TranslatePolitics.com

Recent debates

8 latest topics

09-03 Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026 13 statements 09-03 Moment of Silence in Honor of the 25th Anniversary of September 11 2 statements 09-03 Honoring Former U.S. Representative Charles Hatcher of Georgia 2 statements 09-03 Recognizing Firefighters from California's Third Congressional District 17 statements 09-02 Saluting White Plains Beautification Foundation 2 statements 09-02 Celebrating Rural Lawyer Julie Bear 4 statements 09-02 Operation Midway Blitz Anniversary 2 statements 09-02 Catherine Watts Celebrates 100th Birthday 4 statements

Senate

Unanimous Consent Requests (Executive Session)

2026-07-29 Issue 124 Showing 1–2 of 2

Official Congressional Record ↗

Alex Padilla

Democrat

“You try to ban insider trading for Congress. But you don't ban it for the President. The last President traded stocks a lot. He even sold inside information for money. Your bill has parts in it that are not about stock trading. They are about making it harder to vote. You try to make it look like you fight corruption. But really you want to make it hard for some people to vote. We already have a bill to stop insider trading. It is honest and bipartisan. Vote on that bill instead. Let's pass a real law. Not your bill with poison pills.”

Official Congressional Record

Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, it is a shame that Senate Republicans seem particularly focused on scoring political points instead of passing real policies that can actually make a difference because, yes, all Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike--are rightly concerned about insider trading by government officials. But the bill before us cannot address these concerns because, just like as was the case on Monday--that is right, 48 hours ago--we were having the same discussion, the same debate. This measure contains two giant poison pills. First, it exempts the President and the Vice President of the United States, for that matter. But it exempts the President from the ban on stock trading, and I can list at least 21,000 reasons why we should not exempt the President from the ban on insider trading. Last year alone, Donald Trump made over 21,000 stock trades--an average of 85 trades per day--85. Does that sound like somebody that is singularly focused on bringing costs down for hard-working Americans? I don't think so. As I also said on Monday, Donald Trump is clearly the ``Trader in Chief.'' So you cannot be serious about reining in public officials' stock trading if you present a bill that gives the biggest stock trader in Washington a free pass. My colleague from Nebraska spoke to the virtues of disclosure and advanced notice. Well, on the surface, that seems very attractive, but let me tell you what is really going on. President Trump's social media company is publicly selling inside information about his market- changing statements before the public sees them to hedge funds and Wall Street for the low, low price of $100,000 a month. It is all in the open--inside information from the President himself for $100,000 a month. The average American earns less than that in a year. But the President isn't worried about them. He is focusing on profiting from his office. So it is clear that Republicans in Congress are not actually serious about banning stock trading where it is happening the worst. And they are not about helping working Americans address the higher costs of gas and groceries and housing and healthcare. So what is it that they do care about? Let's talk about the other big poison pill in this bill because the title of it seems like it is about insider trading--Stop Insider Trading Act--but the way it is before us includes the SAVE Act, a bill that we have debated for months and months and months on this floor. Republicans don't have the votes to pass it--a bill that would make it harder for eligible Americans to participate in our democracy. We have debated this bill for months, and it has gotten nowhere because the Republican caucus isn't even united on this measure because the bill--it is not about voter fraud. The massive voter fraud they claim simply doesn't exist. There is no evidence of massive voter fraud across the country. What the SAVE Act proposal does do is it sows distrust in our system and seeks to cause chaos in an election cycle that is already underway--a midterm election, by the way, where Republicans are afraid of voters holding them accountable for failing to do anything about rising costs and increased corruption, let alone this unauthorized war with Iran. How do we know that? Because the SAVE Act, as written, is far more restrictive than the voter ID laws that exist in the States that already have a voter ID law. The House Republican bill would go further and require a photocopy of your ID in your absentee or mail ballot. Now, that violates the fundamental premise of a secret ballot, which is a sacred right; and, therefore, it would undermine mail voting itself. As I mentioned on Monday, the Republican Governor of Ohio vetoed a similar bill because he saw no benefit in it and that the measure would be a ``significant burden'' on voters. So that is truly the point of the bill: to make it harder for some people to vote. Now, let's get back to the title of the bill: Stop Insider Trading. If we are genuine about doing that, then there is a bipartisan solution that is available to us today, a bipartisan solution on stock trading. Everybody watching at home, there is a bill that has been pending before the Senate for nearly a year. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted it out on a bipartisan basis. Senator Hawley is the lead sponsor; Senator Moreno is a cosponsor, along with a number of Democrats--S. 1498, the Halting Ownership and Non-Ethical Stock Transactions, otherwise known as the HONEST Act. So let's pass that--or at least set up a vote on that measure. And if Republicans aren't willing to do that, then let's sit down-- Republicans and Democrats together--to hammer out a real solution and stop with these political games. So, therefore, Mr. President, I ask that the Senator modify his request to instead proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 294, S. 1498; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Alex Padilla

Democrat

“Don't believe what my colleague from Ohio said. Look up S. 1498 yourself. You will see that Senator Moreno is a cosponsor. It does not ban mutual fund investments. That is the truth. I object to the request. I offer a counterproposal. Let the majority leader and Democratic leader determine when we vote on S.1498. The committee substitute should be agreed to. It needs 60 votes to pass.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, before I offer a good-faith counterproposal to my colleague from Nebraska, let me just clarify one item that my colleague from Ohio was seeming to correct--or attempting to correct, I should say, a measure that I was referencing. So to folks watching at home, let me suggest: Don't take my word for it. Go to Congress.gov and look up S. 1498, and you will see that, indeed, Senator Moreno is a cosponsor. And if you read the measure itself, you will see that it does not ban mutual fund investments. And with that true correction and clarification, Mr. President, let me ask that the Senator modify his request to, instead, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 294, S. 1498; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to and the Senate vote on passage of the bill at a 60-vote affirmative threshold; further, that if the bill is passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates