Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
The senate just passed again next week to house will consider at 96 senators as suburban event an insider trading for members of congress.
Only three voting no one of them joining me right now.
North Carolina Republican Richard -- on the phone senator.
You can explain your position because it just doesn't make sense.
Well -- it was unnecessary for congress to spend the week.
Codify and the law what is already -- the security exchange commission said before the debates started.
That insider trading restrictions.
Coveralls citizens including members of congress staff and they -- bridge.
So what we've done is we've just spectacle we -- the United States and Japan that would -- devoted to tax reform.
Order legislation on energy policy or heaven forbid job creation which that country desperately.
So your colleagues said were alleged to have done insider trading.
Against those laws -- there were in place and included.
Senators and congress and as well on -- they go to jail.
They should be prosecuted if through security exchange commission.
Beliefs that there's any merit to the reports.
They ought to examine and they help to prosecute if in fact they've but I didn't -- layer we're not exclude picked.
So where this notion start then senator where a majority of your colleagues.
Super majority actually you're one of three -- disease did not going on this said.
You know has not been the case and they've got to correct it -- to start however would report to John Kerry.
You know might -- taken advantage of stuff -- you heard on the in the halls of the capitol and others Nancy Pelosi and others they said now.
But the idea was to date they were protected and decided -- whatever happens in the halls of congress on.
Has nothing to do what -- traits.
Well certainly the regulator -- the security exchange commission.
Believes that that's not the case and I think if you look at the law.
That's in fact true I've been there for eighteen years -- Outside of the intelligence committee have never heard any thing.
That I thought was proprietary information that only members of congress -- between them and a conversation I had.
But what we did is like going to America Lamar and -- and if you're gonna drive to work we're gonna pass a bill that requires you to have a driver license.
Even -- there's already a law and every state which -- you've got to have a driver's license.
It's it's ridiculous it was unnecessary.
But when you've got 11% favorability.
Of members of congress you can understand.
How everybody wants to do some -- to make themselves look better perspective we're down to family and friends now.
Little pieces like this are gonna help both the image of congress it's going to be doing legislation.
That being -- to to the American people.
And job creation tax reform and energy policy.
Has a real impact.
Well that's a Fox News alerts and man and all wrong and if so but I do wanna ask you this stuff so that it -- here workers are pretty straightforward honest -- Do you think it is possible that senators.
Exposed to this of -- because you guys did leaving aside just the security.
And other exhibit that just accidentally the course of today.
You could become exposed to something that -- people want to detect the chain of events and you made an investment.
Could inferred that you actually traded based on that information.
You -- was the purpose of this law to make sure.
That never happened or that -- and Jason was removed.
-- not I'm not sure there's anything that eliminated.
And you know I do I do want you to remember is that -- -- here every member of congress and some staff.
-- -- personal financial disclosure dad gives in retail everything that we own.
When we purchased that what we paid -- when we sold it and what we sold it for.
So that anybody that looked at it and say.
Legislation was happening.
Or that this happened but we can't -- the trades that we make nor can we had what -- we made money or loss.
What -- you see what I mean etc.
I not to -- blunt but then someone wants a sits on the defense -- in the world are editor of our armed services to and the -- might have information that would be.
Pretty -- where it would look look look like -- we're basing it on either a troop commitment or purchasing commitment and tanks and planes whatever -- -- foreign entity or the United States.
And that the appearance would besides that the better part of -- would be to forbid such purchases.
Well I I think there's certainly.
That was an amendment -- came up it was defeated.
And I think we limit greatly.
People who would be willing to serve in public if you said.
You have to -- -- -- yourself of every but.
That that's certainly an option that could be used I don't think it's the right.
I think you can -- ask every member of congress to sign an affidavit annually which says.
I didn't I argues no proprietary information -- ten.
Notes -- -- and its opponents but that's okay I just like that we have wasted a tremendous amount of time.
They've really could have been devoted to legislation that really has an impact on the where people.
All right on budget items when -- cross on will look at this a little bit more detail about senator thank you very much to -- -- -- -- --
Filter by section