop trading from occurring by members of congress, their families.
▶ 0:21:48And it doesn't address executives at all, whether that's the president or vice president or any member of the executive. Uh, to be sure, this is a serious problem. Time and time again, elected officials have broken the trust of the american people by exploiting their positions of power for financial gain. Uh, this was on full display shortly after the covid 19 pandemic began.
▶ 0:22:09Members from both sides of the aisle used privileged information from briefings about the pandemic to trade securities, according to a review of financial disclosures by the campaign legal center. 12 senators made at least 227 purchases or sales that resulted in $98.3 million in stock profits on the house side. There were there were about 1360 transactions by 37 representatives. That resulted in $60.5 million worth of stock profits.
▶ 0:22:39Most of these profits were generated from stocks associated with companies that played a significant role during the pandemic. When the nation learned about these lucrative stock trades, the public's trust in our government diminished. I believe members from both sides of the aisle can agree that we are long overdue for reform. We must ensure proper guardrails are in place to prevent elected officials from trading securities, because voters have a right to know that their lawmakers decisions are in the best interest of the people, not of their personal gain.
▶ 0:23:10However, we not only have the duty to hold ourselves and congress accountable accountable, but we also must pass legislation that prohibits financial corruption within the executive branch. According to october um, an october report by the center for american progress, the trump family has pocketed more than $1.8 billion in cash and gifts since his reelection. Moreover, administration officials close to president trump have used insider information to line their own pockets.
▶ 0:23:38While american people continue to struggle with rising costs of food, health care and housing. Uh, during the longest government shutdown in american history, as federal employees missed paychecks, uh, and 42 million snap beneficiaries feared losing access to vital nutrition assistance. Lawmakers engaged in nearly 200 stock trades, earning about 3 to $9 million in financial assets. As long as elected officials and public servants are allowed to trade stocks.
▶ 0:24:07For companies that are impacted by federal policy or regulation, the public will rightfully question whether we as elected officials are working in their common good. This is why I am proud to be a co-sponsor of h.r. 6731, restore trust in government act, and I support the ranking members efforts to substitute, um, this current bill with that bill. I think it's really important that we have comprehensive reform.
▶ 0:24:33As a former securities lawyer, I know personally, firsthand how important it is that we get this right, and we need to make sure that we are indeed, um, addressing the public's concern. The bill acknowledges a fundamental truth. Both bills lawmakers are not ordinary investors. Members of congress routinely receive nonpublic briefings, influence regulatory outcomes and shape legislation that can move markets when elected officials are allowed to trade individual stocks, even legally.
▶ 0:25:03It creates the appearance and sometimes the reality of insider advantage. That said, while this legislation is a strong step forward, it does not yet go far enough to fully eliminate insider trading risk or restore public trust. If our goal is to ensure that the public service is never confused with private gain, this bill must be strengthened.
▶ 0:25:25I believe substituting this bill for the restore um the trust in government act is a positive step forward, and I support the ranking members efforts to do so. With that, I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further debate? Seeing none, I recognize myself to strike the last word. Um. I appreciate the intention that my colleague offers, uh, this amendment. Um, I think we do share the same goal.
▶ 0:25:53And we've talked about that here at this committee. How do we prevent members of congress from profiting off of insider information? And I think it's important to also make sure, uh, that we have legislation that allows individuals who've had successful private sector careers, uh, to also come to congress. I think we are benefited by having individuals from a wide array of backgrounds, private sector farmers, uh, people that have served in the military, uh, they're able to come to this institution.
▶ 0:26:19Um, I would note that I think in many ways, the underlying legislation offered here fits into the category of what I call the goldilocks argument. Uh, we have we like we like the underlying bill, Mr. style, but we got something that's maybe a little bit better. I think what we have is an opportunity with the underlying text, which would be removed if this amendment was accepted. Uh, to make real and substantive progress past legislation in the house and see that signed into law.
▶ 0:26:45And by taking and accepting the amendment, uh, from my colleague from new york, what we would do is derail the opportunity for that real and substantive progress. The bipartisan legislation that we have before us. 7008 uh, and so it's with that understanding that I am voting against this amendment and would encourage my colleagues to do the same. The gentleman from virginia is recognized to strike the last word. Mr.
▶ 0:27:15Chairman, agreeing with all of your comments, I would point out on page nine, paragraph g, that while it gives an extension in paragraph h, if there are low liquidity vesting schedules or contractual restrictions, it does not take away the the provision that the asset must be divested. In the case of a special circumstance acquisition, that the investment must be divested at a fair market value.
▶ 0:27:40But if you own a significant portion of a company and everybody knows you've got 90 days to get rid of your significant portion, you're not selling it at fair market value. You're having to sell it at a fire sale. You're selling it below fair market value, which then puts you in violation and punishment under the bill as written. Yield back. The gentleman yields back. Is there further amendments? Is there further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, does the gentleman from florida and our point of order.
▶ 0:28:10>> I withdraw my point of order. >> point of order is withdrawn. Uh, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, Mr. morelli, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say nay in the opinion of the chairs. The nays have it, the nays have it. >> Mr. chairman, I'd ask for a recorded vote. >> recorded vote has been requested. All those in favor? Recorded vote. Please raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand. Recorded vote is ordered.
▶ 0:28:39The clerk will please call the roll. >> chairman style. >> nay. Miss lee. Nay. Miss lee votes nay. Mr. loudermilk, Mr. smith votes no. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin votes no. Doctor murphy. Mrs. bass, Mr. carey, Mrs. miller, miss. Mrs. miller votes no. Mr. morelli. >> aye. >> Mr. rowley votes aye. Miss. Sewell, Mrs. torres, Mr.
▶ 0:29:07Torres votes I, miss johnson. Miss johnson votes I. >> does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will please report the tally. >> Mr. chairman, for this vote, there are three I's and five no's. >> the amendment is not adopted. Is there further amendment or debate on the underlying text? >> yes. Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 0:29:36>> uh, the gentleman from new york, uh, seeks recognition, has amendment at the desk. We'll pause while the amendment is distributed. Okay. >> okay. This is the same, right? I can, I can do. Okay on this.
▶ 0:30:23>> the clerk will report the amendment. >> page two after line seven, insert the following. An employee of the legislative branch accepts. >> without objection. The amendment is considered as read. The. >> Mr. chairman, I reserve a point of order. >> gentleman from florida reserves. A point of order. The gentleman from new york is recognized on his amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:30:46As we're debating the advisability of, uh, a stock trading ban, and I would repeat the bill in front of us is not such, um, although it may be labeled such, but I think it's important to debate and discuss the full scope of the individuals that ought to be covered by such a ban. And this amendment would add senior staff, as well as judicial officers as covered individuals.
▶ 0:31:11Under the bill, senior staff may have just as much, if not more, in many cases inside information than members of congress do, and I think it's worth debating whether or not they should be covered under the bill. Judicial officers, on the other hand, should certainly be banned from trading stocks. The idea that a judge or justice or their spouse can trade stocks in companies with cases before their chambers is completely and utterly unacceptable.
▶ 0:31:37And the american people know that the independence of the judiciary has been attacked from every angle. A judge or justice's financial interest should not be a consideration or up for question. Uh, just this week, there was a story about supreme court justice alito's recusal from a case because of his financial interest in the oil company in the case before the court, according to reporting.
▶ 0:32:00Justice alito has recused himself ten times his term and 53 times over the past three terms due to his investments. While recusal is certainly a better thing than ruling, recusal at the nation's highest court is voluntary, and the justices impartiality should never be in question due to their personal financial interests. And you would want each of your supreme court justices actually engaged in and making determinations.
▶ 0:32:26When you have to recuse yourself, you withdraw from those that important consideration and the job before you, which is to serve the american people and to dispense justice. But at this time, however, I withdraw my amendment, but strongly encourage my republican colleagues to consider the full scope of individuals and officeholders who should be covered by this prohibition. >> the the gentleman withdraws his amendment. Uh, is there further amendment and debate on the underlying text?
▶ 0:32:54The representative torres an amendment at the desk? >> yes. >> the there's an amendment at the desk. Uh, we'll pause while the amendment is distributed. >> that's all the same, I can I just need one set. It's good. Right. You don't need to write their name. We have a small enough crew. And then back up.
▶ 0:33:40Thank you. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> uh, page five, line 15, strike exceptions and all the following through the. >> that objection. The amendment is considered as read. >> Mr. chairman, I reserve. >> the gentlewoman from florida reserves. A point of order.
▶ 0:34:07Uh, the gentlewoman from california is recognized on her amendment for five minutes. >> uh, thank you, chairman. >> happy new year to you and to all of my colleagues. Um, my constituents sent me here to ensure their government works for them, not as a stock market cheat for politicians and their families, people writing and voting on laws that impact the stock market, members of congress and the trump administration should never
▶ 0:34:38Have a blank check to use privileged information to cash in while working families continue to struggle. At our last hearing, I expressed my outrage that folks like attorney general pam bondi and transportation secretary duffy have been accused of using insider information to cheat the stock market with zero consequences. This bill does nothing to fix that.
▶ 0:35:07We have seen proof that members who sit on the committee responsible for overseeing big pharma and who hold large amounts of big pharma stock, vote differently than everyone else. Unacceptable. And this bill allows those same members to keep all of their big pharma stocks and reinvest their dividends to buy more.
▶ 0:35:38Oftentimes, that amount is in the millions. So, chairman, we can sit here marking up this bill and pretend we are banning stock trading, when in fact we are not we. What we are doing is creating a loophole or as I see it, a license to profit off of the health of the american people. This bill doesn't stop insider trading. It is riddled with loopholes.
▶ 0:36:06In fact, it is a gift to insider traders disguised as ethics reform. This bill, it does not require members to divest. You can keep every stock you own and still pass laws that move markets in your favor. It does not require blind trust. That means your conflicts of interest.
▶ 0:36:32Stay in front and center while you claim to be ethically responsible in the so-called restrictions a joke, you can still trade commodities, non-security futures and private company equity. The very trades that make you millions.
▶ 0:36:53While you legislate, you can invest in funds concentrated in your own districts or state, profiting from the laws that you pass as a member of congress. Spouses and dependent children can trade on your behalf of anyone. Simply stated, if you can't directly profit, your family can do it for you.
▶ 0:37:19The loopholes in this bill are designed by insiders for insiders and enforcement. Zero nonexistent. You break the rules, you pay a small fee. And the ethics committee, by the way, can decide whether they can be lenient with you. That is not enforcement. That is a pathetic suggestion disguised as accountability. Let me say this plainly. This bill is a political scam.
▶ 0:37:47It is republicans pretending to care about corruption while creating wealth for themselves. It mocks the will of the very people who are supposed to, who we are supposed to serve. And as one of my constituents put it, congresswoman, fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
▶ 0:38:13My amendment would eliminate this reinvestment loophole prohibiting members from reinvesting dividends. Mr. chairman, I am deeply discouraged that this committee has refused to consider a solid bipartisan bill that everyone can support. And I ask all of my colleagues to support my reasonable amendment, closing a key loophole to stock trading. And I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.
▶ 0:38:45Is there further debate on the amendment? I'll recognize myself for five minutes to strike the last word. A lot was brought up here, and I want to cover it, maybe in sequential order, to the best of my ability.
▶ 0:38:58One the underlying amendment offered by my colleague from california actually really raises a good question that those of us that wrote this bill debated, should an individual who has an investment in a company that provides a dividend to the owners be treated differently than an individual, where that company is either doing stock buybacks, which some of my democratic colleagues often don't care for?
▶ 0:39:23Um, should it be treated differently than a company that goes out and uses their cash profits to acquire additional companies? And then the question became, is there a potential of a benefit of insider trading from a reinvestment of dividends? And the answer here is the reinvestment of dividends doesn't set up a concern of insider trading. You have a concern of an individual owning stock. And I know some of my colleagues don't want any ownership of any private assets.
▶ 0:39:54But if you have an investment, can you manipulate that to the benefit of an individual with insider information? And because those dividends are structured by the company with advanced notice outside of the control of any given member, it doesn't carry the risk of insider trading. And because it doesn't carry the risk of insider trading, what we allowed for was the reinvestment of dividends.
▶ 0:40:21Again, the focus here to prevent members from being able to profit off of insider information. The focus of the bill is not to make elected officials poor. The focus is to prevent them from benefiting off their insider information. So we structured this with great care to make sure that members wouldn't be disincentivized for investments that were made prior to coming to congress.
▶ 0:40:43Again, there's no ability to acquire stock under the underlying text once they arrive, but should they be penalized for an investment that was made prior to arrival in congress based on the capital structure of the company in which they invested in? Should they be penalized in a way where they don't control the decision of that corporation to make a dividend payment versus a stock buyback versus utilizing the cash in another mechanism?
▶ 0:41:10And so this is very thoughtfully tailored to prevent the benefit of any inside information from being used. It's under that reason that I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, again, with the goal of taking the underlying text and making sure that we can pass it and allow it to become law. My my colleague from california then went more broadly and spoke generally on the underlying text, and I want to go back and look at a few of those comments because I think it's relevant. She used the term scam and mocks.
▶ 0:41:37Watch this carefully. The underlying bill provides additional restrictions on members of congress. It does not provide any protections. I would offer my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to point to any line in the underlying text of this legislation that provides an additional protection. What their concern is, is on the underlying law. They may have not liked the 2012 stock act. And of course, we could.
▶ 0:42:05Look, when the democrats were in charge of the house of representatives under the leadership of the previous speaker, of course, we could go quickly. Look at every bill they brought before this committee. When they chaired it, we could look at every bill they brought before the house floor to fix it. Whom? Crickets. What we have before us is the most transformational change in the arguments that I offered at the beginning.
▶ 0:42:32The goldilocks argument, the ice cream sundae argument, perfection being the enemy of the good. Tying this up, distracting, misleading. We continue to hear those arguments in the amendments before us. The underlying amendment offered by the amendment offered by my colleague from california, actually brings up a good point. I addressed that at the top.
▶ 0:42:54I think I come down on the other side of it, but the arguments on the underlying bill, the stop insider trading act, are meant to distract from the point that it's us in the majority in a bipartisan way. We have we have democratic support for this bill that are actually working to prevent members from profiting off of insider information.
▶ 0:43:19And so I think the the terminology used by my colleague scams and, and mocks is actually incredibly disingenuous to the underlying work in what the underlying text of this bill does. And so with that, I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on the amendment from my colleague from california, and I yield back. Is there further debate on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california?
▶ 0:43:49The gentleman from new york is recognized to strike the last word. >> yes, I move to strike the last word. Just to be clear, it's not I think there are a number of different levels that we are concerned about. One is certainly information that people have who sit in congress, who sit at 1600 pennsylvania avenue, who sit on the supreme court and the information they may have, or a sense of policy which will affect stock prices.
▶ 0:44:17It's also the question of whether or not people who come to congress are self-dealing, whether or not they're using their positions to make additional fees or make additional money for themselves. Reinvestment of dividends is buying additional stock. Now, you may argue it's not new stock, but frankly, if you own nvidia or you own another stock that's doing well and you know it's doing well because you sit here in the house, the ability to buy is a decision you make affirmatively.
▶ 0:44:45It's not something that happens by default. You're making a decision to continue to buy and continue to reinvest in that company. I think that's what, uh, miss torres is pointing out, that this is a significant, not the only significant loophole we believe. I think there's a big contrast. We believe that members should not own individual stocks. There are investment vehicles, there's mutual funds. There's other baskets that are broad, uh, broadly represent the markets that we would support.
▶ 0:45:11Um, and I don't think we're interested in members of congress being poor. It's that if we want to and we seek to build the trust and regain the trust of the american people, they need to feel as though when we come here, all of us, both sides of the aisle, that we're not self-dealing, that are only interest is them. And I frankly feel in this moment that that's not what they feel, that they feel.
▶ 0:45:39No matter how good you are when you come here, no matter how fresh faced and enthusiastic are you, come here. It's a different world and you ultimately start dealing for your own interests. So it's not a question of whether you can reinvest, not reinvest, hold, sell it at some point in the future. It's to take it off the table for the american public. So they no longer have to wonder, are they doing that for themselves or are they doing that for us? And I think that's the substantial difference between the two approaches. With that, I support the amendment and I yield back.
▶ 0:46:10>> gentleman yields back. Is there further debate? Is there further debate? Seeing none to the gentleman from florida, Mr. center. Point of. >> order, Mr. chairman. I withdraw my point of order. >> point of order is withdrawn. The question now occurs on the amendment from the gentleman from california, miss torres. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed? Nay. In the opinion of the chairs. The nays have it. Request a recorded vote.
▶ 0:46:36Has the the yeas and nays been requested a record? All those in favor recorded vote, please raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand. A vote is ordered. The clerk will please call the roll. >> chairman style. No votes. No miss lee. No. Miss lee votes no. Mr. loudermilk, Mr. snow, Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin votes no. Doctor murphy, Mrs. bass. Mrs. vice votes no. Mr. carey, Mrs.
▶ 0:47:07Miller, Mrs. miller votes no. Mr. morelli. Aye. Mr. morley votes I, miss sewell. Miss sewell votes I, Mrs. torres. I Mrs. torres, I miss johnson. Miss johnson I. >> have all members voted. Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will report the tally. >> Mr. chairman, for this vote, there are four eyes and six noes. >> the amendment is not adopted.
▶ 0:47:37Is there further amendment or debate on the underlying bill? Miss sewell is recognized as an amendment at the desk. >> Mr. chairman. >> we'll pause while the amendment is distributed.
▶ 0:48:27>> thanks. >> we do it again. Again?
▶ 0:49:05>> the the clerk will report the amendment. >> okay. >> page two after line. >> without objection. The amendment is considered as read. >> Mr. chairman, I reserve a point of order. >> the gentlewoman from florida reserves a point of order. The gentlewoman, miss sewell, is recognized on her amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. My amendment would add the president and the vice president to the list of covered individuals in this bill. We all know that the president and the vice president have access to sensitive financial information.
▶ 0:49:33However, these offices of public trust are missing entirely from this bill. The president has an unprecedented ability to influence the united states economy and the world economy, which we have witnessed as president trump's tariff war has tanked financial markets.
▶ 0:49:50In fact, last april, I led a letter as the ways and means oversight subcommittee ranking member demanding accountability for president trump's announcement and quick and quick reversal of the reciprocal tariffs, which created massive shifts in the us market and raised widespread concerns of market manipulation. Not surprisingly, the trump administration failed to respond to the letter. Additionally, the president can currently trade on inside information, and this bill does nothing to stop that.
▶ 0:50:20President trump has purchased several corporate bonds seeking to influence market decisions, according to reports, president trump's purchase up to $1 million in warner brothers bonds, all while attempting to secure government approval for a for a paramount warner bros. Merger. This merger, if successful, would increase the value of the bonds owned by the president and represents a pattern of blatant corruption.
▶ 0:50:47When the president or vice president intervenes in markets for personal gain, as we have seen time and time again with this administration, it not only hurts businesses, but drives up costs and puts jobs at risk in working communities like those I represent. My constituents see the results of this corruption every day with increased costs to their food, housing and health care happening simultaneously. Every person that holds a federal elected office in the united states must be accountable to those that they represent.
▶ 0:51:18Enough is enough. The time has long come for the for congress to address the violations of the public trust by the executive, the president, and the vice president, not just members of congress. Failure to include the president and vice president in this legislation will fail to implement reforms that americans overwhelmingly support. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment to end presidential insider trading. And with that, Mr.
▶ 0:51:43Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to enter my letter to president trump about his tariff war and market manipulation. For the record. >> without objection. >> with that, I yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Uh, the gentleman from illinois is recognized to strike the last word. >> okay.
▶ 0:52:11>> attempts by the minority to derail this bipartisan bill are disappointing. House democrats had countless opportunities to ban members from stock trading but failed to do so. As our former speaker made millions from her position in congress speaking to this amendment, many farmers rely on commodities trading for long term risk management and protecting the future of america's food supply.
▶ 0:52:39Which democrat members should know? Farmers must be able to sell their crops at a moment's notice, and applying restrictions meant for wall street to farming is shortsighted and unworkable. I urge my colleagues to oppose the minorities attempts to insert this poison pill, and I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. As a further debate on the amendment. I recognize my know recognize the gentleman from new york to strike the last word.
▶ 0:53:11>> yes, I strike the last word. And we'll again implore you to get better microphones. Um, I simply say this, that it seems inconceivable to me that we would consider anything in the space of congressional members of congress and spouses and dependent children, um, for the purposes of making certain that they can't, um, enroll themselves because of their position and not include the president of the united states. Um, this administration talked about draining the swamp.
▶ 0:53:40This administration has added a second story on the swamp, has built a parking garage, and I think an 18 hole luxury golf course. I mean, the swamp has become so large and using now the administration's opportunities to make money has become a daily occurrence.
▶ 0:53:56This is the greatest threat in my mind to the american democracy not agreeing to this amendment, I think, suggests a real lack of understanding of where the american people are around the whole question of inside information. And I want to point out again what miss sewell said. And I said in my opening comments, the president within the last couple of months, not before he was president, purchased up to $1 million in warner brothers bonds.
▶ 0:54:26Warner brothers is now, as people know, it's in the news, uh, the subject of significant merger talks, um, a deal with netflix. A counteroffer has been attempted to be made, which has been rejected, uh, by paramount, owned by the president's friend larry ellison and his son, um, and his son in law, jared kushner has even gone to the private equity market to try to get capital to enrich the offer made by paramount, which drives the value of warner brothers
▶ 0:54:57Even higher. And ultimately, this deal, the merger deal has to go in front of the fcc, which is I mean, I think the president has made no secret of the fact that he intends his appointees to do what he says they should do. There is no autonomy on the agencies. There are there is no autonomy in the different, um, uh, regulatory agencies that are part of the federal government, even those that are independent, like the fed. The president is trying to put his thumb on.
▶ 0:55:25So not including the president not agreeing to this amendment, I think, um, lies it belies the whole issue here, which is to protect people, particularly to protect the president from the kind of activity he's engaged in. So I would strongly urge support of the amendment.
▶ 0:55:39I would ask all of my colleagues to demonstrate what I think the american people desperately want, which is a clue that the people, particularly at the highest levels of this government with the most influence, the most ability to affect outcomes, uh, that we include them in the bill before the board, before the committee. And with that, I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? I recognize myself to strike the last word. I encourage my colleagues to vote no. Um, I do think it's a worthy conversation. We heard earlier about the judiciary, about the executive.
▶ 0:56:09I remind them, uh, the executive is bound by the stock act, as well as other current federal law. Um, I think there's an opportunity to to think more broadly about how we think about, uh, not only congressional staff members, executive staff members, judiciary members.
▶ 0:56:25And again, we work to balance all of that, uh, between preventing people from abusing their position of power, but also making sure we have avenues for people from an array of backgrounds, uh, to be able to come and serve this country, whether or not is a staff member, a judge, uh, a member of congress or the president, united states. Uh, and so because I think this will ultimately, uh, attempt to derail the underlying bill, uh, I discourage my colleagues, and I will be voting.
▶ 0:56:55No, I yield back. Is there a further amendment? Is there further debate on the amendment? The gentlewoman from florida insists on a point of order. >> Mr. chairman, I withdraw my point of order. >> point of order is withdrawn. The question now occurs on the amendment, uh, from miss sewell. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair. The ayes have it, the nays have it, and the amendment is not adopted.
▶ 0:57:25>> I request a. >> recorded vote. The gentleman from new york request a recorded vote. All those in favor, recorded vote, please raise your hand. Sufficient number. Having raised their hand, a recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will please call the roll. >> chairman style. >> no. >> chairman. Style. Votes. No. Miss lee, no votes no. Mr. loudermilk, Mr. loudermilk, votes no. Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes no. Doctor. Murphy. Mrs. spice. Mrs. spice votes no. Mr. carey, Mrs. miller, Mrs. miller votes no.
▶ 0:57:57Mr. morelli. >> aye. >> Mr. morelli votes I miss sewell. I miss sewell. Votes hi. Uh, Mrs. torres. Yes. Hi. Miss torres votes. Hi, miss johnson. Miss johnson votes aye. >> have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will please report the tally. >> Mr. chairman, for this vote, there are four nos. Or four I's and six nos. >> the amendment is not adopted.
▶ 0:58:28Is there a further amendment or debate on the underlying text? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> the gentleman from new york, uh, seeks recognition as an amendment at the desk. Uh, we will pause while the amendment is distributed.
▶ 0:59:43>> thank you. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> page two, beginning on line one. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read. The gentleman from florida. >> Mr.
▶ 1:00:13Chairman, I reserve a point of order. >> the gentleman from florida reserves a point of order. The gentleman from new york is recognized on his amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I offer this amendment to fix a fundamental failure, uh, of the bill before the committee, which is it does not, in fact, ban congressional stock trading. In fact, under the terms of the bill, members may still trade private stocks. They may still trade commodity derivatives, they may trade digital assets.
▶ 1:00:41The list goes on and on of things that they might continue to invest in, uh, where a knowledge of the industry would benefit them as they make those determinations. The so-called stop insider trading act actually allows members of congress to continue profiting from their insider knowledge by trading stocks in privately held companies like spacex and openai.
▶ 1:01:01Under this bill, members of congress can continue profiting from their ability to affect the prices of commodities of all kinds like oil, natural gas, and food grown by american farmers. And you have to wonder at the timing. So soon after the president opened up venezuelan oil fields to his corporate cronies and oil futures now soaring just days after the president tried to destroy the independence of the fed, a foundational piece of the western economy and the economy of the united states.
▶ 1:01:30In response, precious metals futures skyrocketed. It isn't just a coincidence. Speaker johnson wants to allow members to profit off their positions and off the chaos created by the trump administration. My amendment would include private company stock, commodities and futures, and the covered instruments that members cannot trade in while in office to limit the insider trading that this bill would permit. And I do note, I think, uh, if I might, I think the gentlelady from illinois during the last debate was referring to this.
▶ 1:02:02Um, and I just want to make the point about commodity trading for small family farms that there is, uh, a, um, a section in a provision in the amendment to protect those individuals. They can continue to work their family farms. I did want to make mention that because she raised a point which, uh, we are sensitive to. So, uh, with that, uh, Mr. chair, I urge anyone who truly wants to restore trust in congress to join me now in supporting this amendment, and I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:02:33Is there further debate?
▶ 1:05:09Is there further debate on the amendment? I recognize myself to strike the last word. Um, appreciate my my colleague's attempt. We dialoged this a little bit, I think in our previous hearing in particular, uh, as we relate to farms, we definitely kind of talking more broadly earlier. Um, I think one of the intentions of the underlying bill, my, my legislation, is to make sure that individuals from a wide array of backgrounds are able to come in, serve in congress.
▶ 1:05:40I think that's one of the strengths of this institution. Um, and I appreciate my colleagues attempt to carve out, uh, family farms. This is the obviously the first introduction I've seen of the, the the carve out, uh, from my colleague in my initial reading.
▶ 1:05:55I don't know that it's clear that would carve out, um, farms that are held, uh, at a corporate level, which a large number of, although family farms ultimately sit in a legal structure other than a sole proprietor. So, uh, an individual farmer in wisconsin, for example, uh, may own that land in an llc or a partnership. Uh, it could be a corporation, a c corp, depending on what state you live in. That might not be the case in iowa. I think they they block that.
▶ 1:06:25I'm not on the ag committee. Um, my concern is how this would prevent, uh, in particular farmers from being able to access commodity markets in the ordinary course of their business. So I'm envisioning a soybean farmer, a corn farmer, uh, in the state of wisconsin. They need to buy, uh, fertilizer. They need to buy seed. Uh, they're going on, uh, and buying those futures, uh, to make sure that they're not subject to the whims of pricing on any given day.
▶ 1:06:54That's really big. In particular, uh, I know for a lot of my family farms in wisconsin, regardless of the technical ownership structure, what I'm calling a family farm, um, that they need to be able to balance that risk so that they can sell their soybeans at the best price, that they can be able to sell their corn at the best price, that they're not subject to the price that the market may have on the day the truck pulls up to take that soybean or corn, uh, away from the market.
▶ 1:07:23And so that's a, for me, a real, uh, and substantive concern. We're also are seeing ourselves, uh, at the beginning of an era of digital assets. Obviously, some are front and center in the newspaper. People are familiar with a handful of them. Um, in the broader digital asset space, we're seeing a lot of digital assets come online.
▶ 1:07:43The house passed the clarity act in the financial services committee, uh, which, as it says, provides clarity as to how we treat digital assets from a securities to a to a commodity. The the role of the sec and the cftc, uh, in this regard, we passed that out of the house, uh, with overwhelming bipartisan support. I believe we had 78 democrats joining the republican conference in passing that legislation. The senate is working their way through the clarity act, uh, right now.
▶ 1:08:13Uh, and if you are like me and believe that digital assets will be a larger and larger part of the broader american economy, uh, it's essentially we get this right, that we're not restricting people's ability, uh, to operate. We kind of be like, we went back in time and we restricted, uh, members of congress from, um, using credit cards because we deemed it an inappropriate loan. That might have made sense back in the day when credit cards were first coming online. Uh, now it'd be pretty tough, uh, to operate.
▶ 1:08:39And I think most of our lives, if we didn't have access to credit cards, um, I think we will personally, we'll see a similar evolution in the digital asset space, uh, in utilizing those, whether or not that's a stablecoin function and you're operating in purchasing things, utilizing stablecoin, or you're utilizing different forms of digital assets, uh, throughout your daily life. Um, so I think there's a lot of questions with how we would get this text right. Uh, and again, I'm going to go back all the way to my opening comments.
▶ 1:09:07Um, I'm not opposed to to dialoging this and looking at ways that we could further, strengthen, um, uh, our rules and regulations here. Uh, I do think that this distracts us from the underlying bill and the opportunity to make real and substantive progress on restricting members from being able to profit off of insider information. And so, uh, I understand the intention in which the amendment is offered.
▶ 1:09:34Uh, I don't think that it is is ready for prime time, particularly as I referenced digital assets and farming. Uh, but I think it's also an attempt to distract the, the, the, the, the, the underlying bill that we're the underlying text that we're working on, uh, to prevent it from either passing this committee or passing the floor. Uh, and we have seen time and again, uh, a big, dusty shelf of bills that have been introduced and not passed.
▶ 1:10:03I think the underlying bill we have before us has an opportunity to pass. And I think this would distract or hinder its ability to do that. So with that, I'll encourage my colleagues to vote no on the amendment from my colleague from new york. Is there further, I yield back. Is there further debate on the amendment seeing none, does the gentleman from. >> florida, chairman, I withdraw my point of order. >> point of order is withdrawn. The is no.
▶ 1:10:31There's no further amendment. The question now occurs on the amendment, uh, from the gentleman from new york. Um, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed? Nay, nay. In the opinion of the chairs. The nays have it, the nays have. The amendment is not adopted. The gentleman seeks recognition and requests a recorded vote. All those in favor recorded vote. Raise your hand. A sufficient number, having risen, raised their hand. A recorded vote is ordered.
▶ 1:10:59The clerk will please call the roll. >> chairman. Style. >> no. >> chairman. Style. Votes. No. Miss lee. No. Miss lee. Votes no. Mr. loudermilk, Mr. latimer. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin says no. Doctor. Murphy. Mrs. vice. Miss. Vice says no. Mr. carey, Mr. carey votes no. Mrs. miller, miss. Miller votes no. Mr. morelli. I Mr. morelli votes I, miss sewell. Sewell. Votes. Hi. Mrs. torres. Mrs. torres. Hi, miss. Johnson. Mr.
▶ 1:11:30Johnson I. >> have all members voted. Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will please report the tally. >> Mr. chairman, for this vote, there are four eyes and seven noes. >> the amendment is not adopted. Is there further amendment or debate? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> the gentlewoman from texas has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause while the amendment is distributed. >> this one, this one. One more.
▶ 1:12:44>> thank you.
▶ 1:13:40>> the clerk will report the amendment. >> page four, beginning on line five. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read. The gentleman. >> Mr. chairman, I reserve a point of order. >> the gentlewoman from florida reserves a point of order. The gentlewoman from texas is recognized on her amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:13:56Um, I appreciate the committee holding this markup today, but instead of choosing a bipartisan bill with real comprehensive reform or legislation that includes the executive branch and the courts, they are choosing to mark up a brand new bill that we've just received text for. And there is already a pending bill that addresses this issue. For example, in h.r.
▶ 1:14:195106, just the very first sentence, it prohibits members of congress and their spouses from owning or trading stocks, whereas the the senate on this one just says it merely restricts members of congress. There is a vast difference between restriction and prohibition. Hr 708.
▶ 1:14:42This chairman's new bill states to amend the chapter 131 of title five to require certain restrictions. Whereas this other bill is an outright prohibition, the chairman's new bill is not a stock trading ban. It is a restriction ban. It's a restriction on stocks purchasing with a requirement to report stock sales, which members already abide by.
▶ 1:15:04The bill also completely ignores the issue of divestment that members should be required to sell their current holdings, something I have done personally in my own portfolio. I chose to divest not because the law required it, but because earning the trust of my constituents demands it. Public service means more than compliance with the bare minimum. Every one of us has a responsibility to set the standard for this institution.
▶ 1:15:35When you choose choose to serve the public, you must ensure that your personal financial holdings never conflict with the public good. That is how trust is built. That is how confidence is restored. That is why we are here today. Full divestment is the only way to truly eliminate conflicts of interest. And that is why I took that step myself. Before coming to congress, I was a small business owner and a lawyer, and I was fortunate to find success in that work.
▶ 1:16:04But the moment I took the office on the house floor, I was no longer serving myself. I was serving the hundreds of thousands of north texans that I have the honor to represent. That responsibility is not an opportunity to profit. It is a sacrifice, and it is a sacrifice that we must hold the highest possible standard. If we, as members of congress of the united states, are unwilling to make that sacrifice, we have no right to ask the american people for their trust.
▶ 1:16:32My amendment requires full divestiture. Instead of a seven day notice of a sale of stock. If republicans were serious about restoring the public trust, if they were serious about rooting out corruption and listening to the american people, they would vote for my amendment and bring the bipartisan, restored trust in congress act or the restore trust in government act, led by the ranking member of this committee to the house for a vote, bills that actually ban members of congress and their
▶ 1:17:03Spouses and dependents from owning or trading individual stocks. That is what is required. That is what eliminates corruption in this body, and that is what needs to happen in this bill. And I encourage my colleagues to support the adoption of my amendment. And thank you, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> is there further debate on the amendment? Is there any other member seek recognition? I recognize myself to strike the last word.
▶ 1:17:33Uh, I appreciate the intention in which my my colleague from texas brings forward this amendment. Um, I too, uh, when I came to congress, I actually the only trades I've done since I arrived in congress was to sell, uh, my underlying stocks that that touch the financial services space because I served on the financial services committee, I thought that was the right thing for me to do.
▶ 1:17:54Uh, one of the things that occurred to me is then I paid a capital gains tax, uh, on that under the amendment offered by our colleague from texas, that would obviously, uh, continue to apply. That would would have applied to me, uh, as it did. I made that choice. Um, for some people, uh, that may be a very significant, uh, financial impact.
▶ 1:18:16And so if the amendment from my colleague from texas was adopted, um, I think there may be a real concern, uh, that some individuals would choose not to come to congress. Um, and again, not because they did anything wrong, because they had a successful private sector career. Maybe they're later in their career. Uh, and they had saved up for retirement. Uh, and they had chosen to do that, uh, through corporate stock. That's actually a reasonably common technique a lot of americans do, uh, to save for their retirement.
▶ 1:18:44Maybe they have a self-directed ira or a roth ira if they're tax advantaged kind of people. Uh, maybe they invested in a company that they like. And I love eating chipotle. Uh, I ultimately didn't buy chipotle stock for the record, because as I said, I haven't bought any stock, but boy, I ate a lot. Chipotle. I also am known to eat at some other fast food restaurants. Uh, maybe like flying on a specific airline. A lot of people buy, uh, stocks in a whole host of companies. Uh, maybe that's how they were saving for retirement.
▶ 1:19:12And then they thought, boy, you know, I got some good ideas. I'd like to get to washington and clean it up. Maybe they're on your side of the aisle. And they got a they got liberal ideas. Maybe they're on my side of the aisle. They got conservative ideas. That'd be fine. Uh, but they thought, boy, I don't know that I can go because of the, uh, the amendment offered by my colleague from texas because they take this massive, uh, tax, uh, tax hit. Um, it's one of the concerns that I would have, uh, about this bill.
▶ 1:19:37The other, uh, would be what if you, uh, we had, uh, our hearing, one of our colleagues referenced that they own a small community pool and that that colleague was talking about that and said, look, that that member, uh, if I summarized it to the best of my ability would be, look, the member owns the pool because it's really a community service, not because they're trying to make any money off the pool. Just love swimming. And there's actually a swimmer in the room, if you recall this.
▶ 1:20:05Uh, and then if you force that divestiture, what's going to happen to the pool? Probably paved over and become a parking lot. I don't know the community well enough, but sounds like condos. The the gentleman, the gentleman, uh, informs me, become condos because it probably be more valuable as condos because it sound like the pool doesn't make any money, which is actually kind of sort of a pro community kind of thing. There's a lot of people, I think actually, that that have investments.
▶ 1:20:31I know some people own, uh, restaurants and small towns, uh, not to make money, but because they want to kind of help the community have places where people can come and gather, gather at a pool, uh, in virginia. Um, and if, uh, if adopted, this may force, uh, and some smaller companies, obviously not the largest companies, but smaller companies have real negative impacts, uh, in our communities.
▶ 1:20:53Um, and again, the goal of the underlying text, uh, is not to try to make members poorer, not to try to restrict people from coming to congress is to try to prevent them from being able to profit off of insider information. The underlying text, uh, does that in accomplishes that. It provides additional restrictions, uh, to make sure that members are not profiting off of insider information that they gain while they're in congress.
▶ 1:21:15Uh, and if we go all the way back to the top when I opened, I said, uh, to everybody watching and everybody in the room, pay attention for amendments and suggestions, uh, that are part of the goldilocks rule, which is famous in this town, to try to kill a bill. It's not quite good enough that porridge is just a little too hot. The porridge is just a little too cold. Got to make this tweak to make it mine. And then, of course, somebody else.
▶ 1:21:39The porridge is too hot and the porridge is too cold, and it prevents us from reaching a resolution. In fact, I think that's in large part why we didn't see resolutions made, uh, while the democrats controlled the house, the democrats had, uh, an opportunity to bring forward legislation and chose not to, uh, under the previous speaker, um, any movement in this regard was thwarted, uh, under speaker johnson, our work on this committee has been encouraged.
▶ 1:22:08What a what a sea change that has been an opportunity to make dramatic and substantive reforms in the united states house of representatives is before us. And so I encourage my colleagues to not be distracted by goldilocks, uh, legislation and amendments that are being offered. Uh, I think there's real and substantive concerns with the amendment offered as well. Uh, and therefore, I'll be voting no, uh, and would encourage my colleagues to vote no as well. I yield back. Is there further debate?
▶ 1:22:36Is there further debate on the amendment? You you've already spoken. If somebody would like to be recognized and yield time, I will do that. I'll help. Uh, the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I would yield my time to the distinguished gentlelady from texas. >> uh. Thank you. >> thank you, ranking member morelli. You know, uh, Mr. chairman, I'd just like to respond.
▶ 1:23:00You know, I think that, um, the point the problem is with the arguments that you just made is that the bill as offered has no porridge in the bowl. I mean, you could say that there's porridge too hot, porridge too cold, but there's no porridge in the bowl based on this bill, because it doesn't do anything. It doesn't have any real teeth. There's not. There's not a meal to be had here to pick about.
▶ 1:23:24And the reality of it is when and I, I'm certainly sympathetic to that small restaurant and that small community pool, but they're not the likelihood of those entities being subject to publicly traded stocks. I don't think mel's diner on the corner of wherever, is a publicly traded restaurant such that it is being sold on the nasdaq.
▶ 1:23:45So I think what we're talking about here is divestiture of of stock holdings that are publicly traded to restore the public trust in this body and in our institutions of government.
▶ 1:24:03The reality of it is we're at a level of corruption and government of a low, the lowest public trust that people have in this body, in the executive branch, in the judicial branch with supreme court. Thomas's blatant corruption, with the corruption that's coming out of the white house, with the corruption that's coming all over, we must have act and have something that has real teeth, that has real meat on the bone.
▶ 1:24:28And what we're trying to do is improve it, you know, I can't believe it. I am supporting chip roy bill. I'm a democrat from texas and I'm, you know, I'm supporting chip roy bill, one of the most conservative members from my state, because I agree with his efforts to try to clamp down on the on the brazen corruption that is happening in this body. And, you know, I just think that at some point we have to step up.
▶ 1:25:01I hear from people all the time that can't trust congress. And like you, I encouraged huge capital gains tax on the divestiture of my assets to be, um, because I think it's the right thing to do. I think we, as members of congress need to remove the the propriety, the appearance of impropriety. We have an obligation to do that. And we are at a higher standard by virtue of our of our desire to seek this office. That's why we're here.
▶ 1:25:30So I would look really strongly encourage you to consider some of these amendments, um, in particular this one. I do think that it is incumbent upon this body to we have we have a real opportunity as this committee to do something really strong and powerful on this issue. And I would just like to encourage us to do that. So with that, I yield back. >> I yield. >> back.
▶ 1:26:01>> the gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Seeing no further amendments as the gentleman from florida. >> Mr. chairman, I withdraw my point of order. >> point of order is withdrawn. The question now occurs on the amendment from miss johnson from texas. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Nay, depending on the chair's, the nays have it, the nays have it, and the amendment is not adopted.
▶ 1:26:27The gentleman seeks recognition and is for a recorded vote. A recorded vote is been requested. All those in favor? The recorded vote. Please raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand. Recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will please call the roll. >> chairman style. >> no. >> no, miss lee, no! Miss. Leave, Mr. loudermilk. Yes, Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith. No. Doctor. Murphy. Mrs. bass. Yes, Mrs. spice? No. Mr. carey. Mr.
▶ 1:26:57Carey votes no. Mrs. miller. Mrs. miller votes no. Mr. morelli. I Mr. morelli, both high. Miss. Sewell. Miss sewell votes I Mrs. torres. Mrs. torres votes I miss Mr. Mr. johnson votes I. >> have all members voted. Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will please report the tally. >> Mr. chairman, for this vote, there are four eyes and seven noes. >> the amendment is not adopted.
▶ 1:27:28Is there a further amendment or debate? The gentleman from new york is recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. >> the gentleman from new york has amendment at the desk. Will pause while the amendment is distributed.
▶ 1:28:20>> thank you.
▶ 1:29:10Maxine dexter? Drop?
▶ 1:30:12>> the clerk will report the amendment. >> page five, beginning on line 20. Strike is. >> without objection. The amendment is considered. Read the gentleman. >> chairman, I reserve a point of order. >> the gentleman from florida reserves a point of order. The gentleman from new york is recognized on his amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I think this, uh, represents the final amendment, uh, from our side.
▶ 1:30:34Uh, and I offer it to close what I consider a massive loophole in the bill, a provision that allows the spouse or dependent of members to freely trade stocks on behalf of any other non-covered individuals.
▶ 1:30:47Specifically, on page six of the bill makes clear that the requirements, quote, shall not apply to a spouse or dependent child of a member of congress with respect to a transaction in a covered investment, which is on behalf or for the benefit of any person other than a covered individual. I said in my opening remarks, I would call this the loophole because a member's spouse could buy and sell stocks on behalf of a member's parent or grandparent, or not.
▶ 1:31:16Under this bill covered individuals. They could all do this while the member stands to inherit a grandparents or parents estate. I think many of us deal with elderly parents and the ability to have our spouse purchase on limited amounts of stock to put in the name of a grandparent who may be ailing, and which we benefit or stand to benefit in the near future.
▶ 1:31:40Uh, as a result of being someone who inherits resources in the estate is clearly, uh, this amendment would be a workaround to allow trading. Uh, or this provision, in my view, is a workaround to allow trading on member's behalf. To continue as further evidence, the bill is not a ban at all.
▶ 1:31:57Um, so I would at least in an effort to make this what I consider poorly designed and poorly considered bill somewhat better, I would urge the, uh, the adoption of this amendment, uh, ask my colleagues to join me in closing this blatant loophole. And with that, I'll yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Further debate on the amendment?
▶ 1:32:25I recognize myself for five minutes to strike the last word. Uh, appreciate, uh, the intention of my colleague on this amendment would be happy to work with my colleague if further restrictions or refinement is needed. Um, let me jump out and read the occupation occupational exception, section d, uh, under the bill that was previously offered as the the the gentleman's ans.
▶ 1:32:53And where actually this stemmed from is actually stemmed from, uh, a lot of work by members on both sides of the aisle. And so under the, the, under, under the alternative legislation that has been introduced, subsection d, occupational exception would reads as follows a spouse or dependent child or a member of congress may trade any covered investment if such covered investment is not owned by a covered individual, and if such trade is performed as a function of the primary occupation of the spouse or
▶ 1:33:24Dependent child. And so let let's step back and kind of think what the authors of that legislation, I think some of which, uh, members of this room may be co-sponsors of that bill, uh, intended in my conversations with those that drafted that, the intent was to say, okay, what if your spouse sells life insurance? They work for a life insurance company. That's a great job. They're not involved in day trading. There's not inside information. That's just literally what they do for a living.
▶ 1:33:51What if they work for a publicly traded company or spouse is in accounts payable at a big public company? What do we do? We don't want to tell people their spouse can't be employed in their career of choice. Obviously, if there's a massive conflict that that's a separate ballgame. We're talking somebody that's selling life insurance. Maybe they they work in wall street in some capacity, but not trading on their own account. Right? They're they're just working for a large bank or they're working for another company. How do we address that?
▶ 1:34:20The authors of the previous legislation, which was previously offered, uh, I believe, by my colleague, uh, earlier that subsection d created an occupational exception. And again, a spouse or dependent child or member or a member of congress may trade their language, may not not yours, but but offered by others may trade covered investment if that investment is not owned by a covered individual, meaning the member, the member spouse or their dependent children. And if such trade is performed as a function of the primary occupation of the spouse or dependent child.
▶ 1:34:50We then worked, uh, to look and say, how do we make sure we get this right again, making sure that there's a reasonable occupational exception, um, in in dialog with the original authors, uh, believing that this language that we introduced in our text, um, not only met the goal, but also, uh, the intent, um, there's been some feedback on this, uh, both, uh, by members of congress, not on this committee, as well as the
▶ 1:35:20Comments, uh, just made by my colleague. And I would I would offer to my colleague, uh, if he's interested in withdrawing the amendment, I'd be happy to work with him, uh, to finesse this language, because I think we all agree, uh, we don't want a loophole where somebody, you know, wink, wink, nod, nod trying to make a trade around the intent of the bill, uh, but also making sure, um, that a spouse who, you know, I'm just using the generic idea that somebody selling life insurance because that's a real, um, a real occupation for a lot of people, a great occupation, um,
▶ 1:35:52That they're able to continue selling life insurance. I don't think we're trying to ban people from engaging in their professions who aren't benefiting off of insider information or trading nefariously for their, their, their own benefit. If the gentleman is interested in withdrawing the amendment, I'd be interested in working with him to finesse this language, knowing that there's similar language, not word for word verbatim, but darn similar, uh, in the bill that he has. I don't know if that's, uh, something the gentleman is interested in.
▶ 1:36:19>> well, actually, I'd be happy to have you adopt the amendment, and then we could work on finessing the language. So I would, uh, I would suggest that as an alternative. Otherwise, I'd like a vote on the amendment. >> I appreciate that, because the amendment offered strikes. The full section. Um, I'm going to encourage a no vote on this between now and when this comes to the floor. Um, we've we've had a good, strong working relationship. I think in many ways we we have similar goals here. We're approaching that goal in a different manner.
▶ 1:36:46Um, but I'd be happy to, to work with my my colleague. Again, this text is in many ways built on the occupational exception, which has the same concern, I think, as I read it as is, I read the occupational exception in the bill offered. Uh, is the ans um, has the same concern that the gentleman is now bringing up on our bill, if that's a real concern, happy to work, because I think the broader intent of both both, bill, um, are similar.
▶ 1:37:14And so between now and when this bill comes to the floor, happy to to work with you or any other member of congress who has thoughtful and substantive comments, uh, in this regard, I think it's it's structured and covered. But if it's not, um, happy to make additional adjustments and finesse. We're not looking for anybody, uh, to find a way around. But we are making sure, again, the broader intent and I apologize.
▶ 1:37:39I'm going to go just a couple seconds late, but then we'll wrap the broader intent here is that individuals from an array of backgrounds, both members and in this case, most likely their spouse, who may have different types of jobs from being a farmer, uh, to somebody that works for a publicly traded company to being somebody, uh, that is doing this in their profession, but not for their own benefit, uh, that those individuals that are out there that are able to come to washington, uh, and share
▶ 1:38:09Their, their best and brightest ideas in a nonpartisan way. They may be a liberal that has these ideas that wants to come, that has this challenge. They could be a conservative that wants to come and has this challenge. I want to make sure that those individuals are in a position to still come to D.C. and then once here, let's make sure those individuals aren't able to profit off of insider information.
▶ 1:38:28And so with that, uh, uh, those comments, I'm going to recommend my colleagues vote no on the gentleman's amendment, but open to additional finesse, because I think both of the bill's, uh, if this is a real concern, I don't know that it is. Uh, but both of the bills, uh, have this, uh, language. Uh, and so with that, I will yield back. Is there further debate on the amendment? >> Mr. chairman, I withdraw my point of order. >> the gentleman from florida withdraws her point of order.
▶ 1:38:58Uh, the question is now on the amendment from the gentleman from new york. Uh, all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed? Nay, nay. Any opinion of the chair? The ayes have it, the nays have it. The amendment is not adopted. The gentleman seeks recognition for a recorded vote. A recorded vote is requested. All those in favor of recorded vote, uh, have already arisen. Their hands so voted. Recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will please call the roll. >> chairman. Style. >> no. >> chairman. Style. Votes. No.
▶ 1:39:28Miss lee. No. Miss lee. Votes no. Mr. loudermilk, Mr. lauren boebert votes no. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Doctor. Murphy. Mrs. vice. Mrs. smith. No. Mr. carey. Mr. carey votes no. Mrs. miller. Mrs. miller votes no. Mr. morelli. >> aye. >> Mr. morelli votes I, miss sewell. Sewell. Votes. Hi. Mrs. torres. Mrs. torres votes I miss johnson. I miss johnson votes I. >> have all members voted.
▶ 1:39:57Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will please report the tally. >> Mr. chairman, for this vote, there are four eyes and seven noes. >> the amendment is not adopted. Is there a further amendment or debate? Does Mr. kerry look to strike the last word? >> I do, Mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> americans tell us that there is something rotten in the state of american government. Our constituents have lost faith, have lost faith in us.
▶ 1:40:30Recent polling indicates that public opinion of congress stands at a dismal 16% approval. This loss of trust resulted in no small part from members of congress getting rich and beating the stock market.
▶ 1:40:42While our constituents face record high inflation, low growth under the previous administration, we have access to nonpublic information and write regulations on entire industries that can provide an unfair advantage in trading public stock, that in any other industry would be a flashing red warning light.
▶ 1:41:02It is easy to understand why so many americans believe that we have an easy way to manipulate the system for our own personal profit. Well, they work hard and follow the rules. We must hold ourselves to the highest standard as representatives of the greatest country in the world. This bill is a common sense fix. It promotes good governance, increases transparency, and restores trust in congress.
▶ 1:41:30And I look forward to voting for this bill and is my hope that all my colleagues who share these concerns will join us. Mr. chairman, with that, I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further amendment or debate? There being no further amendment or debate? The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying I all those opposed. No, no.
▶ 1:41:57The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. The question now occurs on ordering h.r. 7008, as amended, reported favorably to the house. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it in. The motion is agreed to a roll call vote is requested, and the clerk will please call the roll. >> chairman style. I chairman style I miss lee I, Mr.
▶ 1:42:30Loudermilk, Mr. loudermilk, Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin votes. I'm doctor murphy, Mrs. bass. Mrs. vice says hi Mr. kerry. Mr. kerry votes I miss miller. Mrs. miller votes I Mr. rowley. No. Molly votes no. Miss sewell. No votes no. Mrs. torres. Torres. Votes no. Miss. Johnson. No. Miss johnson votes no. >> have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will please report the tally.
▶ 1:43:00>> Mr. chairman, for this vote, there are seven eyes and four noes. >> the amendment is passed the h.r. 7008 as amended, is adopted. A majority having voted in favor of h.r. 7008, as amended. The bill is ordered favorably reported to the house. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. This concludes the order of business for today's markup.
▶ 1:43:29Without objection, pursuant to house rule xxi, clause two, l committee members can file with the clerk of the committee supplemental, additional, minority, and dissenting views on each of the items marked up today. Also without objection, the staff is authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes if there's no further business. I want to thank the members for their participation. Without objection, the committee on house administration stands adjourned.