- Argentina beats Dutch in shootout to reach World Cup final
- Tanard Jackson suspended indefinitely by NFL — again
- FAA investigating fireworks drone flights
- Pentagon: We’ll give Obama a drone strike with al-Baghdadi’s name on it
- Marine in Mexican custody to get day in court after 101 days
- Senate OKs San Antonio mayor as housing secretary
- NFL star likely fooled by Marine impostor who accepted first-class plane ticket
- Sen. Ted Cruz tweets Obama directions from fundraisers to border towns
- Israel hits key Hamas targets in Gaza offensive
- Ten-year sentence for New Orleans’ Nagin on graft charges
Huge House majority backs insider trading ban
Question of the Day
The House overwhelmingly passed a slimmed-down version of a bill to ban lawmakers from insider trading Thursday, setting up a battle with senators and the White House over what kind of contact citizens may have with their representatives in Washington.
Known as the Stock Act, the legislation has wide support in both chambers, but partisan divisions are threatening to impede what all sides say is a key test of whether Congress can reach consensus on something President Obama requested in his State of the Union address last month.
The Senate, which passed its bill last week, tried to crack down on what lawmakers say is a burgeoning market in “political intelligence” by expanding the definition of who qualifies as a lobbyist, and added language making it easier to prosecute criminal conduct by public officials.
House Republicans powered their bill through on a 417-2 vote Thursday after dropping the public corruption provision and slimming down the political intelligence language to a study of the consequences of reining in the trade in congressional secrets.
“Think of the wording ‘political intelligence,’ ” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, told reporters. “I mean, there’s so much question about what that even means. And there’s a lot of discussion in this building and elsewhere about what is the consequence of that provision.”
House Democrats all voted for the legislation, saying the chance for a bipartisan solution was too important to pass up. They complained, however, about the procedures Republicans used to debate the bill, including blocking the chance to offer amendments.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said GOP lawmakers made some “serious omissions” in their version and she wants to see the lobbying provision added back during negotiations to hammer out a final House-Senate compromise.
“I don’t want anyone to interpret the strong vote for it to be a seal of approval,” Mrs. Pelosi said. “[The vote] just pushes it down the road to be the strongest bill it can be.”
The Senate version included an amendment that could require those who contact Congress to try to find out information on financial matters to register as lobbyists. Opponents said that could end up including people who call their members of Congress to ask the status of a bill.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and sponsor of the Senate bill, said Thursday that he prefers the House GOP’s decision to ditch the expanded lobbying provisions.
“From my point of view, it improves the bill because I think we were beginning to tread without enough understanding onto constitutionally protected speech,” Mr. Lieberman told The Washington Times. “We just felt we weren’t prepared for it, and I’m glad the House felt the same.”
But Sen. Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who championed the provision, said it will bring needed transparency to Washington insiders who sell their knowledge to Wall Street firms. He blasted the House bill Thursday, saying it leaves open a “gaping loophole” that his amendment would fix.
“That bill is coming back here without the Grassley amendment on it, and we need to think about what we’re going to do if you believe in good government,” Mr. Grassley said. “What we’re faced here with is a powerful industry that works in the shadows.”
The main bill seeks to crack down on lawmakers who might be using insider knowledge to enrich themselves.
A “60 Minutes” report last year raised questions about a number of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who were making financial transactions even as they were negotiating or voting on legislation that could affect industries involved.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
- A familiar fading feeling for McMahon in Connecticut
- Romney’s bid to undo health law faces hurdles
- Hill GOP presses Medicare probe
- Outsiders abide by rules in Brown-Warren race
- Iran talks not set up, Obama’s camp says
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Ted Cruz
Banning speech with a constitutional amendment is playing with fire
- GOP: Lerner warned IRS employees to hide information from Congress
- White House plans for bowling alley upgrades abruptly cancelled
- ISTOOK: Flying illegals home would be 99.5 percent cheaper than Obamas plan
- Obama requests $3.7 billion to fight surge of illegals
- Power grab: EPA wants to garnish wages of polluters
- Costco to re-stock Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' after public outry
- Illegal immigrants showing up at border with 'Yes we can' Obama shoes: report
- CARSON: Health savings accounts far better than Obamacare
- Facebook allows 'Kill Kendall Jones' page, but deletes her game hunting photos
- Dinesh D'Souza book yanked from Costco shelves
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq
World Cup's sexiest WAGs
U.S.-Ghana World Cup opener