Since a 60 Minutes report showed that Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) profited from information he obtained in private economic briefings in 2008, Congress has moved quickly to pass a bill to ban insider trading by its members. The Senate passed its version by a vote of 96-3 on February 2nd. President Obama praised the vote and promised to sign the bill — he had called for insider trading legislation in his State of the Union address in January.

Before any of that can happen, however, the House needs to vote on its version, which could happen as early as this week. The House’s version of the bill, however, is shaping up to be considerably different than the Senate’s.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has made several changes to the legislation which appear intended to at least weaken the final product, if not to kill it outright. The government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) laid out some of those changes:

CREW strongly supported the Senate approved version of the STOCK Act (S. 2038) passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 96 to 3. S. 2038 goes well beyond merely prohibiting insider trading by, among other things, requiring registration by political intelligence consultants, stripping pension benefits from corrupt members of Congress and closing serious loopholes in the nation’s anti-corruption laws.

The bill Rep. Cantor is bringing to the floor removes several of these provisions. Although the House Judiciary Committee passed nearly identical legislation late last year, the new bill drops the Leahy-Cornyn amendment, which responds to court decisions that have undermined prosecutors’ efforts to target public corruption. It also excludes the Grassley Amendment, which would require political intelligence consultants to register with Congress.

Cantor had also tried to expand the legislation to ban other transactions, such as land deals. As UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge noted, “Cantor obviously hopes that including a vast array of economic activity within the bill, exposing members of Congress to disclosure obligations and other restrictions, as well as increasing their liability exposure, will make the bill sufficiently unpopular so as to prevent its passage.”

Despite Cantor’s public protestations that “it is unacceptable for anybody in this body to profit personally from non-public information,” his changes to the STOCK Act have unnecessarily made it weaker. As Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), a chief sponsor of the bill, put it, “I think strengthening here is a euphemism for weakening.” It is also worth noting that, when Bachus proposed an insider trading bill to help repair his image, Cantor blocked it from going forward.

If the House passes a different piece of legislation than the Senate, they will need to be reconciled before they can be signed into law. As the statement from CREW notes, the sections which Cantor removed could still be added back to the final bill in conference, which is why they are still calling for members to vote for passage.

– Zachary Bernstein

During his State of the Union address, President Obama said “send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress; I will sign it tomorrow. Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.” The remark stemmed from a 60 Minutes investigation showing that House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) profited from information he received in private briefings during the economic crisis of 2008.

The Senate, in a rare display of bipartisanship, opened debate on an insider trading ban by a vote of 93-2. However, the bill has since become bogged down under a sea of unrelated amendments.

Over in the House, meanwhile, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) — who reportedly blocked Bachus from bringing up a ban on congressional insider trading in committee — wants to expand the legislation to include bans on other sorts of transactions, such as land deals. UCLA Law Prof. Stephen Bainbridge notes that this is likely an attempt by Cantor to kill the bill by making it so overly broad that no one will vote for it:

[Cantor's] now trying to extend the STOCK Act “so it includes land deals and other types of transactions and not just stock trades.” Classic taking a good idea too far. The problem is insider trading in stocks, not insider trading in land deals. Cantor obviously hopes that including a vast array of economic activity within the bill, exposing members of Congress to disclosure obligations and other restrictions, as well as increasing their liability exposure, will make the bill sufficiently unpopular so as to prevent its passage.

The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act has picked up 273 co-sponsors, after languishing for months with nearly no interest.

During a 60 Minutes interview Sunday night, CBS’ Lesley Stahl asked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) about the GOP’s intransigence when it comes to raising any new federal revenue, pointing out that Cantor’s hero, Ronald Reagan, raised taxes when the occasion called for it. Before Cantor could even attempt to explain anything, one of his spokesmen, Brad Dayspring, interrupted the interview, taking issue with the notion that Reagan increased taxes:

STAHL: What’s the difference between compromise and cooperate?

CANTOR: Well, I would say cooperate is let’s look to where we can move things forward where we agree. Comprising principles, you don’t want to ask anybody to do that. That’s who they are as their core being.

STAHL: But you know, your idol, as I’ve read anyway, was Ronald Reagan. And he compromised.

CANTOR: He never compromised his principles.

STAHL: Well, he raised taxes and it was one of his principles not to raise taxes.

CANTOR: Well, he– he also cut taxes.

STAHL: But he did compromise–

CANTOR: Well I –

DAYSPRING: That just isn’t true. And I don’t want to let that stand.

Watch it:

Dayspring has had some trouble with the facts regarding taxes before, but the notion that it “just isn’t true” that Reagan raised taxes is absurd. He raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office, including one stretch of four tax increases in just two years. As Paul Krugman put it, “no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people.” Reagan also completely equalized the tax treatment of investment income with that of wage income, a position putting him to the left of many of today’s Democrats, never mind Republicans.

Cantor’s office tried to clarify later that Dayspring’s remark “referred to the cumulative effect of Mr. Reagan’s tax policies, pointing out that he cut taxes more than he raised them, and that Mr. Reagan expressed regret making tax deals with Democrats because the spending cuts they agreed to never materialized.” But the point is, as historian Douglas Brinkley put it, “Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes. He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there’s a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn’t happen that way. It’s false.” And this is a truth that today’s GOP just hasn’t been able to handle.

Eric Cantor (right) and his ideological muse Newt Gingrich (right)

Earlier this year, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) made a series of major missteps when he decided the House GOP would not release federal disaster funds unless it included offsetting spending cuts following a deadly Missouri tornado, a hurricane that hit the east coast, and an earthquake in Virginia.

Though Cantor was roundly criticized for the move, a look back to the 104th Congress revealed the origins of Cantor’s idea: Newt Gingrich.

Less than two months after Gingrich took over as House speaker in 1995, one of his first orders of business was to propose holding off on federal disaster aid unless it was accompanied by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. Gingrich downplayed the long-held system of sending federal relief money to areas stricken by natural disaster without making it contingent on ideologically-driven cuts, telling reporters, “you don’t have this thing of waving a magic wand and saying, ‘Well, this is an emergency.’”

This was not simply a theoretical exercise. When the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing occurred later that year, Gingrich held federal disaster aid hostage unless he received offsetting spending cuts, prompting the Philadelphia Daily News to write that “Even Newt Gingrich must lose a little sleep at the idea of making political hay out of the mini-civil war that struck Oklahoma City.”

The Free Lance-Star from February 11, 1995, has more:

President Clinton last week asked Congress for an extra $4.9 billion in emergency aid to pay for repairs lingering from the Northridge earthquake in Southern California a year ago. He also is seeking an additional $500,000 to repair damage from last month’s record flooding in the state.

Typically, those funds are sent to states under special budget rules that do not require Congress to earmark offsetting cuts.

But that practice, Gingrich said, is about to change.

“We’re going to have to find a way to offset that,” he said.

Gingrich went on to criticize President Clinton for refusing “to suggest where to cut to pay for federal disaster aid.” Not all congressional spending proposals were held to this same standard though. As the Washington Post wrote in July 1996, Gingrich “instructed a House Appropriations panel to earmark an additional $15 million for water projects to boost reelection prospects of Republicans in California, Illinois, New Jersey and Washington state.”

Pork-barrel projects like these were deemed important enough to merit a special earmark, but Gingrich held disaster relief money hostage unless Congress and the president agreed to offsetting spending cuts elsewhere. Sixteen years later, Cantor took up the mantle and used the devastating Joplin tornado, which killed 159 people, to try to extract spending cuts from congressional Democrats.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL)

Last month, a 60 Minutes investigation revealed that House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) made stock trades based on information that he received in private briefings during the financial crisis of 2008. Bachus’ trades reportedly netted him around $30,000.

Following the story, Congress suddenly found an interest in blocking its members from trading on information they receive in their official capacity. The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which would ban this sort of activity, picked up dozens of co-sponsors, after it had languished for months with nearly no interest. Bachus was evidently ready and willing to move the bill forward, in an attempt to clean up his own image, but several other Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), put the kibosh on that plan, according to Politico:

A day after Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus said he would move forward on an insider-trading bill, Majority Leader Eric Cantor stopped him dead in his tracks.

In a Wednesday meeting described by one source as “extremely direct” and by another as “very blunt,” Cantor (R-Va.) ripped into Bachus, explaining in no uncertain terms that it was unacceptable for Bachus to mark up the bill without having run it by GOP leaders and other chairmen with jurisdiction over its provisions. The Alabama Republican abruptly canceled the vote, which was scheduled for next week. [...]

“We’re not going to cover Spencer’s ass by passing a half-baked bill,” one Republican member of the panel told POLITICO. “Even Barney Frank didn’t pass it in his two terms as chairman and Dem[ocrats] are the lead sponsors. It’s all about Spencer’s bad political position, not the contents of the policy.”

“The public has an absolute right to demand that the people they elect to represent them in Congress conduct themselves according to the highest ethical standards and do not seek to profit from their positions,” Bachus said while announcing his intention to move the legislation forward. However, it seems that his leadership doesn’t quite see things that way.

Speaking today at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy, where he was interrupted by 99 Percent Movement protesters, House Majority Leader (R-VA) fielded a question from a student asking why Cantor and the GOP support “reducing or getting rid of Pell Grants,” the federal grants that help low- and middle-income students pay for higher education.

Cantor disputed the claim, saying, “your direct question, allegation, I don’t know is accurate,” before launching into a non-answer about how the real issue is not the grants but the increasing cost of higher education. Watch it:

In fact, since coming to power, the House Republican majority — led by Cantor — has repeatedly set its sights on Pell Grants. Republican lawmakers have not only proposed lowering the maximum Pell amount from $5,500 (which is the level to which the Obama administration raised it) but also limiting eligibility, knocking one million students from the Pell program entirely. Republicans claim “we don’t have the money” to afford the grants, but the same House GOP budget that made cuts to Pell — for which Cantor voted — provides huge tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations that dwarf the cost of preserving the grants.

It’s also worth nothing that it was Cantor himself who, during July budget talks with the White House, proposed a cut “aimed squarely at college students” that would make students stat paying interest on their federal loans right away, instead of deferring until after graduation.

At a time when student loan debt is hitting new heights and joblessness is above 9 percent, Cantor’s response to a student genuinely concerned about financing his higher education is quite telling, especially when the GOP leader claims to agree that “the investment on higher education has an infinite return.”