ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Kay Bailey Hutchison”

Justice

GOP Tries To Water Down Violence Against Women Act, Expresses Willingness To Tolerate Some Domestic Abuse

By Annie-Rose Strasser on Apr 26, 2012 at 10:12 am

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

From the very beginning, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) led the opposition to reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) — even leading Senate Judiciary Republicans to unanimously vote against it because they object to its protections for LGBT victims, immigrants and Native Americans. Grassley has now teamed up with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) “offer a substitute that would address GOP concerns with the bill.”

Although the full details of Grassley and Hutchinson’s watered down protections for domestic violence victims have yet to be released, it is likely that they will map Grassley’s previously stated opposition to providing greater support for LGBT, undocumented, and tribal victims of domestic violence. The Hutchison/Grassley amendment will likely leave out some victims who face particularly harsh discrimination. If Senate Republicans embrace Grassley’s earlier objections to reauthorizing VAWA, they will show that they are willing to tolerate a certain amount of domestic violence by ignoring certain victims:

For Native victims: In 86 percent of reported rapes or sexual assaults on Native women, the perpetrators are non-Native. While Hutchison has criticized the tribal provisions, saying that ‘any American’ could be imprisoned by tribal courts, in actuality, the provisions allow tribal members to prosecute a non-tribal people who commit domestic violence and who either live or work on a reservation, or are married to a tribal member. The Grassley / Hutchison amendment requires any domestic violence to be prosecuted in federal courts, meaning that rural tribal victims won’t seek help. Additionally, federal prosecutors “already decline to prosecute half of Indian Country crimes that are referred to them,” and with the added number of domestic violence crimes, victims are likely to never see justice.

For LGBT victims: The new version of the bill also lacks any additional provisions for the LGBT community, blanketing over LGBT-specific issues with gender neutral language that lumps the needs of gay and lesbian protections in with the needs of straight couples. The original version of VAWA says that domestic violence shelters cannot discriminate against gay, lesbian, or trans people, but the new version says nothing about this issue. Grassley has said that he does not believe discrimination in shelters is an issue — despite the fact that “44.6 percent of LGBT/HIV-positive survivors of intimate partner violence were turned away from shelters.”

For undocumented victims: The Grassley/Hutchison version of the bill takes out the added visas for undocumented people who are beaten and seek assistance from the state. The visas are put in place so that victims aren’t too scared to contact the authorities when they find themselves physically harmed or in danger. When such protections don’t exist, people are forced to work outside of the law to protect themselves.

But there may be a bit of good news in the amendment. It may offer increased funding for rape kits, the processing of which is notoriously backlogged in the criminal justice system across the U.S. This funding should be increased, but LGBT, Native American and immigrant victims should not have to suffer for it.

Devon Boyer, a council member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and a former law enforcement officer, shared the stories of two women who couldn’t see justice done to their abusers:

Update

White House Adviser Valerie Jarrett spoke out against the Grassley/Hutchison amendment today, saying, “We believe it takes us backwards. It discourages local police departments from arresting domestic violence offenders, it deletes the new provisions for assisting same sex victims, which we believe are important, and it greatly weakens the new proposals to address the high rates of violence on college campuses, which is so important for our young people, and the Hutchison bill just generally leaves too many victims without protection.”

Health

Murkowski Becomes Third Republican Senator To Criticize GOP’s War On Women

By Igor Volsky on Apr 6, 2012 at 11:05 am

The men in the Republican Party may not think they’re fighting a “war on women,” but its female senators certainly do. Yesterday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) joined Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Kay Bailey Hutchison in criticizing the GOP’s push for legislation to restrict access to contraception and other basic health care services:

“It makes no sense to make this attack on women,” she said at a local Chamber of Commerce luncheon. “If you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”

Murkowski — who recently said she regretted her vote for the anti-woman Blunt amendment — promised to fight for Planned Parenthood funding and also spoke out against Rush Limbaugh’s attack of Sandra Fluke, adding, “To have those kind of slurs against a woman … you had candidates who want to be our president not say, ‘That’s wrong. That’s offensive.’ They did not condemn the rhetoric.”

Related Posts

Justice

Rubio, Republican Senators To Push Non-Citizenship DREAM Act In Hopes Of Wooing Latino Voters

By Amanda Peterson Beadle on Mar 28, 2012 at 10:46 am

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has made it clear he wants to push for a GOP-backed DREAM Act that would give undocumented students legal status — but not citizenship — and now Republicans hope to use this watered-down version of the bill to win support from Latino voters. Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) are also working on a bill like this, which is being kept under wraps and is expected to be unveiled if or when Mitt Romney wins the GOP presidential nomination.

Rubio told The Hill that he has nothing to announce about a non-citizenship DREAM Act, but said, “We’re working toward that and hopefully very soon.” While Rubio, Kyl, and Hutchinson are supposedly prepping a Republican plan, it’s worth noting that the original DREAM Act — to provide citizenship to undocumented students if they meet certain requirements — was a bipartisan plan that had support from GOP Sens. Orrin Hatch (UT) and John McCain (AZ).

Now if Rubio introduces the legal-status-only plan, it will likely be little more than posturing and doubtful to make it far because Republicans like Rep. Lamar Smith (TX), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, are categorically opposed to the DREAM Act and it is doubtful Democrats would support creating a permanent underclass of immigrants. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed out that Republicans have already opposed this measure too, which would impose a class system for immigrants:

At an event on Capitol Hill, Reid cautioned that if Republicans offer a new DREAM Act, it will be a watered-down version of the bill most Republicans opposed when it came up for a vote last year. [...]

[G]roups that advocate for immigrants are skeptical of reforms that fail to grant a path to citizenship.

“Any proposal that is put on the table as to the fate of these children, who are in all consideration American, should be measured by what place they’re going to have in our society,” said Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration at the National Council of La Raza.

Martinez said creating “a class of nation-less people” would not be good for the country.

Earlier this month in an interview with Geraldo Rivera, Rubio teetered between his opposition to the current DREAM Act, which would provide citizenship, and trying to lay out a plan that would appeal to Latinos. “You can legalize someone’s status in this country with a significant amount of certainty about their future without placing them on a path toward citizenship,” he argued.

But his plan would force potentially millions of undocumented students to become non-voting residents of their home country if they were only given legal status in the U.S. After the extremely anti-immigrant views that the Republican presidential candidates have staked out during the primaries, a plan to create a system of second-class citizenship is not likely to be what Latino voters are looking for from the Republican party.

Health

Kay Bailey Hutchison Defends Planned Parenthood, Says Organization Provides Critical Preventive Care

By Igor Volsky on Mar 22, 2012 at 9:40 am

During an interview on MSNBC this morning, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) voiced rare support for Planned Parenthood, noting that the organization provides much-needed preventive care to low-income women. The outgoing Texas senator also condemned a recently-enacted Texas law that prohibits Planned Parenthood from participating in the Medicaid program and providing health care services to some 130,000 women. The controversial measure has led the federal government to officially stop funding the Texas Women’s Health Program, but Gov. Rick Perry (R) insists that the state will fill the funding gap using state funds.

Hutchison criticized Perry’s decision to turn his back on the federal dollars, which she argued, provide critical care to lower-income women:

HUTCHISON: We cannot afford to lose the Medicaid funding for low income women to have health care services. We cannot. We keep turning back federal funds that every state gets and then try to find money in our budget, which is already being cut in key areas like education. I do think that the governor needs to sit down with the federal government and work it out so we can have our share — our fair share not more — of money for Medicaid to help low-income women have their health care services.

TODD: So it sounds like you think he should not be excluding Planned Parenthood?

HUTCHISON: I think Planned Parenthood does mammograms, they do so much of the health care — the preventive health care and they’re doing that, we need to provide those services, absolutely.

Watch it:

Economy

GOP Sen. Hutchison Slams Own Party Over FAA Shutdown: ‘It’s Not Honorable’

By Pat Garofalo on Aug 2, 2011 at 10:35 am

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)

Last night, the House went off for summer recess without reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which has been shut down for days now due to lack of funding. The House’s action means that the FAA will remain shut down for at least another month, leaving 4,000 federal employees furloughed, tens of thousands of workers stuck on stalled construction projects, and hundreds of millions of dollars in federal airline taxes uncollected. Airport inspectors are currently working without pay.

The FAA is the victim in the GOP’s assault on organized labor, as House Republicans are insisting that any FAA reauthorization include a provision making it harder for workers at airlines and railways to unionize. However, the House GOP’s intransigence doesn’t extend to all Republicans. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) yesterday criticized her party’s stance, saying “it’s not honorable” to hold up the FAA over unrelated policy disputes:

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, breaking with her party, called on Congress to pass a temporary extension that was devoid of any complicating policy issues.

“We’re getting ready to leave for a month. We should not shut down the FAA because of a rider put on the extension of the FAA legislation that has not been negotiated,” Hutchison said.

“It is not honorable for the House to send an extraneous amendment” on a funding extension, she said.

House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL), in a fit of spite, attached extra cuts to rural airports (in mostly Democratic states) to his version of the bill, which he admitted was merely meant to tweak Democratic senators for not going along with the GOP’s union busting. If the FAA shutdown continues for another month, it will cost the government about $1.2 billion. But for the GOP, that seems to be an acceptable price for advancing an anti-union agenda.

Last night, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) attempted to pass a clean FAA reauthorization through the Senate by unanimous consent. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) objected.

Update

Hutchison took to the Senate floor today to plead her case for a “clean” FAA bill. However, she said she supports Republicans’ anti-union agenda on the issues, but that it should be done through the proper procedure. Watch a video of her floor speech released by Senate Democrats:

NEWS FLASH

Hutchison Hits Perry’s Secessionism: ‘We Are Part Of The United States’ | Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) looks increasingly likely to enter the 2012 presidential race, with sources telling the Daily Caller he is “90 percent” in. This morning, to discuss the potential run and Perry’s bombastic rhetoric, MSNBC host Chuck Todd brought on Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R), who unsuccessfully ran against Perry for the governorship last year. Hutchison took a subtle jab at the governor by stating the obvious when she said, “I think we have to clear that we are part of the United States of America.” As Todd pointed out, Hutchison’s comment is a clear reference to the fact that Perry has, on several occasions, floated the idea of Texas seceding from the union.

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Jun 10, 2011 at 10:35 am

Security

Hutchison Seeks A ‘New’ DREAM Act After Previously Opposing It Over Nonexistent Citizenship Provision

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Feb 9, 2011 at 12:50 pm

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is apparently seeking to pass a “lesser version” of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, a bill which would provide young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. by their parents with a path to legalization once they fulfill the necessary education or military service requirements. Hutchison voted against the DREAM Act this past December despite the fact that undocumented students were hunger striking in front of her office for weeks. Now, she’s suggesting that she supports the DREAM Act and always has — without the citizenship clause. The San Antonio Express News reports:

Hutchison, R-Texas, told the San Antonio group that she could not support legislation that includes “amnesty” provisions of citizenship, which was included in the DREAM Act. Instead, she said, she wants a bill that would protect foreign-born students and those who serve in the military from being deported — but would not want them to receive automatic citizenship here.

“To me, it is a clear-cut issue that we should not deport young people who have been educated in our school, who many times have a college education, who we encourage to go to college,” Hutchison said. [...]

Hutchison said she did not support the DREAM Act because of the citizenship provision — a key component in the bill supported by Democrats, Latino rights organizations and immigration advocacy groups. “But I’m working on a new DREAM Act proposal because I think there is a group of people who had no part in coming into this country illegally,” Hutchison said.

What’s odd about Hutchison’s statements is that the DREAM Act that was proposed in December did not include a citizenship provision to begin with. Even the San Antonio Express News journalist who reported on the story got it wrong. The DREAM Act would’ve given qualifying undocumented immigrants the opportunity to adjust their illegal status. A “path to legalization” isn’t just a talking point as the people who cry amnesty always claim. It’s actually what the bill provides. The legislation which Hutchison opposed just a couple of months ago would’ve granted young undocumented immigrants conditional nonimmigrant status for ten years. After that, once all the criteria are met, they could have obtained lawful permanent resident status. If they wanted to become citizens, they would have had to wait another three years to apply and go through all the naturalization steps just as any other immigrant does.

Hutchison isn’t the only politician who has apparently never read the DREAM Act. Newt Gingrich (R) and Howard Dean (D) recently debated the merits of the legislation based on the mistaken presumption that the DREAM Act conferred citizenship. “You can not give citizenship to people who — you can not jump past millions of people around the planet who are obeying the law, waiting their turn to come here,” declared Gingrich. “I would support finding a way for residency…if you have come here under certain circumstances and you were clearly a minor,” he confirmed. “Residency is very different than citizenship.” Indeed, it is and the DREAM Act makes that distinction.

Of course the difference between Gingrich and Hutchison is that that Hutchison apparently voted on a bill that she didn’t bother to understand. (Gingrich just chooses to ignorantly debate the legislation). With that said, Hutchison’s turnabout is a welcomed move. Hopefully, if she does introduce some sort of DREAM Act legislation, she’ll encourage all of her Republican colleagues to actually read it.

Politics

ANALYSIS: A Look At Republicans Who Are Blasting An Omnibus Bill Laden With Their Own Pork

By George Zornick on Dec 16, 2010 at 2:45 pm

As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell requested and received millions of dollars in earmarks for this year’s omnibus spending bill, but has now denounced the measure and plans to vote against it. Overall, Republican Senators have gotten nearly $2 billion in earmarks into the omnibus, and yet because of concerns over “wasteful spending,” they are threatening to block the entire bill — which contains not only funding for their own projects, but the money the federal government needs to operate past this weekend.

Yesterday, Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Thune (R-SD) denounced earmarks and the omnibus bill during a press conference, despite requesting hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks between them. “I support those projects, but I don’t support this bill,” reasoned Thune. Cornyn defended himself in a “heated exchange” with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl:

Today, the Washington Post reports that two of the most prolific earmarkers in Congress — “unabashed spending barons” Republican Sens. Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran of Mississippi — are also planning to vote against the omnibus, despite being responsible for 405 earmarks costing over $865 million.

Sens. McConnell, Wicker, Cochran, Cornyn and Thune are far from the only earmark hypocrites, however. A large number of Republicans requested substantial earmarks for the 2011 omnibus, despite a history of demagoguing the earmark process, and also plan to vote against a bill that included many of their requests. An examination of Taxpayers for Common Sense’s database of earmark requests for this year’s omnibus and their database of who was awarded earmarks last year, along with Sen. Tom Coburn’s working database of the earmarks that actually made it into this year’s omnibus, reveal quite a bit of Republican hypocrisy:

– Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) said on Fox News’ “Happening Now” this morning that he would vote against the omnibus bill. He requested 291 earmarks totaling over $770.5 million, and succeeded in getting 86 earmarks into the omnibus.

– Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is opposing the omnibus because it’s “full of unnecessary spending which grows the federal government.” He requested 116 earmarks costing $326.8 million, and the omnibus contains one of these for $379,000.

– Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s (R-TX) office said she will vote against the omnibus, which she tried to insert 119 earmarks into, at a cost of $770.9 million. She has $140 million earmarked in the bill.

– Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) will also oppose the omnibus, because it “simply spends too much.” Chambliss requested 122 earmarks totaling $492 million. He achieved $56 million in earmarks in the omnibus.

– Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) blasted the “massive, 2,000 page spending bill” in a statement. Burr tried for 82 earmarks, totaling $287.1 million, and received most of them.

– Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) “has been railing against the spending in that massive bill that could come to a vote before the lame duck session.” He requested 32 earmarks this year, totaling $115.8 million, and got nearly all of them — almost $100 million — into the omnibus.

– Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) tweeted today that “Defending the #earmark establishment is not leadership. Defending business-as-usual in Washington isn’t either. Leaders lead by example.” Rehberg is a proud member of the “earmark establishment” — last year he was the fifth-largest earmarker in the House, with 89 earmarks in the 2010 omnibus totaling $103.5 million.

– Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY) said on Fox Business Channel this morning that “It’s a week before Christmas, and unfortunately my Democratic colleagues like to play Santa Claus to the tune of $8 billion in new earmarks.” Lee was in a much more festive mood last year, with 36 earmarks totaling over $33.3 million in the 2010 omnibus.

– Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) tweeted today that “A HUGE spending bill is making its way through Congress. $1.1 trillion and 6,000 earmarks. We must stop it. I encourage the President to veto.” Last year, however, Wilson got 15 earmarks costing over $23.3 million in the 2010 omnibus.

It is the height of hypocrisy for these Republicans — all of whom have a long history of earmarking, and in most cases requested and received earmarks in this very bill — to suddenly oppose it because of a newly found opposition to “wasteful” spending.

Security

The DREAM Act’s Republican Landscape

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Nov 18, 2010 at 4:10 pm

Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that he will introduce the DREAM Act after Thanksgiving. In a press release, Reid stated, “Last time we sought to bring up this bill, all Republicans blocked our effort, even though many have been supporters of the DREAM Act in the past. I hope that our Republican colleagues will join me, Sen. Durbin and Democrats in passing this important piece of legislation, now that we have a stand-alone version and that political season is over.”

Without the support of at least a handful of Republicans, the DREAM Act doesn’t stand a chance. Though the majority of Democrats support the legislation, Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Jon Tester (D-MT) have all either voted against the DREAM Act at some point in their careers or expressed reservations about the legislation. However, in the past, the DREAM Act has enjoyed the support of a handful of Republicans. Immigration reform used to be a bipartisan issue. Where these Republicans seem to stand now is outlined below:

LEANING YES:

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN): Lugar and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced the DREAM Act on March 26, 2009. Although Lugar voted against moving on the Department of Defense (DOD) bill which included the DREAM Act as an amendment, his senior adviser explained that the lawmaker objected to “a vote on proceeding to the defense bill in a very politically charged and unusual way. The DREAM Act deserves a proper debate on its merits.”

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT): Bennett voted to proceed with debate on the DREAM Act in 2007. Bennett was stripped of his party’s nomination earlier this year and will be leaving the Senate in a month. Essentially, he has nothing to lose by sticking to his guns.

TOSS-UPS:

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME): Snowe voted to proceed with debate on the DREAM Act in 2007. Snowe justified voting against the DOD bill in September by saying that “the Senate should have the ability to debate more than the three amendments the Majority Leader is allowing.” Snowe is up for reelection in 2012 and could always choose to stick with her party to play it safe.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): Like her colleague, Collins voted in favor of the DREAM Act in 2007. Before voting against proceeding with the DOD bill, Collins explained, “I find myself on the horns of a dilemma, I support the provisions in this bill. I think it is the right thing to do. I think it is only fair… But I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down the debate and preclude Republican amendments.” Although she is not up for reelection any time soon, like her colleague (Snowe), Collins is feeling pressure to move farther to the right.

Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL): LeMieux’s predecessor, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) was a strong proponent of immigration reform and the DREAM Act. Since Rubio will replace him in 2011, LeMieux doesn’t have to worry about getting reelected. Yet, he is “mulling” a 2012 Senate bid. He has also expressed some hesitation about the bill, saying, “It’s a very difficult situation for kids who are brought to this country and it’s no fault of their own. I understand that and I am sympathetic, but to attach this to this [DOD reauthorization] bill without trying to fix our broken immigration system is disingenous and irresponsible.”

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH):Voinovich voted against proceeding with the DREAM Act in 2007. However, he has been a strong proponent of AgJOBS, a bill that would put undocumented agriculture workers on a path to legalization and has often been perceived as a swing-vote on immigration bills. He is also retiring from the Senate at the end of the year.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK):Murkowski voted against proceeding with the DREAM Act in 2007. However, she voted in support of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. After a tough reelection race, it looks like she will be returning to the Senate to serve another a term. And chances are she’s not to happy with the Republican establishment after losing the Republican primary to Joe Miller.

LONG-SHOTS:

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): Hutchison voted in favor of the DREAM Act in 2007. However, since then, she has moved farther to the right on the immigration issue. She faces a tough primary in 2012.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX):Cornyn did not support the DREAM Act in 2007. Though he supported comprehensive immigration reform which included the DREAM Act in 2007, it doesn’t sound like he’s up for it in 2010. “This is getting to be a joke. No one believes that there is enough time that we could do a responsible job,” said Cornyn on the DREAM Act in July. According to him, the Senate should approach the issue in “a responsible, reasonable way and not just try to play to the peanut gallery and act like we’re going to do something we’re not.”

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): Kyl has supported immigration reform in the past, but voted against the DREAM Act in 2007. Like many of his colleagues, his immigration position has hardened and shifted to an enforcement-only approach.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA): Brown replaced the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), a champion of immigrant rights and a tireless advocate for immigration reform. Though there is a lot a pressure on him to take a pro-immigrant stance, so far, he has stuck to his anti-immigrant guns. He recently lashed out at Harvard University, stating “They should embrace young people who want to serve their country, rather than promoting a plan that provides amnesty to students who are in this country illegally.”

DEFINITE NO:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): Hatch has supported both the DREAM Act and immigration reform in the past. However, he is facing a tough reelection in 2012 and has already seen his colleague, Bennett, go down in flames. Given the political climate he’s facing in Utah, my guess is he’ll vote no.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): Grassley voted in support of immigration reform in 2006, but against the DREAM Act in 2007. Over the past three years, his position on immigration has moved so far to the right, it is nearly unrecognizable.

Economy

Hutchison Makes One More Attempt To Weaken Volcker Rule Before Financial Reform Conference

By Pat Garofalo on May 24, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Last week, the Senate passed Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D-CT) financial regulatory reform bill, which means that it now needs to be merged with the bill that the House of Representatives passed last year. A conference committee — which will be chaired by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) — will iron out the differences between the bills and send one piece of legislation back to each chamber for a final vote, before the bill goes to the President.

Before all that, however, the Senate has one last piece of business with which to dispense. This evening, it will vote on two “motions to instruct” the conferees, which aren’t binding, but send a message as to what the majority of the body would like the conferees to fight for. And fighting for either of the motions would be problematic.

The first is comes from Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and would push the conferees to exempt auto dealers from oversight by the proposed Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. And as Tim Fernholz pointed out, the second, sponsored by Sen. Kay Bauley Hutchison (R-TX), would “weaken language that bars banks from speculating with their own capital — basically, an attack on the Volcker rule.”

Already, the ban on proprietary trading in Dodd’s bill is weak tea, giving regulators vast discretion over whether its implemented (after a study is conducted) and what activities are exempted. Hutchison’s motion (based on an amendment that she proposed) would restrict which activities could be regulated even more, by exempting many (vaguely defined) kinds of activities and an entire industry. Here’s what the amendment said:

(B) subject to such restrictions as the Federal banking agencies may determine, does not include purchasing or selling, or otherwise acquiring or disposing of, stocks, bonds, options, commodities, derivatives, or other financial instruments on behalf of a customer, as part of market making activities, or otherwise in connection with or in facilitation of customer relationships, including risk-mitigating hedging activities related to such a purchase, sale, acquisition, or disposal; and

(C) does not include the investments of a regulated insurance company, or a regulated insurance affiliate or regulated insurance subsidiary thereof

So, if the conferees actually take Hutchison’s language to heart, any activity “in facilitation of customer relationships” would be exempted. I imagine a Wall Steet firm could justify almost any activity as facilitating a customer relationship.

The C section, meanwhile, would exempt insurance companies like AIG from the rule. Considering that AIG ran a hedge fund on the side that blew up in spectacular fashion, necessitating repeated federal bailouts, this strikes me as a mistake. As Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, “AIG is a huge complex global insurance company attached to a very complicated investment bank hedge fund that was allowed to build up without any adult supervision.” While we should be preemptively preventing insurance companies from threatening the financial system, there’s no reason to give them a blanket exemption from the Volcker rule, discounting the possibility that one could amass systemic risk and engage in risky trading again.

Stronger Volcker rule language, proposed by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Carl Levin (D-MI) never came up for a vote on the floor, making it unlikely that stronger language will make its way into the final product. And Hutchison’s language would only make the watery language in the Senate bill even worse.

Older

Switch to Mobile