Pete Ricketts

“I want the Senate to pass my bill against insider trading. It stops new lawmakers from buying stock and requires notice before selling existing stock. Americans do not trust Congress because lawmakers trade stocks using secret information. Passing this will help rebuild that trust.”

“Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for the Stop Insider Trading Act that will be voted on a little bit later today. Eighty percent of Americans believe that we do a poor job of separating the inside information that we get from our financial situation, and Congress’ approval rating is only 15 percent. Why do Americans have such a lack of faith in our institutions? Well, in part, because of what has happened with trading in Congress. A former Democrat Speaker of the House was publishing her trades and people were using that as a trading strategy and they were making money off of it. Just the appearance of impropriety leads people to a lack of faith in our institutions. My Stop Insider Trading Act would help address that. It would prevent anybody who comes into the House or Senate from owning any stock--or rather from buying any stock. You would not be allowed to buy any stock once you come into the House or the Senate. And for the stock you already own, if you are going to sell it, you have to give 7 to 14 days’ notice so the market would know that ahead of time and be able to take action, if they thought that that Member had inside information. This bill also has penalties to make it stick: a minimum of a $2,000 fine, but 10 percent of the proceeds--or 10 percent of the transaction. So, for example, say somebody sold a million dollars’ worth of stock without giving the proper notice, that would be a $100,000 fine. On top of that, they would have to give up all of the profits. We need to restore the faith of the American people in the House and in the Senate. My Stop Insider Trading Act will help to be able to do this, by letting Americans know that their elected representatives are not using this position for profit but for public service. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation, and especially my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have blocked this in the past. Let’s work together to restore Americans’ faith, which is to vote for the Stop Insider Trading Act. I yield the floor.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“A loophole in federal law lets companies sell snacks and candies with high levels of THC, the drug in marijuana. These products are poisoning young children. Congress voted to ban them starting November 12, but the new spending bill delays that ban until December. I want the Senate to vote on my amendment to remove that delay and ban these products right away.”

“Mr. President, we have a drug problem in this country today, and right now, there is an industry that is targeting our children with look-alike products with intoxicating levels of THC. THC is tetrahydrocannabinol. Now, this is the psychoactive ingredient that you find in marijuana. How could we possibly let this happen? Well, let’s take a step back. In 2018, we passed a farm bill, and at the time, there were those who wanted to separate hemp--a plant that has some THC in it--from cannabis, which is a marijuana plant. Hemp used to be grown in this country, made into rope back in the 1940s. This is what we were told was going to happen. The bill was written, but in that farm bill, it said you had to keep the THC for delta-9, a certain type of THC, down to 0.3 percent by dry weight. Well, what happened was some clever chemist figured out that you could take this product, which makes CBD oil, right, which is commonly available, and take CBD oil, chemically alter it, and create delta-8 and delta-10, which also have those intoxicating effects. The problem is, this is all unregulated, and so an industry exploded--an industry that in part targeted our kids with look-alike products that had THC at intoxicating levels, targeted kids with them. For example, we have an example here of Sour Patch Kids look-alikes. You may say: Why are they doing that? Well, they are trying to grow their market share. Sadly, the outcome was that this past July, a 3- year-old and 4-year-old in Nebraska took these out of their mom’s purse and got THC poisoning. Even worse news is that this is not an uncommon occurrence. We have seen the potency of THC over the last few years, from 1995 to 2021, increase and increase four times. We have seen, since 2016 to 2023, the number of THC poisonings of children under 5 go up 10 times and the number of hospitalizations of children under 5 go up 3 times. In 2024, that was 620 children under the age of 5 poisoned. Of those children being poisoned, 100 have been hospitalized and ended up on ventilators. This is a serious health risk problem. And I mention the Sour Patch Kids here, but let’s look at some of the other examples of how this industry is targeting and trying to confuse consumers. Here we have Nerds, a candy many children are familiar with, and a Nerds knockoff that has THC in it. Here we have Fritos--the regular Fritos product that is a safe product--and Fritos with THC in it. Here we have a safe product, again, that looks like gummy worms, and here we have a product with THC in it. This is an industry that, because we made a mistake in the farm bill in 2018, has taken advantage of a loophole of the law to manufacture delta-8 and delta-10 THC to be able to infuse it into these products. Now, again, you cannot grow the hemp plant in concentrations to make this. You have to manufacture this. This was done on purpose. It was manufactured. And, by the way, this kind of knockoff doesn’t happen by accident either. This was on purpose too. And this is what is poisoning our children. We have to shut this loophole down. And so last year we did. We actually changed the definition to cover all THC that would be in these types of products; that all THC products would have to stay below that 0.3 percent case. So it is not going to impact CBD oil because that is below 0.3 percent. It wouldn’t impact any of those products that are used for clothing or for jewelry because they are all below 0.3 percent. In fact, the only place it is going to impact is for the intoxicating products that are out there in the marketplace, that are only out there because of this loophole that we created back in 2018. So, last year in our Ag appropriations bill, we closed this loophole. Now, one of the Senators in our body offered an amendment to strip out that loop--closing the loophole. And we had Republicans and Democrats vote together to stop that amendment--75 Senators, 51 Republicans all came together to say: No, we want to close this loophole. Well, now in our continuing resolution, somebody has decided to open that loophole back up again. We gave the industry until November 12 to adjust. We said: The loophole has been out there. We are going to give you a year to get your products in line with the new law. It has got to be below 0.3 percent, and you have got until November 12. But in our current continuing resolution, somebody wants to keep that extended until December 11. I have cosponsored an amendment with Ted Budd to take that amendment out of the continuing resolution. I am cosponsoring that because we don’t need to extend this. This has been out there for a year. People know what is coming. One month more is not going to make a big difference in doing this. For those of you who say this is going to impact agriculture, I will tell you right now, hemp production in the United States probably presents about 0.0056 percent of all the farmland--49,000 acres--and only 17,000 are using it to grow the kind of hemp that would go into these kinds of products. There are pilot programs right now on how to use CBD oil in the treatments of things like cancer. They are all out there. They are not going to be impacted. We should let this expire November 12. My colleague Ted Budd and I--the Senator from North Carolina--we want an amendment vote to be able to take this out of this continuing resolution and call upon my colleagues to help pass it. This is literally--these high-THC products disguised as candies-- could get into the hands of young children and poison them. It has done so already. Let’s stop this right now because we know when THC gets into young people’s minds, it can reduce their IQs, lead to mental health issues, such as suicidal ideation, anxiety, depression. This drug is bad for young people. So let’s close this loophole and keep it closed. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Justice). The Senator from Louisiana.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want the Senate to vote on this bill. It stops members of Congress from trading stocks and requires voter ID. Most Americans think lawmakers use inside information to get rich. Passing these rules will help people trust Congress again.”

“Mr. President, what we were just attempting to do was to pass it with unanimous consent. That means all 100 Senators agree that we can move forward on H.R. 7008, which includes the Stop Insider Trading Act and the voter ID. And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, it is about integrity. Integrity inspires confidence. Eighty percent of Americans don’t believe we separate our inside information from our financial interests, and therefore we have a 15 percent approval rating. It is the lack of confidence in what we are doing, about how we are handling this, that is creating those low ratings. So we have an opportunity to be able to address that with the Stop Insider Trading Act and the voter ID, to restore that integrity and, therefore, that confidence. I certainly understand if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don’t wish to do that unanimously; that, for whatever reason, somebody objects going forward, as my colleague from California has. I offer an alternative that let’s schedule a vote. So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7008 and vote on the 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.”

“Most Americans do not trust Congress because members can trade stocks using inside information. I want the Senate to pass my bill to stop this. It bans members of Congress from buying individual stocks, and it makes them give a seven-day notice before selling stocks they already own. Democrats blocked this bill earlier, but I am asking them to help pass it now so we can rebuild trust.”

“Mr. President, integrity--integrity inspires confidence. We have a problem here in the Senate and in the House: 80 percent of Americans believe we do a poor job of keeping our financial interests separate from the insider information that we have. People don’t have the confidence in us, and that leads to an approval rating of 15 percent for Congress. But we can help restore integrity, and therefore confidence-- confidence in the Senate, confidence in the House, confidence in our institutions. We can do that with a bill that I have introduced called the Stop Insider Trading Act. Now, it is well known that Members of this body and the House have bought individual stocks. In fact, we have seen that people will post on social media the stock trades of the former Speaker of the House and trade off of her trades. In fact, as crazy as it sounds, that has become a legitimate investment strategy because it makes money. And that undermines the confidence people have in our institutions. We have disclosure laws, which is how people can see those trades and make them. But it is not enough for the integrity of the institution. We need to make the rules stronger. We need to stop people from being able to buy individual stocks in the Senate and in the House. We need my Stop Insider Trading Act because that is exactly what it does. It says that, if you get elected to the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, you can no longer buy stock. Trading on insider information will become impossible because you won’t be able to make that purchase. Now, we also want to make sure that if, say, you come from a successful business, we don’t want to penalize you. We are not going to force you to sell your stock of your company. But we are going to say that you have to give notice, 7 days at least, to let people know if you are going to sell any positions you own. Remember, you can’t buy any more. But if you have some already and you want to sell them, you have to give 7 days’ notice. And that will address the issue of, for example, when we had a member of the Intelligence Committee sell about a million and a half dollars’ worth of stock right before the COVID pandemic selloff of the stock market. Even the perception of impropriety undermines the integrity, and therefore the confidence the people have. So let’s stop it altogether. Let’s ban people’s ability to use insider information to buy stocks and make sure, if they are going to sell any, that they have got to tell everybody well in advance so that Americans and the market can know. My bill also has real teeth in it. It is a $2,000 fine or 10 percent of the proceeds. Let’s say you sell a million dollars in stock, and you didn’t tell the market ahead of time, like you were supposed to. You didn’t follow that 7-day rule. It is a $100,000 penalty--a 10-percent penalty. So either $2,000 or 10 percent, whichever is bigger, plus you have to give up all your profits. That is a penalty with teeth that will get the attention of Members here on Capitol Hill. It is time that we restore the integrity and the confidence in this body when it comes to inside information. We, because of our position, have access to this, but we should not benefit from it. This is supposed to be public service. No one should come here seeking a profit. And yet, on Monday night, some of my colleagues tried to pass a unanimous consent, passing the Stop Insider Trader Act that the House of Representatives passed, and Democrats blocked it. Democrats blocked my Stop Insider Trading Act, which would have helped restore confidence in this body. It is time that we got the Democrats on board, that we get this passed. It passed in the House with Democrat support. And 13 Democrats and 2 Democratic cosponsors are on the Stop Insider Trading Act in the House, which the House was able to pass. They have sent it here for the U.S. Senate--for us--to do our job. I call on my Democratic colleagues--my colleagues across the aisle: Please, get on board. We need to restore faith in the institution. A 15-percent approval rating is terrible. We need to restore the integrity. We need to restore the confidence. My Stop Insider Trading Act does just that. I encourage all of my colleagues to get on board this commonsense proposal to be able to restore integrity and confidence in the U.S. Senate and prevent insider trading from getting between us and the American people. I yield the floor.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →
• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 8 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want Congress to pass my bill to stop insider trading. Most Americans do not trust us, and they think lawmakers use secret government information to make money in the stock market. My bill bans members of Congress and their families from buying new stocks. If they want to sell stocks they already own, they must tell the public first, or pay heavy fines.”

“Mr. President, people generally in this country--and Nebraskans in particular--expect when they send their elected officials to Washington, DC, that they are going to serve the communities. Sadly, that belief that we are coming here is undermined by some of our policies that we have. For example, 80 percent of Americans believe that Congress does not do a good job of keeping the inside information that we have separate from our finances. Consequently, the approval rating of Congress is about 17 percent. And it is not just the polling that shows that we have got a problem; so does history. We can look on social media and see that regularly, publishing the trades of Members of this body is something people try to profit off of. In fact, the former Speaker’s trades were published quite regularly. And as crazy as it sounds, that became a legitimate investment strategy because it was making people money. We also had a former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who sold about $1.5 million in stock in 2020 that occurred right before the market tanked because of the COVID pandemic. Even the appearance of impropriety undermines the credibility of the House and the Senate, that it gives the--even if we give the perception that we are using inside information to benefit financially, it undermines the public’s trust in our democracy and may depress people from wanting to vote, keep them home, and it certainly undermines the faith they have in our institutions. I have a solution. My Stop Insider Trading Act. My Stop Insider Trading Act would go beyond our current disclosure laws. What it would say is that if you become elected to the Congress--either the House or the Senate--that you would not be allowed to buy any more stocks. Now, if you owned it already, you would be allowed to keep those. But if you wanted to sell those, you would have to give 7 to 14 days’ notice so that the public would be able to see what you intended to do and be able to take appropriate action well ahead of what you would be able to do. So you would not be able to take advantage of any inside information ahead of what the public had. You would not be able to sell until the public knew well in advance, and, of course, you would be prohibited from buying stocks as well. My bill also has real teeth in it, a minimum of a $2,000 fine or 10 percent of the cost of the proceeds. So, for example, if you went and sold a stock after getting elected, without giving the proper notice, and say it was a million-dollar transaction, you would have to pay a $100,000 fine. In addition, you would have to forfeit all of the profits. The Stop Insider Trading Act has real teeth in it to back up the policy. By making sure that Members of Congress cannot buy stock on inside information and would have to notify the public if they wish to sell any stock well in advance of their actually being able to do that, we can help restore the faith of the American people that we are keeping separate the inside information that we get for very good reasons from our finances. Let’s be clear, no Member of the House or Senate should benefit from inside information. They should not be allowed to profit from it. This is supposed to be a public service, and we need to take steps to restore the credibility with the American people. The Stop Insider Trading Act is the solution to be able to help restore that credibility, to let the American people know that we are not financially benefiting from inside information. It would apply to not only Members of the House and Senate but their spouses and their dependent children as well. The President has called on us to pass the Stop Insider Trading Act. The Vice President just last week, in addressing House Republicans, said we need to pass the Stop Insider Trading Act. It is time for Congress to act on this important piece of legislation that will help restore people’s faith in their institutions. I call on my colleagues to support this bill and send it to the President’s desk. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I am remembering our colleague Lindsey Graham, who recently died. He served in the military and in Congress for decades. He worked well with both parties, fought to keep America safe, and was a good friend.”

“Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our colleague Lindsey Graham, who tragically passed away last weekend. Lindsey Graham was the definition of the word ``patriot.’’ He loved this country and dedicated his life to serving this country. He was from humble backgrounds. His parents ran a bar. And, again, tragically, he lost his parents at a young age. His mom died when Lindsey was 20, and his dad died when he was 22. And so, as a young man, he took over the care of his sister Darline, who was only 13 years old. He was the first in his family to go to college and then got a law degree, joined the Air Force. And to help take care of his sister, he adopted her so she could get his Air Force benefits. He served our country in the Air Force and in the National Guard and the Air Force Reserve, a total of 33 years, retiring at the rank of colonel and a Bronze Star. He began his career in politics in 1992 in the South Carolina Legislature and got elected to the U.S. Congress, the House of Representatives, in 1994. He was the first Republican to be elected from his district since 1877. He served in the House for 8 years and then came to the Senate, 2002, taking over for Strom Thurmond. And he has been a dynamic personality in this body, and I have had the privilege to get to know him and call him my friend. Lindsey Graham was part of the glue for the Senate, and not just for Republicans but for Republicans and Democrats. He worked across the aisle. Just a few days ago, my colleague from Delaware was talking about how he worked with Lindsey Graham on a number of different items; one is a conservation fund that also fights terrorism. He remarked that Lindsey, in his way, was able to boil down why this was so important and had hats created that said: ``Good for animals, bad for terrorists.’’ And that was very typical of Lindsey because he could boil things down very simply to be able to make a point, almost like a country lawyer. He would say: How many people think that, for example, if Iran had a nuclear weapon, they would use it on us? Raise your hand. They would raise their hand. And he would say: So how many people think it would be bad if they got a nuclear weapon? All of those people would raise their hand. How many people think we should stop them from getting a nuclear weapon? They would raise their hand. That is the simple way that Lindsey would make his point. He was supersmart and had an incredible sense of humor. It was not often fun if you were on the other side of that sense of humor sometimes. In one of our Budget Committee hearings, Lindsey Graham was presiding, and we had one of our members who was going through all sorts of points and charts and so forth. And when the presentation came to an end, Lindsey Graham said something to the effect: Well, next time we are going to record that, and we are taking it down to Gitmo because it would be more effective down there. So you wanted to make sure that you were talking to the right audience and making your points quickly with Lindsey. He was also very charming and was very direct. When he would go talk to foreign leaders, he would be able to get across those simple ideas the way he did with audiences back at home and be able to express directly through humor, through charming them, to help them understand where their interests were aligned with our interests, how we needed to work together to be able to keep the people of their country safe and the people of our country safe. Lindsey was very clear-eyed about the dangers of dictators like Vladimir Putin. He understood, when Putin is losing, we are winning, we are safer. He was appalled by the invasion of Russia into Ukraine--that unprovoked, aggressive attack--and was a fierce advocate for supporting Ukraine, not only because of the injustice of what Russia is doing to Ukraine but because Lindsey understood what the threat to the United States and the people of America would be if Putin is successful; that if they are successful in Ukraine, they are going to go after a NATO member, and then we will have boots on the ground in Europe. Lindsey was trying to keep us safe by advocating for the Ukrainians. When Lindsey would see an issue, he would hop on a plane and go fix it, whether it was overseas or to my home State of Nebraska. He came to Nebraska several times. I loved the man. I had the privilege of spending time with him here over the last 3\1/2\ years. He liked Coke Zero and Riesling wines. He was charming, funny, intelligent, dedicated to this country. Our body and this country is losing a lot with Lindsey Graham. We are losing some of the humor we had. We are losing some the glue that holds us together. We are losing a fierce patriot, and our country is worse off for it. Susanne and I are praying for Darline and the rest of her family and Lindsey’s staff at this tragic time and, indeed, for our entire country as we have experienced the loss of this larger than life patriot, Lindsey Olin Graham. Lindsey, I know you are looking down on us from upstairs, and you are going to do your best to guide us from up there. We really, really miss you. I yield the floor.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Signal 44 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →