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

                              MARKUP OF H.R. 7008,
                            STOP INSIDER TRADING ACT
    =======================================================================

                                     MARKUP

                                   BEFORE THE

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 14, 2026

                                   __________

          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
    62-598                    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...................     3
    Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of
      New York.......................................................     4
        Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle..........     5

                           Submissions for the Record

    Campaign Legal Center letter.....................................     7
    P Street statement...............................................     9
    Public Citizen statement.........................................    10
    Democracy Defenders Action statement.............................    11
    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington statement...    13
    Project On Government Oversight statement........................    16
    End Citizens United Action Fund statement........................    18
    H.R. 7008........................................................    20
    Steil Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute....................    30
    Morelle amendment................................................    39
    Morelle amendment................................................    55
    Torres amendment.................................................    57
    Sewell amendment.................................................    63
    Sewell letter....................................................    65
    Morelle amendment................................................    81
    Johnson amendment................................................    87
    Morelle amendment................................................    95
    Roll Call Vote #1................................................   102
    Roll Call Vote #2................................................   103
    Roll Call Vote #3................................................   104
    Roll Call Vote #4................................................   105
    Roll Call Vote #5................................................   106
    Roll Call Vote #6................................................   107
    Roll Call Vote #7................................................   108

                              MARKUP OF H.R. 7008,
                            STOP INSIDER TRADING ACT

                                  ----------

                                January 14, 2026

                     Committee on House Administration,
                                      House of Representatives,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
    room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Steil, Loudermilk, Griffith, 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; Josh Weber, Counsel; Cole
    Hernandez, Counsel; Kristen Monterroso, Director of Operations;
    Annemarie Cake, Professional Staff and Deputy Clerk; Jamie
    Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy
    Staff Director; 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. I note that a quorum is present, and the Chair
    may declare a recess at any time.
        First, before we begin, I would like to acknowledge that
    Dr. Murphy is not with us. He continues to battle a health
    concern. I spoke to him earlier this week. He is in high
    spirits and hopes to be joining us back here in Washington,
    D.C., soon.
        Dr. Murphy, we will miss your jokes because I know that you
    probably had a whole string of them teed up for today. If you
    are watching, we miss you, and we look forward to your soon
    return.
        We are here today because no Member of Congress, regardless
    of party or seniority, should be profiting off of insider
    information. You want to trade stocks, go to Wall Street. Here
    on Capitol Hill, we are working for the American people.
        There is a lot of talk in this town about draining the
    swamp and cleaning up Washington. Well, today the rubber hits
    the road. Good governance matters, and the Committee on House
    Administration is leading the charge.
        Let us step back and look at how we got here.
        The STOCK Act of 2012 prohibits public officials from using
    nonpublic information for their own financial benefit. It was a
    good start, but time has shown that more needs to be done.
        Social media accounts have garnered significant attention
    for documenting lawmakers' stock trades. Some may be shocked to
    hear that, at times, the reporting has been sensationalized and
    outright untrue. However, there are documented instances that
    raise very real red flags.
        A number of bills have been introduced to strengthen the
    existing rules, but to date none have been called up in
    Committee or seen floor action.
        The product we have today is a result of months of work
    with our colleagues, and I believe we are in a position to pass
    it.
        I want to take a moment to thank a number of Members who
    are not on this Committee who have been instrumental in this
    regard, including Chip Roy, Anna Paulina Luna, Tim Burchett,
    Michael Cloud, Brian Fitzpatrick, and many others who have
    worked on this product for years. I am grateful for their
    collaboration.
        I am also grateful for the collaboration of the Members of
    this Committee who provided thoughtful feedback throughout this
    process.
        I also want to thank our leadership team, who is committed
    to moving this bill forward to the House floor if it passes
    this Committee today.
        As I highlighted during our hearing, we have an opportunity
    to dramatically improve America's trust in Congress.
        I will detail the bill in a few minutes, but let me now
    emphasize two broader points.
        This legislation ensures that no Member can profit off of
    insider information. It still allows individuals who have had
    successful careers in the private sector to come to Congress.
    Both of those principles are important.
        Today, I think you will hear everyone agree that this is a
    good bill, although they may make arguments that something
    could be a little bit better.
        You will hear what I call the ``Goldilocks'' argument, that
    the porridge is too hot, the porridge is too cold. They may try
    to allow perfection to be the enemy of the good. You may hear
    people that want something a little bit more.
        I often think about a second grader, a second grade nephew,
    who when, if you offer him an ice cream cone, says no because
    he wants a banana split.
        Other Members, as we have seen on social media recently,
    may try to mislead you as to what is or is not in the bill.
    This markup gives us an opportunity to dialog the bill and make
    the record incredibly clear.
        Some amendments may be offered which would have the effect
    of derailing the progress that I believe we can make, attempts
    to refer to another committee or pull apart the coalition that
    is needed to pass this legislation on the House floor.
    Frustratingly, that is often how Washington works.
        Perfection is far too often the enemy of the good in this
    town. This Committee is focused on cleaning up Washington, and
    that is what we are going to do.
        As I have said, we have a real opportunity here to make
    substantial reform that cleans up Washington and increases the
    American people's trust in this institution.
        The American people should be confident that lawmakers are
    working for them, not seeking office to financially benefit
    themselves.
        I thank the Members for being here today, and I urge your
    support for the legislation that we will bring up before us. I
    look forward to a thoughtful discussion. I yield back.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5
    minutes for the purpose of offering an opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]

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

        We are here today because no Member of Congress, regardless
    of party or seniority, should be profiting off of insider
    information. You want to trade stocks, go to Wall Street. Here
    on Capitol Hill, we are working for the American people. There
    is a lot of talk in this town about draining the swamp and
    cleaning up Washington. Well, today the rubber hits the road.
    Good governance matters, and the Committee on House
    Administration is leading the charge.
        Let us step back and look at how we got here.
        The STOCK Act of 2012 prohibits public officials from using
    nonpublic information for their own financial benefit. It was a
    good start, but time has shown that more needs to be done.
        Social media accounts have garnered significant attention
    for documenting lawmakers' stock trades. Some may be shocked to
    hear that, at times, the reporting has been sensationalized and
    outright untrue. However, there are documented instances that
    raise very real red flags.
        A number of bills have been introduced to strengthen the
    existing rules, but to date none have been called up in
    Committee or seen floor action.
        The product we have today is a result of months of work
    with our colleagues, and I believe we are in a position to pass
    it. I want to take a moment to thank a number of Members who
    are not on this Committee who have been instrumental in this
    regard, including Chip Roy, Anna Paulina Luna, Tim Burchett,
    Michael Cloud, Brian Fitzpatrick, and many others who have
    worked on this product for years. I am grateful for their
    collaboration.
        I am also grateful for the collaboration of the Members of
    this Committee who provided thoughtful feedback throughout this
    process. I also want to thank our leadership team, who is
    committed to moving this bill forward to the House floor if it
    passes this Committee today. As I highlighted during our
    hearing, we have an opportunity to dramatically improve
    America's trust in Congress. I will detail the bill in a few
    minutes, but let me now emphasize two broader points.
        This legislation ensures that no Member can profit off of
    insider information. It still allows individuals who have had
    successful careers in the private sector to come to Congress.
    Both of those principles are important.
        Today, I think you will hear everyone agree that this is a
    good bill, although they may make arguments that something
    could be a little bit better. You will hear what I call the
    ``Goldilocks'' argument, that the porridge is too hot, the
    porridge is too cold. They may try to allow perfection to be
    the enemy of the good. You may hear people that want something
    a little bit more. I often think about a second grader, a
    second grade nephew, who when, if you offer him an ice cream
    cone, says no because he wants a banana split. Other Members,
    as we have seen on social media recently, may try to mislead
    you as to what is or is not in the bill. This markup gives us
    an opportunity to dialogue the bill and make the record
    incredibly clear.
        Some amendments may be offered which would have the effect
    of derailing the progress that I believe we can make, attempts
    to refer to another committee or pull apart the coalition that
    is needed to pass this legislation on the House floor.
    Frustratingly, that is often how Washington works. Perfection
    is far too often the enemy of the good in this town. This
    Committee is focused on cleaning up Washington, and that is
    what we are going to do. As I have said, we have a real
    opportunity here to make substantial reform that cleans up
    Washington and increases the American people's trust in this
    institution. The American people should be confident that
    lawmakers are working for them, not seeking office to
    financially benefit themselves.

    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.
        Happy New Year, everyone. Nice to see everyone following
    the holidays.
        My colleagues and I would certainly join with you in
    wishing the very best to Dr. Murphy as he recuperates, and
    hopefully we will see him back in Committee and on the floor
    very, very soon.
        Mr. Chairman, as I said at our hearing on this topic last
    year, I strongly support a ban on Federal officers, including
    Members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and judges
    and Justices of the Federal judiciary, trading individual
    stocks.
        When politicians trade stocks, they erode public trust, not
    just trust in Congress, but in our Government writ large, and a
    collapse in public trust has serious consequences for this
    Nation.
        The American people, sadly, have stopped believing that
    Government is working on their behalf. They no longer feel we
    are a Government of the people, by the people, and for the
    people.
        Who can blame them?
        Republican Members of Congress enrich themselves while
    cutting healthcare for millions of Americans.
        Donald Trump promised a booming economy on day one of his
    term. What do we get from him instead? The President is focused
    on ballrooms, on Greenland, on invading Venezuela to seize oil
    fields on behalf of his corporate donors, and on making
    millions--possibly billions--in the crypto space, that he has
    done nothing yet to make America more affordable for the
    hundreds of millions of Americans who rely on it.
        Our fellow Americans face skyrocketing prices everywhere
    they look. We are coming off the weakest year of job growth
    since the pandemic. Donald Trump is running the American
    economy into the ground. Our Government is in a crisis of
    public trust.
        Congress must do something to end the culture of
    corruption, begun largely by the Republicans in Washington,
    right now.
        I would welcome any chance for us to consider legislation
    to end congressional stock trading. That is not what this bill
    does. In fact, the Stop Insider Trading Act allows Members of
    Congress to continue to trade a substantial number of
    individual stocks.
        Under this bill, the wealthiest Members of Congress can
    keep every single share of stock they currently own and use
    their dividends to buy even more stock.
        Under this bill, Members can liquidate their holdings at
    any time while in office profiting off years of ballooning
    investment portfolios.
        Under this bill, spouses of Members can trade freely, buy
    or sell on behalf or for the benefit of any person other than
    themselves, their spouse, or their dependent children.
        I call this the ``grandma'' loophole because this loophole
    allows spouses or dependent children of Members to trade on
    behalf of grandparents or parents, their siblings. A Member's
    spouse could freely trade stocks on behalf of their parents or
    grandparents with a Member of Congress in line to inherit the
    estate.
        This is a loophole so big, you could fly a Qatari jet right
    through it.
        The bill does nothing to crack down on the self-dealing
    currently in progress at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The
    President continues to trade securities for his own enrichment,
    including the recent purchase of up to a million dollars in
    Warner Bros. bonds, all while Warner Bros. is in the middle of
    merger talks--merger talks that will need the approval of
    President Trump's FCC.
        The bill does nothing to stop judges and Justices from
    trading stocks in companies who have cases before them in
    court.
        The Stop Insider Trading Act falls far, far too short. I
    would not even call this a half-measure. It is a misdirection
    play.
        Because of that, because I believe this bill is simply
    Speaker Johnson's attempt to blunt momentum toward a full
    congressional stock trading ban, I plan on opposing the bill
    today.
        First, Committee Democrats will offer a series of
    amendments to strengthen this deeply flawed bill. I vigorously
    encourage my colleagues to consider each of the amendments we
    offer.
        Should the majority refuse to adopt these amendments, I
    assure my colleagues on this Committee and Americans watching
    us now that today's markup is not the end of House Democrats'
    war against corruption in our Government, because at the end of
    today's proceedings Donald Trump's America will still be as
    expensive as it was yesterday; at the end of today's
    proceedings this administration will still be corrupt as it was
    yesterday; and at the end of today's proceedings, if this bill,
    in its current unamended form, moves on to the full House, to
    the Senate, or to the White House, Members of Congress will
    still be permitted to own and trade a wide range of individual
    stocks.
        That is why after the American people fire Mike Johnson in
    November, Democrats will do what Republicans have refused to do
    for years, what they refuse to do today. Democrats will pass
    legislation to actually ban stock trading by Members of
    Congress, to ban stock trading by the President of the United
    States, to ban stock trading by members of the U.S. Supreme
    Court.
        For now, however, I look forward to offering amendments to
    fix this broken bill, and a year from now I look forward to
    finally banning congressional stock trading under a Democrat
    majority.
        Before I yield back, I would like unanimous consent to
    enter into the record statements in opposition to the bill from
    Campaign Legal Center, P Street, Public Citizen, Democracy
    Defenders, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
    Washington, Project on Government Oversight, and Citizens
    United.
        Chairman Steil. Without objection.
        [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]

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

        Mr. Chairman, as I said at our hearing on this topic last
    year, I strongly support a ban on Federal officers, including
    Members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and judges
    and Justices of the Federal judiciary, trading individual
    stocks. When politicians trade stocks, they erode public trust,
    not just trust in Congress, but in our Government writ large,
    and a collapse in public trust has serious consequences for
    this Nation.
        The American people, sadly, have stopped believing that
    Government is working on their behalf. They no longer feel we
    are a Government of the people, by the people, and for the
    people. Who can blame them? Republican Members of Congress
    enrich themselves while cutting healthcare for millions of
    Americans. Donald Trump promised a booming economy on day one
    of his term. What do we get from him instead? The President is
    focused on ballrooms, on Greenland, on invading Venezuela to
    seize oil fields on behalf of his corporate donors, and on
    making millions possibly billions in the crypto space, that he
    has done nothing yet to make America more affordable for the
    hundreds of millions of Americans who rely on it.
        Our fellow Americans face skyrocketing prices everywhere
    they look. We are coming off the weakest year of job growth
    since the pandemic. Donald Trump is running the American
    economy into the ground. Our Government is in a crisis of
    public trust. Congress must do something to end the culture of
    corruption, begun largely by the Republicans in Washington,
    right now. I would welcome any chance for us to consider
    legislation to end congressional stock trading. That is not
    what this bill does. In fact, the Stop Insider Trading Act
    allows Members of Congress to continue to trade a substantial
    number of individual stocks. Under this bill, the wealthiest
    Members of Congress can keep every single share of stock they
    currently own and use their dividends to buy even more stock.
        Under this bill, Members can liquidate their holdings at
    any time while in office profiting off years of ballooning
    investment portfolios. Under this bill, spouses of Members can
    trade freely, buy or sell on behalf or for the benefit of any
    person other than themselves, their spouse, or their dependent
    children. I call this the ``grandma'' loophole because this
    loophole allows spouses or dependent children of Members to
    trade on behalf of grandparents or parents, their siblings. A
    Member's spouse could freely trade stocks on behalf of their
    parents or grandparents with a Member of Congress in line to
    inherit the estate. This is a loophole so big, you could fly a
    Qatari jet right through it.
        The bill does nothing to crack down on the self-dealing
    currently in progress at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The
    President continues to trade securities for his own enrichment,
    including the recent purchase of up to a million dollars in
    Warner Bros. bonds, all while Warner Bros. is in the middle of
    merger talks merger talks that will need the approval of
    President Trump's FCC. The bill does nothing to stop judges and
    Justices from trading stocks in companies who have cases before
    them in court. The Stop Insider Trading Act falls far, far too
    short. I would not even call this a half-measure. It is a
    misdirection play. Because of that, because I believe this bill
    is simply Speaker Johnson's attempt to blunt momentum toward a
    full congressional stock trading ban, I plan on opposing the
    bill today. First, Committee Democrats will offer a series of
    amendments to strengthen this deeply flawed bill. I vigorously
    encourage my colleagues to consider each of the amendments we
    offer.
        Should the majority refuse to adopt these amendments, I
    assure my colleagues on this Committee and Americans watching
    us now that today's markup is not the end of House Democrats'
    war against corruption in our Government, because at the end of
    today's proceedings Donald Trump's America will still be as
    expensive as it was yesterday; at the end of today's
    proceedings this administration will still be corrupt as it was
    yesterday; and at the end of today's proceedings, if this bill,
    in its current unamended form, moves on to the full House, to
    the Senate, or to the White House, Members of Congress will
    still be permitted to own and trade a wide range of individual
    stocks.
        That is why after the American people fire Mike Johnson in
    November, Democrats will do what Republicans have refused to do
    for years, what they refuse to do today. Democrats will pass
    legislation to actually ban stock trading by Members of
    Congress, to ban stock trading by the President of the United
    States, to ban stock trading by members of the United States
    Supreme Court. For now, however, I look forward to offering
    amendments to fix this broken bill, and a year from now I look
    forward to finally banning congressional stock trading under a
    Democrat majority.

        [The statements in opposition referred to follow:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Morelle. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        I now call up H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act.
        As I alluded in my opening statement, today we have a huge
    opportunity in front of us. The public is watching closely.
        First, let us discuss current law. Let us set the stage.
        Congress passed the STOCK Act in 2012 to address insider
    trading. Under the STOCK Act, Members of Congress were required
    to disclose individual trades a month or more after they
    occurred. The reporting is done in increments rather than exact
    amounts. This can fuel misinformation and sensationalized
    headlines.
        Violations under the STOCK Act under current law carry a
    penalty of $200. The challenge of current law is it allows the
    purchase of individual stocks.
        The Stop Insider Trading Act, the bill before us today,
    significantly reforms current law. Let us take a moment to walk
    through how it works.
        Under our bill, no Member, Member's spouse, or dependent
    child may purchase a security issued by a publicly traded
    company. Buying widely held investments that are diversified
    and publicly traded, such as mutual funds, is permissible. Safe
    harbors are provided for spousal income earned in the ordinary
    course of work.
        If a Member owns a stock prior to Congress, they can
    maintain ownership, but, again, stock acquisition is banned.
    The sale of any stock owned prior to coming to Congress
    requires public notice at least 7 days prior to the sale.
        The bill includes an occupational exception for spouses or
    dependent children who trade stock for others as a function of
    their occupation. A stockbroker or life insurance salesperson
    is a good example here.
        The penalties for this legislation are significant. Failure
    to comply will result in issuance of a fine equal to either
    $2,000 or 10 percent of the covered assets, whichever is
    greater. Additionally, any net gain realized from the sale will
    be forfeited.
        In summary, the legislation eliminates the ability to
    profit off of insider information. We are at a moment in time
    where soon every American will know where their Representative
    stands on stock trading.
        I encourage my colleagues to not let partisanship stand in
    the way of real, substantive progress. I urge my colleagues to
    support the legislation.
        I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, to
    give a statement on the bill.
        The clerk will please report the bill.
        The Clerk. H.R. 7008, to amend Chapter 131 of Title 5----
        Chairman Steil. Without objection, the first reading of the
    bill is dispensed with.
        Also, without objection, the bill shall be considered as
    read and open to amendment at any point.
        [H.R. 7008 follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. I have an Amendment in the Nature of a
    Substitute at the desk. The clerk will please report the
    amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R.
    7008----
        Chairman Steil. Without objection, the Amendment in the
    Nature of a Substitute is considered as read and will serve as
    base text for the purpose of further amendment.
        [The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. Do other Members seek recognition for
    amendment or debate?
        Mr. Morelle?
        Mr. Morelle. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chairman Steil. Mr. Morelle has an amendment at the desk.
    We will pause while the amendment is distributed.
        The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Strike all after enacting----
        Chairman Steil. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read.
        [The amendment of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida reserves a
    point of order.
        The gentleman from New York is recognized on his amendment.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My amendment would strike the text of the underlying bill
    and replace it with the Restore Trust in Government Act, a bill
    introduced by our colleague, Seth Magaziner, to actually ban
    trading of individual stocks by high-ranking Government
    officials.
        The Restore Trust in Government Act would do many things
    that the Stop Insider Trading Act fails to do. For example, it
    would require Members of Congress and the President and Vice
    President to divest entirely from their investment holdings
    when they enter public office. This requirement would also
    apply to Members' spouses and dependent children.
        Unlike today's bill, the Restore Trust in Government Act
    would bar covered individuals from trading; that is, buying and
    selling and even holding stocks and other financial
    instruments.
        The Restore Trust in Government Act would also ensure that
    Government officials covered by stock trading prohibitions are
    unable to write off trading losses from their taxes.
        There is extensive support in the House already for the
    Restore Trust in Government Act, to say nothing of the several
    other thoughtful, sometimes bipartisan bills that have been
    introduced to prohibit congressional stock trading.
        Each of these bills will be more effective at stopping
    insider trading, conflicts of interest, and corruption than the
    bill we have before us today.
        If Speaker Johnson were truly serious about banning
    congressional stock trading, which he has publicly said, we
    would be considering the Restore Trust in Government Act today
    or something substantially like it.
        I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to
    finally ban stock trading by high-ranking Government officials.
        With that, I will yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there further debate on the amendment.
        Ms. Sewell is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I, too, support the Restore Trust in Government Act.
        Every day elected officials make decisions that impact the
    quality of life for all Americans. Far too often bad actors
    take advantage of the sensitive information that is shared
    within the policymaking process to line their pockets for their
    own financial gain.
        To be sure, the problem that we are addressing here today
    is a very serious one. I just do not believe that the Stop
    Investor Trading Act is the right legislation. It does not go
    far enough to stop trading from occurring by Members of
    Congress and their families, and it does not address executives
    at all, whether that is the President or Vice President or any
    member of the executive.
        To be sure, this is a serious problem. Time and time again,
    elected officials have broken the trust of the American people
    by exploiting their positions of power for financial gain.
        This was on full display shortly after the COVID-19
    pandemic began. Members from both sides of the aisle used
    privileged information from briefings about the pandemic to
    trade securities.
        According to a review of financial disclosures by the
    Campaign Legal Center, 12 Senators made at least 227 purchases
    or sales that resulted in $98.3 million in stock profits.
        On the House side, there were about 1,360 transactions by
    37 Representatives that resulted in $60.5 million worth of
    stock profits.
        Most of these profits were generated from stocks associated
    with companies that played a significant role during the
    pandemic. When the Nation learned about these lucrative stock
    trades, the public's trust in our Government diminished.
        I believe Members from both sides of the aisle can agree
    that we are long overdue for reform. We must ensure proper
    guardrails are in place to prevent elected officials from
    trading securities because voters have a right to know that
    their lawmakers' decisions are in the best interests of the
    people, not of their personal gain.
        However, we not only have the duty to hold ourselves in
    Congress accountable, but we also must pass legislation that
    prohibits financial corruption within the executive branch.
        According to an October report by the Center for American
    Progress, the Trump family has pocketed more than $1.8 billion
    in cash and gifts since his reelection.
        Moreover, administration officials close to President Trump
    have used insider information to line their own pockets while
    American people continue to struggle with rising costs of food,
    healthcare, and housing.
        During the longest Government shutdown in American history,
    as Federal employees missed paychecks and 42 million SNAP
    beneficiaries feared losing access to vital nutrition
    assistance, lawmakers engaged in nearly 200 stock trades,
    earning about 3 to 9 million dollars in financial assets.
        As long as elected officials and public servants are
    allowed to trade stocks for companies that are impacted by
    Federal policy or regulation, the public will rightfully
    question whether we, as elected officials, are working in their
    common good.
        This is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 6731, the
    Restore Trust in Government Act, and I support the Ranking
    Member's efforts to substitute this current bill with that
    bill.
        I think it is really important that we have comprehensive
    reform. As a former securities lawyer, I know personally
    firsthand how important it is that we get this right, and we
    need to make sure that we are, indeed, addressing the public's
    concern.
        The bill acknowledges a fundamental truth--both bills:
    Lawmakers are not ordinary investors. Members of Congress
    routinely receive nonpublic briefings, influence regulatory
    outcomes, and shape legislation that can move markets.
        When elected officials are allowed to trade individual
    stocks, even legally, it creates the appearance and sometimes
    the reality of an insider advantage.
        That said, while this legislation is a strong step forward,
    it does not yet go far enough to fully eliminate insider
    trading risk or restore public trust.
        If our goal is to ensure that public service is never
    confused with private gain, this bill must be strengthened. I
    believe substituting this bill for the Restore Trust in
    Government Act is a positive step forward, and I support the
    Ranking Member's efforts to do so.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Is there further debate?
        Seeing none, I recognize myself to strike the last word.
        I appreciate the intention that my colleague offers this
    amendment. I think we do share the same goal, and we have
    talked about that here at this Committee: How do we prevent
    Members of Congress from profiting off of insider information?
        I think it is important to also make sure that we have
    legislation that allows individuals who have had successful
    private sector careers to also come to Congress.
        I think we are benefited by having individuals from a wide
    array of backgrounds--private sector, farmers, people that
    served in the military--that are able to come to this
    institution.
        I would note that I think in many ways the underlying
    legislation offered here fits into the category of what I call
    the Goldilocks argument: We like the underlying bill, Mr.
    Steil, but we have something that is maybe a little bit better.
        I think what we have is an opportunity with the underlying
    text--which would be removed if this memo was accepted--to make
    real and substantive progress, pass legislation in the House,
    and see that signed into law. By taking and accepting the
    amendment from my colleague from New York, what we would do is
    derail the opportunity for that real and substantive progress,
    the bipartisan legislation that we have before us, 7008.
        It is with that understanding that I am voting against this
    amendment and would encourage my colleagues to do the same.
        The gentleman from Virginia is recognized to strike the
    last word.
        Mr. Griffith. Mr. Chairman, agreeing with all of your
    comments, I would point out, on page 9, paragraph G, that while
    it gives an extension in paragraph H if there are low liquidity
    vesting schedules or contractual restrictions, it does not take
    away the provision that the asset must be divested in the case
    of a special circumstances acquisition that the investment must
    be divested at a fair market value.
        If you own a significant portion of a company--and
    everybody knows you have got 90 days to get rid of your
    significant portion--you are not selling it at a fair market
    value. You are having to sell it at a fire sale. You are
    selling it below market value, which then puts you in violation
    and punishment under the bill as written.
        Yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there further debate on the amendment?
        Seeing none, does the gentlewoman from Florida insist on a
    point of order?
        Ms. Lee. I withdraw my point of order.
        Chairman Steil. Point of order is withdrawn.
        The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the
    gentleman from New York, Mr. Morelle.
        All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, say nay.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it, the nays
    have it.
        Mr. Morelle. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote.
        Chairman Steil. A recorded vote has been requested.
        All those in favor of a recorded vote, please raise your
    hand.
        A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded
    vote is ordered.
        The clerk will please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil?
        Chairman Steil. Nay.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes nay.
        Ms. Lee?
        Ms. Lee. Nay.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes nay.
        Mr. Loudermilk?
        Mr. Loudermilk. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes no.
        Mr. Griffith?
        Mr. Griffith. Nay.
        The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
        Dr. Murphy?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Carey?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Miller?
        Mrs. Miller. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Miller votes no.
        Mr. Morelle?
        Mr. Morelle. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes aye.
        Ms. Sewell?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
        Mrs. Torres. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes aye.
        Ms. Johnson?
        Ms. Johnson. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
        Chairman Steil. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
        The clerk will please report the tally.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there are three
    ayes and five noes.
        Chairman Steil. The amendment is not adopted.
        Is there further amendment or debate on the underlying
    text?
        Mr. Morelle. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman from New York seeks
    recognition, has an amendment at the desk. We will pause while
    the amendment is distributed.
        The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Page 2, after line 7, insert the following: An
    employee of the legislative branch----
        Chairman Steil. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read.
        [The amendment of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2598.041

        Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida reserves a
    point of order.
        The gentleman from New York is recognized on his amendment.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As we are debating the advisability of a stock trading
    ban--and I would repeat, the bill in front of us is not such,
    although it may be labeled such--but I think it is important to
    debate and discuss the full scope of the individuals that ought
    to be covered by such a ban. This amendment would add senior
    staff, as well as judicial officers, as covered individuals
    under the bill.
        Senior staff may have just as much, if not more in many
    cases, inside information than Members of Congress do, and I
    think it is worth debating whether or not they should be
    covered under the bill.
        Judicial officers, on the other hand, should certainly be
    banned from trading stocks. The idea that a judge or Justice or
    their spouse can trade stocks in companies with cases before
    their chambers is completely and utterly unacceptable, and the
    American people know that.
        The independence of the judiciary has been attacked and
    questioned from every angle. A judge or Justice's financial
    interests should not be a consideration or up for question.
        Now, just this week there was a story about Supreme Court
    Justice Alito's recusal from a case because of his financial
    interest in the oil company in a case before the Court.
    According to reporting, Justice Alito has recused himself 10
    times this term and 53 times over the past three terms due to
    his investments.
        While recusal is certainly a better thing than ruling,
    recusal at the Nation's highest court is voluntary, and a
    Justice's impartiality should never be in question due to their
    financial interests, and you would want each of your Supreme
    Court Justices actually engaged in and making determinations.
        When you have to recuse yourself, you withdraw from that
    important consideration in the job before you, which is to
    serve the American people and to dispense justice.
        At this time, however, I withdraw my amendment but strongly
    encourage my Republican colleagues to consider the full scope
    of individuals and officeholders who should be covered by this
    prohibition.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman withdraws his amendment.
        Is there further amendment and debate on the underlying
    text?
        Representative Torres, do you have an amendment at the
    desk?
        Mrs. Torres. Yes.
        Chairman Steil. There is an amendment at the desk. We will
    pause while the amendment is distributed.
        The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Page 5, line 15, strike exceptions and all the
    following through----
        Chairman Steil. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read.
        [The amendment of Mrs. Torres follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2598.042

        Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida reserves a
    point of order.
        The gentlewoman from California is recognized on her
    amendment for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman. Happy New Year to you and
    to all of my colleagues.
        My constituents sent me here to ensure their Government
    works for them, not as a stock market cheat for politicians and
    their families.
        People writing and voting on laws that impact the stock
    market, Members of Congress and the Trump administration,
    should never have a blank check to use privileged information
    to cash in while working families continue to struggle.
        At our last hearing, I expressed my outrage that folks like
    Attorney General Pam Bondi and Transportation Secretary Duffy
    have been accused of using insider information to cheat the
    stock market with zero consequences.
        This bill does nothing to fix that.
        We have seen proof that Members who sit on the committee
    responsible for overseeing Big Pharma and who hold large
    amounts of Big Pharma stock vote differently than everyone
    else. Unacceptable.
        This bill allows those same Members to keep all of their
    Big Pharma stocks and reinvest their dividends to buy more.
    Oftentimes, that amount is in the millions.
        Chairman, we can sit here marking up this bill and pretend
    we are banning stock trading when, in fact, we are not. What we
    are doing is creating a loophole or, as I see it, a license to
    profit off of the health of the American people.
        This bill does not stop insider trading. It is riddled with
    loopholes. In fact, it is a gift to insider traders disguised
    as ethics reform.
        This bill, it does not require Members to divest. You can
    keep every stock you own and still pass laws that move markets
    in your favor.
        It does not require blind trust. That means your conflicts
    of interest stay in front and center while you claim to be
    ethically responsible.
        The so-called restrictions? A joke. You can still trade
    commodities, nonsecurity futures, and private company equity,
    the very trades that make you millions while you legislate.
        You can invest in funds concentrated in your own districts
    or State profiting from the laws that you pass as a Member of
    Congress. Spouses and dependent children can trade on your
    behalf of anyone. Simply stated, if you cannot directly profit,
    your family can do it for you.
        The loopholes in this bill are designed by insiders for
    insiders. Enforcement, zero, nonexistent. You break the rules,
    you pay a small fee. The Ethics Committee, by the way, can
    decide whether they can be lenient with you. That is not
    enforcement. That is a pathetic suggestion disguised as
    accountability.
        Let me say this plainly: This bill is a political scam. It
    is Republicans pretending to care about corruption while
    creating wealth for themselves. It mocks the will of the very
    people who we are supposed to serve.
        As one of my constituents put it: Congresswoman, fool me
    once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
        My amendment would eliminate this reinvestment loophole,
    prohibiting Members from reinvesting dividends.
        Mr. Chairman, I am deeply discouraged that this Committee
    has refused to consider a solid bipartisan bill that everyone
    can support, and I ask all of my colleagues to support my
    reasonable amendment closing a key loophole to stock trading.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Is there further debate on the amendment?
        I will recognize myself for 5 minutes to strike the last
    word.
        A lot was brought up here. I want to cover it maybe in
    sequential order to the best of my ability.
        One, the underlying amendment offered by my colleague from
    California actually really raises a good question that those of
    us that wrote this bill debated.
        Should an individual who has an investment in a company
    that provides a dividend to the owners be treated differently
    than an individual where that company is either doing stock
    buybacks--which some of my Democratic colleagues often do not
    care for--should be treated differently than a company that
    goes out and uses their cash profits to acquire additional
    companies?
        Then the question became, is there a potential of a benefit
    of insider trading from a reinvestment of dividends? The answer
    here is the reinvestment of dividends does not set up a concern
    of insider trading.
        If you have a concern of an individual owning stock--and I
    know some of my colleagues do not want any ownership of any
    private assets--but if you have an investment, can you
    manipulate that to the benefit of an individual with insider
    information?
        Because those dividends are structured by the company with
    advanced notice outside of the control of any given Member, it
    does not carry the risk of insider trading. Because it does not
    carry the risk of insider trading, what we allowed for was the
    reinvestment of dividends.
        Again, the focus here, to prevent Members from being able
    to profit off of insider information. The focus of the bill is
    not to make elected officials poor. The focus is to prevent
    them from benefiting off their insider information.
        We structured this with great care to make sure that
    Members would not be disincentivized for investments that were
    made prior to coming to Congress. Again, there is no ability to
    acquire stock under the underlying text once they arrive.
        Should they be penalized for an investment that was made
    prior to arrival in Congress based on the capital structure of
    the company in which they invested in?
        Should they be penalized in a way where they do not control
    the decision of that corporation to make a dividend payment
    versus a stock buyback versus utilizing the cash in another
    mechanism?
        This is very thoughtfully tailored to prevent the benefit
    of any inside information from being used. It is under that
    reason that I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this
    amendment, again, with the goal of taking the underlying text
    and making sure that we can pass it and allow it to become law.
        My colleague from California then went more broadly and
    spoke generally on the underlying text, and I want to go back
    and look at a few of those comments because I think it is
    relevant.
        She used the terms ``scam'' and ``mocks.'' Watch this
    carefully.
        The underlying bill provides additional restrictions on
    Members of Congress. It does not provide any protections. I
    would offer my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
    point to any line in the underlying text of this legislation
    that provides an additional protection.
        What their concern is, is on the underlying law. They may
    have not liked the 2012 STOCK Act. Of course, we could look,
    when the Democrats were in charge of the House of
    Representatives under the leadership of the previous Speaker,
    of course, we could go quickly look at every bill they brought
    before this Committee when they chaired it. We could look at
    every bill they brought before the House floor to fix it. Hmm.
    Crickets.
        What we have before us is the most transformational change.
    The arguments that I offered at the beginning, the Goldilocks
    argument, the ice cream sundae argument, perfection being the
    enemy of the good, tying this up, distracting, misleading, we
    continue to hear those arguments in the amendments before us.
        The underlying amendment offered by--the amendment offered
    by my colleague from California actually brings up a good
    point. I addressed that at the top. I think I come down on the
    other side of it.
        The arguments on the underlying bill, the Stop Insider
    Trading Act, are meant to distract from the point that it is us
    in the majority--in a bipartisan way, we have Democratic
    support for this bill--that are actually working to prevent
    Members from profiting off of insider information.
        I think the terminology used by my colleague, ``scams'' and
    ``mocks,'' is actually incredibly disingenuous to the
    underlying work and what the underlying text of this bill does.
        With that, I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on
    the amendment from my colleague from California.
        I yield back.
        Is there further debate on the amendment offered by the
    gentlewoman from California?
        The gentleman from New York is recognized to strike the
    last word.
        Mr. Morelle. Yes, I move to strike the last word.
        Just to be clear, it is not--I think there are a number of
    different levels that we are concerned about.
        One is certainly information that people have who sit in
    Congress, who sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who sit on the
    Supreme Court, and the information they may have or a sense of
    policy which will affect stock prices.
        It is also the question of whether or not people who come
    to Congress are self-dealing, whether or not they are using
    their positions to make additional money for themselves.
    Reinvestment of dividends is buying additional stock.
        Now, you may argue it is not new stock, but, frankly, if
    you own Nvidia or you own another stock that is doing well, and
    you know it is doing well because you sit here in the House,
    the ability to buy is a decision you make affirmatively. It is
    not something that happens by default. You are making a
    decision to continue to buy and continue to reinvest in that
    company.
        I think that is what Mrs. Torres is pointing out, that this
    is a significant--not the only significant--loophole.
        We believe--I think there is a big contrast--we believe
    that Members should not own individual stocks. There are
    investment vehicles, there are mutual funds, there are other
    baskets that are broad--broadly represent the markets that we
    would support, and I do not think we are interested in Members
    of Congress being poor.
        It is that if we want to and we seek to build the trust and
    regain the trust in the American people, they need to feel that
    when we come here, all of us, both sides of the aisle, that we
    are not self-dealing, that our only interest is them.
        I, frankly, feel in this moment that that is not what they
    feel, that they feel, no matter how good you are when you come
    here, no matter how fresh-faced and enthusiastic you are, you
    come here, it is a different world, and you ultimately start
    dealing for your own interests.
        It is not a question of whether you can reinvest, not
    reinvest, hold, sell at some point in the future. It is to take
    it off the table for the American public so they no longer have
    to wonder: Are they doing that for themselves, or are they
    doing that for us? I think that is the substantial difference
    between the two approaches.
        With that, I support the amendment, and I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there further debate? Is there further debate?
        Seeing none, does the gentlewoman from Florida insist on
    her point of order.
        Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
        Chairman Steil. Point of order is withdrawn.
        The question now occurs on the amendment from the
    gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Torres.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, nay?
        In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it.
        Mr. Morelle. I would request a recorded vote.
        Chairman Steil. A recorded vote of the yeas and nays has
    been requested.
        All those in favor of a recorded vote, please raise your
    hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a vote is
    ordered.
        The clerk will please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil?
        Chairman Steil. No.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes no.
        Ms. Lee?
        Ms. Lee. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
        Mr. Loudermilk?
        Mr. Loudermilk. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes no.
        Mr. Griffith?
        Mr. Griffith. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
        Dr. Murphy?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
        Mrs. Bice. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes no.
        Mr. Carey?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Miller?
        Mrs. Miller. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Miller votes no.
        Mr. Morelle?
        Mr. Morelle. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes aye.
        Ms. Sewell?
        Ms. Sewell. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
        Mrs. Torres?
        Mrs. Torres. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes aye.
        Ms. Johnson?
        Ms. Johnson. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
        Chairman Steil. Have all Members voted? Does any Member
    wish to change their vote?
        The clerk will report the tally.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote there are four ayes
    and six noes.
        Chairman Steil. The amendment is not adopted.
        Is there further amendment or debate on the underlying
    bill?
        Ms. Sewell has an amendment at the desk.
        Ms. Sewell. Yes.
        Chairman Steil. We will pause while the amendment is
    distributed.
        The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Page 2, after line----
        Chairman Steil. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read.
        [The amendment of Ms. Sewell follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2598.043

        Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida reserves a
    point of order.
        The gentlewoman, Ms. Sewell, is recognized on her
    amendment.
        Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My amendment would add the President and the Vice President
    to the list of covered individuals in this bill.
        We all know that the President and the Vice President have
    access to sensitive financial information. However, these
    offices of public trust are missing entirely from this bill.
        The President has an unprecedented ability to influence the
    United States economy and the world economy, which we have
    witnessed as President Trump's tariff war has tanked financial
    markets.
        In fact, last April, I led a letter as the Ways and Means
    Oversight Subcommittee Ranking Member demanding accountability
    for President Trump's announcement and quick reversal of the
    reciprocal tariffs which created massive shifts in the U.S.
    market and raised widespread concerns of market manipulation.
        Not surprisingly, the Trump administration failed to
    respond to the letter.
        Additionally, the President can currently trade on inside
    information, and this bill does nothing to stop that. President
    Trump has purchased several corporate bonds seeking to
    influence market decisions.
        According to reports, President Trump purchased up to $1
    million in Warner Bros. bonds all while attempting to secure
    Government approval for a Paramount-Warner Bros. merger. This
    merger, if successful, would increase the value of the bonds
    owned by the President and represents a pattern of blatant
    corruption.
        When the President or Vice President intervenes in markets
    for personal gain, as we have seen time and time again with
    this administration, it not only hurts businesses, but drives
    up costs and puts jobs at risk in working communities like
    those I represent.
        My constituents see the results of this corruption every
    day with increased costs to their food, housing, and healthcare
    happening simultaneously.
        Every person that holds a Federal elected office in the
    United States must be accountable to those that they represent.
        Enough is enough. The time has long come for Congress to
    address the violations of the public trust by the executive,
    the President and the Vice President, not just Members of
    Congress. Failure to include the President and Vice President
    in this legislation will fail to implement reforms that
    Americans overwhelmingly support.
        I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment to
    end Presidential insider trading.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to
    enter my letter to President Trump about his tariff war and
    market manipulation for the record.
        Chairman Steil. Without objection.
        [The letter follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Sewell. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Is there further debate on the amendment?
        Mrs. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to----
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized
    to strike the last word.
        Mrs. Miller. Attempts by the minority to derail this
    bipartisan bill are disappointing. House Democrats had
    countless opportunities to ban Members from stock trading but
    failed to do so as their former Speaker made millions from her
    position in Congress.
        Speaking to this amendment, many farmers rely on
    commodities trading for long-term risk management and
    protecting the future of America's food supply, which Democrat
    Members should know. Farmers must be able to sell their crops
    at a moment's notice, and applying restrictions meant for Wall
    Street to farming is shortsighted and unworkable.
        I urge my colleagues to oppose the minority's attempts to
    insert this poison pill. I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Is there further debate on the amendment?
        I recognize----
        Mr. Morelle. I am sorry.
        Chairman Steil. I recognize the gentleman from New York to
    strike the last word.
        Mr. Morelle. Yes. I strike the last word and will again
    implore you to get better microphones.
        I simply say this, that it seems inconceivable to me that
    we would consider anything in the space of congressional
    Members of Congress and spouses and dependent children for the
    purposes of making certain that they cannot enrich themselves
    because of their position and not include the President of the
    United States.
        This administration talked about draining the swamp. This
    administration has added a second story on the swamp, has built
    a parking garage, and I think an 18-hole luxury golf course. I
    mean, the swamp has become so large. Using now the
    administration's opportunities to make money has become a daily
    occurrence. This is the greatest threat, in my mind, to
    American democracy.
        Not agreeing to this amendment, I think, suggests a real
    lack of understanding of where the American people are around
    the whole question of inside information.
        I want to point out again what Ms. Sewell said and I said
    in my opening comments: The President within the last couple of
    months, not before he was President, purchased up to a million
    dollars in Warner Bros. bonds.
        Warner Bros. is now, as people know, it is in the news, the
    subject of significant merger talks, a deal with Netflix. A
    counteroffer has been attempted to be made, which has been
    rejected, by Paramount, owned by the President's friend, Larry
    Ellison and his son.
        His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has even gone to the private
    equity market to try to get capital to enrich the offer made by
    Paramount, which drives the value of Warner Bros. even higher.
        Ultimately, this deal, the merger deal, has to go in front
    of the FCC, which is--I mean, the President has made no secret
    of the fact that he intends his appointees to do what he says
    they should do. There is no autonomy in the agencies. There is
    no autonomy in the different regulatory agencies that are part
    of the Federal Government. Even those that are independent,
    like the Fed, the President is trying to put his thumb on.
        Not including the President, not agreeing to this
    amendment, I think it belies the whole issue here, which is to
    protect people, particularly to protect the President from the
    kind of activity he is engaged in.
        I would strongly urge support of the amendment. I would ask
    all of my colleagues to demonstrate what I think the American
    people desperately want, which is a clue that the people,
    particularly at the highest levels of this Government with the
    most influence, the most ability to affect outcomes, that we
    include them in the bill before the Committee.
        With that, I would yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there further debate on the amendment?
        I recognize myself to strike the last word.
        I encourage my colleagues to vote no.
        I do think it is a worthy conversation. We heard earlier
    about the judiciary, about the executive. I remind them, the
    executive is bound by the STOCK Act, as well as other current
    Federal law.
        I think there is an opportunity to think more broadly about
    how we think about not only congressional staff members,
    executive staff members, judiciary members, and, again, we work
    to balance all of that between preventing people from abusing
    their position of power, but also making sure we have avenues
    for people from an array of backgrounds to be able to come and
    serve this country, whether or not as a staff member, a judge,
    a Member of Congress, or the President of the United States.
        Because I think this will ultimately attempt to derail the
    underlying bill, I discourage my colleagues, and I will be
    voting no.
        I yield back.
        Is there further debate on the amendment?
        Does the gentlewoman from Florida insist on her point of
    order?
        Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
        Chairman Steil. Point of order is withdrawn.
        The question now occurs on the amendment from Ms. Sewell.
        All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, signify by saying nay.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it, the nays
    have it, and the amendment is not adopted.
        Mr. Morelle. I would request a recorded vote.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman from New York requests a
    recorded vote.
        All those in favor of a recorded vote, please raise your
    hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded
    vote is ordered.
        The clerk will please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil?
        Chairman Steil. No.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes no.
        Ms. Lee?
        Ms. Lee. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
        Mr. Loudermilk?
        Mr. Loudermilk. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes no.
        Mr. Griffith?
        Mr. Griffith. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
        Dr. Murphy?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Bice?
        Mrs. Bice. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Bice votes no.
        Mr. Carey?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Miller?
        Mrs. Miller. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Miller votes no.
        Mr. Morelle?
        Mr. Morelle. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes aye.
        Ms. Sewell?
        Ms. Sewell. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
        Mrs. Torres?
        Mrs. Torres. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes aye.
        Ms. Johnson?
        Ms. Johnson. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
        Chairman Steil. Have all Members voted? Does any Member
    wish to change their vote?
        Seeing none, the clerk will please report the tally.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote there are four ayes
    and six noes.
        Chairman Steil. The amendment is not adopted.
        Is there further amendment or debate on the underlying
    text?
        Mr. Morelle. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman from New York seeks
    recognition, has an amendment at the desk. We will pause while
    the amendment is distributed.
        The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Page 2, beginning on line 1----
        Chairman Steil. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read.
        [The amendment of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2598.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2598.058

        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida.
        Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida reserves a
    point of order.
        The gentleman from New York is recognized on his amendment.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I offer this amendment to fix a fundamental failure of the
    bill before the Committee, which is it does not, in fact, ban
    congressional stock trading. In fact, under the terms of the
    bill, Members may still trade private stocks, they may still
    trade commodity derivatives, they may trade digital assets. The
    list goes on and on of things that they might continue to
    invest in where knowledge of the industry would benefit them as
    they make those determinations.
        The so-called Stop Insider Trading Act actually allows
    Members of Congress to continue profiting from their insider
    knowledge by trading stocks in privately held companies like
    SpaceX and OpenAI.
        Under this bill, Members of Congress can continue profiting
    from their ability to affect the prices of commodities of all
    kinds, like oil, natural gas, and food grown by American
    farmers.
        You have to wonder at the timing, so soon after the
    President opened up Venezuelan oil fields to his corporate
    cronies and oil futures now soaring, just days after the
    President tried to destroy the independence of the Fed, a
    foundational piece of the Western economy and the economy of
    the United States.
        In response, precious metals futures skyrocketed. It is not
    just a coincidence.
        Speaker Johnson wants to allow Members to profit off their
    positions and off the chaos created by the Trump
    administration.
        My amendment would include private company stock,
    commodities and futures, and the covered instruments that
    Members cannot trade in while in office to limit the insider
    trading that this bill would permit.
        I do note, I think--if I might--I think the gentlelady from
    Illinois during the last debate was referring to this. Just
    want to make the point about commodity trading for small family
    farms, that there is a section in a provision in the amendment
    to protect those individuals so they can continue to work their
    family farms.
        I did want to make mention of that because she raised a
    point which we are sensitive to.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I urge anyone who truly wants to
    restore trust in Congress to join me now in supporting this
    amendment. I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there further debate on the amendment.
        I recognize myself to strike the last word.
        Appreciate my colleagues. We dialogued this a little bit, I
    think, in our previous hearing in particular as it would relate
    to farms.
        We definitely--kind of talking more broadly earlier, I
    think one of the intentions of the underlying bill, my
    legislation, is to make sure that individuals from a wide array
    of backgrounds are able to come and serve in Congress. I think
    that is one of the strengths of this institution.
        I appreciate my colleagues' attempt to carve out family
    farms. This is obviously the first introduction I have seen of
    the carve-out from my colleague.
        In my initial reading, I do not know that it is clear that
    it would carve out farms that are held at a corporate level,
    which a large number of--although family farms ultimately sit
    in a legal structure other than a sole proprietor. An
    individual farmer in Wisconsin, for example, may own that land
    in an LLC or a partnership. It could be a corporation, a C-
    Corp, depending on what State you live in. That might not be
    the case in Iowa. I think they blocked that. I am not on the Ag
    Committee.
        My concern is how this would prevent, in particular our
    farmers, from being able to access commodity markets in the
    ordinary course of their business. I am envisioning a soybean
    farmer or a corn farmer in, say, Wisconsin. They need to buy
    fertilizer, they need to buy seed. They are going on and buying
    those futures to make sure that they are not subject to the
    whims of pricing on any given day. That is really big in
    particular, I know, for a lot of my family farms in Wisconsin,
    regardless of the technical ownership structure, what I am
    calling a family farm, that they need to be able to balance
    that risk so that they can sell their soybeans at the best
    price, that they can be able to sell their corn at the best
    price, that they are not subject to the price that the market
    may have on the day the truck pulls up to take that soybean or
    corn away from the market. That is, for me, a real and
    substantive concern.
        We also are seeing ourselves at the beginning of an era of
    digital assets. Obviously, some are front and center in the
    newspaper. People are familiar with a handful of them. In the
    broader digital asset space we are seeing a lot of digital
    assets come online.
        The House passed the Clarity Act in the Financial Services
    Committee, which, as it says, provides clarity as to how we
    treat digital assets from a securities to a commodity, the role
    of the SEC and the CFTC in this regard. We passed that out of
    the House with overwhelming bipartisan support. I believe we
    had 78 Democrats joining the Republican Conference in passing
    that legislation. The Senate is working their way through the
    Clarity Act right now.
        If you are like me and believe that digital assets will be
    a larger and larger part of the broader American economy, it is
    essential that we get this right, that we are not restricting
    people's ability to operate.
        It would kind of be like we went back in time and we
    restricted Members of Congress from using credit cards because
    we deemed it an inappropriate loan. That might have made sense
    back in the day when credit cards were first coming online. Now
    it would be pretty tough to operate in I think most of our
    lives if we did not have access to credit cards.
        I think we will personally, we will see a similar evolution
    in the digital asset space in utilizing those, whether or not
    that is a stablecoin function and you are operating and
    purchasing things utilizing stablecoin or you are utilizing
    different digital assets throughout your daily life. I think
    there are a lot of questions with how we would get this text
    right.
        Again, I am going to go back all the way to my opening
    comments. I am not opposed to dialoguing this and looking at
    ways that we could further strengthen our rules and regulations
    here. I do think that this distracts us from the underlying
    bill and the opportunity to make real and substantive progress
    on restricting Members from being able to profit off of insider
    information.
        I understand the intention in which the amendment is
    offered. I do not think that it is ready for prime time in
    particular as I referenced digital assets and farming, but I
    think it is also an attempt to distract the underlying bill
    that we are--the underlying text that we are working on to
    prevent it from either passing this Committee or passing the
    floor.
        We have seen time and again a big dusty shelf of bills that
    have been introduced and not passed. I think the underlying
    bill we have before us has an opportunity to pass, and I think
    this would distract or hinder its ability to do that.
        With that, I will encourage my colleagues to vote no on the
    amendment from my colleague from New York.
        Is there further--I yield back.
        Is there further debate on the amendment?
        Seeing none, does the gentlewoman from Florida----
        Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
        Chairman Steil. Point of order is withdrawn.
        If there is no further amendment, the question now occurs
    on the amendment from the gentleman from New York.
        All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, nay.
        The opinion of the Chair is the nays have it. The nays have
    it, and the amendment is not adopted.
        Mr. Morelle. May I ask for a roll call.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman seeks recognition and
    requests a recorded vote.
        All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hand.
        A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded
    vote is ordered. The clerk will please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil.
        Chairman Steil. No.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes no.
        Ms. Lee?
        Ms. Lee. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
        Mr. Loudermilk?
        Mr. Loudermilk. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes no.
        Mr. Griffith?
        Mr. Griffith. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
        Dr. Murphy?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Bice.
        Mrs. Bice. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Bice says no.
        Mr. Carey?
        Mr. Carey. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes no.
        Mrs. Miller?
        Mrs. Miller. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Miller votes no.
        Mr. Morelle?
        Mr. Morelle. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes aye.
        Ms. Sewell?
        Ms. Sewell. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
        Mrs. Torres?
        Mrs. Torres. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes aye.
        Ms. Johnson?
        Ms. Johnson. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
        Chairman Steil. Have all Members voted? Does any Member
    wish to change their vote.
        The clerk will please report the tally.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote there are four ayes
    and seven noes.
        Chairman Steil. The amendment is not adopted.
        Is there further amendment or debate?
        Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Texas has an amendment
    at the desk. We will pause while the amendment is distributed.
        The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Page 4, beginning on line 5----
        Chairman Steil. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read.
        [The amendment of Ms. Johnson follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2598.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2598.060

        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman----
        Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida reserves a
    point of order.
        The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized on her amendment.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate the Committee holding this markup today, but
    instead of choosing a bipartisan bill with real comprehensive
    reform or legislation that includes the executive branch and
    the courts, they are choosing to mark up a brand new bill that
    we have just received text for. There is already a pending bill
    that addresses this issue.
        For example, in H.R. 5106, just the very first sentence, it
    prohibits Members of Congress and their spouses from owning or
    trading stocks. Whereas, the sentence of this one just says it
    merely restricts Members of Congress. There is a vast
    difference between restriction and prohibition.
        H.R. 7008, this Chairman's new bill, states, to amend
    chapter 131 of title 5 requires certain restrictions, whereas
    this other bill is an outright prohibition.
        The Chairman's new bill is not a stock trading ban. It is a
    restriction ban. It is a restriction on stocks purchasing with
    a requirement to report stock sales, which Members already
    abide by.
        The bill also completely ignores the issue of divestment,
    that Members should be required to sell their current holdings,
    something I have done personally in my own portfolio. I chose
    to divest, not because the law required it, but because earning
    a trust of my constituents demands it.
        Public service means more than compliance with the bare
    minimum. Every one of us has a responsibility to set the
    standard for this institution. When you choose to serve the
    public, you must ensure that your personal financial holdings
    never conflict with the public good. That is how trust is
    built. That is how confidence is restored.
        That is why we are here today. Full divestment is the only
    way to truly eliminate conflicts of interest, and that is why I
    took that step myself.
        Before coming to Congress, I was a small business owner and
    a lawyer, and I was fortunate to find success in that work. The
    moment I took the office on the House floor, I was no longer
    serving myself; I was serving the hundreds of thousands of
    north Texans that I have the honor to represent.
        That responsibility is not an opportunity to profit. It is
    a sacrifice, and it is a sacrifice that we must hold the
    highest possible standard. If we as Members of Congress of the
    United States are unwilling to make that sacrifice, we have no
    right to ask the American people for their trust.
        My amendment requires full divestiture, instead of a 7-day
    notice of a sale of stock. If Republicans were serious about
    restoring the public trust, if they were serious about rooting
    out corruption and listening to the American people, they would
    vote for my amendment and bring the bipartisan Restore Trust in
    Congress Act or the Restore Trust in Government Act led by the
    Ranking Member of this Committee to the House for a vote.
        Bills that actually ban Members of Congress and their
    spouses and dependents from owning or trading individual
    stocks, that is what is required, that is what eliminates
    corruption in this body, and that is what needs to happen in
    this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the adoption of
    my amendment.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. Is there further debate on the amendment.
        Does any other Member seek recognition?
        I recognize myself to strike the last word.
        I appreciate the intention in which my colleague from Texas
    brings forward this amendment. I too, when I came to Congress,
    I actually--the only trades I have done since I arrived in
    Congress was to sell my underlying stocks that touched the
    financial services space because I served on the Financial
    Services Committee. I thought that was the right thing for me
    to do.
        One of the things that occurred to me is then I paid a
    capital gains tax on that. Under the amendment offered by our
    colleague from Texas, that would obviously continue to apply.
    It would have applied to me, as it did. I made that choice.
        For some people, that may be a very significant financial
    impact. If the amendment from my colleague from Texas was
    adopted, I think there may be a real concern that some
    individuals would choose not to come to Congress. Again, not
    because they did not run. Because they had a successful private
    sector career. Maybe they are later in their career and they
    had saved up for retirement and they had chosen to do that
    through corporate stock. That is actually a reasonably common
    technique a lot of Americans do to save for their retirement.
    Maybe they have a self-directed IRA or a Roth IRA if they are
    tax advantage kind of people.
        Maybe they invested in a company that they like. You know,
    I love eating Chipotle. I ultimately did not buy Chipotle
    stock, for the record, because, as I said, I have not bought
    any stock, but, boy, I eat a lot of Chipotle. I also am known
    to eat at some other fast food restaurants.
        Maybe you like flying on a specific airline. A lot of
    people buy stocks in a whole host of companies. Maybe that is
    how they were saving for retirement and then they thought, boy,
    you know, I got some good ideas, I would like to get to
    Washington and clean it up. Maybe they are on your side of the
    aisle and they got liberal ideas. Maybe they are on my side of
    the aisle and they got conservative ideas. That would be fine.
    They thought, boy, I do not know that I can go because of the
    amendment offered by my colleague from Texas because they take
    this massive tax hit. It is one of the concerns that I would
    have about this bill.
        The other would be, what if you--we had our hearing, one of
    our colleagues referenced that they own a small community pool,
    and that colleague was talking about that and said, look, that
    Member--if I summarized it to the best of my ability would be,
    look, the Member owns the pool because it is really a community
    service, not because they are trying to make any money off the
    pool. Just loves swimming. There was actually a swimmer in the
    room, if you recall this. Then if you force that divestiture,
    what is going to happen to the pool? Probably paved over and
    become a parking lot. I do not know the community well enough,
    but it sounds like----
        Mr. Morelle. Condos.
        Chairman Steil. Condos. The gentleman informs me it would
    become condos, because it probably would be more valuable as
    condos because it sounds like the pool does not make any money,
    which is actually kind of sort of a pro-community kind of
    thing.
        There are a lot of people, I think, actually that have
    investments like that. Some people own restaurants in small
    towns, not to make money, but because they want to kind of help
    the community, have places where people can come and gather,
    gather at a pool in Virginia.
        If adopted, this may force, in some smaller companies,
    obviously not the largest companies, but smaller companies to
    have real negative impacts in our communities.
        Again, the goal of the underlying text is not to try to
    make Members poor, not to try to restrict people from coming to
    Congress, is to try to prevent them from being able to profit
    off of insider information.
        The underlying text does that and accomplishes that. It
    provides additional restrictions to make sure that Members are
    not profiting off of insider information that they gain while
    they are in Congress.
        If we go all the way back to the top, when I opened, I said
    to everybody watching and everybody in the room, pay attention
    for amendments and suggestions that are part of the Goldilocks
    Rule, which is famous in this town to try to kill a bill. It is
    not quite good enough. That porridge is just a little too hot.
    The porridge is just a little too cold. Got to make this tweak
    to make it mine. Then, of course, somebody else, the porridge
    is too hot and the porridge is too cold, and it prevents us
    from reaching a resolution.
        In fact, I think that is in large part why we did not see
    resolutions made while the Democrats controlled the House. The
    Democrats had an opportunity to bring forward legislation and
    chose not to. Under the previous Speaker, any movement in this
    regard was thwarted. Under Speaker Johnson, our work on this
    Committee has been encouraged. What a sea change that has been.
    An opportunity to make dramatic and substantive reforms in the
    U.S. House of Representatives is before us.
        I encourage my colleagues to not be distracted by
    goldilocks legislation and amendments that are being offered. I
    think there is real and substantive concerns with the amendment
    offered as well, and, therefore, I will be voting no, and would
    encourage my colleagues to vote no as well.
        I yield back.
        Is there further debate--is there further debate on the
    amendment?
        Ms. Johnson. May I speak?
        Chairman Steil. You already spoke, but if somebody would
    like to be recognized and yield time, I will do that. I will
    help--the gentleman from New York is recognized.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would yield my time to
    the distinguished gentlelady from Texas.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle.
        You know, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond. You
    know, I think that the point--the problem is, with the
    arguments that you just made, is that the bill, as offered, has
    no porridge in the bowl. I mean, you could say that there is
    porridge too hot, porridge too cold, but there is no porridge
    in the bowl based on this bill because it does not do anything.
    It does not have any real teeth. There is not a meal to be had
    here to pick about.
        The reality of it is, when--and I am certainly sympathetic
    to that small restaurant and that small community pool, but
    they are not--the likelihood of those entities being subject to
    publicly traded stocks--I do not think Mel's Diner on the
    corner of wherever is a publicly traded restaurant such that it
    is being sold on the Nasdaq.
        I think what we are talking about here is divestiture of
    stockholdings that are publicly traded to restore the public
    trust in this body and in our institutions of Government.
        The reality of it is we are at a level of corruption in
    Government--the lowest public trust that people have in this
    body, in the executive branch, in the judicial branch, with
    Supreme Court Thomas' blatant corruption, with the corruption
    that is coming out of the White House, with the corruption that
    is coming all over, we must act and have something that has
    real teeth, that has real meat on the bone. What we are trying
    to do is improve it.
        You know, I cannot believe it. I am supporting Chip Roy's
    bill. I am a Democrat from Texas and, you know, I am supporting
    Chip Roy's bill, one of the most conservative Members from my
    State, because I agree with his efforts to try to clamp down on
    the brazen corruption that is happening in this body.
        You know, I just think that at some point we have to step
    up. I hear from people all the time: They cannot trust
    Congress. Like you, I incurred huge capital gains tax on the
    divestiture of my assets to be--because I think it is the right
    thing to do. I think we as Members of Congress need to remove
    the propriety, the appearance of impropriety. We have an
    obligation to do that. We are at a higher standard by virtue of
    our desire to seek this office. That is why we are here.
        I would really strongly encourage you to consider some of
    these amendments, in particular this one. I do think that it is
    incumbent upon this body to--we have a real opportunity as this
    Committee to do something really strong and powerful on this
    issue, and I would just like to encourage us to do that.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Morelle. I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there further debate on the amendment?
        Seeing no further amendment, does the gentlewoman from
    Florida----
        Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
        Chairman Steil. Point of order is withdrawn.
        The question now occurs on the amendment from Ms. Johnson
    from Texas.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, nay.
        The opinion of the Chair is the nays have it. The nays have
    it, and the amendment is not adopted.
        Mr. Morelle. Ask for a recorded vote.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman seeks recognition and is--for
    a recorded vote. A recorded vote has been requested.
        All those in favor of a recorded vote, please raise your
    hand.
        A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded
    vote is ordered. The clerk will please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil.
        Chairman Steil. No.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes no.
        Ms. Lee?
        Ms. Lee. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
        Mr. Loudermilk?
        Mr. Loudermilk. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes no.
        Mr. Griffith?
        Mr. Griffith. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
        Dr. Murphy?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Bice.
        Mrs. Bice. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Bice says no.
        Mr. Carey?
        Mr. Carey. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes no.
        Mrs. Miller?
        Mrs. Miller. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Miller votes no.
        Mr. Morelle?
        Mr. Morelle. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes aye.
        Ms. Sewell?
        Ms. Sewell. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
        Mrs. Torres?
        Mrs. Torres. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes aye.
        Ms. Johnson?
        Ms. Johnson. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
        Chairman Steil. Have all Members voted? Does any Member
    wish to change their vote.
        The clerk will please report the tally.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote there are four ayes
    and seven noes.
        Chairman Steil. The amendment is not adopted.
        Is there further amendment or debate?
        The gentleman from New York is recognized.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
    at the desk.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman from New York has an
    amendment at the desk. We will pause while the amendment is
    distributed.
        The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Page 5, beginning on line 20, strike ``is--''--
    --
        Chairman Steil. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered read.
        [The amendment of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2598.061

        Chairman Steil. The gentle----
        Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida reserves a
    point of order.
        The gentleman from New York is recognized on his amendment.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I think this represents the final amendment from our side,
    and I offer it to close what I consider a massive loophole in
    the bill, a provision that allows the spouse or dependent of
    Members to freely trade stocks on behalf of any other
    noncovered individuals.
        Specifically on page 6 of the bill makes clear that the
    requirements, quote, shall not apply to a spouse or dependent
    child of a Member of Congress with respect to a transaction in
    a covered investment which is on behalf or for the benefit of
    any person other than a covered individual.
        As I said in my opening remarks, I would call this a
    grandma loophole, because a Member's spouse could buy and sell
    stocks on behalf of a Member's parent or grandparent who are
    not under the still covered individuals. They could all do this
    while the Member stands to inherent a grandparents' or parents'
    estate.
        I think many of us deal with elderly parents, and the
    ability to have our spouse purchase unlimited amounts of stock
    to put in the name of a grandparent who may be ailing in which
    we benefit or stand to benefit in the near future as a result
    of being someone who inherits resource in the estate. Clearly,
    this amendment would be a workaround to allow trading--or this
    provision, in my view, is a workaround to allow trading on a
    Member's behalf to continue as further evidence the bill is not
    a ban at all.
        I would at least, in an effort to make this what I consider
    poorly designed and poorly considered bill somewhat better, I
    would urge the adoption of this amendment and ask my colleagues
    to join me in closing this blatant loophole.
        With that, I will yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there further debate on the amendment? Is there further
    debate on the amendment?
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes to strike the last word.
        Appreciate the intention of my colleague on this amendment,
    and would be happy to work with my colleague if further
    restrictions or refinement is needed.
        Let me jump out and read the occupational exception,
    section D, under the bill that was previously offered as the
    gentleman's ANS, and where actually this stemmed from. This
    actually stemmed from a lot of work by Members on both sides of
    the aisle.
        Under the alternative legislation that has been introduced,
    subsection D, occupational exception, would--reads as follows:
    A spouse or dependent child, or a Member of Congress, may trade
    any covered investment if such covered investment is not owned
    by a covered individual, and if such trade is performed as a
    function of the primary occupation of the spouse or dependent
    child.
        Let us step back and kind of think what the authors of that
    legislation, I think some of which Members in this room may be
    cosponsors of that bill, intended. In my conversations with
    those that drafted that, the intent was to say, OK, what if
    your spouse sells life insurance. They work for a life
    insurance company and it is a great job. They are not involved
    in day trade, there is not inside information, that is just
    literally what they do for a living. What if they work for a
    publicly traded company. Your spouse is in accounts payable at
    a big public company.
        What do we do? We do not want to tell people their spouse
    cannot be employed in their career of choice. Obviously, if
    there is a massive conflict, that is a separate ball game. We
    are talking somebody that is selling life insurance, maybe they
    work on Wall Street in some capacity, but not trading on their
    own account, right. They are just working for a large bank or
    they are working for another company. How do we address that?
        The authors of the previous legislation, which was
    previously offered, I believe, by my colleague earlier, that
    subsection D created an occupational exception, and, again, a
    spouse or dependent child, or a Member of Congress, may trade--
    their language, not yours, but offered by others--may trade
    covered investment if such covered investment is not owned by a
    covered individual--meaning the Member, the Member spouse, or
    their dependent children--and if such trade is performed as a
    function of the primary occupation of the spouse or dependent
    child.
        We then worked to look and say, how do we make sure we get
    this right, again, making sure that there is a reasonable
    occupational exception, and in dialog with the original
    authors, believing that this language that we introduced in our
    text not only met the goal but also the intent.
        There has been some feedback on this both by Members of
    Congress not on this Committee, as well as the comments just
    made by my colleague. I would offer to my colleague, if he is
    interested in withdrawing the amendment, I would be happy to
    work with him to finesse this language because I think we all
    agree we do not want a loophole where somebody is, you know,
    wink wink, nod nod, trying to make a trade around the intent of
    the bill, but also making sure that a spouse who--you know, I
    am just using the generic idea that somebody is selling life
    insurance because that is a real occupation for a lot of
    people, a great occupation, that they are able to continue
    selling life insurance. I do not think we are trying to ban
    people from engaging in their professions who are not
    benefiting off of insider information or trading nefariously
    for their own benefit.
        If the gentleman is interested in withdrawing the
    amendment, I would be interested in working with him to finesse
    this language, knowing that there is similar language, not
    word-for-word verbatim, but darn similar in the bill that he
    has. I do not know if that is something the gentleman is
    interested in.
        Mr. Morelle. Well, actually, I would be happy to have you
    adopt the amendment, and then we could work on finessing the
    language. I would suggest that as an alternative. Otherwise, I
    would like a vote on the amendment.
        Chairman Steil. I appreciate that.
        Because the amendment offered strikes the full section, I
    am going to encourage a no vote on this. Between now and when
    this comes to the floor, we have had a good, strong working
    relationship. I think in many ways we have similar goals here.
    We are approaching that goal in a different manner, but I would
    be happy to work with my colleague.
        Again, this text is in many ways built on the occupational
    exception, which has the same concern, I think, as I read it,
    as I read the occupational exception, in the bill offered as
    the ANS, has the same concern that the gentleman is now
    bringing up on our bill. If that is a real concern, happy to
    work, because I think the broader intent of both these bills
    are similar.
        Between now and when this bill comes to the floor, happy to
    work with you, or any other Member of Congress who has
    thoughtful and substantive comments in this regard. I think it
    is structured and covered, but if it is not, I am happy to make
    additional adjustments and finesse. We are not looking for
    anybody to find a way around, but we are making sure, again,
    the broader intent--I apologize, I am going to go just a couple
    seconds late, but then we will wrap--the broader intent here is
    that individuals from an array of backgrounds, both Members
    and, in this case most likely their spouse, who may have
    different types of jobs, from being a farmer, to somebody that
    works for a publicly traded company, to being somebody that is
    doing this in their profession but not for their own benefit,
    that those individuals that are out there, that are able to
    come to Washington, D.C., and share their best and brightest
    ideas in a nonpartisan way--it may be a liberal that has
    these--that wants to come that has this challenge, it could be
    a conservative that wants to come and has this challenge--I
    want to make sure that those individuals are in a position to
    still come to D.C., and then once here, let us make sure those
    individuals are not able to profit off of insider information.
        With that, those comments, I am going to recommend my
    colleagues vote no on the gentleman's amendment, but open to
    additional finesse, because I think both of the bills--if this
    is a real concern, I do not know that it is--but both of the
    bills have this language.
        With that, I will yield back.
        Is there further debate on the amendment?
        Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman from Florida withdraws her
    point of order.
        The question is now on the amendment from the gentleman
    from New York.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, nay.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the nays have it. The nays
    have it, the amendment is not adopted.
        The gentleman seeks recognition for a recorded vote. A
    recorded vote is requested.
        All those in favor of a recorded vote have already arisen
    their hands, so a recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will
    please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil.
        Chairman Steil. No.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes no.
        Ms. Lee?
        Ms. Lee. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
        Mr. Loudermilk?
        Mr. Loudermilk. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes no.
        Mr. Griffith?
        Mr. Griffith. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes no.
        Dr. Murphy?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Bice.
        Mrs. Bice. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Bice says no.
        Mr. Carey?
        Mr. Carey. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes no.
        Mrs. Miller?
        Mrs. Miller. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Miller votes no.
        Mr. Morelle?
        Mr. Morelle. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes aye.
        Ms. Sewell?
        Ms. Sewell. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
        Mrs. Torres?
        Mrs. Torres. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes aye.
        Ms. Johnson?
        Ms. Johnson. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
        Chairman Steil. Have all Members voted? Does any Member
    wish to change their vote.
        The clerk will please report the tally.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote there are four ayes
    and seven noes.
        Chairman Steil. The amendment is not adopted.
        Is there further amendment or debate?
        Does Mr. Carey look to strike the last word?
        Mr. Carey. I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Carey. Americans tell that there is something rotten in
    the state of American Government. Our constituents have lost
    faith in us. Recent polling indicates that public opinion of
    Congress stands at a dismal 16 percent approval. This loss of
    trust resulted in no small part from Members of Congress
    getting rich and beating the stock market, while our
    constituents face record-high inflation, low growth under the
    previous administration.
        We have access to nonpublic information and ripe
    regulations on entire industries that can provide an unfair
    advantage in trading public stock that in any other industry
    would be a flashing red warning light. It is easy to understand
    why so many Americans believe that we have an easy way to
    manipulate the system for our own personal profit while they
    work hard and follow the rules.
        We must hold ourselves to the highest standard as
    representatives of the greatest country in the world. This bill
    is a common-sense fix. It promotes good governance, increases
    transparency, and restores trust in Congress. I look forward to
    voting for this bill, and it is my hope that all my colleagues
    who share these concerns will join us.
        Mr. Chairman, with that, I do yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there further amendment or debate?
        There being no further amendment or debate, the question
    now occurs on the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The ayes
    have it, and the amendment is adopted.
        The question now occurs on ordering H.R. 7008, as amended,
    reported favorably to the House.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The ayes
    have it, and the motion is agreed to.
        Ms. Johnson. I request a recorded vote.
        Chairman Steil. A roll call vote is requested, and the
    clerk will please call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil.
        Chairman Steil. Aye.
        The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes aye.
        Ms. Lee?
        Ms. Lee. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
        Mr. Loudermilk?
        Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
        Mr. Griffith?
        Mr. Griffith. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes aye.
        Dr. Murphy?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Bice.
        Mrs. Bice. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Bice says aye.
        Mr. Carey?
        Mr. Carey. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Carey votes aye.
        Mrs. Miller?
        Mrs. Miller. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Miller votes aye.
        Mr. Morelle?
        Mr. Morelle. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no.
        Ms. Sewell?
        Ms. Sewell. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
        Mrs. Torres?
        Mrs. Torres. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Torres votes no.
        Ms. Johnson?
        Ms. Johnson. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
        Chairman Steil. Have all Members voted? Does any Member
    wish to change their vote.
        The clerk will please report the tally.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote there are seven ayes
    and four noes.
        Chairman Steil. The amendment is--H.R. 7008, as amended, is
    adopted.
        A majority having voted in favor of H.R. 7008, as amended,
    the bill is ordered favorably reported to the House.
        Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
    table.
        This concludes the order of business for today's markup.
        Without objection, pursuant to House rule XI, clause 2(l),
    Committee Members can file with the clerk of the Committee
    supplemental, additional, minority and dissenting views on each
    of the items marked up today.
        Also without objection, the staff is authorized to make
    necessary technical and conforming changes.
        If there is no further business, I want to thank the
    Members for their participation.
        Without objection, the Committee on House Administration
    stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]