For example, when I arrived here, I was placed on the Banking Committee, and the Banking Committee has issues that might conflict with my financial assets. So I put my meager--stress on ``meager''-- assets in a blind trust. That blind trust was approved by the Senate Ethics Committee. The specific language was approved by our own Senate Ethics Committee.
I don't know whether the investments that I placed in that blind trust are still there. I don't know whether they sold some and traded them for better investments. I won't find out until next January when I leave here and get my assets out of the blind trust and see what is left.
In other words, there are ways to avoid conflicts of interest in the committees on which we work.
There are also many restrictions on what Members of Congress can do and not do while they are in office. For example, as a rancher in the West, half of my State is public land. I am not allowed by law to have a Bureau of Land Management grazing lease. It is an issue that very few people in the Senate have to deal with, but several of us do, and so we had to divest of that while no one else has a similar restriction.
Our Ethics Committee and our Rules Committee can ensure that Members comply. A blind trust is sufficient to ensure conflicts of interest are appropriately mitigated.
Further, the House is currently working on the Stop Insider Trading Act, which is another vehicle to address concerns similar to the gentleman's from Georgia.
So this issue is an important issue to bring up, but it should go through regular order so it can be thoroughly discussed.
Another point with the bill under consideration at the moment is the language does not define cryptocurrency. So what is cryptocurrency? Are stablecoins used for payments included? Are nonfungible tokens included? So this language needs clarification.
This should go through regular order. This should go through committee. It should be thoroughly vetted. The language should be clarified.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT