HRES-725-119
Motion to Discharge Committee filed by Mrs. Luna. Petition No: 119-11. (<a href="https://clerk.house.gov/DischargePetition/2025120211">Discharge petition</a> text with signatures.)
Sponsored by Anna Luna (R-FL)
What it does
This resolution would set the terms for the House of Representatives to debate and vote on H.R. 1908, a bill that would prohibit Members of Congress and their spouses and dependent children from trading or owning individual stocks. The resolution itself does not enact the stock trading ban — it is a procedural vehicle that would allow the underlying bill to reach the House floor for consideration. A discharge petition has been filed to bypass the committee that has been holding the resolution, which would require signatures from a majority of House members (218) to force a floor vote.
Who benefits
The general public and voters who would gain greater confidence that Members of Congress are not making legislative decisions influenced by personal financial interests. Institutional investors and retail traders who compete in markets where Members of Congress may have access to non-public information. Ethics watchdog organizations advocating for congressional accountability. Members of Congress who do not hold individual stocks and would face a more level playing field. Candidates challenging incumbents who could use the issue in campaigns.
Who is hurt
Members of Congress who currently hold individual stocks and would be required to divest under the underlying bill. Spouses and dependent children of Members who would lose the ability to trade or hold individual stocks independently. Financial advisors and brokers who manage congressional portfolios. Members who represent financial industry districts and whose personal holdings align with their legislative work. Potentially, Members who argue the restriction infringes on their family members' financial autonomy.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Members of Congress routinely vote on legislation — including tax policy, defense contracts, pharmaceutical regulation, and financial oversight — that directly affects the value of stocks they personally hold, creating an inherent conflict of interest. They point to studies, including a 2021 analysis published in the Journal of Financial Economics, showing that Members' stock trades have historically outperformed the market, suggesting possible use of non-public information. They contend that even the procedural step of allowing a floor vote reflects basic democratic accountability: a bill with broad bipartisan public support deserves an up-or-down vote rather than indefinite committee inaction.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that blanket stock ownership bans are an overbroad remedy that punishes family members — particularly spouses with independent careers — who have no role in legislative decisions. They contend that existing law, the STOCK Act of 2012, already requires disclosure of trades within 45 days and that enforcement, not new prohibitions, is the appropriate fix. They further argue that sweeping divestiture requirements could deter qualified candidates with financial backgrounds from seeking office, narrowing the pool of public servants, and that the discharge petition process itself bypasses the committee review that exists to refine legislation before it reaches the floor.