- 2 days ago
The Senate Homeland Security Committee discusses the PELOSI Act.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Bill 1498, Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investment,
00:06the Pelosi Act by Hawley and Moreno.
00:15Well, that's the question.
00:17Mr. Chairman.
00:19Yes.
00:20Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call up my amendment, call the amendment number one,
00:24co-sponsored by Senator Peters, and ask unanimous consent that the modified version
00:27that has circulated just now be considered the base text of the substitute for the purposes of debate?
00:35Before we go there, we haven't seen it yet, so what we'd like to do is at least see it,
00:40so we're going to take a minute to everybody pass.
00:42What's that?
00:44We have an objection to the unanimous consent.
00:46We're going to see that.
00:48Oh, I agree.
00:49I want to see it first, too.
00:50I haven't seen it.
00:51It would be nice to have him describe it.
00:53Well, why don't we all take a few minutes to look at it and then describe it,
00:56but we'll still entertain the unanimous consent at that point.
01:01You have printed copies?
01:03Yeah.
01:04Okay.
01:04Okay.
01:26Okay.
01:27Okay.
01:27Okay.
01:36Okay.
02:06Amen.
02:36Amen.
03:06Amen.
03:36Amen.
04:06Amen.
04:36Amen.
05:06Amen.
05:36Amen.
06:06Amen.
06:36Amen.
06:42What we'll do is go back to the unanimous consent request.
07:03request. Is everybody ready to move forward? Okay, let's wait a few minutes.
10:03I think what we'll do before we do the unanimous consent request again would be to let Senator
10:17Hawley describe his changes, and then the question will be on unanimous consent to adopt
10:23it or have a vote.
10:26Great. Thank you, Chairman Paul.
10:29Let me just say that we have an opportunity here today to do something that the public
10:35has wanted us to do for decades, and that is to ban members of Congress from profiting
10:40on information that, frankly, only members of Congress have in the buying and selling of
10:44stock. Eighty-six percent of Americans say that members of Congress should not be able to buy
10:50and sell shares of stock, individual stock, while they are members of this body, and they
10:55are absolutely correct. And the reason is, you can see it, there was just another ethics referral
11:00in the House last week. We've seen the former Speaker of the House make millions of dollars
11:04in profits. We've seen members of both parties, I'm sad to say, be investigated for their stock
11:10trades, and the reason for all of this is that, quite frankly, members of this body are privy
11:15to information that the normal person just is not. Now, is that insider trading? It is
11:19not under the laws. Sometimes people say, well, we already have insider trading laws. We don't
11:23need a stock ban. Well, the information that members of Congress are privy to is technically
11:28not covered by the insider trading laws, but nobody really believes that the information
11:32that we get isn't valuable. It is quite valuable, which is why back during COVID, you saw
11:37members of Congress of both parties engage in a flurry of stock trading right after they
11:43were getting COVID briefings. Were members of the public getting those briefings? They
11:47were not. Were members of the public privy to the kind of information that was being
11:50given to members of Congress? No, they were not. And so when you look at what members of
11:55Congress are privy to, what they are able to trade on, the access that they have, it's
11:59just qualitatively different than your average Joe or Jane, which is why we ought to put
12:06into place common sense guardrails that say, if you want to be a member of Congress, you
12:10can put your, you want to, you want to save? Great. You can buy mutual funds. You can buy
12:15broadly diversified investment vehicles. You should not be able to buy and trade individual
12:20stock shares in which, frankly, we have an interest in the work that we do. We have information
12:24that no other people get, no other members of the public have. This bill would finally redress
12:29that. It is in substance identical to the bill that the committee passed last year. And
12:36I believe it is a huge step forward in finally addressing this problem. I urge a yes vote,
12:40Mr. Chairman. Senator Scott. When we go to, one thing I want to understand here is illiquid
12:49assets. So the typical, if you think about an illiquid asset, it's something you have a difficult
12:59time selling. So if it's, how do you sell something that's illiquid? I mean, how do you, I'm just
13:06trying to understand how you do it. I mean, there's, there's, um, illiquid means there's no buyer.
13:13You can't find a buyer. So how do you do it? I mean, I just, I just, I don't understand how you sell it.
13:19Are you asking me, Senator Scott? So in here, there's a requirement. This is the same. You,
13:31this is the same. You're, you're concerned about the illiquid asset provision, right? So I just
13:35want to, it's the same one you voted for last year. So how's it work? So what's identical to
13:41the one you voted for in committee last year? So it hasn't been changed. Well, maybe we should go
13:45with whom have better understand it. Okay. That's fine. I just, I just want to be clear
13:50that it hasn't changed since you voted for it last year. Okay. Okay. Does anybody, is a,
13:56can anybody explain how the liquid, illiquid, how you sell an illiquid asset? If you can't
14:02sell, an asset is illiquid because you can't sell it. How do you sell an illiquid asset? Does
14:09anybody have an answer? Mr. Chairman, maybe I had to make a couple comments
14:13because I voted no last time. So Senator Hall, I can't use that argument against me.
14:20That's a real problem. And there's so many potential unintended consequences to this piece
14:25of legislation. You know, one of the big problems we have here in Washington, D.C. is there. So
14:31very few bureaucrats, staff members, members of Congress who have any experience in,
14:37which means very little knowledge of, and I would say very little sympathy for the private sector.
14:43How difficult it is to run a business, how much more difficult our laws, and we passed a bunch
14:49from here again today, you know, make it to build a business, to produce products, to create great
14:57paying jobs. It's a hard thing to do. And we make it very unattractive for people to step up the plate
15:06run for office or potentially serve in office. I tried hiring a retired CFO many years ago.
15:11This is after the pass of the Stock Act. Would have been great. I could have had somebody
15:15really expert in international taxation, that type of thing. I could not find anybody willing
15:20to do it. So this piece of legislation really, it's legislative demagoguery. You know, we do
15:27have insider trading laws. We have financial disclosure. Trust me, we have financial disclosure.
15:33The press pays attention to it. So I don't see the necessity of this. I can imagine all kinds
15:40of unintended consequences. You could relabel this law, quite honestly, the Career Politician
15:47Protection Act. Because it'll make it so unattractive for people to give up their business, sell it,
15:56unless some ethics committee says, oh no, there won't be a conflict of interest. I mean, there's
16:02when we pass a tax law that lowers tax rates, we all benefit. It's just an inherent issue.
16:11So again, we have plenty protections. We have the disclosure. This is a completely unnecessary
16:16piece of legislation. It's going to create all kinds of unintended consequences. Senator
16:21Scott just pointed out one of them. Just one of them. So again, I voted no last time. I'm
16:27a strong no this time. Even stronger this time.
16:30I'd like to also chime in here. I think Senator Scott makes a good point on the illiquid assets.
16:36In addition to maybe some land that you've had for a generation from your family that's not
16:41really you have, you're attached to it. It has value, but nobody really wants to buy it.
16:44You got to sell it. But also, what if the stock market, what if you choose to run a year and a
16:49half before your election, the stock market's booming. During your campaign, the stock market tanks
16:5620% and nobody in their right mind would want to sell it. You know, you're having to sell. So I think
17:01these are bad ideas. But the number one bad idea, particularly about the substitute, and the vote
17:06we're going to have is on the substitute. The substitute protects Donald Trump. So basically,
17:10you're asking the bill currently would affect Donald Trump. So if Democrats are pondering
17:15this, you will be voting to protect Donald Trump if you vote for this substitute. We are going to
17:19have a recorded vote on this. Look, if this is a great bill, if this is the greatest thing since
17:24sliced bread and it's really necessary, it should apply to Donald Trump. But the fact that they don't
17:29want to apply it to Donald Trump means that it's a really crummy bill and it would do terrible things
17:34to Donald Trump's finances. So if this is a great bill, let's apply it to the president. And you
17:39will have a chance on that. So we will have a vote. And the next vote is going to be on the substitute.
17:43The substitute protects Donald Trump. The original bill does not protect Donald Trump. And so I hope
17:48everybody will think about that. I will oppose the substitute change because I think it should apply
17:54to everybody or nobody. I mean, it's kind of ridiculous. We're going to apply it to us and the
17:58president and except for Donald Trump. You know, I mean, to accept Donald Trump from this is crazy.
18:04It also excludes all the courts, all the staff. I frankly think that there are chiefs of staff on,
18:13you know, the Armed Services Committee. They know a lot more about tank sales and plane sales
18:18and this and that way before anybody else does. That if you think there's a real problem with this,
18:23apply this to staff as well. I think the courts know if I've got a decision coming up and it's
18:29Monsanto and I'm going to rule on a billion dollar case against Monsanto, should the judge,
18:35should the people that work for the judge be included in this? I do agree with Senator Johnson
18:40though that I think insider trading is not only has always been illegal, it was further made illegal
18:46under more scrutiny under the Stock Act. And I think this is a solution looking for publicity
18:53but not necessarily something that is really an accurate or effective tool. If it were,
19:01it would apply to President Trump. So the vote we're going to have is to be excluding President
19:05Trump from this bill. And if you think that's fair, vote for the substitute. If you don't think
19:10it's fair to exclude Donald Trump, I think we should vote against the substitute. Not to have anything
19:14against Donald Trump, but because I think everybody should be treated fairly. Senator Slotkin.
19:18Yeah, I just want to say, I think this is a really important vote. I appreciate the authors,
19:24the co-sponsors bringing it up. I was a co-sponsor of a very similar bill just for members of Congress
19:31in the House banning members of Congress of all kinds, Democrats and Republicans, from trading stocks.
19:37You don't have to sell. You can put your money into, you can put your stock into a blind trust,
19:43which a lot of members of Congress have already done. No? That's not true. Mr. Olley, do you want to
19:49confirm? Yeah, let me just, can, will you, will you yield, and I'll yield back to you just a few things. Let me,
19:55let me just go back to it. Land is not an illiquid investment. It is, it is not. It's explicitly exempted
20:02under the bill. The bill defines illiquid investments as an interest in private funds.
20:07Land is, is not considered as such, number one. Number two, Senator Paul brought up the hypothetical
20:12that if you're someone who's running for office and the stock market tanks as soon as you get into
20:17office, you're stuck. Well, what this bill does, because people like, uh, Senator Paul and others
20:22have, have asked over and over for fairness, time to comply. It says that current office holders,
20:28the terms of the bill will take effect upon the beginning of their next term. So in that hypothetical
20:33that Senator Paul just raised that, oh, you find yourself suddenly locked into a six-year term,
20:37you have to sell, you would not have to. You would have six years to comply. This, this is the same
20:42treatment for all office holders. Members of Congress, members of the House, it will take effect
20:46upon the beginning of their next term if they're reelected. Members of the Senate, it will take effect
20:50upon the beginning of their next term if they're reelected. The President, the Vice President,
20:53will take effect upon the beginning of their next term and so on. So everyone is treated the
20:57same in that respect. They're allowed to come into compliance. Um, and that speaks to the blind
21:02trust provisions. If you currently have a blind trust and you are a member of this body, you have
21:07until the beginning of your next term and then 180 days after that to meet the divestment requirements.
21:12Okay, I yield back. Thank you. Sorry, that's my mistake. I think we have to accept that the American
21:19people think that all of us, Democrats and Republicans, are using our positions and our access
21:28to enrich ourselves. They think that when it comes to stock trading, and as you pointed out, Mr. Hawley,
21:36Democrats and Republicans, right? Just right now around Liberation Day, President Trump's big tariff day,
21:4253 members made over 2200 stock trades valuing at 34.9 million, between 34.9 million and 140 million
21:51dollars. So it's happening on both sides of the aisle. And people don't believe that we are here
21:57for the right reasons. We have a problem. And in order to address that, I am willing to make the good
22:05work instead of waiting for the perfect. So of course, I want the President and the Vice President
22:10to be held accountable under this. Of course, we saw that you made changes so that it affected their
22:15next term, knowing that that probably wouldn't be Donald Trump. We all saw Vance and Trump come out
22:20against this publicly. But I think it's important that we at least make a start. And you're right,
22:27there could be judges and chiefs of staff and all kinds of other peoples. But right now, this body has
22:33the opportunity to make the call on this body, and a few other really important, important holders.
22:40I would also add the fact that cryptocurrencies, digital currencies are in this, is hugely important
22:47when it comes to curbing people like Donald Trump, who's made over 100 million dollars since taking
22:51office from crypto. So if you don't want to vote this way, if you don't want to vote for this, don't say
22:59it's because we're protecting Donald Trump. Say it's you don't want to be held accountable in your
23:03own office. You don't want to be, you don't want to have to sell your stock. And I actually respect
23:08Mr. Johnson for saying that, for saying this is why I think it's bad because people won't be able to
23:13earn money. I think that's a legitimate reason for this. But don't say that you're going to hold out for
23:20the perfect when we have a chance to actually send a message that we understand we have a perception
23:25problem. And members of Congress shouldn't be trading stocks when they're getting classified briefings.
23:30Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out that when I decided to run for the Senate and I
23:36won, I sold all my marketable securities. I converted to cash. You know, that hasn't done real well
23:44in terms of investment. Now my wife has, in the intervening years, bought a few ETFs. So I agree with the
23:50spirit of this. I don't think members of Congress, in my own case, I don't trade stocks. But if I would,
23:57it's fully disclosed. And I don't want to impose that on the members either to discourage people from
24:05the private sector to come here and serve. Again, we have too many career politicians. We don't have
24:10enough people who have experience in the private sector. We need more. We need to encourage them,
24:15not discourage them. This piece of legislation would be hugely discouraging to people from the
24:21private sector coming here and serving. Mr. Chairman. Senator Lackford. I would like to have colloquy
24:29with the author on this one just to try to get some additional information. I happen to be the
24:32chairman of ethics. So it would actually fall on me to be able to enforce this because much of the
24:38bill itself actually comes back to ethics on it. And so I am trying to be able to try a couple things.
24:43Senator Slotkin brought this issue up of the qualified blind trust. That has been allowed to
24:47be able to say, if you are a big stock holder and you have it, you chose to be able to sell yours off.
24:53Some others come into it and say, hey, I have stock holdings. I'm not one of those, by the way.
24:58They would come in and say, I'm going to put all this in a qualified blind trust. They're prohibited
25:03from having communication with them. That person is actually managing it and they're separated totally.
25:09This bill would say, no, you can't do that anymore. So if you have stocks, you can't put that in a
25:14qualified blind trust any longer. Why would that be? A couple of things. Number one, if you have
25:19a qualified blind trust and you are a member of Congress, again, you have until the beginning of
25:24your next term, should the voter see fit to reelect you in order to comply. I get that. But then after that,
25:28it's prohibited on it. Correct. So for those who know ahead of time that they're going to be joining
25:33this body, they can no longer use qualified blind trust. And the reason for that is, as you know,
25:37the rules on qualified blind trusts are not airtight. They're actually very loose. It is very
25:43difficult to police. You don't police them and the ethics committee. Well, the ethics committee,
25:47I thank you for mentioning that. Ethics committee does police that. So thanks for telling me what I
25:50don't do. We do police that. But you do not police the structure of the blind trust. We do actually.
25:57Every single blind trust that's actually put in has to be approved. And they have to. And so before,
26:01and you police then the buying and the selling and the communication back and forth between members?
26:05We do police the communication between the members and the individuals of the blind trust. That's
26:09correct. And so you think that that's an effective way. You're saying you think we need no changes
26:13now. You think that effectively accounts for any sort of... Again, this suddenly sounds like it's
26:18personal. You're telling me what I don't do. No, I'm just asking you a question. Because what we found
26:23over and over is when members of Congress have been investigated for securities violations,
26:28they have said over and over, oh, I had a trust. I had a trust. I didn't really know anything about it.
26:33And then as it turns out, they're communicating with their trustee. And they said, oh, we're allowed
26:39to do that. So you're telling me maybe they've violated multiple laws. Here's what I would say.
26:43I think that at the end of the day, if you're asking me why do we need to eliminate blind trust,
26:47it's because blind trusts, I think, are often workarounds. Because they can be structured in multiple
26:52different ways, right? There's not one way to structure blind trust, correct? Or there's only one way?
26:56There is a way that you have to structure it if you're in the Senate and going through ethics.
27:00Have you gone through that process before? No, because I don't have any of these securities,
27:04James. Because when I got elected, I sold all of my trust in essence. I don't have a blind trust.
27:10I don't have... I practice what I preach. I don't have individual stocks. I don't trade in stocks.
27:15I'm not a billionaire, unlike others on this committee. And what I think is the American people are
27:20sending us a clear message. And I hope that they are watching this today. They're sending us a message
27:25that they want us to behave as they behave. Right. So let me... I'm just trying to ask some
27:30questions. I'm trying to figure out some things on this. Because of the way that it's shaped,
27:33I've got to be able to work through this. I do believe the qualified blind trust works. The folks
27:37that you're mentioning, I think, are folks that say, hey, I had a stock broker, I had somebody that
27:43was handling that, but that was not a qualified blind trust. That's a very different structure to be
27:48able to have that. There's prohibited communication there. Many of the accusations that have been,
27:53that have come in the past several years, have been some... somebody else was handling it,
27:57but it wasn't a qualified blind trust. So I was just... I was confused on why this particular one,
28:01because there haven't been accusations on that. That's somebody that comes in with some wealth,
28:06which I don't have, which you don't have. Someone with some wealth that comes in and says,
28:09hey, this family inheritance, whatever they may have, worked their whole life, got it,
28:13they could put in a blind trust over there. This also requires several things here. It requires you
28:19sell it rather than just prohibit trades. Several times I've heard you mention, hey,
28:23they shouldn't be trading in it. What about individuals that had stocks when they came?
28:27Why should they sell it to be able to be here? Why not just have a flat-out prohibition to say you
28:32can no longer buy, no longer sell? If you have it, stock market goes up and down, you can't touch it.
28:36You have to just leave it there. Why not... what was the decision to be able to say,
28:40you got to sell it all rather than just you can't trade anymore?
28:43Well, there is a ban on trading that would take effect immediately for all members,
28:49not just members who are coming in, but for all members. So I've been saying over and over that
28:52you have until your next term should you be re-elected in order to divest, but you make
28:56the important point that the trading would be prohibited immediately. Right. Your question is,
29:01why even in the next term require people to divest? I think that the answer to that is because
29:06you know what you own, presumably. I mean, you know that you have assets in the following securities.
29:12That constitutes a financial interest, a pecuniary interest. And it's a, it presents a conflict
29:17of interest to be getting briefings, voting on legislation, doing these things where you know
29:22you could be increasing or decreasing the value of your portfolio. We also have farmers that are here
29:26in Congress that they vote on farm policy and they also have ag provisions as well. And so that you
29:33can't eliminate all provisions that are out there on that. So I'm just trying to be able to figure out,
29:37this also has a reporting requirement. If someone has an FHA loan, it has to come back to ethics. Or
29:42a VA loan, it has to come back to ethics. If they're involved in any of the farm programs,
29:46it has to come back to ethics and we've got to be able to track it. I'm trying to figure out what to
29:49be able to do on this. And then it eliminates the ability for someone to own crypto or stable coin.
29:55Now we just passed a bill allowing stable coin to exist. I'm trying to figure out why stable coin
30:01is now in this as well. That's just a digital asset that has the same value as cash, but it's
30:07prohibited in this. I'm trying to figure out why stable coin is cut out on this.
30:12Well, you say in it now. I mean, it has been in it. It's in the bill that we passed a year ago.
30:17Right, right. The stable coin we just made the change on to be able to open up stable coin in
30:22the regulatory basis for all Americans. We didn't make the change in this bill. Congress passed a bill.
30:25I get that. That's why I'm just asking why it's still in this, that there's a prohibition for
30:29that kind of digital asset. It's just a dollar for dollar. It's the same as owning cash. So if you own
30:35a stable coin, that's the same as owning a dollar. It's only worth a dollar. It doesn't change in value.
30:39But a member of Congress wouldn't be able to own a stable coin anymore.
30:43Correct. And it's for the same reason, the same pecuniary interest, conflict of interest
30:48provisions that we think with individual stock. I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.
30:52We drew the line in this place over a year ago when we drafted and passed this bill.
30:55Yeah, but I'm saying a stable coin is worth a dollar today. It's not a tradable asset.
31:00If it will get your vote, James, I'd be happy to change this on the floor.
31:04I'm asking because as the chairman of ethics, I've got to be able to actually.
31:07And if you're concerned that it won't be, and if you're concerned that we won't be able,
31:09the ethics committee won't be able to enforce it, we will absolutely work with you.
31:14And I know, I know the ethics committee is a bipartisan committee.
31:16It is.
31:17And I know that your Democrat colleagues would also be happy to work with you to make sure
31:21that we can enforce this. We'll get you the guidance. And I'm happy to work with anybody
31:24on the floor who actually wants to change the bill to make it better. I mean, I agree with what
31:28Senator Slutkin said. This is not a perfect bill. It's not an ideal bill. Listen, there's provisions
31:32of this bill I don't like that much. But here's my bottom line. I've been working on this for,
31:37this is my seventh year now in the Senate. I've been working on it for seven years. I want a bill
31:43that can pass this committee, that can pass the Senate, and that can be signed into law by the
31:47President. The ranking member and I worked for two years to get the compromise text last time.
31:52Two years. Did I like everything in it? No. But you know what? We passed it through this committee.
31:57I just think this issue is too important to play politics with. We could do an easy messaging bill
32:01that would never pass. But if you want to really make a change and you want to make law, you're
32:06going to have to draw the line somewhere. So having said that, I will work, I will absolutely
32:10work with you, Senator Langford, and anybody else who says, okay, you know what? I think this needs
32:14to be changed. You look at this and you say, you know what? I don't think these pieces are
32:17enforceable. All right, let's move the debate on. Wait a minute. I haven't yielded, Senator Paul.
32:23This is an important debate I think we should take all the time that we need.
32:27I think it's absolutely vital that we get it right and get it as close as we can.
32:32But what I do not want to do and what I will not consent to and what I'm going to be very critical
32:37of are attempts to kill it. Where it is, well, you know, this is not quite right so we're going to
32:40kill it here. This is not quite what I want so we're going to kill it. I don't want to kill it. I want
32:44to move it. I want to move it. I want to get this enacted. I want the American people to be able to
32:48trust this body. And I think that's why this vote today is so important. All right, let's move along.
32:53On the question of stablecoin that Senator Lankford brings up, the hope is that someday in the near
33:00future it may be that everything you purchase on Amazon, stablecoin, is a choice. It may be at
33:06Walmart you use it. You're passing a law today that somehow may prohibit anybody in office from
33:12shopping on Amazon. So this isn't a very well thought out bill. We have a couple over here. Senator Gallego.
33:19And in case anyone's wondering, I am not the billionaire on this committee. Quite the
33:24opposite. I think I actually might be the poorest senator. One thing I think that it's also for
33:29at least Democrats for us to keep in mind, this is a very, very strong executive that is consistently
33:35doing deals and side deals with individual companies. And so, and some of us are privy to
33:41that information. So, you know, and that's my wife complaining right now, probably because I didn't
33:49answer. And so if we don't actually put some of these, you know, guardrails in, there will be
33:57members of Congress that are going to benefit from this, without a doubt. And there will be a further
34:01and further erosion in trust of both Democrats and Republicans, in trust in government. And, you know,
34:07I do feel for, you know, some of the arguments, well, that's going to discourage people from
34:13from serving their country, maybe some people then in the business world. But there is, you know,
34:18lots of ways for us to really encourage them to join us. And look, the president right now has
34:24multiple billionaires that have joined his administration. And he's clearly been able to
34:31track them. I think the same that we go in the future. I also appreciate, Senator Holly, that you said
34:36you're willing to continue to work on this, because there are some things that, you know,
34:39how would you deal with something that does have a liquid asset if they want to sell? Would the
34:42ethics committee be required to actually go after them? I'm sure there's some kind of compromise we'd
34:46come up with in regards to that. But there's no way that we should try to stop this in its tracks
34:55right now when there's an opportunity for us to really rebuild that trust with voters that has been
35:01eroding for quite a while. And it's not just a Republican problem. It is also a Democratic problem.
35:06And I think this is something that we could all work together on that we will be very proud of.
35:11And I yield back. Senator Gallego, I just want to point out that the bill that's currently written
35:16does not apply to any of those billionaires that surround Donald Trump. Even after a certain
35:20period of time, they wouldn't apply. It doesn't apply to... So really, he does have a lot of very
35:23wealthy people. I'm not against wealthy people. I think a lot of them are smart, but it does exclude them.
35:30In the context of what I was saying, like, for example, is more along the lines of this
35:33president was able to attract those. Now, the way that he did it is that at the federal level,
35:39if you're a cabinet member, you can divest and not pay capital gains. That's the kind of things
35:43that we could also be doing here. But so my point being, though, is...
35:46This bill won't apply to his cabinet and won't apply to any of these special...
35:49I absolutely understand that, Chairman. And hopefully someday we could fix that. But
35:52right now, I'm certainly not going to let that be the end-all be-all. And I'd like to move forward
35:56with this and see what other changes we can make to straighten this bill.
36:00Senator Scott.
36:04So first off, Senator Hawley, you said that I voted for the bill before. You also committed to work
36:09with me to improve the bill, which you didn't do. So let's think about where we are. We... I think
36:15everybody on this committee, nobody wants people to do trading. I think we all would agree with that.
36:21Is your mic on?
36:22Yeah. Nobody would like people to do trading. We've watched Nancy Pelosi. Seems like she's figured out
36:28how to make a fortune off of trading. We'd all like to make as much money as she made in trading.
36:33I don't know anybody in the country that's done that well. So, but if you look at this, we want...
36:39If you have a... if you have a small business, you come up here. All right. It's illiquid.
36:46There's no buyer. What are you going to do?
36:50You just give it away. So you're telling people you... Let me finish. Okay. There's no buyer.
36:57If it's illiquid, there's no buyer. That's why it's called illiquid. All right. The...
37:04You made a reference to billionaires. Okay.
37:07I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money.
37:14But somehow, if you've made money, you're supposedly, I think Senator Hawley suggests,
37:18you shouldn't be serving because you might trade stocks. Now, I came up here. I made money.
37:24I started out never knowing my dad, living in public housing.
37:32I lived the dream that many of us wanted to live, not be broke.
37:35I went to junior college, joined the Navy. I didn't go to some elite university.
37:46I went to the cheapest place I could find.
37:47And I went and built businesses.
37:52But somehow now, if you've made money, somehow it's negative up here.
37:55I did what Senator Johnson did. When I became governor of Florida, I sold my operating businesses.
38:05Right? I did a blind trust while I was governor.
38:08I never saw what was in the blind trust.
38:12I never traded one thing that was in the blind trust. Somebody else did it.
38:15Now, in this job, you know, I don't trade stocks.
38:21I own our operating businesses.
38:24But somehow, it's suspect because I made money.
38:28I don't know how many people in the audience, how many of you don't want to make money?
38:31Anybody want to be poor? I don't.
38:37Right? So this idea that we're going to attack people because they make money is wrong.
38:43Is absolutely wrong. We should cherish all of our different backgrounds.
38:48Every one of us has a different background. I've got a business background.
38:53But what I was just accused of is making money and somehow I can't do, I can't be fair and do things the right way.
38:59So, I think it's disgusting what is going on here.
39:04So, but, you know, I agree with, you know, I completely agree with you.
39:11We've got to stop people from trading stocks.
39:14But this goes, is way different. This is an attack against the president.
39:18Attack against the vice president. That's all, that's what this is.
39:22So, I think it's wrong.
39:23Mr. Chairman.
39:25I just want to correct that Senator Scott said that if you have a small business, you'd be forced to sell it.
39:31Small businesses are explicitly exempted under this bill to 1,200 employees.
39:36They are not covered.
39:38If you have a small business, you can maintain your ownership in that business throughout the entire time.
39:42And I don't mind anybody being rich.
39:44What I mind is people getting rich while they're here trading stock, which I think we can all agree on.
39:49And this bill would put a stop to.
39:52So, 1,200 employees.
39:55I had, I had one company with 285,000 employees.
39:59That was publicly traded, but when it was private, it was not liquid.
40:02I had a bunch, a variety of manufacturing companies that had a lot of employees.
40:06That stock was illiquid.
40:08I mean, whether we, whether we, I mean, if any of you bought and sold companies, you do not have, oh, somebody's going to buy today.
40:19I know I can walk out the door and there'll be somebody to buy the company.
40:23So, we're going to make people sell things when it might be a absolute worst time to sell something.
40:29And they busted their butt to go build that business, and then they want to come up here and serve.
40:33And then we say, well, you've got to give up your net worth.
40:36That's wrong.
40:38I'd like to make one quick point then, Senator Johnson.
40:40On the idea of whether you're a small business or not, I was a physician.
40:44There was 150 physicians in my practice, and we owned a bunch of stuff altogether.
40:49And we probably had 1,500, 2,000 employees.
40:53Sounds like I would have to divest as well.
40:55So, you could be a small member of a large group that has a lot of money and a large, a lot of employees, and you'd have to divest.
41:02I think there's just a lot of things that are not thought through here.
41:04Senator Johnson.
41:06I'd like to make a couple more points.
41:07I've been here now for 15 years.
41:09Again, sold all my stock, sat on cash, lost my you-know-what, not a good investment over the last 15 years.
41:17I can't think of one time where there was a piece of information that I go,
41:22oh, man, if only I could trade in stock and take advantage of this.
41:26Not once.
41:26I don't disagree that the American public distrust this body.
41:31It's because we put our mortgage on our children's future, $37 trillion in debt.
41:36They also distrust us because of demagogic piece of legislation like this.
41:42So, have there been abuses?
41:43Yeah.
41:43I mean, I think what Nancy Pelosi did was probably pretty abusive.
41:46I have no idea how she made that much money.
41:50But again, this is self-flagellation.
41:52This is blowing something way out of proportion.
41:57Like, there's all kinds of corruption, all kinds of insider deal, trading in all kinds of insider information.
42:03Again, I can't think of one time that I heard in a secure briefing or some piece of information,
42:09I said, hey, I can make money off of this one.
42:11I can't think of one time, 15 years.
42:15In the end, we ought to respect the voters.
42:18We have disclosure laws.
42:20We disclose trades.
42:23Respect the voters.
42:24If you own something, respect the voters, well, because the press certainly reports around Republicans,
42:32maybe not on Democrats, but Republicans, all these things get reported.
42:37That keeps us honest.
42:38Not 100 percent.
42:42But again, the unintended consequence is this.
42:44The way it would disincentivize the very type of people we need serving here,
42:51people who run businesses, people who balance a checkbook, balance a budget.
42:58Those people don't want to serve here because we're already making it so unattractive.
43:02This would make it vastly more unattractive with all kinds of unintended consequences.
43:06So again, I urge my colleagues, vote a strong no against this thing.
43:13Senator Kim?
43:14Yeah, I'll keep this brief, but I just have to say, you know,
43:18it is and has been the greatest honor to be able to serve in Congress and serve in this body.
43:24And I would want people here that believe that this is the highest on.
43:29You know, not that it is just something that you're weighing and trading off.
43:33We are only looking for 535 Americans to serve in Congress out of 330 million people.
43:40Surely we can find 535 that understand that when you come here, you have and are held to the highest of standards.
43:48You know, that we work jobs whose job descriptions are in the Constitution of the United States.
43:53And if you are concerned about how that's going to affect your bottom line,
43:56if mutual funds are not good enough for you, then maybe this is not the right job for you.
44:01But if we are just trying to find and have that standard so the American people can understand
44:06and not have a single question about the motivations of people to be in this building.
44:12And I recognize that as I am here in the Senate because of these concerns about corruption and scandals that are out there.
44:19They are real and people are having such distrust in government right now.
44:24This is not going to solve all of it, but it's moving in that direction.
44:27So I just say, yes, we should try to find the steps that we can to give the assurances to the American people
44:32so they don't have to have any question about our integrity.
44:35All right, I think we're going to get to the underlying question.
44:38The underlying question is on the substitute.
44:42The main difference, and this is me characterizing this,
44:45but I think the main difference between what is on the floor
44:49and the choices are between what is on the floor that includes Donald Trump
44:52and the substitute that will not include Donald Trump.
44:55A better title for the substitute would be the
44:58exemption for Donald Trump substitute or protect Donald Trump from stock scrutiny.
45:03So all the debate and talk about Donald Trump and his advisors, his advisors will be exempt from the bill,
45:09but you'll be voting affirmatively on exempting Donald Trump from this if you vote for the substitute.
45:14If the substitute fails, President Donald Trump will be under the scrutiny of this bill.
45:19So I don't know. I think long and hard about it.
45:23Mr. Chair, as I understand it, the substitute treats Donald Trump exactly the same way members of Congress will be treated.
45:33They are both in this bill, and I do not think your characterization of the first bill is correct
45:39with regard to the treatment of the president, but I will leave that to the sponsors.
45:42I think you're right. The president's not in the Pelosi bill, if I'm correct.
45:49Mr. Chairman, so can I ask a new guy question here?
45:54This just, look, this is obviously really important.
45:56And by the way, I made a decision to sell every single one of my assets before the primary.
46:01Just be clear on that.
46:03But here's my question. Is this really the right way to run a railroad?
46:09We're being thrown at us reams of paper, lots of dialogue, and then we're taking a vote.
46:14If you had a gun to my head, I could not tell you what we're about to vote for.
46:18I have no idea what we're voting for. I was a co-sponsor with Senator Hawley on the Pelosi Act.
46:22Pretty straightforward. I read that bill. I have not read the mountains of paper that's in front of me.
46:27And I think it's wholly irresponsible for us to sit here, pretty much let's be honest, this is a publicity show,
46:33and then be asked to vote on something where we have literally no idea what we're voting on.
46:40I mean, I'm sitting here asking my fellow senators, like, what do we actually, is there an underlying amendment, substitute amendment?
46:45These are all words that you guys use every day, but for normal people, these are not normal words.
46:51So if there's a way to actually have a conversation in which we understand, hey, here's the bill, you've read it,
46:57you understand the implications one way or the other, and then we can have an adult intelligent conversation.
47:02We pass it. I think it is important for us to restore faith in our institutions.
47:07But to just put a vote out there where we have literally no idea what we're voting for is gross incompetence and irresponsibility.
47:16So first off, if I may, Mr. Chairman, the substitute was put out Friday.
47:20So you've had several days to look at the substitute. This is just a very minor change.
47:24The text was just handed to us.
47:26Well, it is everything that went to your office on Friday with one minor change, is my understanding.
47:31We got it, we got it when we arrived in the committee.
47:33Senator, by the way, hold on, hold on.
47:36Hold on one second.
47:36This is my understanding.
47:37Senator, with all due respect, look, sending something out Friday through some random computer system
47:44is also disrespectful to the people on this committee.
47:47Why wouldn't you, if we're going to pass something, why wouldn't we have an intelligent conversation that says,
47:51hey, I'm the co-sponsor of the bill that says, hey, this is what we're looking to change,
47:56and here's what it is, and read through it, and this is why we thought about it. Let's have a thoughtful meeting.
48:01Look, if we ran businesses this way, you wouldn't have to be an entrepreneur running for office.
48:05You'd be flat broke. This is the most absurd process I've ever seen.
48:09And again, we're talking about having faith in our institutions.
48:13This is, if you guys think this is normal, all of you have been here too long.
48:16Senator, we do use computers in the Senate. I know that might be kind of weird for you,
48:21but we do, we do use those. And we send them to your staff and your staff, my staff looks at the
48:27things that come in because it's on a markup and we go through it. It's actually the bill that passed
48:31last session too, if I may finish, Mr. Chairman. And so there, this is only a change. It was a date
48:38certain as to, was it 27, I think, and instead it was changed to the term of a, of an individual.
48:45And then let me go back to, I mean, President Trump is treated like every other member.
48:49There's no trading within 90 days. We deal with the trading issue right away,
48:53which I think is probably 95% of the problem is the trading. And this bill, this substitute deals
48:58with it after 90 days. The president, members of the Senate, members of the house are all going
49:03to be impacted by it. And that's what passed last Congress. This is what is, was in the substitute
49:09via computer, as odd as that may be for you, went via computer to your office.
49:13Your staff had a chance to look at this is a minor change. That's what we're talking about.
49:17Before we're going to be disdainful of the point, we got the substitute on Friday. We got the
49:21modification when we walked in. The modification is what removes Donald Trump from the bill. It's
49:26a big change. The modification vote is what we're going to have. You're right. Substitute
49:30didn't include the president. Yes, the bill will treat Congress and the president equally in the bill
49:37with the modification. Without the modification, it treats the president immediately. We will be voting to
49:42modify the substitute to not have this bill apply to Donald Trump while he's in office. That is
49:48what the vote is before us. But I sort of resent you being, treating our members by saying, oh,
49:53you don't know about a computer? I mean, you know better than that. Well, he complained it came via
49:56computer, Mr. Chairman. I was just, you know, I'm sorry. Mr. Peterson, if you want to have a,
50:01if you want to have a who knows more about technology battle, let's have that battle.
50:05I know more about technology in my pinky than you do. Can you explain on page four and five what the
50:11changes are? Could you walk me through the changes that were made on pages four and five? Because
50:15you know this bill off the top of your head. The changes with the times. So what's the changes in
50:20page four? The change in, the change that was made, my understanding is the change was just on
50:26the date. That's incorrect. All right, how about the changes on page five? Take a look at it. So you
50:31don't know. It was delivered to you on a computer. You didn't read it over the weekend? So what were
50:37the changes on page five? The dates were changed throughout, Senator. That's not the dates. I got
50:42this from Senator Hawley's staff who gave it to us and that was the change that they said was the only
50:47change. When did you get the modifications? Could I just, Mr. Chair, I just want to take a step back.
50:56Um, our staffs did get the substitute. They did brief, at least I got briefed on what it was and I got
51:02briefed on the change that was handed to us this morning. But the bigger picture it seems to me,
51:07and I just want to be clear, what this bill would do is apply to the president as well as members of
51:13Congress to prevent them from trading the stocks they currently hold within 90 days of the passage of
51:19this bill. So that is, in fact, applying to Donald Trump in the present. And I want to be very clear
51:26about that. Like all members of Congress in this legislation, Donald Trump does not have to divest
51:32unless he were to start another presidential term. And the reality is that he is in his second term,
51:38so the Constitution prevents that. But the Vice President would have to do the same thing if he were
51:43to have another term, we would all have to do the same thing. But it gives members the choice to
51:50decide whether they are going to divest or run for office. And that seems to me to be a fair way of
51:56addressing some of the concerns that we've heard from opponents of this bill. So I just want to take
52:00a step back and be real about what does and doesn't apply to the president right now and what is in
52:06this bill and echo Senator Slotkin's and others view that this is a major and important step forward.
52:14To my colleague from Ohio, we have debated this issue on this committee now for several rounds,
52:23including in the last Congress. And there's always somebody who finds some small thing to say, well,
52:27let's just wait, let's just delay it. I think the work here has been really good. I think you've heard
52:32Senator Hawley agree that as it comes to the floor, if there are other changes or clarifications people
52:38want, he will work with them on that. And there is still a chance to vote against it on the floor
52:43should it come, should it get to the floor. But I just want to echo that I think this is a major
52:48step forward and an important piece of legislation to make sure that the American public knows that
52:55members of Congress and the President of the United States are not spending their time trading stocks
52:59when they are supposed to be working here full time. Thank you. Let's be very clear about the timeline.
53:05The substitute was distributed on Friday. The modification, most of us, other than Senator
53:11Peters, didn't get it till we got here. So apparently you got it beforehand from Senator Hawley. None of us
53:16got the modification till we got here. So we're asked to decide on an important piece of legislation that
53:21we just got. That's why it's important that we know what we're voting on. The substitute without the
53:27modification doesn't apply to the does apply to the President in current time. The modification
53:38will apply to President and Congress equally, but the President won't be forced to divest. So a big
53:43part of this bill we're going to exempt Donald Trump from. The modification is to exempt, the modification
53:49is to exempt Donald Trump from divestiture. The Republicans said they wouldn't go there and
53:54Democrats wanted the President involved. She got the President involved, but the President won't have
53:58to divest. But the vote is to protect the President from divestiture. That's what the vote will be on
54:04today. If you modify it, if the modification fails, the underlying substitute would have Donald Trump
54:11divest, which I think is a terrible idea. But it's a terrible idea for the next President too, not just for
54:16Donald Trump. And the only way it's made more real for all of us, at least Republicans, is to think,
54:21oh my goodness, we're going to do this to Donald Trump. Oh no, let's just screw the next President,
54:24you know. And that's what we're deciding today. But when you hate something so much that you don't
54:30want to apply it to your President, maybe it's a bad provision. Can I respond to Senator Scott?
54:37Senator Scott. So Senator Hassen, what you said sounds really nice. It sounds really nice that after we vote
54:42for this and this passes we're going to have a conversation. We didn't. When we voted for this before,
54:49that's what I was told. Nobody, nobody talked to me. I get, you know, we, I hear about this Friday night.
54:57Nobody's asked me my concerns. I have some experience in business. I can tell you some of the issues.
55:02Nobody, nobody asks, right? So, I mean, so the, look, reality is if this passes today,
55:11there's going to be push to pass this on the floor with no changes. That's, that's just reality.
55:14That may be, but there's always an opportunity if the Senator gets an amendment on a Friday night
55:21to reach out to the sponsors and talk with them. Thank you.
55:26We're ready to vote. And, uh, let's be clear. We're voting on
55:32the first vote will be the modification of the substitute. Everybody clear or less than clear?
55:38Senator Scott. Okay. I want to call up my secondary amendment to Scott one. So
55:47we have, we have to adopt or not. I think we have to go to the modification
55:51first and then we'll go to amendment after. I think that's just the order. Okay. Okay.
55:54So, all right. So we'll vote on modifications. The clerk will call the roll. Senator Johnson.
55:59No. Senator Langford. No. Senator Scott. No. Senator Hawley.
56:03Aye. Senator Moreno. I have no idea what we're voting on.
56:09You know it's always a good choice then.
56:10No. So you have a vote or no vote?
56:14I, I, I, this is, this is, I, I choose not to participate.
56:18All right. President. President.
56:22You can vote president if you want or nothing. Whatever.
56:26Senator Ernst. No. Senator Moody.
56:29No. On the last minute. Say again?
56:32No. On the last minute.
56:34No to exempt the president.
56:35Okay. That's what we're voting on.
56:40Senator Peters. Aye. Senator Hassan. Aye.
56:44Senator Blumenthal. Aye. Senator Fetterman.
56:48Senator Kim. Aye. Senator Gallego.
56:51Senator Slotkin. Aye. Senator Paul. No.
56:55Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are eight, the nays are six. On the vote by proxy, the yeas are zero, the nays are zero. On this vote, the yeas are eight, the nays are six, and the amendment is agreed to.
57:11Now we open up for amendment, for amendments to the substitute. Okay.
57:15Okay.
57:17Okay.
57:19Okay.
57:21Okay.
57:23Okay.
57:25Okay.
57:27Okay.
57:29Okay.
57:31Okay.
57:33Okay.
57:35Okay.
57:37Okay.