On Wednesday, the House Administration Committee moved forward with a Republican-led initiative aimed at regulating stock trading among members of Congress, despite facing criticism from Democrats who argue the proposal is insufficient.

The legislation, presented by committee Chair Bryan Steil of Wisconsin earlier this week, seeks to restrict lawmakers, their spouses, and dependent children from purchasing new stocks, while allowing them to retain their current holdings.

Additionally, the bill mandates that members of Congress publicly announce any intention to sell existing stocks at least seven days before the transaction, filing this notice with the House clerk.

Approval of the bill came along party lines within the committee. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise from Louisiana expressed intentions to push for a full House vote following the committee’s endorsement.

“This bill is essential for rebuilding public confidence in elected officials. If you’re interested in trading stocks, you should be on Wall Street, not Capitol Hill,” Steil emphasized in an earlier statement.

Democrats, however, argued during the Wednesday meeting that the bill doesn’t go far enough in addressing the stock trading issue.

“The Stop Insider Trading Act allows Members of Congress to continue to trade a substantial number of individual stocks. Under this bill, the wealthiest Members of Congress can keep every single share of stock they currently own—and use their dividends to buy even more stock,” House Administration Committee ranking member Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) said.

“I wouldn’t even call this a half measure—it’s a misdirection play. Because of that – because I believe this bill is simply Speaker Johnson’s attempt to blunt momentum toward a full congressional stock trading ban – I plan on opposing this bill today,” he added.

Morelle and other Democrats on the panel also argued that any ban should extend to the executive branch.

“Every person that holds a federal elected office in the United States must be accountable to those that they represent. Enough is enough,” said Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.). “The time has long come for Congress to address the violations of the public trust by the executive, the president and the vice president, not just members of Congress.”

The GOP-controlled panel, however, rejected all the amendments offered by Democrats for the bill. 

Some Democrats urged Republicans to instead throw their support towards a bipartisan bill that would prohibit lawmakers, their spouses, dependent children and trustees from owning, buying or selling individual stocks. The bill, dubbed the “Restore Trust in Congress Act,” was introduced by Reps. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas) in September.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) had introduced a discharge petition in December to force a vote on Magaziner and Roy’s bill. However, it has only garnered 78 signatures, well short of the 218 needed. 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who backed Roy and Magaziner’s bill, bashed the Republican measure as a fig leaf designed to create appearances that GOP leaders are interested in reining in congressional stock trading without actually doing so.

“I want something to be very clear: That this bill that has been introduced by Republican leadership is not a congressional stock trading ban,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters in the Capitol on Tuesday. “It was written by and for the absolute wealthiest members of Congress to look like they are passing a ban, but … it actually creates a ton of new [avenues] by which they can own, buy and sell stock in even greater shadows from public opinion. … They can call it whatever they want, but it is not a stock trading ban.”

House Democrats said they plan on introducing a discharge petition next week that would force action on a separate bill banning stock trading by members of Congress, the president, the vice president and their immediate families. Magaziner had introduced the bill in December.

“I think it is possible that some Republicans could support a discharge petition for a bill that also includes the president and the vice president. I would not rule out that possibility. I think especially as we get later in the year and more members are past their primaries, the Republican primaries, more members are retiring and headed for the exit, I would not discount that as a possibility,” Magaziner told The Hill at the time.