April 26, 2010 6:07 PM

Republicans (and One Democrat) Block Debate on Financial Reform Bill

By
Brian Montopoli
Topics
Domestic Issues
(Credit: CBS)

Updated 6:26 p.m. Eastern

Senate Republicans held together Monday afternoon to block efforts by Democrats to officially begin debate on the financial industry reform bill.

No Republicans cast a "yes" vote on the procedural motion, keeping Democrats from the 60 vote threshold needed to move forward. One Democrat, Nebraska's Ben Nelson, voted "no" outright.

The vote was 57-41. Two Republicans did not vote: Utah's Bob Bennett and Missouri's Kit Bond. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid switched his vote to a "no" so that he can bring the bill back to the floor, something he is vowing to do that later this week.

Nelson said he couldn't support moving to debate on a bill he hasn't seen, and that his vote was not an indication that he would oppose the legislation. 

Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd and Republican Sen. Richard Shelby will now go back to the drawing board in an effort to craft legislation that will garner the 60 votes necessary to begin debate. Republicans hold 41 seats in the Senate, enough to hold up the legislation.

Among the bill's provisions are the creation of a system for dismantling struggling large firms, the establishment of a consumer protection agency, and a requirement that derivatives be traded openly. The House has already passed its version of the legislation.

"I am deeply disappointed that Senate Republicans voted in a block against allowing a public debate on Wall Street reform to begin," President Obama said in a statement. "Some of these Senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether. But the American people can't afford that."

In a statement, Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown said, "my vote is not a vote against financial reform; instead it's a vote to insist that the parties continue bi-partisan negotiations to come up with a commonsense bill we can all be proud of." 

"As currently written, the legislation contains loopholes that could leave the taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts of Wall Street," he added.

Though Democrats lost the vote, they are betting that the politics of the outcome may be to their benefit. Anticipating the Republicans' united stand against the bill, the Democratic National Committee posted a graphic on its homepage Monday morning deeming the GOP "The Party of Wall Street." (Republicans hit back with a Web video deeming Democrats the "real" party of Wall Street.)

Democrats have some reason to be confident that regulatory reform is good politics; according to a recent Pew poll, 61 percent of Americans believe it's "a good idea for the government to more strictly regulate the way major financial companies do business." A Washington Post/ABC News poll found that "about two-thirds of Americans support stricter regulations on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct their business."

"It appears as if all the Republicans have decided that the rules in place now are the rules we should have going forward," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said before the vote. He added: "I don't think it's a tenable political position for the Republicans to be in."

Business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have voiced their opposition to the legislation.

Republicans have tried to cast the bill as a move to codify "endless taxpayer funded bailouts for big Wall Street banks," a dubious claim that President Obama deemed a lie.

Aides to Shelby said in a background briefing before the vote that Republicans may release their own version of financial industry reform legislation if a bipartisan compromise cannot be reached.

Nelson's decision to vote no will give Republicans ammunition to change that opposition to the bill as it now stands is bipartisan -- and that they are justified in wanting to recast the bill before beginning debate.

One difference between the two sides is over a proposed Consumer Protection Agency, which Democrats say will keep Americans from being taken advantage of by predatory lenders. Republicans fear the agency could be costly and add an unnecessary and harmful layer of regulation.

Members of the GOP also say a proposed $50 billion fund paid for by financial institutions would encourage future bailouts.

"The message should be clear, unambiguous," Shelby said on CBSNews.com's "Washington Unplugged" Monday. "No more bailouts in America." (WATCH HERE)


Add a Comment See all 214 Comments
by marks6806 April 27, 2010 11:44 AM EDT
Obama Kool Aid:

Gargel with it, swish it aroud in you mouth, spit it out, etc. but remember JUST DON'T SWALLOW IT!
Reply to this comment
by Confidential416 April 27, 2010 10:03 AM EDT
oh "no"... here we go again...I wouldn't vote republican right now if you paid me to. I don't see the GOP party as trying to govern for the people. They do everything they can to work against the average Joe so to speak -
Reply to this comment
by omega42 April 27, 2010 10:51 AM EDT
Where is Joe the plumber nowadays?
by Fight4Rights April 27, 2010 9:43 AM EDT
So, not surprisingly, absent from comments is the fact that one of the Democrats voted "NO" because he hasn't seen the bill...wow, imagine that! A guy who WANTS to see it BEFORE he votes. Also absent from comments is the loopholes issue!

I am an independent, but I think the democrats are just as responsible for the lack of talking as the republicans. I grow tired of the blind following of Obama and the democrats. The healthcare bill merely gave the insurance companies more business...and that is teaching them a lesson how?
Reply to this comment
by SueZeeeQue April 27, 2010 9:06 AM EDT
Is anyone really surprised that Republicans don't want there to be a debate on reforming Wall Street?



The party of NO says what?
Reply to this comment
by marks6806 April 27, 2010 11:49 AM EDT
Suzie: the party of no says DON'T SWALLOW THE KOOL AID! But in your case it may be too late.
by honest_pols April 27, 2010 9:02 AM EDT
IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF DECENCY AND APPROPRIATE STANDARDS:
THE U.S. GOVT

The flood of so-called money that is printed by The US Govt, is fiat currency, and is tantamount to counterfeit money.

As measured by percentage - not by raw numbers - there is little backing for the US Dollar. Since our dollar is no longer based on gold or silver, it has become a 'Federal Reserve Note', which is merely a paper I.O U. loan issued by a 'drowning-in-debt' U.S. Govt.

TO EXPAND QUICKLY VIA CREDIT: INSECURE/UNSECURED
And credit they expanded.
And "Yankee Doodle went to town [riding on a phony (dollar)"]!

Hence, the accumulation of gold - by both private and government sectors - on a grand scale this world has never witnessed.
Reply to this comment
by SueZeeeQue April 27, 2010 9:02 AM EDT
Republicans don't even want there to be a debate about financial reform.


It's no surprise since Republicans are the ones who deregulated Wall Street and caused the financial meltdown in the first place.


The party of NO says what?
Reply to this comment
by apuan777 April 27, 2010 9:34 AM EDT
1997? Who was in charge?
by marks6806 April 27, 2010 11:51 AM EDT
Say it again Suzie. come-on ... You can do it.... just one more time (only) please.
by timdgrim April 27, 2010 8:57 AM EDT
Just change the party name to 'Reobstructicans' or 'WeCorporateicans' or 'RichWhiteA$$holeicans'. I like the latter.
Reply to this comment
by apuan777 April 27, 2010 8:28 AM EDT
One difference between the two sides is over a proposed Consumer Protection Agency, which Democrats say will keep Americans from being taken advantage of by predatory lenders. Republicans fear the agency could be costly and add an unnecessary and harmful layer of regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Why do we need a government agency to stop Democrats from defaulting on their loans?
Reply to this comment
by pubsrtoast April 27, 2010 8:34 AM EDT
The final analysis we undertook to investigate the likely effects of the CRA on the subprime crisis was to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods grouped by income. We found that most foreclosure filings have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods; in fact, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.11
____________________________________________________________

LOL! Apparently the data doesn't support your limbaughistic talking points. Hmmmm, middle and upper income neighborhoods, isn't that the white bread suburbia that is the bedrock of both the Republican party and the tea-baggers? Too funny...
by apuan777 April 27, 2010 8:50 AM EDT
Black Hispanic White Black / White Hisp / White
1998 8.5% 7.1% 4.1% 2.1 1.7
1999 9.2% 5.1% 2.5% 3.7 2.0
2000 8.1% 8.1% 5.4% 1.5 1.5
2001 8.7% 8.3% 5.2% 1.7 1.6
2002 8.9% 6.2% 4.8% 1.9 1.3
2003 8.6% 6.6% 5.1% 1.7 1.3
2004 12.9% 10.4% 6.6% 2.0 1.6
2005 15.0% 10.3% 6.5% 2.3 1.6
2006 10.2% 6.8% 4.1% 2.5 1.7
See all 5 Replies
by omnibus66 April 27, 2010 8:26 AM EDT
Republican Sen. Scott Brown said, "my vote is not a vote against financial reform; instead it's a vote to insist that the parties continue bi-partisan negotiations to come up with a commonsense bill we can all be proud of."

Sorry, CBS, you can't use the words "Republican" and "bi-partisan" or "commonsense" in the same sentence without a negation disclaimer.
Reply to this comment
by gohogs44 April 27, 2010 8:22 AM EDT
Wow, at least one Senator admits he has not read the bill. You folks should have read the non-productive stimulus bill (per NABE) and the HCR joke (Warner D-VA..we are now going to have to fix the underestimated costs..you know the ones HHS accountants themselves identified last week). This is the bunch who have us $13 trillion in debt, 10% unemployment, 17% underemployed, etc, and they want to now control the world wide banking industry. Good grief! Be concerned. Very concerned. Do you think this bill will prevent another bailout? Do think if Bank of America was in danger of failing the govt would not bail them out? A BOA failure would be devastating and Congress knows it. Nothing more than hype to satisfy the present feeling against Wall St. At least this diversion keeps the real subject at bay..jobs, jobs.
Finally, why are Fannie-Freddie not to be regulated? Tell us Barney. The two institutions who played major roles in the last melt down are not included? If anyone has really read this bill and understands it, inform the rest of us.
Reply to this comment
by midlclass April 27, 2010 8:55 AM EDT
take a step back and look at your figures there. yes what started all this, uncontrolled de regulation of wall st. alot of which was introduced by teapublicans a 5 trillion dollar debt that was doubled under teapublicans from 2000 to 2008 not democrates, allowing wall st to go crazy, just a week or two ago it was posted that the fortune 500 had eliminate 830, 000 jobs in one year yet wall st is at a 2year high and going up, jobs haven't its' not the job of the goverment to create jobs unless you me and business's pay more taxes.as far as pay goes its fine to bay corperate executives 10's of thousands of dollars an hour but people blog on here about a UAW or mine worker making 25 to 35 dollars an hour and benefits and that thats the cause of poor corperate america going to the dogs. finally in the elen page summary there was no mention of fannie and freddie being exempt from regulation. if so please point out were it is. however with the finacial industry 50 billion dollar slush fund that was put in there to be used not to bail out a firm but to be used to cover expenses in breaking it up and shutting it down and selling off its assets to allow it to fail. but the teapublican'ts are looking to cover there peoples butts remember GW bush and his fund raiser to the haves and the have more's.
by pubsrtoast April 27, 2010 9:19 AM EDT
remember GW bush and his fund raiser to the haves and the have more's.
__________________________________________________________________

Gohogs doesn't remember that because at the time he happened to be out counter-protesting the Bush protesters and telling them to "get over it" because Bush won and if they didn't like it they should move to another country.
See all 214 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook