PRESS RELEASE
Kaptur-Jones Amendment Would Replace GOP Bill Entirely With Glass-Steagall: Get It onto the Floor!
June 2, 2017 (EIRNS)—Today Representatives Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) submitted their "Return To Prudent Banking Act" bill, H.R. 790, as an amendment to H.R. 10, the Financial Choice Act of 2017. H.R. 10 is the Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) deregulation bill to undo the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and return the nation to the economic chaos and gambling policy of Alan Greenspan, Hensarling’s mentor Phil Gramm, and other authors of the economic disintegration of the past decades.
The Kaptur-Jones bill is not a defense of Dodd-Frank, but rather a simple return to the 1933 Glass-Steagall banking separation law that was repealed in 1999. The amendment would strike the entirety of the 600-page Hensarling atrocity and replace it with Glass-Steagall. We might say "repeal and replace." The amendment likely will go before the House Rules Committee as early as this week for consideration. Because H.R. 10 has already passed through the Financial Services Committee and is heading to the House floor for debate and a vote, all of the amendments submitted (there are at least 15) will be considered by the Rules Committee to determine if they meet the criteria (yet to be determined) of being germane to the debate on H.R. 10.
The committee will likely hear testimony from Rep. Kaptur and possibly Rep. Jones, and engage in question and answer with the sponsors. They could vote this week, although even that is not guaranteed due to possible parliamentary maneuvering and not to merits of the amendment. They will vote on simply whether it qualifies as germane to be taken up by the full House. The Rules Committee has 13 members, including two current Glass-Steagall sponsors, Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), and a past sponsor, Rep. Alice Hastings (D-Fla.). The amendment's sponsors suggest contacting the non-Glass-Steagall co-sponsors urging them to vote the amendment onto the floor. Again, the issue is not the merits of the amendment, but rather to insert it into the debate.
