On the recordFebruary 1, 2012
I do not know why the Senator from California, first of all, is assuming I am somehow opposed to her amendment. I have not said that. What I raised was a very legitimate question of asking whether she had considered extending it to the executive branch. Then her response seems to be an attack; that if I have information that there are problems and sweetheart deals in the executive branch, I should prove them. I am not making allegations. I do not make unsubstantiated allegations against individuals. What I was trying to tell the Senator from California is that the issue of the scope and applicability of this bill has come up over and over. It came up in committee. We changed the bill in committee to make it clear that the prohibition against insider trading and a duty applied to the executive branch as well as to the legislative branch. I have not criticized her amendment in any way. I asked a series of questions about the scope of her amendment because this issue has come up repeatedly, on both sides of the aisle. It came up in committee during our markup. It has come up on the Senate floor repeatedly as far as what the disclosure requirements should be and to whom they should apply. I am the one who is baffled by the response of the Senator from California, since I have not indicated any opposition whatsoever to her amendment.…





