[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H4698-H4705]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1210
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8800, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 8884, REMOVING BARRIERS TO WORK FOR DISABLED AMERICANS ACT;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 113, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
7008, STOP INSIDER TRADING ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
6955, MAIN STREET CAPITAL ACCESS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 9770, CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2027; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 1438 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1438
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 8800) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2027 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their
respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 119-33 shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 8800, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this
resolution, and pro forma amendments described in section 4
of this resolution.
(b) Each further amendment printed in part A of the report
of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by
section 4 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against further amendments printed
in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules or against
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed
in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective
designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as
provided by section 4 of this resolution, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 4. During consideration of H.R. 8800 for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8800
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill,
as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may
have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 6. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8884) to amend
title II of the Social Security Act to reauthorize
demonstration authority for the disability insurance program.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
119-34 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 7. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 113) establishing the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2027
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
years 2028 through 2036. The first reading of the concurrent
resolution shall be dispensed with. All
[[Page H4699]]
points of order against consideration of the concurrent
resolution are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the concurrent resolution and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Budget or their
respective designees. An amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
119-37 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole. The concurrent resolution, as
amended, shall be considered as read. After general debate
the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent
resolution, as amended, to the House. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution
and amendments thereto to adoption without intervening motion
except amendments offered by the chair of the Committee on
the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. The
concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question of its adoption.
Sec. 8. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7008) to amend
chapter 131 of title 5 to require certain restrictions on
stocks for Members of Congress and their spouses and
dependents, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on House Administration now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 119-38, modified by the
amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on House Administration or their
respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 9. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6955) to make
improvements to the Federal banking laws, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services
now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
119-35 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial
Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 10. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 9770) making
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2027, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 11. In the engrossment of H.R. 8800, the Clerk
shall--
(a) add the text of S. 1383, as passed by the House, as new
matter at the end of H.R. 8800;
(b) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment;
(c) conform cross-references and provisions for short
titles within the engrossment; and
(d) be authorized to make technical corrections, to include
corrections in spelling, punctuation, page and line
numbering, section numbering, and insertion of appropriate
headings within the engrossment.
{time} 1220
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, pending which
I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and produced the rule, H. Res.
1438, providing for the House's consideration of H. Con. Res. 113, H.R.
9770, H.R. 8800, H.R. 8884, H.R. 7008, and H.R. 6955.
This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8800, the Fiscal Year
2027 National Defense Authorization Act, under a structured rule and
makes in order 320 amendments.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on
Armed Services or their respective designees, and one motion to
recommit.
Additionally, the rule provides that upon House passage of H.R. 8800,
the Clerk shall add the text of S. 1383, the SAVE America Act, to the
bill and transmit it to the Senate as one bill.
The bill further provides for consideration of H.R. 8884, the
Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act, under a closed
rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services or
their respective designees and one motion to recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 113,
establishing the congressional budget for fiscal year 2027, under a
closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee
on the Budget or their respective designees.
Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7008, the
Stop Insider Trading Act, under a closed rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House
Administration or their respective designees and one motion to
recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 6955, the Main
Street Capital Access Act, under a closed rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on
Financial Services or their respective designees and one motion to
recommit.
Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 9770, the
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2027, under a closed rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House
Administration or their respective designees and one motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, the rule and its six underlying measures are a direct
reflection of our Republican majority's expressed commitments on
multiple fronts.
Contrary to the predictable and entirely incoherent hubbub that will
reverberate from the other side of the Chamber during today's debate,
Republicans remain at the helm, like we always have, and remain
focused, as we always have.
It is okay to tune out those on the other side of the aisle while
they are blathering on, Mr. Speaker. Their fevered, political rhetoric
does not carry an iota of substance.
There is a great deal of business to attend to this week, Mr.
Speaker. All of us understand that time indeed is of the essence here.
Let's talk for a moment about that business.
H. Con. Res. 113 begins the process to provide urgent, necessary
resources for our Nation's firefighters, reinforce election integrity
measures, and support the hardworking men and women of our agricultural
community so that our Nation's food supply and food security remain as
strong as they possibly can be.
H.R. 9770 upholds Congress' explicit Article I duties to fund the
Federal Government so that its operational continuity does not lapse or
is subjected to the same disgraceful political subterfuge that our
colleagues across the aisle engaged in last year.
H.R. 8800, the keystone of Congress' mandate to provide for the
common defense of the Nation, delivers for our Nation's servicemembers,
allocates the resources necessary to maintain a strong posture of
defense and deterrence, and confronts waste, fraud, and abuse head-on.
[[Page H4700]]
H.R. 8884 allows disabled Americans, who want to join the workforce
to better their own lives, to do so without having to worry about
whether their disability benefits will disappear abruptly.
H.R. 7008 prohibits Members of Congress, their spouses, or dependent
children from purchasing publicly traded stocks, while also
implementing the requirement--that the American people overwhelmingly
support--of requiring a photo ID to vote in Federal elections.
It is entirely disingenuous for the other side to use fear-mongering
tactics to scare people into believing that Republicans are trying to
take away anyone's right to vote. That is downright false.
Finally, H.R. 6955 makes life more affordable for Americans, while
also empowering Main Street, by ensuring that community lenders are no
longer burdened by ill-advised mandates that make it harder for them to
serve families, small businesses, and local economies.
That is the business at hand, Mr. Speaker.
We are not here to entertain the ever-so-tired ranting and raving
from our colleagues across the aisle that the sky is falling, the world
is ending, or any kind of absurd political musings they may want to
spout off.
We are here to do the people's business, the business that makes
America stronger, more secure, and more prosperous.
As we celebrate the 250th year of the greatest country in the world,
Republicans are working hard to strengthen America and help it endure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress is an absolute mess. The gentlewoman from
North Carolina says that our rhetoric doesn't carry a bit of substance.
But let me begin by asking a question of the American people, a very
simple question: Are you better off today than you were 1\1/2\ years
ago?
It has been 18 months since Donald Trump returned to the White House.
Republicans have controlled every lever of power in Washington for over
1\1/2\ years. They control the House. They control the Senate. They
control the White House. They even control the Supreme Court.
{time} 1230
That is the one simple question to me that matters more than anything
else that we will debate today. In fact, it is the only thing that
matters, really. Is it easier to fill up your gas tank? Are your rent
bills more affordable? Are your groceries cheaper? Have your
prescription medicine costs gone down? Does your paycheck go further?
In short, Mr. Speaker, has life gotten easier for anybody over these
last 18 months, or has it gotten harder? I think most people, including
most Republicans, if they are being honest with themselves, know the
answer.
They don't need a politician or a fancy economics degree to say that
things are not better. They are not better. In fact, they will tell you
that things are worse--much, much worse.
They see it every time they tap their credit card at the gas station.
They see it every time they check out at a grocery store. They see it
every month when their rent is due, when their electric bill comes in,
and when the pharmacist says that their kids' medicine is more
expensive. They see it when their paycheck just doesn't go as far as it
used to.
This is the Republican economy. These are their prices, and it is
their policies that have failed America miserably.
Donald Trump and Republicans promised they would use their power to
lower costs on day one. Well, it is year two, and costs are not lower,
which by any definition would make that a broken promise.
Mr. Speaker, why are prices up? Why is life harder? Why are things
worse off now? The reason is simple: It is because instead of working
with Democrats to fight for everyday people, Republicans have made one
decision after another to help the rich and the powerful and,
basically, hurt everybody else.
I have example after example. Are things better off because of
Trump's tariffs, Mr. Speaker? The tariffs the New York Federal Reserve
says are almost exclusively paid by American consumers, American
farmers, American manufacturers, and American companies, does that make
anybody better off?
I don't think most people would say that tariffs have made their
lives better. I would say that the tariffs have made their lives worse,
more expensive, more difficult.
What about the war in Iran--a new, endless, illegal war, another one
of Donald Trump's broken promises? Does anyone think that has made life
better for the American people?
Maybe it has made life better for defense contractors. Maybe it has
for the crazy neocon warmongers who get a kick out of another war, but
not for everyday people.
We have spent probably well over $100 billion on this illegal and
reckless war. That is $100 billion. That is not helping make sure that
Americans don't go hungry. That is not lowering healthcare costs,
lowering people's rents, or lowering gas prices. It is on this crazy
war, a war of choice that the President had no plan for.
He doesn't know what the hell he is going to do next. This is nuts.
In fact, we are now 5 months into a war that these guys said would only
last a couple of weeks. They have declared victory like six times, yet
the Strait of Hormuz is still closed. More American troops, sadly, were
killed this weekend. Gas prices are back above $4 a gallon. Inflation
continues to skyrocket.
Does anybody think that has made life better for most Americans?
There has been 5 months of war in the Middle East. I can go right down
the line.
Republicans promised better healthcare. Instead, they passed a law
that takes hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicaid and leaves
millions more people uninsured. How the hell does that make anybody's
life better?
Republicans promised lower taxes, except they chose another tax
giveaway for those at the very top, and they pat themselves on the back
for the pennies they gave to everyone else. Has that made life better
for people?
After 18 months of higher costs, more inflation, new wars, costly
tariffs, and stunning, stunning corruption, now they are bringing us a
continuing resolution that kicks the can down the road.
They are bringing us a pathetic excuse of a stock trading ban that
fails to address the much larger culture of corruption and self-dealing
coming out of the White House, and they are bringing us a budget
framework authorizing $73 billion for Trump's illegal Iran war, $12
billion as a Band-Aid to help farmers that their policies continue to
hurt, and another $10 billion to rig the November elections.
That is nearly $100 billion in new spending with no offsets, meaning
this bill could very well increase the debt by over $100 billion.
Whatever happened to the old-fashioned Republicans who wanted to pay
for things, who didn't want to increase the deficit or the debt? I
guess that is a thing of the past.
Not one thing in this reconciliation bill, by the way--not a single
damned thing--will be about affordability. Not one thing will lower
prices. That is called being out of touch, Mr. Speaker.
There will be time to debate their crummy bills on the floor this
week, but this hour is about priorities, and Republicans have their
priorities all out of whack. Their agenda has only made things better
for those at the top, for the Mar-a-Lago members and CEOs with private
jets, the donor class and the corporate special interests. Things are
better for them, but for the rest of America, their agenda has been a
disaster.
The policies of this Republican Congress are a dumpster fire for
everyday people, a total disaster. Their tariffs are crushing people.
Their war is driving up costs. Their toxic environmental policies are
filling our air with smoke and our food with parasites, and Americans
are dying in the Middle East for their war.
Again, Mr. Speaker, when I go back home and I ask people if they are
better off than they were 18 months ago, they don't even answer. They
laugh because it is such a ridiculous question. It is so obvious that
all of us are worse off because of this Republican majority and because
of this administration,
[[Page H4701]]
which cares only about not hurting the President's fragile feelings and
delicate ego.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I will just note that our priorities are not
out of whack. The number one role of the Federal Government is the
defense of this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Fuller).
Mr. FULLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. This important
legislation is required to allow Republicans in this House to advance
important priorities for the American people, including funding
legislation to keep our government operating.
Unfortunately, it has become clear, as the House has considered
appropriations legislation on the floor and in Chairman Cole's
committee, that Democrats are trying to hold our government hostage.
This legislation will make clear where Democrats stand. Will they
vote against keeping the government working for the American people, or
will they vote to keep us hostage?
Will they vote with me to fund important priorities, such as the
programs that will allow communities in my district and many others to
clean up and recover from years of PFAS contamination, or will they
vote to hold hostage programs that will make Appalachia communities,
like mine, healthier all to score political points?
I know where I stand. I know where leadership in this body stands. I
promised my constituents that I would be a warrior for north Georgia,
and I am proud to do that today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused. The gentleman who
just spoke maybe doesn't know this, but the government funding deadline
isn't for months away, and he is scolding us as if it is now.
I am going to tell you what the crisis is right now. It is that
people can't afford to live.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina said that our priority is about
national security and national defense. I have news for her. National
security means more than the number of bombs we have.
It also means healthcare for people. It means whether people can
afford food, whether they can afford rent, whether they can afford to
put gas in the tank of their car or pay their everyday bills, and
whether they have a good job that allows them to support their family.
Those are all sources of our national defense and our national
security.
I will just say one other thing. I don't know how the hell our
national defense and national security are served when the President
takes us into an illegal, risky war in the Middle East, a war of
choice, that he has no plan for.
{time} 1240
Our troops are being put into harm's way, and this President has no
plan about how to conduct this war or what the heck he is doing there.
That is not national security.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do
that, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an
amendment to H.R. 7008 consisting of the text of H.R. 6731, the Restore
Trust in Government Act.
This bill is the Democratic proposal for a more comprehensive and
robust stock trading ban than is found in the Republican plan. It is
one which also includes the President of the United States and the Vice
President.
There is a level of corruption that we have never ever seen in the
White House. What is the response from our Republican colleagues?
Silence. They are scared of the guy in the White House. They won't
challenge this corruption, so he makes billions and billions of dollars
while hardworking Americans struggle.
Mr. Speaker, in the first year of his term, President Trump cashed in
to the tune of more than $2 billion--billion with a b.
In 2025 alone, the President completed over 21,000 stock trades. His
investment accounts grew by over $850 million. He tweets out glowing
endorsements of companies after he buys their stocks. Now, he is
considering having people pay to get early access to his social media
posts so they can cash in, too.
We need to ensure that people can trust their government to work for
them and not enrich himself. This means banning stock ownership by
Members and by this President.
That is what the Democratic proposal will do. Let the House decide
and make this amendment in order. That is all we are asking, is to
allow us to have this debate. You can vote however you want.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) to discuss our proposal.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear about what my colleagues
are trying to do in their bill that they are advancing. They are trying
to advance a fake stock trading ban. I want to be very clear: Their
bill does not block insider trading, no matter what it is called.
It does not ban stock trading, which is the number one issue for over
80 percent of Americans who want Members of Congress to stop padding
their own pockets instead of addressing their constituents' interests,
things like ending the illegal war in Iran, bringing down gas prices,
bringing down grocery prices, and investing in housing. None of that is
going to be protected.
Their bill allows Members to still purchase private stocks, keep
public stocks that they already own, and act on legislative matters
that directly increase the value of their stocks. It allows Members to
continue selling stocks that they know will decrease in value based on
insider information they got while in Congress.
Their bill would do nothing to stop Congressman Rob Bresnahan, who
just last year dumped $130,000 worth of stock in four Medicaid
providers before he voted to slash Medicaid for constituents and people
across the country.
It would do nothing to stop Congresswoman Lisa McClain, whose husband
bought at least $100,000 worth of stock in Elon Musk's AI company
shortly before its model was adopted by the Defense Department.
A Common Cause report published at the end of 2025 said that Members
of Congress made 13,324 trades, totaling a whopping $635 million in
2025. This is absurd. No wonder we are governing in a moment when
public trust is at historical lows.
Only 2 in 10 Americans trust the government to do what is right for
them, and they are constantly seeing their elected officials selling
them out to the highest bidder. They see the people elected to
represent them instead making decisions to increase their own personal
wealth and pad their profits.
Who is to blame for thinking that there is no trust in Congress, in
the government, when there is a President who is openly profiting from
the American people? He generated at least $2.2 billion in income in
his first full year in office. Now, he is selling Wall Street firms
early access to Truth Social posts, where he brings out information
that is ``market movers.'' This is literally the highway to making
profit.
The Republican proposal is nothing but a sham to score cheap
political points before they go home to their constituents. It tries to
make you forget that there is a real solution that I helped co-lead
called the Restore Trust in Government Act, which actually does ban
stock trading. It does ban insider trading. It does root out corruption
in government. It does prohibit Presidents, Vice Presidents, Members of
Congress, and their dependent children, spouses, and trustees from
owning and trading individual stocks.
If this Republican majority were to bring that bill to the floor, if
we were allowed to force a vote on these bills, they would actually
pass, and Republicans would have to admit that their bill does nothing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H4702]]
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are skirting very
closely to having their words taken down when they call out individual
Members.
Mr. Speaker, our colleagues sometimes ask who is to blame for the
lack of trust of Members of Congress. It is Members of Congress and the
press who call into question acts that are done by Members of Congress
that are totally legal.
We already have laws in place against insider trading. There have
been a couple of Members of Congress who have been prosecuted for that,
and that is appropriate, but the Stop Insider Trading Act will prevent
that.
I believe, and Republicans believe, that no lawmaker should profit
off of insider information. I frankly don't know how people get the
insider information, but the top line of the legislation we are
bringing here, the Stop Insider Trading Act, led by Committee on House
Administration Chairman Bryan Steil, will ensure that lawmakers cannot
use their positions to profit off insider information, if there is
insider information.
The Stop Insider Trading Act has a prohibition on stock purchasing.
It bans Members, their spouses, and their dependent children from
purchasing securities issued by publicly traded companies. It requires
Members to file a public notice at least 7 days but no more than 14
days in advance for any intended stock sale with the Clerk of the House
of Representatives or the Secretary of the Senate. Then, if a Member of
Congress, spouse, or dependent child decides not to sell a covered
investment, the Member must publicly withdraw the notice prior to its
expiration.
There are penalties, Mr. Speaker, for violators. They will be
assessed a fine equal to $2,000 or 10 percent of the value of the
transaction, whichever is greater, and then any net gain realized from
a transaction. This is designed to make sure that Members do not take
advantage of any potential information or advantage that the Member
has.
Mr. Speaker, we want to restore public trust in this institution.
Members are doing their jobs diligently. They do not want to be under a
cloud. News outlets and social media accounts have garnered significant
attention for aggregating the stock trades of Members of Congress.
{time} 1250
Under the STOCK Act of 2012, lawmakers are prohibited from using
nonpublic information for their own financial benefit, but many
Americans have become concerned that the STOCK Act is insufficient and
stronger measures must be implemented.
The Stop Insider Trading Act will increase transparency and reinforce
to the American people that Members are working for them, not
themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the gentlewoman. I am just a
little confused. I thought I heard her say that we already have laws to
deal with stock insider trading. If that is the case, then why are we
doing a bill to ban stock insider trading?
I mean, the bottom line is we are doing it because it is a problem,
and our objection is the fact that they are basically excluding
somebody who is violating the law in our face right now, blatantly, who
is in the White House, who is making countless millions, if not
billions, of dollars on some really shady deals. Quite frankly, it
makes Richard Nixon look like a Boy Scout.
I mean, the deal is the American people are sick of it. They want us
to clean up Washington. That includes Congress, and that includes the
executive branch.
I just also would like to kind of highlight kind of the absurdity of
all the stuff. We have six different bills that we are talking about
here today, but I want to read a tweet from a Republican, Tom Massie.
He says: ``The House will pass a $12 billion bailout for farmers
suffering from high fuel & fertilizer prices caused by the Iran war,
expensive equipment & parts caused by tariffs, and lower sales prices
for commodities due to trade disputes with China. But the GOP is
fighting communism!''
The Republican leadership had a big press conference earlier today.
It was all about communism, but I have to say to Mr. Massie, I don't
think I have heard truer words spoken by a Republican Member of
Congress. I really appreciate that, the truth, the accuracy of what the
situation is.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Olszewski).
Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
I agree, it is past time that we ban congressional insider trading.
No one should benefit from public service, but wouldn't the easiest way
to do that be to just completely ban stock trading entirely, not take
the baby steps attached to this bill included in the rule?
Still, I was open to voting for the bill, to accept that incremental
but wholly insufficient progress. What I am not open to, Mr. Speaker,
is accepting modest progress on stock ethics, insufficient progress in
exchange for significantly compromising American voting rights, and
that is also exactly what this bill would do. It would add unnecessary
and unrelated provisions that make it harder for Americans to vote.
Republicans can't even be bothered to provide the IDs they would have
Americans be required to have in order to vote. In fact, that was in
the bill, and they took it out. That is not reform, Mr. Speaker. That
is a bait-and-switch.
It is one more ruse by this Republican majority to distract the
public from their inability or their unwillingness, or both, to rein in
costs and address corruption.
The American people deserve so much better. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the voter ID provisions in this bill amend the Help
America Vote Act to require States to obtain a photo ID from an
individual to vote in person in a Federal election or to require a copy
of the photo ID to be submitted with a ballot cast other than in
person.
These requirements do not apply to an absent uniformed services voter
or an individual provided the right to vote other than in person by the
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act.
The bill permits voters to use several different forms of photo ID: a
valid State-issued motor vehicle driver's license that includes a photo
of the individual and an expiration date, a valid State-issued
identification card that includes a photo of the individual and an
expiration date issued by a State motor vehicle authority, a valid
United States passport for the individual, a valid photo identification
card for the individual issued by the Department of Defense or the
Department of Veterans Affairs, or a valid identification document
issued by a Tribal government that includes a photo of the individual
and an expiration date.
While my friends across the aisle claim the bill will prevent
individuals who cannot afford a photo ID from voting, this is nothing
but false alarmism. The Supreme Court has held photo ID laws are
constitutional only where the State provides a photo ID to those who do
not have them. In other words, a photo ID requirement in the bill is
not a barrier to voting for someone who cannot afford to pay the
typical photo ID fee.
The data supports that Democrats are being disingenuous when they
claim this bill would suppress voting. The nonpartisan National Bureau
of Economic Research tracked 1.6 billion data points over an 8-year
period. This massive amount of data confirms strict voter ID laws have
no statistically measurable negative impact on voter participation.
This comprehensive, multiyear study found zero negative impact on
overall registration or turnout, no drops in participation among
minority or young voters, and an increase in Hispanic participation in
some ID law States.
Photo ID as a form of verification is a part of American life.
Americans must show an ID to participate in a wide range of everyday
activities, including boarding a plane, entering government buildings,
cashing their checks, buying a gun, and enjoying Olive Garden's Never
Ending Pasta Bowl.
Politico just announced that more than 6,000 noncitizens were
registered to vote in New Jersey and have been voting since 2023. This
is clearly an issue which must be addressed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H4703]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, you know, one of the frustrating things about kind of
where we are in terms of political debate in this country is that
issues that really matter to regular people are being ignored or being
shoved aside because, quite frankly, Republicans don't want to do
anything about it.
They know that their agenda is unpopular. They know that people are
struggling with the issue of affordability. They know that people are
having a tough time paying their rent, filling up their gas tanks,
affording healthcare costs--I can go on and on and on--buying food, and
they don't want to talk about that. They know that the American people
kind of are sick and tired of what they are doing here, and so they are
trying to divert attention.
I just want to address something that happened this morning, and that
is the Republican leadership in this House held this wackadoodle press
conference. I have never quite seen anything like it, trying to divert
attention away from issues of affordability and get people to look
someplace else.
Basically, the Republican Party's new favorite talking point is
calling Democrats Communists. I mean, oh, my God, Mr. Speaker, I mean,
really? Really? Communists? Did we accidentally step into a time
machine?
I get it. I get it. They don't want to talk about the real issues,
the bread-and-butter issues. They don't want to talk about
affordability. I guess my question is, is Joe McCarthy back from the
dead? It sounds like that is who wrote all the garbage coming from
Republicans about communism. These guys dust off the same, tired, old
talking points every time they are backed into a corner.
Every time a new poll comes out saying that their economic agenda
sucks, what they do is they change the subject. They try to divert
attention. It is pathetic. But, fine, if they want to play that game,
let's play that game.
Let's talk about the Republican Party, a party that worships one man
above the Constitution in a cult of personality, a party that demonizes
immigrants and says they poison the blood of our country, a party that
calls the free press the enemy of the people and sics the Justice
Department on journalists they don't like.
It is a party that says their political opponents are internal
enemies and calls them ``the enemy within.'' It is a party that is okay
with invading our allies, including other democracies, and it is a
party that punishes their political opponents.
It is a party that has deployed troops on our own streets, that wants
to use the American military on the American people. It is a party that
believes any unhinged lie, fantasy, and conspiracy theory as long as it
comes from one man.
{time} 1300
It is a party that tries to lock up Members of Congress for
exercising their free speech rights. It is a party that has tried to
violently overthrow the results of a free and fair election in the
United States of America.
It is a party that, in fact, pardoned everyone who invaded this
building on January 6, 2021, and tried to throw out the votes of
millions of Americans because the President couldn't accept a loss.
How dare that party lecture anyone.
How dare they talk about communism when their own party has totally
lost touch not just with the founding ideals of this country but lost
touch with reality itself?
If we are going to start assigning political labels based on conduct,
then let's call things by their proper names. The Republican Party has
become the party of fascism, full stop. They have become a party of
far-right fascists who are hell-bent on destroying our country and our
way of life. Every single time they call us Communists, it is nothing
more than a projection of their own radicalization. They don't want to
talk about that, and they definitely don't want to talk about their
higher grocery prices or skyrocketing gas prices or higher inflation or
the cost of healthcare or their new endless illegal war that has now
cost over $100 billion.
Instead, they scream and they yell because they have nothing else
left to offer.
This would be funny, Mr. Speaker, if it weren't so pathetic and so
unhinged.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats are patriots who love this country enough to
fight for it. We are fighting to make it easier for people to afford
groceries. We are fighting to try to make it easier for people to
afford rent, prescription drugs, and healthcare. We will not be
lectured by a fascist Republican Party that offers the American people
nothing but lies, fear, endless culture wars, and tax breaks for
billionaires.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I think after that, I will reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the question I asked at the start of
this debate: Are Americans better off than they were 18 months ago?
Think about the family sitting at the kitchen table tonight. The rent
is due. The electric bill is higher, and groceries cost more. The gas
tank is on empty. A prescription is waiting at the pharmacy. Somebody
is trying to figure out which bill they can put off for 1 more week.
That family does not need a lecture about how great Donald Trump is.
They know what life costs, and they know it costs more--much, much
more--than it did 18 months ago.
Eighteen months is long enough to judge a majority by its choices.
There is a lot packed into this rule, a budget resolution, a continuing
resolution, a Defense bill, a disability bill, a banking bill, a bill
on Congressional stock trading, and a bill to rig the elections. I
could go on and on and on.
Republicans could not--could not--find a single provision for us to
consider today about lowering the cost of housing, or lowering the cost
of food, or lowering the cost of medicine or healthcare or electricity.
There is nothing--nothing in anything we are going to be considering
does any of that or focuses on any of those issues. They have time to
weaken bank oversight. They have time to combine a watered-down stock
trading bill with new restrictions on voting. They have time to bring
back bills that failed weeks ago. They have time to protect the
President, bail out powerful special interests, and finance another
endless war.
However, helping working people somehow never makes the cut. It never
makes the cut.
Mr. Speaker, these bills are not just stacks of paper. They are
statements on our values. They tell people who matter, who gets hurt,
who gets helped, and who are expected to fend for themselves.
The answer from MAGA has been painfully clear, Mr. Speaker: The
greedy get protected. The well-connected get rewarded, and everyone
else gets told: Sorry, maybe next time.
Again, I ask: Are Americans better off?
The answer is ``no.''
Do the measures in this rule lower their costs, improve their
healthcare, make them safer, or give them greater peace of mind?
The answer is absolutely ``no.'' Nothing does that.
We will hear talks about socialism and communism and all this other
stuff to get people to not focus in on the fact that they are getting
screwed over.
The American people deserve more than excuses. They deserve more than
distractions. They deserve more than another blank check for the people
on top from this failed Republican majority. They deserve a government
that is on their side. They deserve a government that is on their side,
and that is not what they are getting here.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
We have to do better. We have to do better. The American people are
hurting, and my friends on the other side of the aisle behave like
everything is just fine and nobody is noticing.
Go and do in-person townhalls in your districts, I would say to all
my colleagues who are listening, and you will get an earful. People
have had it. They are fed up with the corruption in Washington. They
are fed up with the policies that reward the well-off and well-
connected. They are tired of getting screwed over.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H4704]]
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we live in the greatest country in the world. We just
celebrated the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of
Independence. We have a lot more to be talking about, about the
founding of this country, and I hope people will pay close attention to
that.
We do have a government that is on the side of the American people.
We believe in capitalism. Our friends across the aisle constantly talk
about how much people need to be paying more in taxes. We believe on
the Republican side that the people have a right to what they have
earned and not that the government should take their money and spend it
the way the government wants to spend it.
Let me remind our colleagues that just 1 year ago H.R. 1 delivered
the largest middle- and working-class tax cut in U.S. history. Low-
income workers realized the largest percentage reduction in their tax
liability.
Yes, we indeed care about the American people and the fruits of their
labor. Nearly 40 percent of taxpayers have claimed one of President
Donald Trump's signature cuts this year.
This tax season over 7.5 million filers claimed no tax on tips, with
an average deduction of over $7,000. Over 29 million filers claimed no
tax on overtime with an average deduction of over $3,100, and over 35
million seniors have claimed the enhanced deduction for seniors with an
average deduction of over $7,500.
We do, indeed, care for the American people in allowing them to keep
the fruits of their labor.
More than 5.5 million Trump Accounts have been opened with 1.4
million eligible for the $1,000 pilot program contribution. Nearly 40
million families have claimed the enhanced child tax credit, and over
127 million filers, or 90 percent of all tax filers, have claimed the
permanently doubled standard deduction.
We do, indeed, care for American taxpayers.
I am not at all surprised by the recent rant from our colleague when
one-half of the Democrats could not vote for a resolution against
socialism.
Mr. Speaker, it is really no secret that this is a week of monumental
importance in the people's House. The rule and six underlying measures
carry with them a commitment to deliver upon the priorities of the
President, the Nation, and the American people.
Some are quick to write off the progress that this Republican
majority has made thus far, and they are dead wrong in doing so.
This week, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to build upon that progress
in just the one issue I discussed, H.R. 1.
{time} 1310
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous
question and ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment To H. Res. 1438 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
Strike section 8 of the resolution, insert the following,
and redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly:
Sec. 8. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7008) to amend
chapter 131 of title 5 to require certain restrictions on
stocks for Members of Congress and their spouses and
dependents, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on House Administration now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 119-38, modified by the
amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on House Administration or their
respective designees; (2) the further amendment specified in
section 9 of this resolution, if offered by Representative
Magaziner of Rhode Island or a designee, which shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order, shall be
considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 10
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 9. The amendment referred to in section 8 of this
resolution is as follows:
Strike all after page 1, line 1, and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Restore Trust in Government
Act''.
SEC. 2. RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE AND OWNERSHIP OF COVERED
INVESTMENTS.
(a) Table of contents.--The table of contents for chapter
131 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
SUBCHAPTER IV. RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE AND OWNERSHIP OF
COVERED INVESTMENTS
13151. Definitions.
13152. Trade and ownership of covered investments.
13153. Penalties.
(b) Restrictions.--Chapter 131 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end a new subchapter:
``SUBCHAPTER IV--RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE AND OWNERSHIP OF
COVERED INVESTMENTS
``Sec. 13151. Definitions
``In this subchapter:
``(1) COMMODITY.--The term `commodity'--
``(A) has the meaning given the term in section la of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1a); and
``(B) does not include a precious metal (as defined in
section 1027.100 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations).
``(2) COVERED INDIVIDUAL.--The term `covered individual'
means any of the following:
``(A) A Member of Congress, as defined in section 13101.
``(B) A dependent child (as defined in section 13101) or a
spouse of a Member of Congress.
``(C) A trustee of a trust in which an individual described
in subparagraph (A) or (B) has a beneficial interest in the
principal or income of the trust as described in section
1403(b)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(D) The President, or the spouse or a dependent child (as
defined in section 13101) of the President.
``(E) The Vice President, or the spouse or a dependent
child (as defined in section 13101) of the Vice President.
``(F) A Supreme Court Justice, or the spouse or a dependent
child (as defined in section 13101) of the Supreme Court
Justice.
``(3) COVERED INVESTMENT.--The term `covered investment'--
``(A) means an investment in a security, a commodity, a
future, or any comparable economic interest acquired through
synthetic means, such as the use of a derivative, including
an option, warrant, or other similar means; and
``(B) does not include--
``(i) a widely held investment fund described in section
13104(f)(8) that is diversified and publicly traded on a
national or regional stock exchange;
``(ii) a United States Treasury bill, note, or bond;
``(iii) a State or municipal government bill, note, or
bond;
``(iv) any compensation received by a spouse or a dependent
child described in paragraph (2) from an employer of the
spouse or dependent child;
``(v) an interest in a small business concern and, in the
case of an investment in a family farm or ranch that
qualifies as an interest in a small business concern, a
future or commodity directly related to the farming
activities and products of the farm or ranch;
``(vi) an interest in a limited liability company created
for the sole purpose of purchasing or holding real estate
that serves as the personal residences of the Member of
Congress;
``(vii) any share of Settlement Common Stock issued under
section 7(g)(1)(A) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(43 U.S.C. 1606(g)(1)(A)); or
``(viii) any share of Settlement Common Stock, as defined
in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1602).
``(4) DIVERSIFIED.--The term `diversified', with respect to
an investment fund, means such fund does not have a stated
policy of concentrating its investments in any industry,
business, single country other than the United States, or
bonds of a single State within the United States except for
the State in which the Member of Congress resides.
``(5) FUTURE.--The term `future' means a financial contract
obligating the buyer to purchase an asset or the seller to
sell an asset, such as a physical commodity or a financial
investment, at a predetermined future date and price.
``(6) SECURITY.--The term `security' has the meaning given
the term in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)).
``(7) SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN.--The term `small business
concern' has the meaning given that term under section 3 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
``(8) SUPERVISING ETHICS OFFICE.--The term `supervising
ethics office' has the meaning given the term in section
13101.
``Sec. 13152. Trade and ownership of covered investments
``(a) Conduct during federal service.--Except as described
in subsection (b)(1)(B) and
[[Page H4705]]
subsections (e) through (g), no covered individual may,
directly or indirectly, own or trade a covered investment.
``(b) Compliance.--
``(1) REQUIREMENT.--To comply with subsection (a)--
``(A) a covered individual may not purchase a covered
investment; and
``(B) a covered individual shall divest of any covered
investment by the effective date established in paragraph (2)
at fair market value.
``(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The effective date is established as
follows:
``(A) 180 days for an individual who is a covered
individual on the date of enactment of the Restore Trust in
Government Act.
``(B) 90 days within the date on which an individual
becomes a covered individual if such date occurs after the
date of enactment of the Restore Trust in Government Act.
``(c) Certificates of divestiture.--
``(1) APPLICATION OF CERTIFICATE OF DIVESTITURE PROGRAM.--
For purposes of section 1043 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986--
``(A) this section shall be treated as a Federal conflict
of interest statute;
``(B) any covered individual described in section
13151(2)(A) shall be treated as an eligible person described
in section 1043(b)(1)(A) of such Code; and
``(C) any spouse or dependent child described in section
13151(2)(B) shall be treated as an eligible person described
in section 1043(b)(1)(B) of such Code.
``(2) ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF DIVESTITURE.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Each supervising ethics office shall
issue a certificate of divestiture to each covered individual
required to divest under this subchapter upon submission of
proof of compliance by such individual with the requirements
to divest or any extensions granted by the supervising ethics
office.
``(B) ELIGIBILITY.--Such certificate shall include an
identification of each specific property eligible for the
application of the certificate of divestiture program as
determined by the supervising ethics office.
``(d) Income tax.--A loss from a transaction or holding
involving a covered financial instrument that is conducted in
violation of this section may not be deducted from the amount
of income tax owed by the covered individual.
``(e) Occupational exception.--A spouse or dependent child
of a covered individual as described in section 13151(2)(B)
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.
``(f) Trusts.--
``(1) QUALIFIED BLIND TRUST.--Any covered investment held
in a qualified blind trust as defined in section 13104(f)(3)
shall be divested in accordance with subsection (b)(1)(B) by
the effective date established in subsection (b)(2).
``(2) FAMILY TRUST.--A supervising ethics office may grant
an exemption for covered investments held in a family trust
only if--
``A) no covered individual--
``(i) is a grantor of the family trust;
``(ii) contributed any covered investment to the family
trust; or
``(iii) has any authority over a trustee of the family
trust, including the authority to appoint, replace, or direct
the actions of such a trustee; and
``(B) the grantor of the family trust is or was a family
member of the covered individual.
``(3) REQUESTS.--A covered individual seeking an exemption
under paragraph (2) shall submit to the applicable
supervising ethics office a request for the exemption, in
writing, certifying that the conditions described in that
paragraph are met.
``(g) Assets acquired in special circumstances.--In the
event that a covered individual acquires a covered investment
after the date of enactment of the Restore Trust in
Government Act other than by purchase (such as by marriage,
inheritance, divorce settlement, or other circumstance), the
covered individual shall have 90 days from the date on which
such investment was acquired to divest such covered
investment at fair market value.
``(h) Extension.--A supervising ethics office may grant a
covered individual an extension of time to comply with a
divestment deadline under this subchapter if a covered
investment cannot be divested by such deadline due to low
liquidity, vesting schedules, or contractual restrictions.
``(i) Interpretative guidance.--The supervising ethics
office shall issue interpretive guidance on any relevant term
not defined in this subchapter.
``Sec. 13153. Penalties
``(a) In general.--
``(1) PENALTIES.--Any covered individual who violates the
restrictions on trading or ownership of covered investments
in section 13152 shall, at the direction of the supervising
ethics office--
``(A) pay a fee equal to ten percent of the value of the
covered investment; and
``(B) disgorge the profits of any transaction that violates
the provisions of this subchapter.
``(2) PAYMENT OF PENALTY TO TREASURY.--A penalty imposed
under paragraph (1)(B) shall be payable into the Treasury of
the United States.
``(b) Payment restrictions.--A Member of Congress may not
pay any of the penalties under this section by using amounts
from the following sources:
``(1) The Members' Representational Allowance.
``(2) The Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense
Account.
``(3) Any contribution (as defined in section 301(8) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101(8)))
accepted as a candidate, and any other donation received as
support for activities of the individual as a holder of
Federal office.
``(c) Publication.--Each supervising ethics office shall
publish on a publicly available website a description of--
``(1) each fine assessed by the supervising ethics office
pursuant to this section;
``(2) the reason why each such fine was assessed; and
``(3) the result of each assessment.''.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kustoff). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________