IT IS VERY RARE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT VOTERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AGREE ON, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE TO FOCUS ON IT WHEN THEY DO. THERE ARE BENT CALLS TO BAN, LIMIT OR AT LEAST CHANGE THE RULES AROUND HOW CONGRESS INVEST IN STOCKS. THE HOUSE EXAMINED SOME REFORMS. REFORMS THAT WOULD DIRECTLY IMPACT THOSE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS PERSONAL WEALTH. >> IT IS OUR HOPE AT THIS HEARING TODAY WILL BRING US CLOSER TO DEVELOPING CONSENSUS ON POLICY REFORMS THAT WILL COMBAT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND RESTORE PUBLIC FAITH AND TRUST IN OUR GOVERNMENT. >> WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU REQUIRE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO DIVEST CONFLICTING ASSETS WITH THE OPTION TO PUT ANY REMAINING ASSETS IN A BLIND TRUST SUBJECT TO NEW PUBLIC DISCLOSURES. >> THE MISNOMER WITH RESPECT TO QUALIFIED BLIND TRUST IS THAT IT ONLY WORKS IF IT IS TRULY BLIND. >> IT IS BETTER TO FOCUS ON INCREASING TRANSPARENCY THROUGH DISCLOSURE. >> DISCLOSURE HAS NOT WORKED. IF ANYTHING, DISCLOSURE HAS -- DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS PUTS IT GLARINGLY OBVIOUSLY TO THE PUBLIC THAT THE INTERESTS CONFLICTS AND THERE. >> DIVESTMENT IS AN OPTION. IT'S AN OPTION THAT IS PRESSED FOR-ABLE. >> FORCED DIVESTMENT IS THE OPTION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT? >> YOU USE FORCE. I WOULD SAY THAT BEING IN PUBLIC SERVICE IS A CHOICE. >> WHATEVER HAPPENS HERE, WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT EVERY PERSON IN THIS ROOM IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN THAT HAS RIGHTS AND FREEDOM. PART OF THAT RIGHTIES TO PARTICIPATE IN A MARKET ECONOMY. >> IT SEEMS THERE ARE MORE COMPLICATIONS AND IT WOULD SEEM AT FIRST BLUSH. >> WITH US TONIGHT, THE MAN HIMSELF, DAVE LEVINTHAL, DEPUTY WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF FOR INSIDER. HIS EXTENSIVE REPORTING ON THE HUGE INVESTMENTS AND MASSIVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FROM OUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IS PART OF WHAT SPARKED THESE CALLS FOR CHANGE. DAVE, I WANT YOU TO PUT THIS INTO CONTEXT FOR US. BECAUSE WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT GM STOP THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS GOT FOR THEIR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION. EXPLAIN HOW MASSIVE IT HAS BECOME. 75 DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SUDDENLY INVESTED IN COVID RELATED STOCKS JUST AS THE PANDEMIC HIT. AND I AM PRETTY SURE THEY HAD A LOT MORE INFORMATION THAN YOU AND I. >> IT IS ONE OF THE MANY FINDINGS THAT WE HAVE. PART OF OUR CONFLICTING CONGRESS PROJECT, PUBLISHED IN DECEMBER. WE FOUND NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO WERE ENGAGING IN STOCK TRADES THAT, TO ONE EXTENT OR ANOTHER, COULD CONCEIVABLY CONFLICT WITH THEIR PUBLIC DUTIES AS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. YOU MENTIONED PANDEMIC RELATED STOCKS, SUCH AS MODERNA, JOHNSON & JOHNSON. AND OBVIOUSLY PFIZER WAS A BIG ONE THAT WAS INVESTED IN BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. BUT ALSO, MAKERS OF TESTS, MAKERS OF PPE. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON WITH ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT OIL INVESTMENTS, ENERGY INVESTMENTS. YOU KIND OF NAME IT, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS INVEST IN IT. IT RAISES THE QUESTIONS YOU JUST PLAYED OUT A MOMENT AGO. >> BUT THOSE WHO OPPOSE CHANGE, WE HEARD IT RIGHT THERE, ARE MAKING THIS ARGUMENT. WE HAVE HEARD FROM NANCY PELOSI. THIS IS A FREE MARKET SYSTEM, IT IS CAPITALISM. THEY ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS WHO SHOULD BE ABLE TO INVEST. BUT MAKE IT A DIFFERENT DEAL THAN EVERYONE ELSE. SHOULDN'T THEY BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS OF, LET'S SAY, FEDERAL WORKERS? JOURNALISTS? THE FINANCIAL SECTOR? I, MEAN OFFICERS OF PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES HAVE HUGE RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT THEY SHOULD DO. SO, ISN'T IT DISINGENUOUS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO SAY, WHY SHOULD WE BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY? THEY ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY NOW. >> MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE DIFFERENT. SO, PEOPLE WHO ARE ADVOCATING FOR CHANGES TO THE RULES AS THEY EXIST TODAY, THEY ARE MAKING THE POINT THAT, HEY, LOOK, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE INSIDE INFORMATION THAT THEY GET. NON PUBLIC INFORMATION, BY VIRTUE OF THEM BEING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. THEY ARE ALSO LOBBY TO THE TUNES OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR BY THE VERY COMPANIES THAT CONGRESS MEMBERS INVESTED IN. YOU PUT YOUR GUY IN THERE AND YOU HAVE A SITUATION THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT'S ON CAPITOL HILL RELATIVE TO ANYONE NOT LIKE YOU OR ME AT HOME JUST HANGING OUT WITH AN APP IS DOING. BUT LOOK, THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ECONOMY. THEY COME TO CONGRESS AND THEN THEY LEAVE. THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. BUT I THINK WHAT WE SAW IS THAT THAT OPINION SHOULD BE A MINORITY. THERE ARE MANY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. THE QUESTION NOW IS, HOW BIG ARE THEY GOING TO GO? ARE THEY GOING TO BAN MEMBERS FROM TRADING? SOMETHING DRAMATIC? OR WILL THEY DO SOMETHING MORE AROUND THE MARGINS OR THE PERIPHERY? THAT IS DEFINITELY A POSSIBILITY. >> WELL, IT IS NOISY. YOU MADE IT NOISY BECAUSE YOU ALERTED SO MANY PEOPLE TO IT. BUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL LIKELIHOOD THAT WE WILL SEE CHANGE? WE ARE CALLING UPON CROSSING WRIST TO WAYLAY THEMSELVES, TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY THAT THEY HAVE BEEN MAKING, TO TAKE THAT AWAY. >> YEAH. CONGRESS MAKES THE RULES FOR CONGRESS, SADLY. IT IS NOT AS IF SOME OUTSIDE ORGANIZATION IS GOING TO PUT THE RULES IN PLACE FOR LAWMAKERS. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO, EFFECTIVELY, HAVE LAWMAKERS AND RELY ON THEM TO DO WITH THEMSELVES. SO, AS A RESULT, YOU ARE GETTING THESE ARGUMENTS WITHIN CONGRESS AS TO HOW HARD THEY DO WANT TO BE ON THEMSELVES. THE DEMOCRATS RIGHT NOW, OF COURSE, ARE IN THE MAJORITY IN BOTH THE HOUSE IN THE SENATE. THEY ARE LEADING THE CHARGE HERE. THERE ARE SOME REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE ALREADY COSPONSORED BILLS, THOSE ARE DEFINITELY OUT FRONT IN TRYING TO ADVOCATE FOR THIS. EVEN KEVIN MCCARTHY, THE MINORITY LEADER FOR THE REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE, HAS SAID, HEY, I AM VERY OPEN TO DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS AS WELL. BUT WE GOT A VERY STRONG STANCE FROM LAWMAKERS TODAY AT THIS HEARING THAT THE CLOCK IS TICKING. AND THAT WE ARE ALMOST INTO THE FOURTH QUARTER OF THE SESSION. WE HAVE ELECTIONS COMING UP IN NOVEMBER. SO, THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY HERE, IF CONGRESS IS GOING TO DO SOMETHING, IS CLOSING. AND IT IS ALREADY PRETTY NARROW, AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. SO, THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING QUICK. >> WELL, EVERYONE TAL
