[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]