Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) leads a Senate Homeland Security Committee business meeting to discuss legislation.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00:00to order. Pursuant to notice issued on July 17, 2024, the committee is meeting to consider
00:00:07pending legislation. We had initially planned a much more ambitious agenda, but after the attempted
00:00:14assassination of former President Trump 10 days ago, the committee has been focused on getting
00:00:20answers and providing transparency to the American people. This heinous and absolutely cowardly
00:00:28attack should never, ever have been able to happen, and we can have to do everything we can
00:00:34to make sure it doesn't happen ever again. Senator Paul and I have announced a bipartisan
00:00:40investigation to get to the bottom of this shocking security failure that enabled this attack,
00:00:47and we're committed to fulfilling this committee's critical oversight responsibility. For the first
00:00:54last 10 days, I have been working to secure a briefing, and we believe that that briefing,
00:01:01although we're trying to hammer out the final details, will be tomorrow morning at 8 30 a.m.
00:01:06in the in the SCIF. It'll be a joint briefing. We are working in addition to the Judiciary
00:01:12Committee. Judiciary Committee, as you know, has primary oversight over Secret Service and FBI,
00:01:18but we'll be there with them, with the judiciary, so we'll be together tomorrow morning. And we're
00:01:22also looking at a joint hearing with Judiciary Committee as well next Tuesday with Secret
00:01:30Service and FBI. I'll have more details confirmed shortly for the briefing and the hearing before
00:01:37it comes out, but keep that in mind. And this is going to take more than one briefing. It's
00:01:42going to take more than one hearing. This is an investigation that will continually evolve,
00:01:46although we do know that time is of the essence to try to do this as quickly as possible, but
00:01:52also do it thoroughly. So if everything doesn't come out in the briefing or the hearing or not
00:01:57everybody is there who you want, that doesn't mean we won't do that. We just have to do this
00:02:01in a systematic way to make sure that we're doing this in a in a fulsome, robust, and professional
00:02:07manner. But we intend to get to the bottom of it and make sure that this heinous action can never
00:02:12happen again. So I expect to have details certainly. I know all of all of us are frustrated
00:02:18with the lack of transparency that we've seen so far, and I'm frustrated. All of you are frustrated.
00:02:23We're going to be working diligently on this. It's my commitment, working with Senator Paul,
00:02:29to do this at the committee level. As for today, we're going to be voting on an important bill
00:02:35that this committee has been working on for several months, and afterwards we'll recess
00:02:41and plan to reconvene next week. And I expect that we'll be able to consider a number of the
00:02:46remaining bills, give everybody more time to look at the remaining bills and nominations
00:02:51that are on our agenda. We want to try to get a lot of this off our plate before the summer.
00:02:55So please plan to be at that meeting next week when we recess, and we'll be talking to your
00:03:02staffs about that. I note the presence of a quorum, but before we proceed to vote,
00:03:07I'll recognize Ranking Member Paul for an opening statement.
00:03:10Thank you. 11 days ago, former President Donald Trump was nearly assassinated during a campaign
00:03:18rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, an incident that claimed the life of Fire Chief and Father Corey
00:03:24Comparatore and injured two others, severely injured two others. While the specifics of what
00:03:29happened on July 13th and the days leading up to it are still unclear, we know that there were
00:03:34multiple reports by law enforcement on the ground of a suspicious activity by someone who turned
00:03:40out to be the shooter for over an hour before the shooting actually happened. The shooter was able
00:03:46to position himself on a roof of a building only 500 feet away with a direct line of sight of
00:03:52President Trump. This lapse highlights a disturbing series of failures in our security operations.
00:03:59As the Senate Committee with Jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security,
00:04:02including the United States Secret Service, we have a responsibility to uncover the truth
00:04:08about how the former president and now Republican nominee was almost assassinated by a 20-year-old
00:04:13on an unguarded roof despite repeated warnings. Yet, committee members and staff have had to direct
00:04:19attention to a markup agenda of 53 bills, including 18 bills to name post offices. While it was
00:04:26announced yesterday that we're only voting on one bill today, the rest are looming for next week.
00:04:30I think we really need to be looking primarily, if not solely and exclusively, at the assassination
00:04:35attempt and putting naming of post offices on a back burner. We should prioritize obtaining
00:04:41answers to the most basic questions. How did this happen? What measures are being taken to prevent
00:04:46another tragedy from happening again to President Biden, to Vice President Harris, to President,
00:04:52former President Trump? What failures led to this colossal disaster? Some of the first steps we need
00:04:57to take are interviewing the lead Secret Service agents in charge for planning and securing the
00:05:03Butler event and local law enforcement officials involved. We owe it to the American people to
00:05:08uncover the truth. While we still don't have all the facts, we do know the shooter visited the rally
00:05:14site on July 7th. On the morning of July 13th, the Secret Service conducted a site briefing at 10 a.m.,
00:05:20followed by security sweeps at 11 a.m. At 1 p.m., the doors opened to the public, coinciding with a
00:05:26counter-sniper team briefing on the second floor of the AGR building, the same building where the
00:05:32shooter would later be found. We know that the shooter visited the site with a drone flying over
00:05:37the area, later purchasing 50 rounds of ammunition at a local gun store, the same rifle purchased by
00:05:43his father in 2013. Despite being alerted to a suspicious man lingering at the rally site around
00:05:495 p.m., the Secret Service lost track of the shooter. By 5 51 p.m., the Pennsylvania State Police notified
00:05:56the Secret Service of an individual with a rangefinder. At 5 52, the Secret Service alerted the
00:06:03counter-sniper team of the suspicious subject. Reports indicated that the shooter was spotted
00:06:08over an hour before the shooting, and yet the president was allowed to go on stage. This is an
00:06:14inexcusable mistake. It doesn't make the person a bad person who did this, but it's an inexcusable
00:06:21mistake, and it means that the person who made this judgment call not to warn the president,
00:06:26not to stop the proceedings, is someone who can no longer be in that position and no longer
00:06:32has the trust of the American people to have the judgment to do that job. So without question, that
00:06:37person has to be interviewed. We can't have a hearing or an investigation where we interview
00:06:41the PR people for the Department of Homeland Security. The principals involved have to be
00:06:46interviewed. At 6 09 p.m., several rally goers noticed this suspicious man on a rooftop near the
00:06:53stage and tried to alert law enforcement. At 6 11, as Trump spoke, the shots rang out.
00:07:00Trump reached for his right ear and took cover behind the podium. Moments later, Secret Service
00:07:05evacuated the former president to Butler Memorial Hospital. Fire chief Comparatore was hit, and two
00:07:11others were severely injured. The Secret Service counter-sniper team returned fire, wounding and
00:07:17killing the shooter. Later that evening at 10 30 p.m., the Secret Service turned this over to the
00:07:22FBI. Nearly two weeks have passed since Americans witnessed an attempt on a former U.S. president's
00:07:28life in broad daylight, yet so many questions remain unanswered. Monday, the House Oversight
00:07:34Committee hosted a hearing with Secret Service Director Cheadle. She came only under duress. She
00:07:40came under subpoena. We have to use the power of the subpoena because the natural tendency of
00:07:45executive branch under either party is to cover up and not to reveal things. Their attempts now are
00:07:52not to reveal who the Secret Service agent was in charge and not to allow them to testify. That
00:07:57cannot be tolerated, and that person should be brought forward as soon as humanly possible by
00:08:02subpoena. The independent review panel created by the DHS Secretary Mayorkas earlier this week
00:08:08does not address our need for transparency and congressional oversight. How can we trust that
00:08:13this board that is exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act and other transparency laws
00:08:18will deliver a truly independent investigation? How can this board access classified information
00:08:24while members of this committee have yet to receive a classified briefing on the incident?
00:08:28Will the board's full report be made public to the American people, or will the public only see an
00:08:32executive summary as has been done in the past? The review board could take six months to complete
00:08:39its work, well past the presidential election, well past many more rallies for former President
00:08:44Trump or for the new nominee Kamala Harris. We need to know now, will they be safe? Given the
00:08:53urgency and importance of this issue, the committee's sole focus should be the investigation instead
00:08:58of other committee business. I ask the chairman to join me in insisting on having at least the
00:09:04secret service special agent in charge from Pittsburgh, the secret service lead advance
00:09:10agent for the Butler event, and the leaders of local law enforcement agencies involved in the
00:09:14event come to this committee before we leave town next week. It is our duty and our utmost
00:09:21responsibility to ensure that we learn from this failure and hold those responsible accountable.
00:09:26We owe it to the American people to uncover the truth.
00:09:48It would be very helpful to have that as well. We can do other legislation as well. We can
00:09:55chew gum and walk, and much of this is bipartisan, that is non-controversial,
00:10:00that really takes very little time to do other business, but we plan to devote all of the
00:10:06attention that we need to to this important investigation. I'd like to get to the market,
00:10:10but I'll entertain other brief quotes. This could get us... Can I just ask a quick question? Yes,
00:10:14Senator Scott. So anybody that's been a governor before knows that when you have something like
00:10:19this happen, you just do constant briefings, right? What I don't understand is why Mayorkas
00:10:25Cheadle, Ray are not doing daily briefings because what we're sitting, we're all sitting
00:10:30here taking all this information in from people saying all these things are happening, there's
00:10:34this all this conspiracy. How is it good for anybody? For sure it's not good for us. It's
00:10:39not good for the administration. So I just don't get why they're not doing daily briefings.
00:10:44Well, we'll have a briefing tomorrow. Final details are still being hammered out as I mentioned,
00:10:48but tomorrow at 8 30 we'll have a briefing and we're looking at having a hearing early next week
00:10:52with the Judiciary Committee putting it all together. So it's not for a lack of effort on
00:10:58our part. I share your frustration. I share your need to get all this information out because
00:11:06it is of the utmost importance and we're going to be doing that. Mark your calendar,
00:11:10be there tomorrow morning and look forward to Tuesday getting into this. We have to get as much
00:11:16done before we leave for the summer, but we're going to continue to work over the summer. Our
00:11:19staff will continue to work. Each and every one of us will continue to work. This isn't going
00:11:24away. This is important. This is a fundamental attack on our democracy is what we saw. When
00:11:29people go to a political event, they should not be fearful that they could be the victim of a
00:11:34shooting. Our presidential candidates and presidents and former presidents all deserve
00:11:39to be protected as well. An attack on any of them is an attack on democracy and we will not
00:11:46stand idly by and see that happen. We're going to make sure that the service has the resources,
00:11:51the tools necessary, the procedures, the protocols, and when there's failure, we're
00:11:54going to call them out and people will be called out for that. Let me yield to Senator Hassan first
00:11:59and I'll make my comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will be honored to associate myself with
00:12:05your remarks just now about the importance of getting to the bottom of what happened,
00:12:08the attack that this was on our democracy. I will also respond to my colleague who is also
00:12:15a former governor that one of the things I learned as a governor too was the importance of making
00:12:21sure that there were briefings but also making sure that we weren't interfering with an active
00:12:25investigation because of course getting to the truth of the matter is the most important thing.
00:12:31I would just ask us all as we go through this process to think about the structure here
00:12:38and the importance of not interfering with an ongoing investigation. Thank you.
00:12:42Thank you. Senator Johnson.
00:12:44Mr. Chairman, I think everybody on the committee is well aware of the fact that I had my investigators
00:12:48immediately reach out to state, local, and federal law enforcement. Fortunately,
00:12:56local law enforcement has been talking to us. I made the decision to issue preliminary findings
00:13:02because we weren't getting anything from federal law enforcement. I was shocked by now former
00:13:11Director Cheadle's lack of testimony before the committee. She kept saying that it's only nine
00:13:17days out and I was thinking it's been nine days and you can't answer some basic questions.
00:13:22So as important as it is to get briefings and hold hearings, we just saw the non-result of a
00:13:29public hearing, what you need to do is you need to do the basic investigatory steps. And I'm sorry,
00:13:38I have in my role in investigating these things and seeing the corruption within the FBI and
00:13:44potentially within the Secret Service, we can't rely on them to do the investigation themselves.
00:13:49We need to do what we can do. Now there are certain things we simply cannot do. We don't
00:13:54have the forensic, we don't have the people on the ground, but we can do transcribed interviews
00:13:59with witnesses. That's what my staff immediately started to do. Again, we got cooperation out of
00:14:05local law enforcement, we haven't got butkus out of federal. They're doing what they always do,
00:14:11they, you know, put in the deep dark hole of their investigation and of course that's what
00:14:16Director Cheadle uses her title excuse. Oh, I can't answer this basic question that they
00:14:22ought to be able to answer. For example, that there were eight shells found near the dead body.
00:14:27We finally got eyewitnesses and I was able to release that yesterday. Why didn't the Secret
00:14:32Service director provide that basic information to tamp down any rumors? You know, I think you
00:14:37were all on the Senate briefing where both Director Wray and Director Cheadle said,
00:14:43we got to make sure that these conspiracies theories don't take hold. Well, the way to do
00:14:47that is to be transparent. The American people understand that what is released preliminarily
00:14:54is preliminary. It's incomplete. You know, we may get more truth, but we need to be transparent,
00:15:00but what I'm saying is this committee has to do the investigation, not just rely on briefings,
00:15:05not just rely on talking to people at the top, but I mean talk to the public, get their transcribed
00:15:10interviews, get transcribed interviews for all law enforcement, and more importantly,
00:15:16I don't have the power right now to use a compulsory process, but we need to use that and
00:15:22we need to use it soon. Not wait, not allow them to drag the feet, not allow memories to fade.
00:15:28We need to hop on this now and we have to do an actual investigation, not just oversight in this
00:15:33case. We need to do investigation. My investigators are already on it. I'm happy to share all of our
00:15:38investigatory material. What I want to be is a full partner in this process, not just have this all
00:15:45within the committee chairman and ranking members staff, but I mean involve also the permanent
00:15:50subcommittee investigation. Quite honestly, any member of this committee that has staff that has
00:15:54investigatory skills, we ought to be involved in this thing. Fully involved. I mean fully involved,
00:15:59not sidelined. So that's my request. Fully involve me. I want to completely be transparent
00:16:05with the public and this committee as well. So that's my commitment. If I can get my commitment
00:16:10from the chairman and ranking member to fully involve me and my staff in this investigation.
00:16:15Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Senator Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly,
00:16:21I understand the need for a full-throated investigation, but we have a crisis right now.
00:16:29We don't need to form committees to understand that there were systemic failures there,
00:16:34that there are significant cultural problems within the Secret Service, and I would call on
00:16:40the White House to appoint some type of a crisis team, a crisis management team to go into the
00:16:46Secret Service today. Yesterday could be composed of retired Secret Service agents,
00:16:52interdisciplinarian groups as well. We have a problem today. It can't wait three months, six
00:16:58months, three years to get this, the study done, to get the hearings done. It's a crisis today.
00:17:06We need leadership from the White House to appoint some type of a crisis management team. Thank you.
00:17:13Mr. Chairman. Senator Hollick. I want to just associate myself with Senator Johnson's remarks.
00:17:17Thank you, by the way, Ron, for your report and for the investigation that investigation,
00:17:22investigative activity that you've been doing. And I also just want to say something about
00:17:26whistleblowers, because this committee has a long history with whistleblowers, and rightly so.
00:17:31Whistleblowers are protected by federal statute, and they are often absolutely vital in gathering
00:17:36information, and they have been absolutely vital in the last 10 days, 11 days. We've had numerous
00:17:41whistleblowers come forward to my office. I think on this committee, I think there have been multiple
00:17:46folks who have been approached by whistleblowers just based on press reports. It strikes me,
00:17:50and it is no credit to the FBI, the Secret Service, that almost everything that we know
00:17:54that is fact-based out there now is because of whistleblowers. Because of a whistleblower,
00:17:59we know that law enforcement were assigned to the roof of American Glass Research Building 6.
00:18:05And by the way, I've been there myself. I share Senator Johnson's instincts. I went myself with
00:18:09my team last week to see. Whistleblowers now tell us that law enforcement were assigned to be on that
00:18:16roof, and they abandoned their post. Whistleblowers tell us law enforcement were assigned to patrol
00:18:21the perimeter of Building 6, and they didn't. They abandoned their posts and decided to go inside.
00:18:26We wouldn't know any of this. In fact, based on the briefings we were given, I had the distinct
00:18:30opposite impression. The secret, in fact, not just the opposite impression, the now former Secret
00:18:35Service director, and thank God she's former, she said that the Secret Service deliberately decided
00:18:41not to station anybody on the roof. That turns out to be false. That's a lie. That's just a lie.
00:18:47And they also said that the Secret Service had never denied the Trump campaign any resources
00:18:52that it asked for. That's a lie. It's a total lie. So already the public has been lied to time after
00:18:58time. And thankfully, we have these whistleblowers who are coming forward. So I just want to say to
00:19:02whistleblowers out there, we need you. We will protect you. You are fully protected by federal
00:19:07law. Any member of this committee will absolutely protect you if you will come forward. But we have
00:19:12got to get this information out to the American people. I don't want to be sitting here in another
00:19:1650, 60 years having the conversations we still have about 1963. The American people deserve a
00:19:22heck of a lot better than that. They deserve full and total transparency. And so does every single
00:19:26person running for president and every person who is a former president. And heck, as the chairman
00:19:32said, every person who goes to a rally, it can't be in this country that if you go to a political
00:19:36rally, you fear for your life. We have got, we have got to do better than this. And this committee,
00:19:42I think, plays a vital role. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hawley. And in terms
00:19:47of whistleblowers, this committee has always been out front to make sure the whistleblowers come
00:19:51forward and are fully protected by all of the powers that we have. We'd like to hear from those
00:19:58whistleblowers too. Please, the whistleblowers that you have talked to, if they would come to us
00:20:02as well so we could hear that story. That's how you get to the bottom of this is through
00:20:07whistleblowers. In fact, we have a spot on our website too for folks who are watching. If you're
00:20:11a whistleblower, you can reach out, know there's confidentiality, know that you will be protected.
00:20:17But we do have to get to the bottom of this and we'll continue to work. And then,
00:20:21and Senator Johnson, I want everybody engaged in this. So we welcome that. I have a document
00:20:27request that we're trying to get out. We've been slowed down for a variety of reasons to getting
00:20:32our document request. I want to get that out today. I've sent you copies of that. I'm happy
00:20:36to provide that to anybody else as to the documents that this committee is asking to get immediately.
00:20:41We can expand that list of documents and your input is important, but I don't want
00:20:45to argue and debate over, well, we want other documents too. No. We're past arguing about
00:20:51which document not. Let's just get documents. Let's get the information in right now so we can
00:20:56start this. And I'm open to having every member engaged in that with us so we can act quickly.
00:21:02So we don't act like a committee that's trying to negotiate everything for two weeks before
00:21:05something goes out. Time is of the essence, to your point, Senator Johnson. Memories are fresh.
00:21:10Memories can be altered by other information that comes later, not intentionally, but just
00:21:16subconsciously that happens, which is why it's important to be out very quickly. And we're going
00:21:21to continue to do that. So please know that this committee has a history of always working
00:21:25bipartisan and together. That isn't going to stop now. And this is incredibly important.
00:21:30Ranking Member Paul. As people are invited to testify, I think it's important that the
00:21:37invitations go out as soon as possible, but they also have a follow along conclusion
00:21:42that if it's not voluntary, that we will have a bipartisan insistence through subpoena.
00:21:47I think that encourages people to come voluntarily if they know it's going to happen.
00:21:51But I think it shouldn't be open-ended that we invite people and a month from now,
00:21:56then we kind of get together and, you know, commits about whether or not we're going to
00:22:00actually do a subpoena. So if we can have a strongly worded letter, including specific people,
00:22:05the FBI, the secret service agent in charge in Pittsburgh, the secret service agent in charge
00:22:11of the operations, as well as the local law enforcement people, particularly the people
00:22:16that were in the building where the shooting occurred or adjacent to the building where
00:22:19it was occurred. But I think it has to include, we want you next week. And if we really,
00:22:26that's what we should say. We want you for the hearing next week, all of these people.
00:22:30And if they, if we do not get a response from your attorney within 48 hours, you know,
00:22:36that we then will follow on with the subpoena, but that would require, you know, we have to be,
00:22:43we have to be sincere, work together and say, we really are going to force the issue.
00:22:48But what happens too often in all committees in Washington is it, it drags on for a number
00:22:52of reasons, but because we're not willing to put the force of subpoena behind it. So I think the,
00:22:57even the initial letter should say, we want you to come voluntarily, list the people individually,
00:23:02as many people getting advice from as many members of the committee that want to recommend people who
00:23:08need to be interviewed. Let's get that out there and say, if you do not appear voluntarily next
00:23:14week at a certain time, there will be a subpoena issued for you. Very good. Any other comments?
00:23:22Well, now we'll proceed to the consideration of S.1171. I ask unanimous consent that the
00:23:29committee consider the Peters, Hawley, Ossoff, Rosen substitute amendment as modified to S.1171
00:23:36as the underlying bill without objection as so ordered. Today, we're going to take a historic
00:23:42step towards passing legislation that will ban members of Congress from trading stocks.
00:23:49This is the first time that a Senate committee is marking up legislation to tackle this issue.
00:23:56Americans deserve to be confident that their federal elected officials are making decisions
00:24:01that are in the best interest of the public and not their own personal interests. This legislation
00:24:07helps work towards that goal. This is a strong and bipartisan agreement. I was proud to lead
00:24:14the effort to negotiate this updated bill, and I'd like to thank Senators Merkley, Hawley,
00:24:20Ossoff, and Rosen for their work in putting this together. This bill, which is built off
00:24:27of Senator Merkley's Ethics Act, includes key provisions that will prohibit bad actors from
00:24:32being able to take advantage of their positions for personal financial gain. The provisions
00:24:38include barring members of Congress, the president, and vice president from buying and selling a range
00:24:42of stocks and financial assets, requiring federal elected officials, their spouses,
00:24:47and dependent children to divest from any banned assets beginning in 2027, and increasing the
00:24:53fines for violations of the Stock Act to $500. In other words, I believe this is a common sense,
00:25:00a bipartisan agreement that strengthens accountability for the public and gives
00:25:04Americans the peace of mind that Congress is always, always working on their behalf.
00:25:10I'm committed to passing this bill and look forward to seeing it move one step closer
00:25:14to becoming law after this morning's action. I'd like to enter into the record a statement
00:25:21from Senator Merkley as well as letters from a number of good government organizations in support
00:25:26of the bill. Without objection, I'll be entering in the record, and now I'd like to recognize
00:25:30Senator Hawley for his comments. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for working
00:25:36so diligently on this and accommodating my many suggestions and concerns over a period of months
00:25:44to make this the strongest possible bill. I think it's a terrific bill. Senator Scott threatened me
00:25:48a moment ago that if I made a lengthy statement we might lose his vote, so I will be extremely
00:25:54brief. I just want to point out that the historic nature of this finally getting to a vote. There's
00:25:59been a lot of talk about banning stock trading by members of Congress. Never have we been able
00:26:03to get a vote. We're going to get that vote today, and I just think that this is such a simple
00:26:06proposition. The American people, when I go home and I say to folks, they ask me about stock trading,
00:26:11here's the thing that absolutely stuns them. They can't believe that it's legal already. They can't
00:26:15believe we can currently do it. Most members of the public think it's already banned, and when I
00:26:19say actually it's 100% legal, they say why, and there's no good answer to that question. We should
00:26:25be here to focus on the public's business, not private gain. We shouldn't be here day trading.
00:26:30We shouldn't be here focusing on our stock portfolios. We should be here doing what the
00:26:34American people sent us to do, and that's what this bill is about. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
00:26:42Thank you, Senator Hawley. Senator Ossoff, recognize for comments. Mr. Chairman, grateful to you for
00:26:51your leadership in facilitating this negotiation. I am grateful to Senator Hawley and Senator Rosen
00:26:59and Senator Merkley for their contributions. This is a historic moment for this committee.
00:27:08Georgians of all political persuasions, Americans of all political persuasions,
00:27:14overwhelmingly agree that members of Congress should not be playing the stock market
00:27:20while we hold office, while we make policy that affects businesses and industries, while we have
00:27:27extraordinary access to privileged and confidential information. We should be focused on
00:27:34the public's interest and not our private financial interests. That's why Senator Kelly and I
00:27:43nearly two years ago introduced the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act. That's why I've
00:27:49been honored to participate in this painstaking bipartisan negotiation under your leadership, Mr.
00:27:56Chairman, to get to a bipartisan framework to ban stock trading by members of Congress. I hope that
00:28:04my colleagues will join in reporting this favorably out of committee today and that we'll be able to
00:28:10take action expeditiously on the Senate floor to pass this measure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:28:16Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Ossoff. Senator Rosen, and then I'll recognize you, Senator Romney.
00:28:22Senator Rosen. Well, thank you, Chairman Peters, for holding this important markup for your leadership
00:28:28in this issue. I'd like to thank my colleagues, Senator Hawley, again, Senator Peters, Senator
00:28:33Ossoff, for your commitment and hard work to make this a very strong bill, because we do all agree
00:28:39that members of Congress must serve their constituents and the public, not their own
00:28:44interests. While most members of Congress serve honorably, no federal elected official should even
00:28:50have the opportunity to enrich themselves through corrupt stock trades using information that they
00:28:55gain through their official duties. That's why I was proud to co-sponsor Senator Merkley's Ethics Act
00:29:01and why I was proud to join again Chairman Peters, Senator Hawley, and Senator Ossoff in filing
00:29:06the bipartisan substitute amendment to strengthen this bill even further. Our bill takes a sensible
00:29:13bipartisan approach to cleaning up Washington, and I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of
00:29:19the aisle to join me in voting to pass this common sense and important legislation. Thank you,
00:29:25Senator Rosen. Senator Romney, recognized for comments. Mr. Chairman, I agree with all the
00:29:30statements that have been made. We don't want people in Congress trading stocks, playing the
00:29:34stock market. That's, if you will, the sheep's clothing over this wolf piece of legislation,
00:29:41which what you're not talking about is that this has been drafted in a way that is really quite
00:29:46thoughtless, which is it requires divestiture for people who want to become a congressperson
00:29:52or president or vice president. And we had a briefing beforehand to talk about does the bill
00:30:00deal with, for instance, private investments, private enterprises, and we were told no it doesn't,
00:30:06and in fact it does, and that was corrected a day later. Staff sent a member around saying they
00:30:12were incorrect. That actually does deal with private enterprises. What that means, for instance, is
00:30:16let's say there's a family that incorporates their farm, all right? They have a C corp that
00:30:20incorporates the farm. Someone wants to run for political office. They got to sell it.
00:30:27They got to sell their interest. Have you thought about Donald Trump, for instance? Under this bill,
00:30:34he couldn't become president. I mean, he'd have to sell all of his true social stock. He'd have
00:30:39to sell all of his private investments. This basically would prevent Donald Trump from
00:30:44becoming president if he wanted to maintain his financial assets without getting completely
00:30:48obliterated. So yeah, we don't want to have people trading stocks. Had the legislation been drafted
00:30:54to prevent that, I'd support it, but it calls for divestitures of all sorts of assets that people
00:31:01would have that will prevent them from running for political office. It is a wolf in sheep's
00:31:07clothing because it's been drafted in a thoughtless way. It makes us all very happy. By the way,
00:31:13it's not going to affect me one way or the other for two simple reasons. One is I don't have
00:31:18individual stocks. I bought mutual funds when I got into political office because I didn't want
00:31:23to ever have anyone question whether I was working on behalf of the public or myself. And number two,
00:31:28I'm not running for office again, all right? So it doesn't apply to me. I'm saying this as an
00:31:32American concerned about being able to attract good people into political office. And if we tell
00:31:38them you've got to sell family businesses, whether public or private, you've got to sell all your
00:31:44securities, these provisions are extraordinarily detrimental to being able to attract good people
00:31:52into public office. So it's a noble cause, which by the way is a messaging bill. This has been
00:31:59drafted in a way to say look how tough we are and we're going to stop any kind of corruption.
00:32:04We don't have examples, by the way. Is this a solution looking for a problem?
00:32:08Do we have members of Congress trading in inside information or presidents or vice presidents? It's
00:32:13against the law if we do, all right? It's already against the law. So we have law to prevent this.
00:32:20But the idea of this legislation causing these massive divestitures of the candidate, his or her
00:32:26spouse and their children, potentially family farms and other businesses, this has not been
00:32:32thought through. And while lots of people are going to vote for it because they want to be on
00:32:37record for opposing people trading in the stock market, that's not the problem with the bill.
00:32:42And it was not drafted in a way to focus on the real problem or potential problem.
00:32:47It was drafted in a way to be punitive and to keep Donald Trump from being president.
00:32:56Seeing no other comments, does anyone wish to offer an amendment?
00:32:59Well, no, I'm sorry, Senator Johnson.
00:33:02So, first of all, I want to agree with Senator Romney.
00:33:07I came in here happy to vote yes on this self-flagellation.
00:33:11For my own part, what I did when I ran for office, I divested myself of all my
00:33:16marketable securities, turned them into cash. I've been sitting on cash.
00:33:19And you know how much I've lost in terms of opportunity costs since that point in time. So,
00:33:23you know, from my standpoint, I was able to do that. I had the capability of doing that.
00:33:28I had the capability of doing that. I thought that'd be the honorable thing to do.
00:33:31My wife has since purchased an ETF, which this does exempt, and I think that's a good thing.
00:33:37I would caution people in terms of, I'm going to vote no now.
00:33:44We don't want to turn Congress into a rich man's club.
00:33:48I think it already suffers from that.
00:33:50And again, I thought also, and I would want clarifications, mainly the reason I'm asking this,
00:33:57is our private businesses exempt or not exempt from this?
00:34:01I was told, again, it's hard to interpret legislative language, but
00:34:06if, you know, I had a rather large manufacturing company, which I did not divest myself
00:34:12immediately, I sense have, but that would be grotesquely unfair.
00:34:17We're going to limit the number of people, by the way, qualified people.
00:34:21You know, I actually want people with manufacturing experience or
00:34:24business experience, you know, people who've been successful in life.
00:34:27I'd like to see successful people come to Congress and bring their successful skills to bear here.
00:34:33So again, I agree with Senator Romney.
00:34:38Insider trading is already illegal.
00:34:42I don't know, I think there's all kinds of suspected abuse.
00:34:47A lot of people come into Congress and all of a sudden they're multi-millionaires later.
00:34:51But I think we do need to exercise caution.
00:34:54But again, I'm primarily speaking at this point because I want clarification.
00:34:58Does this or does this not exempt a private company of somebody who's going to run for
00:35:04office or a member of Congress?
00:35:05I mean, all of a sudden, does that have to be divested?
00:35:08Because I think that'd be a travesty, quite honestly.
00:35:10Is there an answer to that question?
00:35:15Do you have an answer?
00:35:16Yeah, the answer is that it's exempt if it's a small business as defined by the
00:35:22Small Business Administration.
00:35:23So how small is small defined by?
00:35:27500 and under.
00:35:29500,000?
00:35:30500 employees and under is a small business.
00:35:34Definitely put me down as no.
00:35:36So let me ask a question.
00:35:38So if you have 1,000 employees and you own it and it's just your private business,
00:35:42you have to divest of that business?
00:35:44Well, that's insane.
00:35:47I mean, who would want to do that?
00:35:48I mean, farms, family businesses have been going on for generations that they keep together
00:35:54and sometimes families divide it by shares.
00:35:56We're going to make people divest of those privately owned businesses?
00:35:59We think that's a good idea?
00:36:02I don't know.
00:36:02I mean, the thing is, is the popularity of voting for this to show you're against
00:36:08bad things is out there.
00:36:09But it's like, you know, one of the senators today said that no congressperson should enrich
00:36:17themselves from illegally obtained information.
00:36:20That's not what this bill is about.
00:36:22This isn't about illegal information.
00:36:23This is about owning stock.
00:36:25This means you're criminalizing everybody wants to own stock.
00:36:28There's potentially a 27th Amendment violation in this too with taking people's salary.
00:36:33That's being adjudicated before the courts currently.
00:36:35But to vote against this sounds like, oh gosh, you're for corruption.
00:36:39Nobody's for corruption.
00:36:40There are laws.
00:36:41We passed and I voted for the Stock Act a couple of years ago and the Stock Act helped
00:36:46to ban or further ban what was already illegal.
00:36:49It has always been illegal to do insider trading for anyone in Congress or otherwise.
00:36:54With the Stock Act, I understand it is, we reaffirmed that.
00:36:59But I do fear that we're doing this and I'm torn between what will the perception of how
00:37:04this vote will be and actually how badly the bill is written of what it will do.
00:37:11And did any of the authors of the bill have a comment on whether this would require President
00:37:16Trump to divest?
00:37:21Senator Hawley, do you know what the answer to that is?
00:37:25Divest from what?
00:37:27Stocks.
00:37:28I don't know what the state of the former president's current portfolio is.
00:37:33Whoever is elected president would have multiple years to comply.
00:37:36But I do know there's always an excuse for why we can't do a stock trade bill.
00:37:41I've heard this for years.
00:37:43And now we're being told, oh, this was drafted hastily.
00:37:47That's just simply false.
00:37:48I mean, we've worked on this for literally years.
00:37:51So I would just welcome those who now suddenly have concerns.
00:37:54Where have you been for the last few years?
00:37:56And listen, I'm happy to work with you as this moves to the floor.
00:38:00We can always do a substitute amendment.
00:38:01That's fine.
00:38:02But I am 100% committed to banning stock trading by members of Congress.
00:38:08So I'm not going to be dissuaded from that one way or another.
00:38:11And we can throw up as much chaff as you want to.
00:38:13But the fact of the matter is, members of Congress should not be trading stock.
00:38:18They should not be.
00:38:20And I know that there are those on this panel who have never supported and are never going
00:38:24to support a stock trade ban.
00:38:25And that's completely fine.
00:38:26That's your prerogative.
00:38:28But let's not pretend that this is about anything other than that.
00:38:30That's what this is about.
00:38:32What about banning of owning of your business?
00:38:34I got a family.
00:38:35I don't.
00:38:35But let's say I have a family business and it's got a thousand employees and I own it.
00:38:39I have to divest in that.
00:38:40Do you think that's a good part of your bill?
00:38:44Is that the current, Mr. Chairman?
00:38:47Listen, again, I'm happy to work with anybody who has concerns on substance who would actually
00:38:52like to get to a result on this and thinks it will improve it on the floor.
00:38:55I'm delighted to work with you on it.
00:38:56Can I make a suggestion to solve this?
00:38:59Don't force divestiture.
00:39:01You run for office.
00:39:02You have a stock portfolio.
00:39:03That's it.
00:39:04Now, you can't trade it.
00:39:06OK, you can't buy more stocks and trade stocks.
00:39:09So you want to run for, you know, you can hold on to your stocks.
00:39:12OK, you can always divest.
00:39:14OK, you can always buy an ETF.
00:39:17Don't force people to sell their business.
00:39:18Don't force them to sell stocks they already hold.
00:39:21Don't force divestiture.
00:39:22Once you're here, you can't be buying and selling.
00:39:25Again, I don't do it.
00:39:26I did divest.
00:39:27I turned it all into cash.
00:39:29OK, so that's how I handled myself.
00:39:32I don't want to force what I did on everybody else, though.
00:39:36Not everybody's in my position.
00:39:37I don't want to turn Congress into a rich man's club.
00:39:39And by the way, I certainly don't want to impose this self-flagellation
00:39:43on other branches of government.
00:39:44We can do this to ourselves.
00:39:46I don't think we should do it to the executive branch or the judicial branch.
00:39:48Can I just...
00:39:49Congress is a rich man's club.
00:39:52That's the problem.
00:39:53That's what we're trying to fix.
00:39:54I would suspect that I probably have the fewest assets of anybody sitting on this dais.
00:39:59I'm not a rich man, unlike those to my left.
00:40:03So, I mean, listen.
00:40:04The American people look at people like the former Speaker of the House,
00:40:08who makes better returns than anybody in America.
00:40:10They look at senators who were investigated during the COVID pandemic
00:40:14for their miraculous stock trades.
00:40:16And they say, how is this possible?
00:40:18To think that this might become a problem in the future is, frankly, fanciful.
00:40:22It's a problem now.
00:40:24And it's not just in perception.
00:40:26It is reality.
00:40:28Members of Congress are trading daily based on information that the public doesn't have.
00:40:33And now we've heard the insider trading.
00:40:35I understand that insider trading is banned.
00:40:37But let's be honest.
00:40:39Members of Congress get information that is technically not insider information
00:40:43as defined by the securities laws that is nevertheless extremely beneficial to know.
00:40:47And often we get it earlier than other people do.
00:40:49That's why senators rushed to trade stock at the beginning of the pandemic.
00:40:55And were investigated for it.
00:40:57Ultimately, couldn't be prosecuted because technically,
00:40:59wasn't a violation of the securities laws.
00:41:02Was it a good idea?
00:41:03No.
00:41:04Should it be happening?
00:41:05I submit that it should not be.
00:41:06So again, I just want to say to anybody who would like to support this bill,
00:41:10but says I have concerns over technical aspects of the drafting,
00:41:13I hear you loud and clear.
00:41:14And I'm happy to work with you on that.
00:41:16Answering your question, Senator, excuse me,
00:41:19former President Trump owns 114 million shares of Trump Media and Technology Group Corp.
00:41:25Worth $3.776 billion.
00:41:28He would be required to divest that.
00:41:31All right.
00:41:32That's that that would be at a massive disadvantage for him.
00:41:36Not to mention his other his other investments.
00:41:38Yeah.
00:41:39So so you have Senator Johnson has proposed,
00:41:42which what makes a lot of sense, which is to say,
00:41:44if you have investments, you don't have to sell them to run for office.
00:41:49You can't trade.
00:41:51But I didn't say this bill wasn't drafted quickly or hastily.
00:41:55I said it was drafted poorly.
00:41:57All right.
00:41:57There are a number of things the bill does, which ought to be done, which I would support.
00:42:01But causing people that are running for office, including the president of the United States,
00:42:06to have to divest of all their public and private enterprise securities
00:42:10is simply something that's a mistake and would prevent people from running from office,
00:42:14including the person who is the Republican nominee for president.
00:42:18Senator Marshall, recognized for comments.
00:42:20And then Senator Lankford, you're next.
00:42:22So so thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:42:24Certainly, I acknowledge the issue you all are describing,
00:42:28but I'm still going to support this bill.
00:42:30I think it's important enough that we get it to the next step
00:42:33and hopefully the process can improve it.
00:42:35I would be impacted by the current legislation and have to divest myself
00:42:40of companies that we own prior to getting here.
00:42:43I agree with you completely, but I think this is so important.
00:42:46We need to move forward.
00:42:47My only wish is that we would have included spouses the moment it impacts us,
00:42:52because that's where it's being abused, is on spouses making some of these trades.
00:42:56When you have hundreds of thousands of people following a spouse's member of Congress
00:43:02through a Twitter feed, obviously there is a problem.
00:43:05So I'm ready to move forward with it.
00:43:07Appreciate everyone's efforts on this.
00:43:08And and yes, it's got to be amended going forward.
00:43:12Thank you, Senator.
00:43:13Senator Lankford.
00:43:15Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:43:16As a person who's sitting to the left of Senator Hawley,
00:43:19we should put our bank accounts side by side to do some comparisons on it as a former youth pastor.
00:43:26Let me just ask a couple of questions on this.
00:43:29Senator Marshall, I think committee is the place to be able to hammer this out
00:43:32rather than between committee and the floor.
00:43:35Committees are designed to be able to have this kind of conversation to be able to figure it out.
00:43:39And my concern is this gives the perception of members of Congress are no longer trading,
00:43:45wink, wink, nod, nod, unless it's an ETF, unless it's a mutual fund, unless it's other things.
00:43:51So you can't trade Apple or Microsoft stock,
00:43:55but you could trade QQQ, which has a huge percentage in those and basically do the same thing.
00:44:02That's allowed in this bill.
00:44:04And so if we're going to try to give the perception
00:44:06that this is blocking members of Congress from owning or trading stocks,
00:44:11but ignore this other part of the market where they're still able to play in the market in that area,
00:44:16I just think it's just not being consistent for us.
00:44:19That if we're going to say we're out of the market, then we're out of the market.
00:44:23If we're not, then let's find a way to manage this.
00:44:24The Stock Act, when we passed that, and I'm one of those that voted for it as well,
00:44:28the Stock Act said it's already illegal to be able to trade stocks with insider information.
00:44:33And to make sure that there's maximum amount of enforcement transparency,
00:44:37everybody's got to disclose every transaction that you have over a thousand dollars.
00:44:42It's all got to be out there in the public eye and it's got to be immediate.
00:44:45And there is a counter bill on that.
00:44:47I would tell you as a member of the Ethics Committee,
00:44:50we do get contacts from folks saying there was this trade that happened.
00:44:53I saw it. I tracked it.
00:44:55They were in this committee at this time. They were in this meeting.
00:44:58So some of that dialogue does happen behind the scenes to be able to go through all that.
00:45:02It also, this bill would say that I couldn't own or trade stocks,
00:45:08but my chief of staff who set up the meeting, who actually met with those people first,
00:45:13now they could.
00:45:15The legislative person that sat in the meeting with me,
00:45:18when that inside conversation happened, they could trade on stocks.
00:45:22In fact, on that stock.
00:45:24But I couldn't.
00:45:26So it creates this very interesting,
00:45:29who's actually engaged in actually more inside information than us, is our staff.
00:45:35And our staff are all exempted from this bill,
00:45:38saying they have access to all that information,
00:45:41but members of Congress actually cannot.
00:45:43And actually college-age kids are also exempt from this.
00:45:47So a dependent child of a member of Congress, they can't trade on the stock.
00:45:52But if they're 19, they could.
00:45:56And the whole issue of crypto that's come up, we haven't discussed here,
00:45:59but my understanding is this also would preclude a member of Congress
00:46:02from owning cryptocurrency as well.
00:46:06And that's a big conversation as well,
00:46:09on the whole digital side of things that we haven't had discussion on.
00:46:12My issue is not this topic.
00:46:14I don't want anyone to be able to trade on inside information, which is already illegal.
00:46:19And I don't want to even create that perception of trading on that.
00:46:22But again, this is not trading, this is owning.
00:46:25And this has a lot of exceptions that are built into it
00:46:28that gives the perception of saying,
00:46:30we're not involved in the market when we really are involved in the market,
00:46:33just in other places in the market.
00:46:35And oh, by the way, our staff's still involved in all that.
00:46:38But we're not, it just begs some questions that I think need to be answered.
00:46:41And I think the right place to answer it is in committee,
00:46:44to be able to argue through this
00:46:46and to be able to figure out what's the best way to write it and do it,
00:46:48rather than hoping it gets better when it gets to the floor.
00:46:53Senator Scott.
00:46:54So, I'm Senator Johnson.
00:46:57I sold my operating businesses,
00:46:59and many of them had more than 1,000 employees before I ran for the Senate.
00:47:03So, but it does make sense.
00:47:05I don't know, we don't want people to do any insider trading.
00:47:09But is there ability to amend the bill now to just say
00:47:14that it's not going to apply to what you own
00:47:17when you come into the Senate or whatever job there is?
00:47:22That might alleviate a lot of the concerns.
00:47:38You can see there, Johnson Amendment 1.
00:47:41Johnson Amendment 1 does that?
00:47:43No, he's saying it will be.
00:47:46What's, oh, it will be.
00:47:47Well, we don't have an amendment to do that now,
00:47:48but you can always do a substitute to make those kinds of changes
00:47:51that we could vote on going forward.
00:47:53I think that's tough to do today,
00:47:56but the idea is that this is,
00:47:58we know this process, when we get it out of committee,
00:48:00there's still a lot of work that gets done.
00:48:01We take bills out of here, they get changed.
00:48:04It's not going to move with,
00:48:05if there are folks that can't be moving on UC,
00:48:08it's going to have difficulty moving if there's opposition,
00:48:11and we'll have to continue negotiations
00:48:13to get to a point where it can actually move.
00:48:15But I want to keep the process moving.
00:48:17I think it's important for us to keep the process moving,
00:48:19and we've done that in this committee.
00:48:21How about next week?
00:48:22This meeting goes on until next week.
00:48:23Get it drafted and bring it to the meeting next week.
00:48:31Voting today is very awkward
00:48:34because I'm not going to vote for this bill the way it is
00:48:36because of the divestiture provision,
00:48:37but if instead we say people running for Congress
00:48:40can hold on to private assets and so forth and stocks,
00:48:43they can't trade them,
00:48:45then that's something I could support.
00:48:46But we don't want to vote no on a messaging bill
00:48:50that makes us look bad for acting like we're going to try
00:48:53and allow trading for members of Congress,
00:48:55but let's make the bill something we can vote for
00:48:57and have a good, positive statement
00:49:00coming out of our committee.
00:49:01So let's do that next week.
00:49:08Well, our amendments are in place right now.
00:49:11We can do a substitute to have a further discussion on that.
00:49:15And there's a willingness of folks to vote for a bill
00:49:21if it has their amendments.
00:49:22Sometimes we have folks in this committee
00:49:25who will put amendments forward
00:49:27and still have no intention of voting for the bill.
00:49:30That's kind of an exercise that is not productive in my mind.
00:49:35But if it's something that would actually bring people
00:49:37to support something of substance, then we can try.
00:49:42But I think there's support for this legislation
00:49:45as it is right now in committee.
00:49:47And I'd like to be able to move it today
00:49:49and then continue to have the conversation to go forward.
00:49:54Well, I'll offer a substitute amendment.
00:49:56I have a round of amendment.
00:49:58One is going to be voted on today.
00:49:59My substitute amendment will be that this provision
00:50:02does not apply to securities which are owned
00:50:06prior to the individual becoming a member of Congress
00:50:10or becoming president or vice president.
00:50:12And private businesses as well.
00:50:17Security and assets.
00:50:18Security and assets.
00:50:21We have not seen that amendment, Senator.
00:50:24You just heard it.
00:50:32And if subsequent discussions need to improve it, fine.
00:50:34But I'm going to vote for it.
00:50:36I'm going to vote for it if that amendment is adopted.
00:50:38If the amendment is not adopted,
00:50:40you're going to see a lot of Republicans vote against it.
00:51:10I'm going to vote for it if that amendment is adopted.
00:51:39Well, I will say there are strong feelings
00:51:42on both sides of this issue.
00:51:44So it's going to probably be difficult for us
00:51:46to do all of that right now.
00:51:49But I would just like to vote the bill out
00:51:52and continue to work forward clearly in order.
00:51:55I mean, there are people part of this negotiated deal
00:51:58is that people don't think that those assets should be there
00:52:01because it's always in the back of your mind
00:52:02that you have those assets.
00:52:03You shouldn't differentiate between public held assets
00:52:06and private.
00:52:07You can't say, well, if you own public stocks,
00:52:09you can't hold it.
00:52:09But if you have a private company
00:52:10that's actually less transparent, you can do that.
00:52:14That doesn't make a lot of sense.
00:52:16You got to treat everybody the same
00:52:17if it's going to be assets.
00:52:18You either have assets in or you have assets out.
00:52:21And I would argue that public assets
00:52:23are a lot more transparent than private assets.
00:52:25And yet that's been a focus for a lot of folks as well,
00:52:28just to deal with the public assets.
00:52:30So it is complicated as we find out.
00:52:32This is why this issue has not moved for a long time.
00:52:37And everybody has raised issues
00:52:39that have been talked about for some time.
00:52:41And I understand all of those issues
00:52:43and I understand how complicated it is.
00:52:47But I'd like to show some momentum going forward
00:52:50that we are in agreement
00:52:51that this is something that we should be addressing.
00:52:55Senator Paul.
00:52:57I just want to clarify that the rules,
00:52:59as I understand it,
00:53:00Senator Romney's amendments out there,
00:53:02there's no rule preventing him at this time
00:53:04if he wants to introduce that
00:53:05as a second degree amendment to his amendment.
00:53:08And they've blocked me before doing it.
00:53:09They'll block you if they truly don't want to vote on this.
00:53:12He'll introduce a second degree amendment
00:53:13to cancel your secondary amendment or some such.
00:53:16And he can make that ruling as the chair.
00:53:18But as I understand the rules right now,
00:53:20you can offer it
00:53:21and that nobody can stop you from offering it.
00:53:23If you want to vote on a second degree amendment,
00:53:25you offer it.
00:53:26Somebody writes it down.
00:53:27They announce what the wording is
00:53:30and we vote on it
00:53:31or he tries to block you from voting on it.
00:53:32But you can offer it.
00:53:35I'm adding another second degree amendment.
00:53:37Sorry.
00:54:05Procedurally, his amendment is a substitute.
00:54:30No matter what his amendments are deleted.
00:54:32Senator Romney, I understand your amendment
00:54:36deletes the whole bill.
00:54:37That's the amendment that you're going to change?
00:54:42Yes, Romney, amendment number one.
00:54:44Right. So we'll change.
00:54:45So the second degree amendment is going to say this.
00:54:47This bill does not apply to retaining securities or assets
00:54:53which were held prior to becoming a member of Congress,
00:54:57president or vice president.
00:54:59My understanding is the amendment, though,
00:55:01starts out with striking the whole bill
00:55:02and that's a parliamentary issue
00:55:05that we can't accept that amendment.
00:55:07Yeah. So this will strike that portion of the...
00:55:11The second degree amendment will strike the former portion
00:55:15and substitute this portion, which I just described.
00:55:18This bill shall not apply to retaining securities or assets
00:55:23which were held prior to becoming a member of Congress,
00:55:25president or vice president.
00:55:28But you're only doing it for president or vice president?
00:55:30Members of Congress, members of Congress,
00:55:33the Senate, president and vice president.
00:56:00I'm going to let them worry about that.
00:57:00Oh, yeah.
00:58:00So
00:59:31Senator Romney, the amendment before us.
00:59:46Yes.
00:59:47This bill shall not apply to retaining securities or assets
00:59:57which were held prior to becoming
01:00:01a member of Congress, president, vice president
01:00:07or other individuals to which this bill addresses.
01:00:30Correct.
01:00:38Correct. This is on top of the existing bill language,
01:00:41not a replacement of the bill language.
01:00:44Is it going to be clear of what the amendment is?
01:01:01So I guess what we need to clarify here is what people need
01:01:05is Romney 1 is modified to insert a substitute of the bill
01:01:12with the language.
01:01:13Yeah, right.
01:01:31Yeah.
01:01:50I'm good enough.
01:02:00Yeah.
01:02:17Good luck.
01:02:20Go ahead, but you're not going to read it.
01:02:30Yeah.
01:03:01Yeah.
01:03:18So the vote before us now is Romney Amendment 1 as modified.
01:03:22The clerk will call the roll.
01:03:26Senator Carper.
01:03:27No by proxy.
01:03:29Senator Hassan.
01:03:30Senator Sinema.
01:03:32No by proxy.
01:03:33Senator Rosen.
01:03:35Senator Ossoff.
01:03:37Senator Blumenthal.
01:03:38No by proxy.
01:03:39Senator Butler.
01:03:44Senator Butler.
01:03:52Senator Paul.
01:03:53Yes.
01:03:54Senator Johnson.
01:03:56On the Romney?
01:03:57Yes.
01:03:58Senator Lankford.
01:04:01Senator Romney.
01:04:03Senator Scott.
01:04:05Senator Hawley.
01:04:07Senator Marshall.
01:04:10Senator Peters.
01:04:11No.
01:04:28Seven.
01:04:32Zero, six, four, one, two, three, four, one, two, three, four, five, six.
01:04:43One, two, three, four, five, six.
01:04:46Wait, that doesn't make any sense.
01:04:48Wait, six, six in the room.
01:04:53Six, nine.
01:04:55Okay, Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present,
01:04:57the yays are six, the nays are six.
01:04:58On the vote by proxy, the yays are zero, the nays are three.
01:05:01On this vote, the yays are six, the nays are nine,
01:05:04and the amendment is not agreed to.
01:05:06The amendment is not agreed to.
01:05:07Are there any other amendments?
01:05:11Seeing none, we'll now go to final passage.
01:05:14Questions on final passage of S1171 as amended, the clerk will call the roll.
01:05:28Senator Carper.
01:05:29Aye, by proxy.
01:05:30Senator Hassan.
01:05:31Aye.
01:05:32Senator Sinema.
01:05:33Aye, by proxy.
01:05:35Senator Rosen.
01:05:36Aye.
01:05:37Senator Ossoff.
01:05:38Aye.
01:05:39Senator Blumenthal.
01:05:40Aye, by proxy.
01:05:41Senator Butler.
01:05:43Senator Paul.
01:05:44No.
01:05:46Senator Johnson.
01:05:46No.
01:05:48Senator Lankford.
01:05:50Senator Romney.
01:05:52Senator Scott.
01:05:54Senator Hawley.
01:05:56Senator Marshall.
01:05:58Senator Peters.
01:05:59Aye.
01:06:07Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yays are eight, the nays are four.
01:06:10On the vote by proxy, and for the record, only the yays are three, the nays are zero.
01:06:13On this vote, the yays are eight, the nays are four, and the motion is agreed to.
01:06:17The motion is agreed to.
01:06:19I'd like to thank our members for joining today's markup.
01:06:24And with that, this meeting will now be recessed.
01:06:26They'll be recessed to a date to be determined by the chair.