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
H. Res. 725 is a procedural "rule" resolution that would bring H.R. 1908 — the "Restore Trust in Congress Act" — directly to the House floor for a vote, bypassing the normal committee process. The underlying bill (H.R. 1908, as amended by this resolution) would prohibit Members of Congress and their spouses and dependent children from owning or trading individual stocks, commodities, futures, and derivatives. Covered individuals would be required to divest prohibited holdings within 180 days of enactment (or 90 days for those who become covered after enactment), with certificates of divestiture available to defer capital gains taxes on forced sales.
Who benefits
The general public and voters who are concerned about conflicts of interest in Congress. Passive index fund and diversified mutual fund investors (the bill explicitly permits these). Small business owners whose spouses are Members (small business interests are exempt). Alaska Native shareholders (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act stock is exempt). U.S. Treasury and municipal bond holders (those instruments are exempt). Financial advisors and index fund managers who may see increased demand as Members shift assets. Challengers running against incumbents on ethics platforms.
Who is hurt
Current Members of Congress and their spouses and dependent children who hold individual stocks, commodities, or derivatives and would be forced to sell — potentially at an inopportune time. Members' family members who are professional traders or work in finance (though an occupational exception exists for trades not jointly owned). Brokerage firms and financial advisors who manage individual portfolios for Members and their families. Members who acquired holdings through inheritance, divorce, or other non-purchase means would face a 90-day forced divestiture window. Wealthier Members with large, complex portfolios may face greater disruption and transaction costs than less wealthy Members.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Members of Congress routinely vote on legislation — including industry-specific regulations, tax policy, and government contracts — 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, finding that Members' stock trades have historically outperformed the market, suggesting informational advantages derived from their official positions. Supporters contend that a complete prohibition, rather than a disclosure-only regime like the existing STOCK Act, is the only reliable way to eliminate the incentive to legislate for personal financial gain and restore public trust in Congress.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a blanket prohibition on stock ownership is an unprecedented restriction on the property rights of elected officials and their family members who have not chosen public life, particularly spouses and dependent children. They contend that the existing STOCK Act already prohibits insider trading by Members and that mandatory divestiture — especially on a fixed timeline — could force sales at depressed prices, effectively penalizing public service and deterring qualified candidates with financial backgrounds from seeking office. Critics also argue that the bill's family member provisions raise due process concerns, as spouses and children are subject to significant financial restrictions based solely on their relationship to an elected official.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority under Article I to set its own rules and ethics requirements for Members. The bill's restrictions on spouses and dependent children — private citizens who have not taken office — could raise Due Process Clause questions under the Fifth Amendment, as they impose significant property restrictions on individuals who have not themselves assumed public duties. The certificate of divestiture provision engages the Internal Revenue Code and Congress's taxing power under Article I, §8.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to restrict its own Members' financial activity; the supervising ethics offices (House Ethics Committee and Senate Ethics Committee) would enforce the restrictions and assess penalties, with no explicit judicial review mechanism specified in the bill text.
Historical precedent
The STOCK Act (2012) previously addressed congressional stock trading by requiring disclosure and prohibiting insider trading by Members, but stopped short of a full ownership ban; no prior federal law has imposed a complete prohibition on stock ownership by sitting Members of Congress.