    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         TAKING STOCK OF THE STOCK ACT
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 19, 2025

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 www.govinfo.gov
                               www.cha.house.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-940                  WASHINGTON : 2026

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                        BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

    LAUREL LEE, Florida, Vice Chair      JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia                 Ranking Member
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
    GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          NORMA TORRES, California
    STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
    MARY MILLER, Illinois
    MIKE CAREY, Ohio

                          Mike Platt,  Staff Director
                     Jamie Fleet,  Minority Staff Director

                            C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               Opening Statements

    Chairman Bryan Steil, Representative from the State of Wisconsin.     1
        Prepared statement of Chairman Bryan Steil...................     2
    Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of
      New York.......................................................     3
        Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle..........     5

                                   Witnesses

    James R. Copland, Senior Fellow and Director of Legal Policy,
      Manhattan Institute............................................     6
        Prepared statement of James R. Copland.......................     8
    Dan Savickas, Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs,
      Taxpayers Protection Alliance..................................    17
        Prepared statement of Dan Savickas...........................    19
    Jacob Straus, Specialist on the Congress, Congressional Research
      Service........................................................    21
        Prepared statement of Jacob Straus...........................    23

                           Submissions for the Record

    Congressional Research Service report............................    50
    November 17, 2025 article........................................    78
    Letter to Committee on House Administration......................    81
    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government in
      Washington letter..............................................    83
    Democracy Defenders Action statement.............................    87
    Washington Examiner article......................................    99
    Representative Mark Alford testimony.............................   111

                            Questions for the Record

    Jacob Straus answers to submitted questions......................   114

                         TAKING STOCK OF THE STOCK ACT

                                  ----------

                               November 19, 2025

                     Committee on House Administration,
                                      House of Representatives,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
    room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Steil, Griffith, Murphy, Bice,
    Carey, Lee, Miller, Morelle, Sewell, Torres, and Johnson.
        Staff present: Mike Platt, Staff Director; Rachel Collins,
    General Counsel; Abby Salter, Deputy General Counsel; Jordan
    Wilson, Director of Member Services; Kristen Monterroso,
    Director of Operations; Annemarie Cake, Professional Staff and
    Deputy Clerk; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Khalil
    Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Matt Schlesinger,
    Minority Senior Counsel; Nikolas Youngsmith, Minority Elections
    Counsel; Sarah Nasta, Minority Elections Counsel; and Owen
    Reilly, Minority Professional Staff.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE
     COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                               WISCONSIN

        Chairman Steil. The Committee on House Administration will
    come to order.
        The title of today's hearing is ``Taking stock of the STOCK
    Act.''
        I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the
    chair may declare a recess at any time.
        Also, without objection, the hearing record will remain
    open for 5 legislative days so Members may submit any materials
    they wish to be included therein.
        Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle, Members of the
    Committee, and our witnesses, for participating in today's
    hearing.
        Today, the Committee on House Administration continues our
    oversight over the legislative branch.
        And let me be clear from the outset: Trading stock on
    insider information is a serious crime and must be prosecuted
    to the fullest extent of the law. As Chairman of the Committee
    on House Administration, I believe it is critical that we
    ensure lawmakers, regardless of party, regardless of seniority,
    are not profiting from insider information they learn while
    working on Capitol Hill.
        In recent years, social media accounts have generated
    significant media attention for aggregating the stock trades of
    Members of Congress. Understandably, it has fueled public
    concern that lawmakers may be using their positions of
    authority to personally benefit themselves.
        While rules already govern how public officials trade
    stocks, stronger restrictions may be necessary to restore
    public trust and ensure officials are not profiting from their
    positions.
        In today's hearing, we will look at the issue of
    congressional stock trading at large, including current rules,
    and evaluate proposed reforms.
        The current statute governing congressional stock trading,
    the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, or the STOCK Act,
    was passed over a decade ago in 2012 with bipartisan support.
        Under the STOCK Act, Members of Congress, executive branch
    officials, and other Federal employees are prohibited from
    using non-public information for their own financial benefit.
    It also requires disclosure of stock trades exceeding $1,000
    within 45 days of the transaction.
        Many Americans have been critical of the STOCK Act for not
    requiring sufficient transparency. For example, the current
    financial disclosures and periodic transaction report
    requirements are not filed in exact amounts. Because of this,
    you cannot determine a lawmaker's actual realized profit or
    loss on a specific trade.
        Some potential reforms include updating the STOCK Act
    reporting and enforcement requirements, requiring advance
    disclosures, and outright banning of individual ownership of
    individual stocks.
        I want to thank a number of our colleagues for proposing
    various reforms to address this issue. Chip Roy, Seth
    Magaziner, Brian Fitzpatrick, Tim Burchett, Mark Alford, and
    Representative Anna Paulina Luna all come to mind. They have
    introduced or cosponsored pieces of legislation to strengthen
    the STOCK Act.
        The bills propose different reforms, but the prevailing
    theme is significantly restricting or outright banning Members'
    spouses or their dependent children from owning or trading
    stocks or other securities.
        I believe we have an opportunity here to make meaningful
    reforms and restore the public's trust. The American people
    should be confident that lawmakers are working for them, not
    seeking office to financially benefit themselves.
        I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. I think
    we have a great opportunity.
        Again, I am going to state my goal. My goal is, I think,
    pretty simple: to ensure that no lawmaker is profiting off of
    insider information while serving in the U.S. Congress.
        With that, I will yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle,
    for his opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]

       PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                       ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL

        Today, the Committee on House Administration continues its
    oversight of the legislative branch. Let me be clear from the
    outset: trading stocks on insider information is a serious
    crime, and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
    As Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, I believe
    it is critical that we ensure no lawmaker, regardless of party
    or seniority, is profiting from insider information.
        In recent years, social media accounts have generated
    significant media attention for aggregating the stock trades of
    Members of Congress. Understandably, this has fueled public
    concern that lawmakers may be using their positions of
    authority to personally benefit themselves. While rules already
    govern how public officials trade stocks, stronger restrictions
    may be necessary to restore public trust and ensure officials
    are not profiting from their positions.
        In today's hearing, we will look at the issue of
    congressional stock trading at large, including current rules,
    and evaluate proposed reforms. The current statute governing
    congressional stock trading, the Stop Trading on Congressional
    Knowledge, or STOCK Act, was passed over a decade ago in 2012
    with bipartisan support.
        Under the STOCK Act, Members of Congress, executive branch
    officials, and other Federal employees are prohibited from
    using non-public information for their own financial benefit.
    It also requires the disclosure of stock trades exceeding
    $1,000 within 45 days of the transaction. The American people
    have been critical of the STOCK Act for not requiring
    sufficient transparency. For example, the current financial
    disclosure and periodic transaction report requirements are not
    exact amounts. Because of this, you cannot determine a
    lawmaker's actual realized profit or loss on a specific trade.
    Some potential reforms include updating the STOCK Act's
    reporting and enforcement requirements, requiring advanced
    disclosures, and outright banning the ownership of individual
    stocks. I want to thank a number of our colleagues for
    proposing various reforms to address this issue.
        Representatives Chip Roy, Seth Magaziner, Brian
    Fitzpatrick, Tim Burchett, Mark Alford, along with many others,
    including Representative Luna who is with us today, have all
    introduced or cosponsored pieces of legislation to strengthen
    the STOCK Act. The bills propose different reforms, but the
    prevailing theme is significantly restricting or outright
    banning Members, spouses, and their dependent children from
    owning or trading stocks or other securities. I believe we have
    an opportunity here to make meaningful reforms and restore the
    public's trust.
        The American people should be confident that lawmakers are
    working for them--not seeking office to financially benefit
    themselves. I will state again: my goal is to ensure no
    lawmaker is profiting from insider information.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
     COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                                NEW YORK

        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my good friend, for
    calling this important hearing.
        And thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us
    today.
        Let me say at the outset, I unequivocally support a ban on
    Members of Congress trading individual stocks, and that ban
    should extend to the co-equal branches of Government as well.
    The oath we take as Members swears fidelity to the Constitution
    and the rule of law over personal gain or financial benefit.
        The Founding Fathers recognized the danger of self-
    enrichment by those in power. Sick of the unchecked corruption
    that was a feature of the monarchies of the time, James Madison
    warned against the bias in judgment that can cause the pursuit
    of personal gain to supersede that of the common good.
        In this moment, confidence in our Government is abysmally
    low. Fostering public trust in our institutions is the absolute
    bedrock of the American experiment. It is what gives our
    Government legitimacy. That trust must be earned and kept by
    holding ourselves to the highest standard of conduct possible.
    Even the mere appearance of impropriety is unacceptable and
    cannot be tolerated.
        For years, my dear friend and predecessor, Representative
    Louise Slaughter, worked tirelessly on the Stop Trading on
    Congressional Knowledge Act referenced by my friend, the chair.
    The STOCK Act was signed into law 13 years ago, and though it
    enacted much-needed reforms to enhance disclosure requirements
    and explicitly prohibit insider trading by Government
    officials, there is much, much more to do.
        And my good friend Louise would be astonished at the
    corruption happening today. Regrettable, those reforms are now
    just Band-Aids to a gaping, festering wound. We must find a
    cure to this ailment. The American people are demanding as
    much, and many of my colleagues agree. Look no further than the
    panoply of bills introduced this Congress alone for evidence of
    that.
        I want to commend those of our colleagues who, in a
    bicameral and bipartisan fashion, have put an extraordinary
    amount of thought and work into the varied legislative
    proposals designed to combat this scourge.
        We need a thoughtful approach to this problem, one that is
    comprehensive, effective, and, most importantly, enforceable.
        Americans are struggling with an already high cost of
    living that is rising each day. Everyday Americans are forced
    to pay the costs of the corruption in our Government. They are
    being forced into the barbaric choice of paying their rent or
    their health insurance premiums, to decide whether to put food
    on the table or gas in their cars to get to work. Every day,
    they are paying more and getting less.
        It is obscene that any Member would take the votes of those
    very people to get to Washington and, once here, use the power
    of their office not to represent their constituents' interests
    but to get rich--or, worse, to vote for a bill that would deny
    desperately needed relief for suffering people, then turn
    around and sell a stock that would be devalued by that vote,
    which is exactly what we saw happen after Republicans jammed
    through draconian cuts to Medicaid earlier this year.
        All over Washington, from the White House to the Supreme
    Court, corruption and self-dealing are a persistent problem.
        Later today, Chairman Steil and I will lead an effort to
    strip from the recent funding bill a provision that would have
    allowed a select group of Senators to exact from the Department
    of Justice millions of dollars because they were reasonable
    persons of interest in a legitimate investigation by the
    Justice Department.
        The executive and judicial branches are certainly not
    immune to it. Internal codes of conduct that are, at best, mere
    suggestions and, at worst, blatantly ignored are not enough.
    Any policy solution should seek to address the outrageous
    behavior we are seeing at the Supreme Court and in the
    executive branch.
        It has been 1,322 days since this Committee looked at this
    topic. Since then, new opportunities for pernicious behavior
    have emerged, such as pump-and-dump schemes for unregulated
    meme coins and cryptocurrencies endorsed by Federal officials
    that get them rich and leave others holding the bag, shady
    foreign real estate deals that happen far outside of the
    watchful eyes of this Congress, and incomprehensibly lavish
    trips and gifts in exchange for favorable and lucrative
    decisions.
        The list grows by the day, as the enforcement of existing
    laws and the fundamental principle of checks and balances is
    eroded.
        If the legitimacy of our representative Government dies on
    our watch, we will have only ourselves to blame. I do hope
    today's proceedings bring to bear the changes our Government
    needs, that our constituents so desperately want, and, frankly,
    that we owe to them.
        I want to again thank the chair and thank my colleagues and
    certainly thank the witnesses for being here, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]

    PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                     ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE

        The Founding Fathers recognized the danger of self
    enrichment by those in power. Sick of the unchecked corruption
    that was a feature of the monarchies of the time, James Madison
    warned against the bias in judgment that can cause the pursuit
    of personal gain to supersede that of the common good.
        In this moment, confidence in our Government is abysmally
    low. Fostering public trust in our institutions is the absolute
    bedrock of the American experiment. It is what gives our
    Government legitimacy. That trust must be earned and kept by
    holding ourselves to the highest standard of conduct possible.
    Even the mere appearance of impropriety is unacceptable and
    cannot be tolerated.
        For years, my dear friend and predecessor, Representative
    Louise Slaughter, worked tirelessly on the Stop Trading on
    Congressional Knowledge Act referenced by my friend, the chair.
    The STOCK Act was signed into law 13 years ago, and though it
    enacted much needed reforms to enhance disclosure requirements
    and explicitly prohibit insider trading by Government
    officials, there is much, much more to do. And my good friend
    Louise would be astonished at the corruption happening today.
    Regrettable, those reforms are now just Band Aids to a gaping,
    festering wound. We must find a cure to this ailment. The
    American people are demanding as much, and many of my
    colleagues agree. Look no further than the panoply of bills
    introduced this Congress alone for evidence of that.
        I want to commend those of our colleagues who, in a
    bicameral and bipartisan fashion, have put an extraordinary
    amount of thought and work into the varied legislative
    proposals designed to combat this scourge. We need a thoughtful
    approach to this problem, one that is comprehensive, effective,
    and, most importantly, enforceable.
        Americans are struggling with an already high cost of
    living that is rising each day. Everyday Americans are forced
    to pay the costs of the corruption in our Government. They are
    being forced into the barbaric choice of paying their rent or
    their health insurance premiums, to decide whether to put food
    on the table or gas in their cars to get to work. Every day,
    they are paying more and getting less.
        It is obscene that any Member would take the votes of those
    very people to get to Washington and, once here, use the power
    of their office not to represent their constituents' interests
    but to get rich or, worse, to vote for a bill that would deny
    desperately needed relief for suffering people, then turn
    around and sell a stock that would be devalued by that vote,
    which is exactly what we saw happen after Republicans jammed
    through draconian cuts to Medicaid earlier this year. All over
    Washington, from the White House to the Supreme Court,
    corruption and self-dealing are a persistent problem.
        Later today, Chairman Steil and I will lead an effort to
    strip from the recent funding bill a provision that would have
    allowed a select group of Senators to exact from the Department
    of Justice millions of dollars because they were reasonable
    persons of interest in a legitimate investigation by the
    Justice Department.
        The executive and judicial branches are certainly not
    immune to it. Internal codes of conduct that are, at best, mere
    suggestions and, at worst, blatantly ignored are not enough.
    Any policy solution should seek to address the outrageous
    behavior we are seeing at the Supreme Court and in the
    executive branch.
        It has been 1,322 days since this Committee looked at this
    topic. Since then, new opportunities for pernicious behavior
    have emerged, such as pump and dump schemes for unregulated
    meme coins and cryptocurrencies endorsed by Federal officials
    that get them rich and leave others holding the bag, shady
    foreign real estate deals that happen far outside of the
    watchful eyes of this Congress, and incomprehensibly lavish
    trips and gifts in exchange for favorable and lucrative
    decisions.
        The list grows by the day, as the enforcement of existing
    laws and the fundamental principle of checks and balances is
    eroded. If the legitimacy of our representative Government dies
    on our watch, we will have only ourselves to blame. I do hope
    today's proceedings bring to bear the changes our Government
    needs, that our constituents so desperately want, and, frankly,
    that we owe to them.

        Chairman Steil. I thank my colleague.
        Without objection, all other Members' opening statements
    will be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted
    to the Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today.
        We will now turn to our witness testimony, and we have
    three great witnesses with us today.
        First, we have Jim Copland. Mr. Copland is the senior
    fellow and director of legal policy at the Manhattan Institute.
        Next, we have Dan Savickas. Mr. Savickas is the vice
    president of policy and government affairs at the Taxpayer
    Alliance.
        Finally, we have Jacob Straus. Mr. Straus is a specialist
    with the Congressional Research Service.
        Mr. Copland, we will begin with you. You are now recognized
    for 5 minutes to provide an opening statement.

     STATEMENTS OF JAMES R. COPLAND, SENIOR FELLOW AND DIRECTOR OF
    LEGAL POLICY, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE; DAN SAVICKAS, VICE PRESIDENT
        OF POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, TAXPAYERS PROTECTION
        ALLIANCE; AND JACOB STRAUS, SPECIALIST ON THE CONGRESS,
                     CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

                     STATEMENT OF JAMES R. COPLAND

        Mr. Copland. Thank you, Chairman Steil, Ranking Member
    Morelle, Members of the Committee. I want to thank all of you
    for the opportunity to testify today.
        My name is James R. Copland, and since 2003 I have been
    affiliated with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research in
    New York, a non-profit public policy think tank, where I have
    long been a senior fellow and directed the institute's legal
    policy research.
        Although my comments draw upon such research conducted for
    my employer, my statement before the Committee is solely my
    own.
        Insider trading occurs when someone trades a security using
    material, non-public information in violation of a duty of
    trust or confidence. Over time, Federal insider-trading law has
    moved from a concept of equal access to information to one
    based on fiduciary breach and later misappropriation, which
    extends to outsiders using confidential information for
    personal gain.
        Historically, neither of these fiduciary breach nor
    misappropriation theories, as traditionally understood, would
    necessarily have covered all Government information, which is
    why this body in 2012 enacted the Stop Trading on Congressional
    Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act, which is the subject of this
    hearing. That Act explicitly clarified that Members of Congress
    are not exempt from Federal insider-trading law.
        The Act also clarified that Members of Congress and certain
    other Government officials or employees trading securities or
    certain other financial instruments based on non-public
    information gained from their official duties could constitute
    an insider-trading violation.
        The Act also heightened financial disclosure requirements
    for Members of Congress and senior staffers, requiring
    disclosure of any purchase or sale of securities worth over
    $1,000 within 45 days of the transaction.
        As I outline in more detail in my written testimony,
    substantial evidence may suggest that Congress may not have
    been adequately self-policing under the STOCK Act, though I
    want to emphasize that this is mostly due to a lack of
    evidence, which is not in itself dispositive evidence. Despite
    allegations of improper conduct, no Member of Congress has ever
    been prosecuted under the Act, nor do any public records exist
    indicating whether officials have ever paid statutory fines for
    STOCK Act disclosure errors.
        Multiple legislative proposals have been introduced here in
    the 119th Congress that aim to go beyond the STOCK Act and/or
    to further restrict Members of Congress from owning or trading
    securities. I go into each of these in some detail in my
    written testimony.
        At this time, I would just like to emphasize the important
    questions which arise in addressing these various vehicles of
    reform, each of which I discuss in more depth in my written
    submission.
        Should Members of Congress be permitted to own or trade in
    any individual securities or other investment vehicles for
    which specialized knowledge gained from Members' public
    positions might create at least an appearance of insider-type
    benefits?
        I want to emphasize that neither lawyers nor other
    fiduciaries nor corporate insiders are expected to have no
    ownership whatsoever in the securities of corporations to which
    they owe duties. Congress may be a special case. Ownership of
    specific corporations' securities or non-diverse funds may
    create an appearance of impropriety, even if Members are not
    profiting from buy or sell decisions based on insider
    information, because said securities ownership might be thought
    to bias Members' voting decisions and other legislative
    activity in favor of personal benefit rather than the public
    interest.
        Is direct ownership enough to trigger concerns even if a
    Member exercises no control over securities purchases or sales?
    I.e., are blind trusts OK?
        What ownership should be excluded from blanket
    prohibitions? I.e., are there exemptions from the types of
    investments that we may not want to be covered in blanket
    prohibitions.
        What individuals should fall under the blanket
    prohibitions? How do we treat spouses, dependent children, and
    others? Do they get the same treatment?
        What tax treatment should be available or required for
    Members forced to divest from certain securities according to
    new conflict-of-interest prohibitions?
        Really, what enforcement mechanisms should exist? Is self-
    policing from this body enough, or do we want the Department of
    Justice involved or some other mechanism?
        I explore most of these questions in more detail in my
    written testimony, and I am happy to explore each in more depth
    here today. I encourage Members to ask questions, which I will
    endeavor to answer to the best of my ability, and I am more
    than willing, of course, to follow up later with Members and
    staff.
        Thank you again for your time and your invitation.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Copland follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Copland.
        Mr. Savickas, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF DAN SAVICKAS

        Mr. Savickas. Thank you.
        Chair Steil, Ranking Member Morelle, Vice Chair Lee, and
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today regarding efforts to address stock trading by
    Members of Congress.
        My name is Dan Savickas. I am vice president of policy and
    government affairs at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, or
    TPA. TPA is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated
    to educating the public about the Government's effects on the
    economy, and TPA seeks to hold elected officials accountable
    for their effects on the size, scope, efficiency, and activity
    of Government.
        As our mission statement suggests, TPA believes Members of
    Congress have a unique ability to impact the performance of the
    American economy and the global stock market. As such, they are
    uniquely situated to enrich themselves by voting in accordance
    with their stock portfolio's interests as opposed to what may
    be in the best interests of the American people. Alternatively,
    they have the ability to trade based off of non-public
    information in a way that would land ordinary private citizens
    in legal hot water.
        Naturally, this has bred mistrust amongst the American
    public, which threatens to be destructive. According to the
    Campaign Legal Center, 86 percent of Americans support
    prohibiting Members of Congress from trading stocks altogether.
        Further, apps like Autopilot allow users to mirror the
    trading habits of certain Members of Congress, building the
    perception that Members are at a distinct advantage compared to
    everyone else.
        This is backed up by some data. According to a 2024 report
    on data that is available, 46 Members of Congress amongst those
    who trade outperformed the S&P 500 last year. Fourteen of those
    more than doubled that baseline.
        Per a New York Times investigation, 3,700 trades between
    2019 and 2021 posed a potential conflict of interest based on
    the Members who made trades and given issues before their
    Committees of jurisdiction.
        A Harvard study this year showed more than 50 Members made
    over 2,000 trades earlier this year involving roughly 700
    companies impacted by the administration's recent tariffs.
        This is not limited to one political party or another. On
    average, Members of both political parties outperformed the
    market.
        Additionally, each party's performance gets a boost when
    they control more branches of Government. This only lends
    further credence to the public perception that congressional
    representatives are using their office for personal gain rather
    than public service.
        The 2012 passage of the STOCK Act was meant to ameliorate
    some of these concerns. However, the framework has proved
    sorely lacking. The penalty for a violation is a nominal $200,
    hardly a useful deterrent given some of the sums available.
        Further, enforcement is left to the discretion of the
    executive branch, which, at best, means enforcement is
    inconsistent and subjective and, at worst, it can be
    potentially used as a tool for future political retribution
    rather than real accountability across the board.
        More sweeping prohibitions and divestiture proposals
    eliminate some of the ambiguities left by the STOCK Act. The
    STOCK Act does not prevent conflicted trading by Members of
    Congress but merely requires them to report when and if they do
    so. Even then, many Members report after the mandated time
    periods, with little to no repercussions thus far, and the
    American people are left with almost no recourse.
        This is why TPA has supported a number of efforts to
    implement more sweeping proposals on congressional stock
    trading. TPA has gone on to endorse specific bills like the
    Restore Trust in Congress Act, as introduced by Representative
    Chip Roy and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers this year.
        As an organization dedicated to providing accountability
    for elected officials, TPA looks forward to working with this
    Committee to help secure reforms and provide said
    accountability where previous efforts, like the STOCK Act,
    though admirable, have fallen short.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony
    today, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Savickas follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. Thank you, Mr. Savickas.
        Mr. Straus, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF JACOB STRAUS

        Mr. Straus. Chairman Steil, Ranking Member Morelle, and
    Members of the Committee, on behalf of the Congressional
    Research Service, thank you for the opportunity to appear
    today.
        My testimony focuses on two main areas: current financial
    disclosure and periodic transaction reporting requirements; and
    legislative proposals introduced during the 119th Congress to
    restrict certain financial activities by Members of Congress
    and other covered individuals.
        Federal Government officials, including Members of
    Congress, are expected to place loyalty to the Constitution,
    law, and ethical principles above private gain when taking
    official action. Using this guiding principle, the Ethics in
    Government Act requires covered officials, including Members of
    Congress, to file annual financial disclosure statements.
        Further, the STOCK Act requires those same officials to
    report financial transactions that exceed $1,000 within 45 days
    of the transaction and affirms that Members of Congress,
    congressional employees, and other Federal officials are not
    exempt from insider-trading laws.
        Neither current law nor House or Senate rules prohibit
    Members of the House of Representatives or Senate from owning
    or trading specific assets. Members of Congress are also not
    required to divest of assets or holdings upon taking office.
        For most House and Senate staff, with the exception of
    certain Senate Committee staff, there are also no specific
    restrictions.
        In recent years, dozens of bills and resolutions, including
    at least 25 in the 119th Congress, have been introduced to
    limit Members of Congress's financial activities. Broadly,
    these measures propose to amend the Ethics in Government Act,
    to create new law or to amend House rules in order to prohibit
    the ownership of or transactions involving certain assets,
    require divestment, and amend or create penalties for
    noncompliance.
        With regard to the legislative proposals before Congress,
    four points are particularly pertinent.
        First, each of the legislative proposals would apply to
    House Members, with most extending proposed limitations to
    Members' spouses and dependents. A lesser number would include
    other family members. One proposal would also apply to
    congressional officers and staff.
        Second, each bill includes a list of covered assets to
    which its requirements would apply, and most also include a
    list of excluded assets. Covered assets commonly include items
    such as securities, security futures, and commodities, while
    commonly excluded assets include items such as widely held
    investments like diversified mutual funds and U.S. Treasury
    bills, notes, and bonds. Covered and excluded assets are
    discussed in more detail in my written testimony.
        Third, a number of bills would allow or require a Member of
    Congress to place covered assets in a qualified blind trust, or
    QBT. Some bills would exempt QBTs as a covered asset, and
    others would prohibit the use of a QBT. Qualified blind trusts
    are specific instruments designed in the Ethics in Government
    Act that may be used to remediate real or perceived financial
    conflicts of interest with permission of an employee's
    supervising ethics office, which is the House Ethics Committee
    for the House of Representatives.
        Fourth, some legislative proposals would create or change
    available penalties for noncompliance. Within these proposals,
    two basic penalty strategies are suggested: fining individuals
    for noncompliance and/or publishing the names of individuals
    who are found in violation of disclosure or divestment
    requirements on a public web page.
        In closing, these legislative proposals include a range of
    options to limit or prohibit certain financial activities.
    Policymakers may wish to consider, among other issues, the
    scope of the proposals, the proposed benefits of a particular
    action, any potential administrative adjustments that might be
    necessary to implement a modification to ethics laws, along
    with the potential costs to comply with the proposed laws. My
    written testimony raises particular questions that might be
    considered.
        Each of these options likely has advantages and
    disadvantages should Congress choose to implement a particular
    measure as introduced or incorporate various concepts into
    another measure. Additionally, Congress might decide that
    requirements under current law are sufficient.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Straus follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. Thank you, Mr. Straus.
        I thank all of our witnesses for being here today.
        I will begin questions, and then followed by the Ranking
    Member.
        I want to start today with the clear statement that no
    Member of Congress should be utilizing inside information for
    personal profit.
        Mr. Savickas and Mr. Copland, do you both agree that we
    should, at a minimum, update the STOCK Act, yes?
        Mr. Copland. Yes, certainly to that effect.
        Chairman Steil. Mr. Savickas?
        Mr. Savickas. Yes.
        Chairman Steil. OK.
        Then I think one of the questions is, what can we do to
    accomplish the ultimate goal at making sure that Members of
    Congress are not profiting from inside information?
        I sometimes go back and think about the situation that
    occurred here 5 years ago. On February 13, 2020, as we were
    heading into the COVID pandemic, the chair of the Senate
    Intelligence Committee called his stockbroker and sold all but
    one equity in his entire portfolio, for a tune of $1.6 million.
        If you are the chair of the Intelligence Committee, almost
    by definition, you have information that is not available to
    the public. At an absolute minimum, that is an appearance of
    impropriety.
        The SEC and others looked into this, and their challenge,
    of course, is, can you prove this beyond a reasonable doubt,
    which is the standard for prosecution under insider trading?
        Then we have to look and explore what reforms need to be
    made to make sure that this type of action does not happen
    again.
        Mr. Copland, in your testimony, you stated that no Member
    of Congress has ever been prosecuted under the STOCK Act. We
    just talked about the instance that took place in the Senate.
    Why do you think that is the case, that no prosecutions have
    come under the STOCK Act?
        Mr. Copland. Partly for the burden of proof you talked
    about. I mean, reasonable doubt is relatively high. You have to
    have a scienter requirement or a knowledge requirement.
        Also, you know, the way the STOCK Act is structured is, it
    is a self-policing--in other words, you have your own House and
    Senate Committees in charge of this. Now, there may be good
    reasons for that. You know, conflict among the branches is
    something you have to worry about. You have to worry about, you
    know, an executive branch run by one party going after the
    Members or Senators of another party and things like----
        Chairman Steil. We have seen that plenty of times.
        Mr. Copland [continuing]. that.
        You know, that is my hypothesis. You know, I would not
    infer from the lack of prosecutions that nothing bad has
    happened, right?
        Chairman Steil. I would completely agree with you, that
    from the lack of prosecutions, it is not because nothing bad
    has happened; it is because the standard for insider trading is
    incredibly high to prove. It happens on occasion. There are
    Members that have been charged and convicted of insider
    trading. Under the STOCK Act, we are looking for Congress to
    police itself without the traditional apparatus of a judicial
    process.
        I want to dive in a little bit into some of the proposals
    that came before us. The Restore Trust in Congress Act is one
    of the bills that have come before us. In that, it picks up
    things other than just stocks; it picks up commodities and
    other items.
        I talked to a couple friends of mine who own farms and
    said, ``If you were to become a Member of Congress, how would
    this impact you? Could you operate your family farm with no
    trading of commodities whatsoever?'' Let us say you raise
    soybeans, you grow corn.
        We want to have people that represent a wide array of
    backgrounds, whether that is a business background, a military
    service background, a farming background.
        Is that something--how should we think about that, Mr.
    Copland?
        Mr. Copland. Yes, I think it is really important to think
    about the panoply of things that may be over-included and
    create some pretty obvious safe harbors so that we would not
    exclude people that we would want to be able to serve in this
    body.
        Agriculture is a good example of that. The commodities
    business is complex and needs to be thought about.
        There are other bills in front of the Committee, or in
    front of the House, that talk about other situations where you
    may have illiquid assets that are hard to divest of quickly,
    things like venture capital, private equity.
        You know, we do not want to create a prophylactic rule that
    would exclude people who are successful from this body.
        Chairman Steil. Yes.
        Mr. Copland. I mean, from John Hancock to George
    Washington, from the very beginning of this country, we have
    had very wealthy people that have----
        Chairman Steil. We are benefited from----
        Mr. Copland [continuing]. served in public service. Yes.
        Chairman Steil [continuing]. the array of backgrounds that
    Members bring to this institution.
        Mr. Savickas, just taking that one example, do you think
    that that would cause a challenge for somebody who has a family
    farm?
        Mr. Savickas. As far as I am aware, the Restore Trust in
    Congress Act has limited family exceptions for occupational-
    related investments, I think, to address the problem that you
    addressed here. I think----
        Chairman Steil. Some nuance and some regulations to say, if
    you have nothing to do with farming, you shouldn't be trading
    in cattle futures, but maybe if you have a giant cattle ranch,
    it may make sense in some regard.
        As we think about profit, is pre-disclosure something you
    have thought about, Mr. Copland, on a way to remove the
    financial incentive of an individual?
        Mr. Copland. I think pre-disclosure is something that we
    ought to consider. I mean, again, there may be exceptions. If
    someone has a large stake in a large enterprise and, you know,
    they are going to necessarily have to disclose in many cases
    already, but pre-disclosure could actually create trading
    opportunities in the market and things like that, if you have
    someone very wealthy. For the vast majority of Members----
        Chairman Steil. It would have flushed out----
        Mr. Copland [continuing]. it would not be an issue.
        Chairman Steil [continuing]. the case in the Senate, right?
    You would have had somebody, instead of calling their broker
    and nobody finding out for 45 days under the STOCK Act, if you
    had to make a notification you were going to sell a share in a
    month from now, the entire American public would be privy to
    that action.
        Mr. Copland. In the ordinary case----
        Chairman Steil. Cognizant of the time, I am going to
    reclaim the time and yield back.
        I will recognize the Ranking Member for his 5 minutes.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
        This Committee really needs to invest in microphones. It
    has turned on and off.
        Anyway, thank you again----
        Mr. Griffith.
        [Off-mike.]
        Mr. Morelle. I do thank, again, the witnesses for their
    testimony, both written and oral testimony.
        Mr. Savickas, thank you. I agree with a lot of things that
    you said in your testimony, as I did with the other witnesses.
    I think you are right when you point out that the elected
    officials' ability to trade based off of non-public information
    has eroded public trust.
        You point out, rightly I think, that the Members of
    Congress have a unique ability to affect, in your words, the
    performance of the American economy and the global stock
    market.
        Would you agree that the President of the United States has
    an even greater ability to affect the American economy and the
    global stock market?
        Mr. Savickas. I would agree it is at least on par. I would
    not compare the co-equal branches, as you mentioned in your
    opening statement. I think they are on the same level.
        Mr. Morelle. Yes. Well, that is interesting. I am not sure
    that most people would think that the President of the United
    States is on equal par with any single rank-and-file Member of
    Congress, but if that is your testimony.
        Mr. Savickas. Sure. I should have clarified. I think as--
    Congress as a whole.
        Mr. Morelle. Gotcha. Gotcha.
        I would take it, your analysis that elected officials'
    ability to enrich themselves according to the interests of
    their stock portfolio as opposed to what may be in the best
    interests of the American people, that risk would extend to the
    President as well?
        Mr. Savickas. I would agree.
        Mr. Morelle. Gotcha.
        I have an article here, which I do want to ask in just a
    moment for it to be included with unanimous consent, but--
    ``[The President] Invests in Media Merger His Administration
    Controls.''
        It reported that, on September 19th, just 2 months ago, the
    President bought up to $1 million in Warner Brothers Discovery
    bonds, giving him a personal financial interest in the company.
        Several media outlets, including the New York Post, which I
    would argue is a pretty conservative publication--report that
    the President has privately signaled his strong support of
    Paramount's bid to buy Warner Brothers Discovery, a merger
    that, if successful, would increase the price of the Warner
    Brothers bonds and result in a significant profit for the
    President.
        This is on the back of other corporate bond purchases made
    by the President, including Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Boeing,
    and UnitedHealth, during his Presidency.
        Mr. Savickas, it is clear the President has a unique
    ability to affect the U.S. and global economy and he has the
    power to influence these companies' bottom lines.
        Would you say that the American people could view actions
    like the President's--or any other person who was President,
    not this specific one, who took those--as a significant
    conflict of interest?
        Mr. Savickas. I would agree.
        Mr. Morelle. Yes.
        I do want to--Americans have this perception that
    Washington is completely saturated with corruption. Based on
    reporting like this, it is kind of hard to blame them.
        Why should the President get to enrich him or herself to
    rig the rules of the game while everyday Americans are
    struggling with the cost of living, with surging inflation,
    rising costs? I mean, is that not something we should be
    equally concerned about as we are with Members of Congress?
        Mr. Savickas. Representative, I think anyone should be
    concerned. The term ``public servant'' is bandied about a lot
    in this town, but those words actually mean something. I think
    executive branch, legislative branch, the American public
    should be confident that their elected officials are there to
    serve them, not themselves.
        Mr. Morelle. Very good. Thank you.
        Mr. Straus, first of all, thanks as well. I did read your
    testimony with great interest, both that and the recent CRS
    report that analyzed recently introduced legislation, some of
    which is in your testimony.
        I have said this clearly; I support the Members of Congress
    having a ban on trading individual stocks. I also, it is clear
    from my questioning, think that ought to be extended to the
    executive and judicial branches.
        Can I ask you, are there bills that have been introduced or
    faced Committee consideration in either the House or Senate
    that would extend a prohibition on security ownership or
    trading to any branch of Government beyond the legislative
    branch?
        Mr. Straus. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
        As you know, there are currently 25 introduced measures.
    Four of them would amend House rules, so they discuss a
    prohibition only for House Members. At least eight other
    measures would include executive branch officials.
        Mr. Morelle. Gotcha.
        Of the various legislative proposals introduced this
    Congress, do they all consider the same list of financial
    instruments, or is there a variation among the various bills?
        Mr. Straus. There are common types of assets that are
    included in many of the proposals both as covered and excluded
    assets, as I testified to before. A full list of those can be
    found in the report. There are common assets in both categories
    among all the proposals.
        Mr. Morelle. If I might, how many of the bills include
    cryptocurrencies or other digital assets? Do you know?
        Mr. Straus. Yes. At least 10 of those measures covered in
    the CRS report and the testimony include digital assets among
    the covered assets.
        Mr. Morelle. Very good.
        I am so sorry we only have 5 minutes, but let me just, if I
    might, ask unanimous consent to enter into the record five
    documents: a CRS report by Mr. Straus titled ``Proposals to
    Limit Member of Congress Financial Activities: Analysis of
    Introduced Legislation in the 119th Congress''; a November 17,
    2025, article, headline: ``Trump Invests in Media Merger His
    Administration Controls''; a bipartisan letter from our
    colleagues asking us to take action on this issue; a statement
    for the record from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
    Government in Washington; and a statement for the record from
    Democracy Defenders Action.
        Chairman Steil. Without objection to the full list.
        [The documents referred to follow:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you again for this
    opportunity to be here and to call this into question and have
    this dialog.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Lee, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, to our witnesses.
        As elected representatives, we have a duty to serve our
    constituents, and doing so effectively requires strong public
    trust and confidence that Members of Congress are working to
    serve the American people, not our individual personal gains.
        As you all have described here this morning, over the years
    there has been an increased and warranted scrutiny over the
    stock-trading practices of Members, which has raised questions
    on whether our existing regulatory structure is adequate.
        Mr. Copland, I would like to focus on a couple of the areas
    that you mentioned in your testimony.
        I think there is broad consensus that we need to seriously
    consider outright prohibition on Members of Congress owning,
    trading individual securities. One of the things that you
    mention is that, if we are to adopt new conflict-of-interest
    prohibitions that require Members to divest individual
    securities, that we ought to consider the tax treatment of that
    required divestment.
        Would you elaborate for us on what you are describing there
    and why it is important?
        Mr. Copland. Yes. There are already provisions, conflict-
    of-interest-type divestment provisions, that exist in law and
    other situations, so it would not be reinventing the wheel.
        You know, anyone who has invested in markets, including
    mutual funds or anything else, you get an accrued capital gain.
    If you have held an asset for decades, you are going to have a
    large capital gain. If you had a rule that forced divestment of
    your securities and rolling an individual stock into a
    diversified mutual fund or what have you, you would have a
    large tax consequence, which in many cases could dwarf your
    congressional salary or other things depending on what sort of
    individual you are.
        I do not think it is reasonable to require divestment
    without not requiring that massive tax hit to serve in the
    Congress.
        What this would do is it would roll that gain over--it
    would not be like a capital gains step-up like in an estate.
    You would roll that over into the new security that you
    purchased, and assuming you purchased equal for equal, that
    would reduce the basis in the new security you purchase so
    that, whenever that was disposed of, the gain would accrue.
        Is it a perfect solution? No. It is a reasonable one.
        Ms. Lee. In particular, one of the reasons--of course, you
    know, Members are very differently situated, but in the
    instance where somebody perhaps owned individual securities
    prior to becoming a candidate or being elected, that would
    provide a divestment opportunity for that person who owned
    securities independent of any experience or knowledge they
    might have in Congress.
        You touched on something else that is important that is
    really the distinction between different types of assets. If
    you would, would you describe for us the differences you see
    in, for example, a Member of Congress owning individual
    securities as opposed to being invested in a mutual fund and
    why that is something that is substantially different in terms
    of insider knowledge?
        Mr. Copland. Yes. Well, if you are investing in a
    diversified mutual fund, there is essentially no risk,
    depending on what the fund is or how it is structured. If you
    are, for instance, in an S&P 500 passive index fund tracking
    the stock market, then, you know, the only risk there is, well,
    you know, whatever decision you make might make the stock
    market go up.
        That is generally not the sort of risk people are worried
    about, any more than when people were worried about, you know,
    Ross Perot running for President. He had a lot of Federal
    Government bonds. Well, if he actually got rid of the deficit,
    the value of those bonds would go up. You know, people are not
    worried about that sort of thing, right?
        That is very different than you own stock in a particular
    company, and so there is going to be--and you could have mutual
    funds that are very targeted or industry-specific, and if you
    are on a Committee that oversees an area where that would have
    an impact, you know, that also could be something you would
    have to worry about a little bit.
        You know, the broader the index, the more diversified it
    is, the less you would have to worry about any sort of
    appearance of impropriety at all.
        Ms. Lee. You also noted a distinction between individual
    securities and assets that are placed in things like venture
    capital and private equity.
        Would you elaborate on why it is that those categories of
    assets and investments might need to be treated differently?
        Mr. Copland. Yes. The reason is, it is hard to divest from
    very illiquid assets in many cases.
        If you had an investment in a startup business, a venture
    capital, a private equity, where you have an illiquid security,
    and you had a divestment rule or a conflict-of-interest rule
    that required divestment within 90 days or 180 days, like many
    these targets, it could be very difficult to unwind that. They
    are not going to be liquid assets. It is not clear who the
    purchaser is. It is very different than a publicly traded
    security, if you owned Walmart or Exxon stock. Easy to unload
    that; not going to move the market; and then you are mainly
    worried about the tax treatment.
        If you guys want to [inaudible], it is a little trickier.
    You know, that is why you have ethics offices and things here.
    It is not that there is no potential conflict with those sorts
    of holdings, but a prophylactic divestment rule might be
    problematic.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Ms. Sewell is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank our witnesses today.
        Every elected official makes decisions that impact the
    quality of life of our constituents and Americans broadly. Far
    too often, bad actors take advantage of sensitive information
    that is shared in the policymaking process to line their own
    pockets. Time and time again, elected officials have broken the
    trust of the American people by exploiting their position for
    personal gain.
        This was on full display, as the Chairman said, shortly
    after the COVID-19 pandemic, where Senators and Representatives
    on both sides of the aisle used privileged information from
    briefings about the pandemic to trade securities. According to
    a review of the financial disclosure 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 as many as 1,358 transactions by 37 Representatives
    that resulted in $60.5 million in stock benefits.
        Now, I believe that all of us in this room can agree that
    we are long overdue for reform. In fact, when I came to
    Congress--I was elected in 2010--I came after spending almost a
    decade in New York City working in securities law for Davis
    Polk & Wardwell. I was shocked that we did not have any
    insider-trading laws on the books. I was very happy to support
    the STOCK Act when it came up for a vote in 2012. I do believe
    that it is long overdue for reform of that.
        I want to press you, Mr. Copland, along the lines of my
    colleague, Ms. Lee. Can you talk about what security--what
    individuals should be in this prohibition? If we prohibit all
    stocks from being traded, is it only Members of Congress? Or
    how do we talk about executive--members of executive--the
    President and others?
        Then, also, tell me why it is so important that family
    members also should be covered.
        Mr. Copland. Yes. I mean, it is a complicated question.
        Obviously--well, we will take the family members first. I
    mean, obviously, dependent children probably should be included
    in any of these sorts of situations. I mean, if you have your
    kid and you can trade on your kid's stock account and not
    yours, I mean, that obviously is something that, if you had a
    rule on the Member, you would have a rule on the dependent
    children.
        The spouse can be a little bit more complicated, because
    people have professional spouses, they have spouses with means.
    You know, we have had people in both parties, for instance,
    running for President with very well-heeled spouses with major
    investments--you know, the late----
        Ms. Sewell. I agree with that.
        Mr. Copland [continuing]. Senator McCain, Senator Kerry--so
    it is a little----
        Ms. Sewell. I know my time is limited. Talk to me about the
    executive. I mean, we saw Donald Trump----
        Mr. Copland. Yes. I think----
        Ms. Sewell [continuing]. and his family really benefit a
    lot from the tariffs. You know, the on-again-off-again nature
    of the tariffs really yield a lot of profit for people in the
    executive.
        Talk to me about the executive being covered--and the
    judiciary, for that matter.
        Mr. Copland. Yes. I think the easier one is staff members,
    senior staff members, which are included in some of these
    bills.
        When you talk about the other co-equal branches of
    Government, you know, there are matters of comity there that
    come into play. I do think this body has some authority there.
        I think the higher up you go, the more you get to the
    President or the Supreme Court, when you get to the actual
    constitutional officers, it becomes a trickier question. For
    certain other officials, it is an easier question and, you
    know, ought to be explored. I think there is nothing wrong with
    exploring that.
        Ms. Sewell. Yes.
        Well, Mr. Straus, I would love to know your thoughts about,
    if we could only do one reform, what reform would that be to
    the STOCK Act, and why?
        Mr. Straus. Thank you, Congresswoman. As you know, CRS does
    not take a position on any particular piece of legislation. I
    would be happy to discuss any of them with you and your staff
    at any point as you are----
        Ms. Sewell. Well, since I only have 56 seconds, I am going
    to ask Mr. Copland or Mr. Savickas, what reform would you do if
    you had just an opportunity to open up the STOCK Act and
    actually make one reform?
        Mr. Copland. I think something along the lines of
    predisclosure that the Chairman was talking about would make
    sense, with some caveats.
        I think creating easier safe harbors for divestment. Even
    if you did not mandate divestment across the board, safe
    harbors, including with tax treatment that would make it easier
    for Members to do that coming into office, I think, would
    obviate a lot of the problem. I do not think most Members come
    here to try to trade stocks, right?
        Ms. Sewell. Got you.
        What do you think, sir?
        Mr. Savickas. I think forced divestment into diversified
    mutual funds and ETFs do tie Members of Congress's financial
    success to the overall success of the American economy rather
    than----
        Ms. Sewell. Would you change the tax treatment in order--I
    mean, because people will be coming into--people who are
    currently here would have to divest, and, as we talked about,
    they may have long-term gains, capital gains.
        Mr. Savickas. Yes, but along the lines of what Mr. Copland
    was discussing earlier--certificates of divestiture to defer
    the capital gains tax, as long as it is reinvested legally.
        Ms. Sewell. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. All right.
        Mr. Savickas, help me out. We have all these people who buy
    and sell stocks; we have a securities expert. I am none of
    those. I am just a poor country lawyer. I started off in a
    relatively modest background. I have questions.
        Would you think that we should have some kind of a de
    minimis, and what should that line be, for ownership?
        Mr. Savickas. Again, I think, because of those ambiguities
    in parsing through some of these questions, TPA has not taken a
    stance on whether or not there should be a de minimis. I think,
    again, sweeping divestiture into diversified mutual funds and
    ETFs.
        Mr. Griffith. Here is my problem----
        Mr. Savickas. Sure.
        Mr. Griffith [continuing]. and why this is important to me.
    It is small potatoes--I mean, really small.
        When the STOCK Act came out, I decided it was not worth the
    paperwork. So--and I use this all the time on the stump.
    Because I do not come from wealth. I decided just to sell my
    entire publicly traded portfolio. I, to this day, do not know
    what my wife did with the $6,000.
        Dr. Murphy. She is wearing it around her neck.
        Mr. Griffith. What I did do, though--because I was trying
    to do the right thing. In 1990, the swimming pool I grew up
    with--and I still swim competitively today, not very fast, but
    I am still in there--was in trouble, and I led a group to buy
    it out. We bought it out. My family owns about 20 percent.
        If we have a mandatory divestiture, the company--because
    the biggest asset--and it is worth more than you might think.
    It is not worth a fortune, but it sits on 3.2 acres of prime
    land. If I am forced to divest and my children--and, at the
    time, my children did not own any shares; now they do. If I am
    forced to divest, the company probably has to fold and sell
    out, because they cannot afford--they couldn't afford--it is
    not a cash-flow business.
        Our idea was to keep the pool open. It is a for-profit
    company, even though we have not gotten a dividend in about 15
    years. Nobody is upset about that, because we are trying to
    keep the facility open for the community. We have made money.
    There was a time in the 1990's where we made some pretty good
    money.
        How do we make sure that we are not throwing out the baby
    with the bath water? Because I have to tell you, this place is
    important to me. It is important.
        We have given a share to my son, of the parts that we own,
    because my wife also is blocked from being on the board by
    virtue of her job. As soon as he turned 18, we gave him a share
    so he could be on the board to represent our interests in this
    major investment.
        It is actually, for us, a major investment even though it
    is not worth a fortune, and some of the money we have talked
    about today, this is small potatoes.
        I want to make sure, when we talk about--we talked about
    agriculture, and if that was your--I am not in the profession,
    currently, of running swimming pools. I have been a certified
    pool operator, and I have been a lifeguard back in the day, but
    that is not my profession.
        How do we make sure that we are not eliminating me or
    making me sell something that I feel strongly about because it
    has been a part of my childhood and part of all my kids'
    childhoods--and, by the way, my son helped coach the team last
    year to the championship in Summer League Swimming.
        How do we protect that while curing the ills of people who
    are trying to do bad things?
        Mr. Savickas. I think there is room, as I mentioned earlier
    to Chair Steil's question about the agricultural-related
    issues, looking at the exceptions for families on occupational-
    related investitures and the predisclosures that Mr. Copland
    was talking about----
        Mr. Griffith. Predisclosures I am good with.
        Mr. Savickas. Yes.
        Mr. Griffith. Occupational--nobody in my family is going to
    be in the occupation of operating a pool. I mean, that is the
    problem. We are not going to--but we are vested in time and
    energy and love in keeping that pool open.
        Mr. Savickas. Hmm. I would be happy to follow up with your
    office and talk----
        Mr. Griffith. I would love that.
        Mr. Savickas [continuing]. more about the specifics of the
    bill.
        Mr. Griffith. Anything you can get me later.
        Mr. Straus and Mr. Copland, I appreciate your comments.
        I would say this. When you say, if there is anything that
    might--that Congress might affect in the business and maybe you
    ought to consider getting out of that or doing something with
    that, it affects everything. Because I remember, before I got
    to Congress, we had the whole swimming-pool drain issue that
    Congress was affecting.
        It affects whatever you are doing, even if it is a small
    community pool that wants to keep competitive swimming going in
    our part of town.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Torres, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman, for organizing this
    meeting.
        Thank you to our guests for being here today.
        I am greatly concerned and would like to know, how many
    Members of Congress and how many members of President Trump's
    Cabinet have used their privilege position and information for
    personal profit? Do any of you know?
        Mr. Copland.
        [Non-verbal response.]
        Mr. Savickas.
        [Non-verbal response.]
        Mr. Straus.
        [Non-verbal response.]
        Mrs. Torres. The last report: Between 2019 and 2021, The
    New York Times found that 97 Members, or 18 percent of
    Congress, traded stocks in sectors related to their Committee
    work. In the 117th Congress, 78 violated the STOCK Act by
    failing to disclose in a timely manner.
        We do not know exactly how many people in the
    administration have these types of conflict.
        You know, my constituents sent me to Washington to address
    their immediate needs, the rising cost of out-of-pocket costs
    that are making their lives extremely difficult, and to ensure
    that their Government is working for them. They certainly did
    not send me to enrich myself. As one of the poorest Members in
    Congress, I can say that with my head up. Former 911
    dispatcher.
        Members of Congress, the Trump administration, and their
    relatives should not have a blank check to use privileged
    information to cash in, while working families continue to
    struggle.
        I am particularly concerned about public reports that
    Attorney General Pam Bondi, the person who leads the Department
    of Justice and is supposed to prosecute criminals and uphold
    our Constitution, sold up to $5.5 million in Trump Media stock
    on the exact same day the President announced tariffs that sent
    that stock plummeting 13 percent. As head of the Department of
    Justice and a close friend of President Trump, she had access
    to information that working families in my district could never
    dream of having.
        While she was gaming the stock market with special
    knowledge, families across the country were continuing to
    struggle with rising costs. Here we have our top law
    enforcement officer potentially using insider information to
    protect her personal wealth, while regular Americans continue
    to be left behind.
        On February 11, 2 days before President Trump announced his
    tariff plans that sent markets plummeting, Secretary Duffy sold
    up to $600,000 worth of stock across 34 companies. On that day
    of the announcement, he sold another $50,000.
        Secretary Duffy tweeted--and this is specifically
    disgusting to me. On that day, he tweeted that these tariffs
    are the culmination of his work on tariff policies--his work on
    tariff policies--having worked directly with Trump's trade
    advisor, Peter Navarro, on reciprocal tariff legislation.
        This episode exposes a dangerous loophole. Senior executive
    branch officials can legally trade individual stocks even when
    they have access to sensitive market-moving policy information
    or lead the policies themselves.
        I am left wondering, what specific legislation reforms
    ensure that senior officials who shape policies that move
    markets cannot use technicalities to profit from their
    privileged access to information?
        Because, right now, the message that we are sending
    hardworking taxpayers across America is that Government service
    comes with a stock-market advantage for those in power but the
    market crashes for those paying taxes.
        Mr. Straus, is disclosure alone enough to make sure the
    powerful separate policymaking from personal financial gain?
        Under current law, what specific mechanisms exist to
    investigate and prosecute a Cabinet official, like the Attorney
    General, for potential insider trading?
        Mr. Straus. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        The Ethics in Government Act requires covered executive
    branch officials to file financial disclosure statements
    annually with their agencies. The agencies all have ethics
    officials that evaluate those for real or perceived conflicts
    of interest and then work with the executive branch employee or
    Secretary or whoever to resolve any potential conflicts of
    interest that might exist, you know, in whatever way is
    appropriate in that setting.
        Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
        I am going to yield back to the chair.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The gentleman from North Carolina, Dr. Murphy, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think that this is a great meeting. This is a bipartisan
    issue. This is basically what has happened: We have lost the
    trust of the American people. There are egregious examples on
    both sides of the aisle, in all branches, of how we, as Members
    elected either/or in positions of power, have abused the
    position of authority and privilege. That is why we are here
    today.
        I am going to give one example that I think is the most
    egregious of all of these. This is not to impugn the
    individual, but it is to impugn the activity.
        The Washington Examiner published an article stating the
    following about Ms. Pelosi trading stocks: In 2021, her
    husband, Paul, bought $1.9 million in Tesla call options the
    day before Biden announced the EV infrastructure plans that
    sent Tesla up 20 percent. In 2023, he traded between $1 million
    and $5 million in stocks in semiconductors mere days before
    Congress allocated $52 billion for the industry. In 2024, he
    sold 2,000 shares of Visa stock a couple months before the DOJ
    announced its antitrust lawsuit.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter that into the record.
        Chairman Steil. Without objection.
        [The Washington Examiner article follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Dr. Murphy. When you have someone who comes here with a few
    million dollars and leaves with close to $300 million and you
    see blips and blips and blips in their activity, there is
    something wrong--there is something wrong.
        There are egregious examples on both sides of the aisle,
    and I am glad that this is a bipartisan effort to bring some
    responsibility here to Congress.
        I am going to submit something different, because I think
    we are trying to make this more difficult than it really needs
    to be. I am just a dumb surgeon, so we try and make things
    very, very simple for us.
        Why would we not say, OK, you come to Congress; what you
    did before leave be. Why do you have to divest? Why do you have
    to do all this other stuff? Why can you not just have, then,
    your day in Congress, you start here; you cannot have undue
    influence moving forward?
        Because we create such a massive bureaucratic tax event
    that is unnecessary. You do not have to change anything you
    have done in the past; leave it be.
        What I personally did: I took everything out, and I put
    them in directed-by-Vanguard mutual funds. I do not have
    anything touched with that. That is me, what I did moving
    forward, so I would be beyond reproach, that no one could ever
    say I manipulated this.
        Why would we not do that--or, sorry. Why would we not say,
    OK, what you have done in the past is your business, as a
    Member of Congress you cannot exert anything--undue influence,
    and if you invest anything further, it would be in mutual
    funds, et cetera? Why would we create this massive bureaucracy?
        I would love to have your answer.
        Mr. Savickas. I would say, in principle, I do not actually
    hate that idea.
        I think one of the things that I spoke about in my opening
    statement is the perception of impropriety. I think, with a
    proposal that you just put forth--freezing everything, do not
    touch it, leave it be, and come back to it when you are out of
    office--leaves open the option that Members of Congress would
    come in and vote based on the interests of those preexisting
    holdings. I think that is a little bit where divestiture
    becomes perhaps more wise.
        In principle, I do not actually dislike that proposal.
        Dr. Murphy. Yes. I just think, if you are asking someone--
    good Lord, if they are ancient like I am, in their 60's, and
    they have spent so many years accumulating different things,
    and you are asking for such a huge capital-gains--putting on my
    Ways and Means hat--such a capital-gains event, to the point of
    people making only so much in Congress, it is a huge, huge tax
    load. Good Lord, you know, we have not had raises in years.
    Fine. Whatever. Why would we not try to simplify this?
        I do have another question, and maybe this has been
    answered before. How do we monitor the family members of
    Members of Congress or in the judiciary or whatever branch? How
    is that done, separately from what we do now? This is merely
    edifying me. I do not understand--I do not know that. Can
    somebody answer that?
        Mr. Straus. The----
        Dr. Murphy. Because my son does not believe a damn thing I
    say anyway, and he has not for years and years, and if I ever
    said anything about stocks, he would just say, ``Dad, shut
    up.''
        Mr. Straus. Individuals who are required to file financial
    disclosure reports or periodic transaction reports under the
    Ethics in Government Act or the STOCK Act also have to report
    for their spouse or their dependent children.
        Dr. Murphy. OK. All right. All right. Thanks.
        Again, why do we make--this is a challenge for both of us.
    This is a bipartisan thing. I believe it restores the ability
    of the American people to trust us at least a little bit in
    some particular regard. There are egregious examples--and we
    just saw one here; we talk about them--on both sides of the
    aisle.
        I applaud this effort. I hope our Senate colleagues will do
    the same. Let us make it as simple as possible so our Senators
    do not try to change things. I would submit that that would be
    the best plan.
        I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Johnson. Well, thank you.
        I want to echo my support for this discussion and some of
    the concerns brought around.
        I think it is important to remember that today's hearing is
    not about whether Members feel that the rules are transparent;
    it is about whether the American people feel that the rules are
    transparent. Since taking office earlier this year, I have
    heard from countless constituents who are deeply concerned that
    Members of Congress operate under a different set of rules than
    the people we serve, as has been eloquently outlined today.
        The issue is not about assuming bad intent; it is not about
    pointing fingers. It is about acknowledging the environment we
    serve in and working to do better.
        Congress, today, faces historically low approval ratings,
    and if we want to rebuild our constituents' trust in the
    Government, we have to address their skepticism, because it is
    real, and we have to show people that we are willing to hold
    ourselves to the highest standards.
        We can do everything to make a body as sure as--you know,
    removed from potential conflicts. When we appropriate funds for
    community projects, we certify that no one in our families has
    any financial interest in those. We hold each other accountable
    to the Ethics Committee, where Members face their peers'
    adherence to this conduct. When it comes to straight stock
    trading, the rules are very, very lax, and they definitely need
    to be strengthened.
        I support this effort. This bill would be an important step
    toward addressing the corruption in Washington. These reforms
    are not overly burdensome, and they are not impossible to
    achieve, and it is something that is definitely worth pursuing.
        Some comments that I have had about just the general
    discussion today: I absolutely feel that it is imperative that
    this applies to all branches of Government. Because the trust
    deficit that the American people has is with all branches of
    Government.
        You know, ethics, high integrity of the process, should
    apply to the legislative branch, to the judicial branch, as
    well as the executive branch. It needs to be transparent
    through all of it. Not one branch should be exempt from
    appropriate ethics in this case.
        I do want to echo Chairman Steil and Mr. Griffith's
    comments and concerns about the small family business, you
    know, and what to do with that. Maybe there is a capitalization
    limit that we could address so that you are not talking about
    your family business is Microsoft but your family business is
    owning a pool, you know? There is a very large difference in
    terms of your ability--the effects of your service here on that
    business. Maybe there is a capitalization requirement that we
    could put out there.
        One of the issues--and I do think the divestment issue is
    something that is of concern. I have been trying to--I am a new
    Member of Congress; I have been trying to divest my own
    portfolio. As Members have said, you know, you want people who
    have had success in their professional career to come here, you
    want people who have been able to be proficient in life. We
    have to have a balance of public trust.
        One of the questions I have for you guys is: What is a
    reasonable time to achieve divestment? When you are a new
    Member of Congress, what is that time period? Is it 3 months, 6
    months, a year? Is it to the next electoral term? What do you
    think is the reasonable time period to achieve a full
    divestment?
        Mr. Copland. I mean, I think it depends on the type of
    investment. The bills here mostly contemplate a 90-or 180-day-
    type window. For a publicly traded security that is liquid, I
    think that is reasonable.
        Again, the tax treatment really, really matters here, but
    if you are able to just roll that gain to the future and
    divest, where you are taking your shares of Exxon and making
    them shares in the S&P 500 index, then that works just fine.
        If you are talking about venture capital, private equity,
    it becomes much more complicated, and I think there has to be
    some allowance made there. Just, you know, get the ethics
    office involved in those sorts of cases, because, you know, it
    is not reasonable to say you have to dump that immediately in
    those sort of cases, but it is still something we need to
    watch.
        Ms. Johnson. You think that different time periods for
    divestment should be put in place based on the nature of the
    investment, versus a standard, you know, if you are going to
    come to Congress, you need to be divested by X date----
        Mr. Copland. Yes, I think----
        Ms. Johnson [continuing]. so people can plan for that?
        Mr. Copland. I think the context matters. I mean, something
    like the pool is a good example, where you have got a pool--you
    know, you cannot really sell that, you know?
        Ms. Johnson. Maybe that----
        Mr. Copland. Maybe that has got a de minimis exception.
        Ms. Johnson [continuing]. does not require divestment at
    all. Because, you know, the impact of serving in Congress on
    probably a low-capitalized community pool, maybe that is----
        Mr. Copland. Right. That would maybe be a small-business
    exemption----
        Ms. Johnson. Right.
        Mr. Copland [continuing]. which are in some of these, et
    cetera.
        You know, let us say, you know, Steve Ballmer says, ``Oh,
    well, the L.A. Clippers are not doing so well. I want to go run
    for Senate in California,'' and he has got a massive stake in
    Microsoft, for example. How do you handle that?
        It is not a super-clear, easy answer on those sorts of
    questions, and, you know, it is a little complicated, more
    complicated than the average person who would come in to be a
    Member.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The gentlewoman from Oklahoma, Mrs. Bice, is recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity.
        Thank you to the witnesses for being with us this morning.
        I think this topic is incredibly important, as stock trades
    made by Members have come under incredible scrutiny over the
    past few years.
        When multiple senior Members of Congress--and as my
    colleague Dr. Murphy mentioned, this is not a partisan issue.
    When you have Members of Congress that are consistently beating
    out some of the best investors in the country and the S&P 500,
    there is a problem.
        Upon my election to Congress, I actually divested all of my
    individual stocks. I think it is important to be as transparent
    as possible when working for your constituents and have no
    other allegiances.
        As was mentioned by my colleague from Texas, trust in this
    institution is low, and Congress can take action to restore
    trust. I think this bill is a good first step toward regaining
    the trust that the institution deserves, but, frankly, I do not
    think it goes far enough.
        I would also offer up that the rules on the books should
    actually be enforced, and Members who improperly trade should
    not get a slap on the wrist.
        With that being said, I do want to hear from the witnesses
    this morning and talk a little bit about other alternatives.
        Let me offer this up. Many senior executives have to have
    pre-clearance trades before placing them, to ensure they are in
    compliance with their employer's code of ethics and not trading
    non-public information.
        Because I do not own any individual stocks, I would wonder
    if this is not an option. Would a pre-clearance process create
    transparency while still allowing Members to lawfully purchase
    stocks to address some of the concerns?
        Mr. Copland, if you want to--you were nodding your head
    feverishly. I think that----
        Mr. Copland. Yes. Yes. I think that is a reasonable
    approach in many cases here. I mean, this is exactly what
    happens in certain types of corporate situations, certain types
    of law firms, where you have to get pre-clearance with your
    internal people that work on the ethics and the compliance
    there. I think something similar could be put into place, I
    would say, easily--it is not easy, but it could be done in a
    way that is reasonably fair.
        Because, you know, even if you did not require full
    divestiture, people will need to change positions. You may have
    companies that have spin-offs or mergers or other things, and
    you need to rebalance a portfolio. You are not working on
    insider information, but you need to make a move. I think pre-
    clearances there makes sense, and it is sort of inherently
    showing that you are not trading on inside information in those
    cases.
        Mrs. Bice. All right.
        Either one of you want to respond?
        Mr. Savickas. I think, in principle, that is an effective
    solution. We would want to look at any specific proposal for
    language on, again, how that is enforced and how that is
    addressed. You know, my father has worked in equities trading
    for banks for a number of years, and he has to pre-clear all of
    his trades as well, and occasionally he tells me about it and
    complains.
        Mrs. Bice. Well, let me also ask, do you think that we
    should focus on actions that legitimately restore the trust in
    Government--we should--I am sorry--be focusing on actions that
    restore trust, not erode it. I also think that maybe this is
    not going far enough.
        I think about judges who oversee antitrust cases. I think
    about senior congressional staff, who may actually have as much
    information and in some cases more than many of us do. I think
    about senior executive branch staffers who may have additional
    information.
        What would be one addition that you think could be added to
    the STOCK Act that would make an impact?
        Mr. Copland. In terms of who is covered? I tend to agree
    that, at least for the non-constitutional officers, the other
    branches of Government, you ought to have relatively comparable
    sorts of protections in there.
        You are absolutely right; I mean, in the judiciary, it is
    totally the case. As someone who was a law clerk for a Federal
    judge, it is like, you know, yes, I knew things that were going
    on, I knew decisions that were going to be made. You know, we
    had ethics requirements over us, but I do not know with
    specificity what they were. I never would have even--I couldn't
    have fathomed trying to trade on that information, but it is
    certainly a risk.
        It is something that I think ought to be swept in, with the
    notion that you want to have some comity to the other branches.
    I think, if you are not talking about the constitutional
    officers, you could go pretty far.
        Mr. Savickas. Yes. TPA has stopped short of endorsing
    similar legislation to apply to the judicial branch just
    because of the nature of lifetime appointments and some of the
    differences there. We have not come out in opposition to it
    either, but we would want to look far more deeply at including
    judicial-branch members in these types of prohibitions.
        Mrs. Bice. Do you have, Mr. Straus--thank you.
        Well, I appreciate the conversation. I think this is an
    important one. I do believe that we have to do something to
    restore trust and faith in the institution as it relates to
    investments. I look forward to continuing this conversation.
        With that, Chairman, I yield.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Carey, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Carey. Thank you. I want to thank the Chairman,
    obviously. I want to thank the Ranking Member, as well as our
    witnesses, for being here today.
        A lot of questions that I do have, and I am going to try to
    go through some of them.
        We know, as Members of Congress, we were sent here on
    behalf of our constituents and to represent them to the best of
    our ability. Recent polling, as has been outlined by Members on
    both sides, have shown that Americans' trust in Congress is at
    a five-decade low. Incredible.
        I am going to ask a few questions.
        First, Mr. Copland, how would you strengthen the required
    financial disclosures among Members to be effective in
    deterring corporate trading practices?
        Mr. Copland. Well, the disclosures right now are reas--I
    mean, $1,000 is a reasonably low threshold; 45 days is
    reasonable. I think the question there would be, in terms of
    disclosure, would a pre-disclosure or a pre-clearance be a
    better prophylactic?
        I think you can think about certain exceptions in these
    outlier cases. If someone has a large chunk of stock in a
    single company, there may need to be certain allowances made.
    Those are exceptional cases.
        In the ordinary case, I think there is no reason why we
    couldn't have something like that, which I think would deter--
    you know, it would deter the value of your insider trade,
    because if it is--certainly if it is made public in advance,
    but even if it is just made in advance to the ethics office,
    then it is something that could raise a red flag, right? You
    would be ceding some control there.
        I think, if you wanted to stop short of a total divestiture
    rule, like some of these bills contemplate, you know, that is a
    reasonable step to step up the STOCK Act.
        Mr. Carey. OK.
        Let me--Mr. Savickas, you mentioned, I think, in your
    testimony that you felt that $200 was not an adequate amount as
    a fine. What do you think would be a sufficient amount?
        A second part of that: What changes would you propose to
    adequately fine those that violate the STOCK Act? The reason I
    say that--should the fine actually be a percentage of the
    amount involved in the transaction, or some variation of a
    theme on that?
        Mr. Savickas. Yes, the bill we have endorsed, the Restore
    Trust in Congress Act, would change the fine to the greater of
    two amounts--either $1,000 or the amount of profit made or loss
    avoided based on the trade that is in violation. We would be
    open to assessing whether that becomes a percentage in follow-
    on proposals.
        We think the balance struck in the Restore Trust in
    Congress Act--$1,000 or the profit made, whichever is larger.
        Mr. Carey. OK. The profit made. As a percentage, is there
    anything that you think in that percentage-wise?
        Mr. Savickas. Not specific numbers. Open to looking at any
    and all. I think, I believe it is 100 percent of the profit
    made----
        Mr. Carey. OK.
        Mr. Savickas [continuing]. as the text of the Restore Trust
    in Congress as I read it.
        Mr. Carey. I am going to open this up for any of you, quite
    frankly. What happens in the situation--and many of you have
    spent some time on the Hill. You look at many of us around
    here; we all have family.
        What happens in the instance where, you know,
    unfortunately, somebody passes and you inherit, whether it is
    land, whether it is some type of stock, ownership of a company?
    How do we address that?
        I would open that up to any of you. Thankfully, I have not
    had to go through that, but----
        Mr. Copland. I mean, to some degree, that is easier unless
    you are talking about closely held businesses, family
    businesses, farms. I mean, if--because the capital-gains basis
    would step up in the estate, right? It would be easy to dispose
    of a publicly traded security in that case, you know, without
    anything else. You could easily divest such things.
        Again, there are exceptional cases out there. A lot of
    times, that is what we are most worried about, are the cases
    where you have a swimming pool or you have a farm or something
    that is not easily disposed of.
        Otherwise, you know, that sort of event--most of these
    bills, if you come into it, you know, it would just have a
    similar window of time to dispose of. In the ordinary case,
    that would be pretty simple.
        Mr. Carey. OK.
        Anybody else?
        OK. Well, I want to thank you all for being here today.
        Again, I want to thank the Chairman. With that, I yield
    back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Miller, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this
    hearing on the issue of stock trading in Congress, and to our
    witnesses for being here. Appreciate it.
        As a Member of Congress, we should be held to a higher
    standard of personal and professional behavior. I was just
    thinking about the lack of the fear of God among Members. ``It
    is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment,'' and
    we are not going to take a pile of money to hell with us.
    People that are wantonly treacherous, that are disloyal to
    their constituents, to our country, to future generations,
    should be held accountable. They should be put to shame.
        The actions of this body do have a direct impact on the
    public's faith in this institution. Our constituents must be
    able to trust that their elected representatives are using
    their positions to serve the American people and not ourselves.
        When the stock portfolios of Members of Congress regularly
    beat the S&P 500 and Members leave the office with vastly
    higher net worths than when they arrived, the public is right
    to be alarmed.
        Mr. Copland, do you believe that the current law regulating
    stock trading by Members and key employees provides for
    adequate deterrence of wrongdoing and sufficient enforcement
    when Members or staff fail to comply? They do not fear God;
    they are disloyal to the country and their constituents. This
    is disgraceful.
        Mr. Copland. The short answer to that is, no, I do not
    think the adequate law--that the current law is adequate.
        Mrs. Miller. Uh-huh.
        When we talked about fines and basically a flick on the
    cheek, they need to be adequate. A dollar amount--a percentage
    amount of a fine would be better, right, than a dollar amount?
        Mr. Copland. I have no problem with the disgorgement. I
    mean, again, that is sort of violation of a reporting rule
    under the current law, but I have no problem with the
    disgorgement.
        If it is a big trade, you would be really, really careful.
    If it is a small trade, eh, OK. But--and that is not really
    what we are as much worried about.
        Mrs. Miller. OK.
        When examining the numerous proposals, Mr. Copland, to
    restrict Member stock trading, how do we ensure that
    enforcement is impartial and evenly applied to all Members?
        Mr. Copland. Yes, that is sort of the rub there. I mean,
    part of the problem is the enforcement mechanism, and we have
    reserved--the STOCK Act reserves it to your own bodies, your
    own ethics offices or independent committees set up under your
    own body. If you transfer that to the executive branch, you
    know, there is always the concern of partisanship. Again, that
    could apply to this body as well. The enforcement mechanisms
    really do matter there, and, you know, you have to take that
    into account.
        I think it is important. I think there is some evidence to
    suggest that self-policing is not working well now, right? Some
    of that may be substantive rules, and some of that may be
    process in terms of how you actually handle it. I would think
    carefully about that process. I am happy to work with the
    Members on it.
        Mrs. Miller. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Savickas, I ask the same question, as I believe it is
    critical that all Members are held to the same standard,
    whether they are a first-term Member or a certain former
    Speaker of the House--who, I would note, has not been mentioned
    once by the Democrat Members of this Committee despite making
    over $100 million from her time in public service.
        Would you--in light of restricting stock trading, how do we
    make sure that enforcement is impartial and evenly applied to
    all Members?
        Mr. Savickas. Yes, I think it has to be far less
    subjective. How that looks is up to interpretation. Whether it
    is an independent commission remains to be seen. I think the
    executive branch enforcement can be subjective and politicized
    and the self-policing regime has not worked.
        Mrs. Miller. Would you support enforcement being led by an
    independent entity that would operate without interference from
    the legislative or executive branches?
        Mr. Savickas. In principle, yes, reserving the right to
    look at any specific proposal.
        Mrs. Miller. Right. Thank you so much.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Without objection, I would like to enter the testimony into
    the record of our colleague, Representative Mark Alford.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [Representative Mark Alford testimony follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. I think we learned a lot today. I will say,
    I did not know Mr. Griffith had a pool. I did also learn that
    there is a woman in the audience in a professional capacity who
    was the beneficiary of that pool who is here with us today,
    which is unique and special as well.
        I do think there are a lot of important topics and a
    complexity to this issue. I would like to thank all of our
    Members for joining us today, all of our witnesses for
    appearing before us as well.
        The Members of the Committee may have some additional
    questions for you, and we ask that you please respond to those
    questions in writing.
        Without objection, each Member will have 5 legislative days
    to insert additional material into the record or to revise and
    extend their remarks.
        If there is no further business, I want to thank the
    Members for their participation, and, without objection, the
    Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               [all]