June 30, 2010 7:56 PM

House Passes Massive Wall Street Overhaul

By
CBSNews
Wall Street oversight regulation consumer protection financial regulators congress senate banking credit card fees mortgage finance federal reserve watchdog magnifying glass

Wall Street oversight regulation consumer protection financial regulators congress senate banking credit card fees mortgage finance federal reserve watchdog magnifying glass (CBS/AP)

(AP)  Nearly two years after a Wall Street meltdown left the economy reeling, the House on Wednesday passed a massive overhaul of financial regulations that would extend the government's reach from storefront thrifts to the high-finance penthouses of New York City.

Senate support for the far-reaching bill remained in flux, however. The Senate was forced to delay its vote to mid-July, denying President Barack Obama a victory before Independence Day. Democrats struggled to secure the votes of a handful of Republican senators even after meeting their demands and backing down on a $19 billion tax on big banks and hedge funds.

The legislation, swelling to more than 2,000 pages, would rewrite the nation's regulatory books. Simple supermarket purchases and exotic derivatives trades would be subject to new laws. And the entire financial system would be placed on a risk watch in hopes of thwarting the next threat of a financial crisis.

The 237-192 House vote broke largely along party lines but attracted more support than in December when no Republicans voted for the House version of the bill. The new legislation combines the House bill with one passed by the Senate last month.

"Never again, never again should Wall Street greed bring such suffering to our country," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., declared.

Mr. Obama said the House passage of the regulations is a victory for everyone who was hurt by what he is calling Wall Street "recklessness and irresponsibility'' that caused the financial meltdown and millions of job losses.

Financial Reform Deal in Doubt
Dems Drop $19B Bank Fee from Finance Reform Bill
Financial Overhaul 101: Limiting Banks' Risky Bets
Byrd's Death Leaves Financial Reform Vote Up in the Air
Financial Reform Winners & Losers

Republicans portrayed the bill as a vast overreach of government power that would do little to prevent future bailouts of failing financial institutions. They complained that it failed to place tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants forced into huge federal bailouts after their questionable lending helped trigger the housing and economic meltdowns.

"This legislation is a clear attack on capital formation in America," said Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking House Republican. "It purports to prevent the next financial crisis, but it does so by vastly expanding the power of the same regulators who failed to stop the last one."

As predictable as the House vote may have been, the Senate was a study in unpredictability.

House and Senate negotiators were forced to reconvene Tuesday to remove a $19 billion tax on large banks and hedge funds, hoping to overcome objections from Sens. Scott Brown, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, all Republicans who voted for the Senate version last month.

Democrats inserted the tax late last week as they assembled a combined House-Senate bill, catching big banks by surprise. Brown was the first to complain and threatened to vote against the bill if the tax remained in the final measure.

Desperate to hold at least 60 votes to beat back procedural hurdles, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and Obama administration officials scrambled to drop the tax and devise another means of financing the bill's cost.

In the end, House and Senate negotiators, voting along party lines, agreed to pay for the bill with $11 billion generated by ending the unpopular Troubled Asset Relief Program - the $700 billion bank bailout created in the fall of 2008 at the height of the financial scare.

They also agreed to increase premium rates paid by commercial banks to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to insure bank deposits. The increase would not affect banks with assets under $10 billion.

On Wednesday, Collins issued a statement saying she was now inclined to vote for the bill.

But Brown remained uncommitted, saying he needed Congress' weeklong July 4 recess to examine the details of the bill. He did credit Dodd for "thinking outside the box" in finding an alternative.

Obama on Wednesday decried Republican opposition to the bill.

In remarks in Racine, Wis., the president took aim at House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio for remarking in a newspaper interview that the financial regulation bill was like using a nuclear weapon on an ant.

"If the Republican leader is that out of touch with the struggles facing the American people, he should come here to Racine and ask people if they think the financial crisis was an ant," Obama said.

The administration and House and Senate lawmakers have worked for more than a year to forge a bill. It has prompted a backlash from the financial industry and a populist cry from Congress to punish banks for the freewheeling practices that contributed to the 2008 meltdown.

Analysts by and large found the legislation tougher than what the Obama administration had recommended, but not as harsh as the industry had feared.

The legislation creates a new federal agency to police consumer lending, set up a warning system for financial risks, force failing firms to liquidate and map new rules for instruments that have been largely uncontrolled.

"This bill has the biggest package of increased consumer protections in the history of America," Frank said.

The legislation requires bank holding companies to spin off their derivatives business into self-funded subsidiaries. Banks would be allowed to keep less risky derivatives operations.

It sets new standards for what banks must keep in reserve to protect against losses, though lobbyists carved out a grandfather exception for banks with assets of less than $15 billion.

The legislation also adopted the Obama administration's so-called "Volcker Rule," named after its chief advocate, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. Commercial banks would not be permitted to trade in speculative investments. But negotiators agreed to let them invest in hedge funds and private equity funds, setting an investment limit of no more than 3 percent of their capital.

AP
Add a Comment See all 35 Comments
by pleazzer July 1, 2010 5:04 PM EDT
This bill is not only bogus but a fake to make everyone feel our so called representatives have done their jobs. Not only did Obama not think the bill would go anywhere but when it did he had to get the aid of Dodd to water it down so he could still count on them backing him. While both parties in or government are CROOKS we are the SHEEP that follow behind and have allowed them to steal and divert all they want. If it is not black water, Halliburton, Freddie/Fannie, Banks, Wall Street and AIG we do not even know what the FED is doing or the balance sheet. When Billions of dollars come up missing if it does not affect each and every one of us personally we turn our head and put our heads in the sand. Well, ENOUGH is ENOUGH isn't it? I think it is about time we stand up for our kids grand kids. Think that is funny, that is about how bad it is getting. These crooks have been stealing from all of us for years and years. Now this so called CHANGE Obama ran on is nothing but a JOKE and a platform he used to get elected. It is time they are held accountable and we keep them from steeling everything we have left, which isn't much if you consider the 13 trillion owed. Here are a few quick facts after the short add is done, just listen and use the gray material we were all given. Do not count on what your REPRESENTATIVE has been telling you, a PONZIE SCHEEM is a PONZIE SCHEEM is a PONZIE SCHEEM.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/ns/msnbc_tv-the_dylan_ratigan_show#37908060
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/ns/msnbc_tv-the_dylan_ratigan_show#37930857
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/ns/msnbc_tv-the_dylan_ratigan_show#37984477
Not to mention the fact we still will have to bail out FREDDIE AND FANNIE.
http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/fannie-freddie-tab taxpayer/2010/06/21/id/362543?s=al&promo_code=A20F-1
Reply to this comment
by johndevinejr July 1, 2010 12:16 PM EDT
The single most important thing that should be done to prevent the kind of gambling by banks now taking place would be to repeal the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

This Act took away the safeguards established by Glass-Steagle Act of 1933, which, among other things required that banks making loans must be responsible for collecting those loans.
One of the major causes of this financial collapse was the sale of derivatives. Banks made loans that they knew would not be repaid, then the packaged them as "Securities" and sold them to unsuspecting investors.
If the law is not repealed, this will happen again.
Reply to this comment
by IndepTex22 July 1, 2010 12:10 PM EDT
"This bill has the biggest package of increased consumer protections in the history of America," Frank said.

Hey Bawney........does it include oversight and new regulations on Freddie and Fanny!?!? I can't hear you Bawney........speak up!?
Reply to this comment
by VoteThemOut2010 July 1, 2010 11:00 AM EDT
"Democrats say they will deal with Fannie and Freddie in separate legislation, most likely during the next Congress."

You can count on that! Too bad they won't have much of a voice in the next congress, so they will probably escape this LIE.
Reply to this comment
by johndevinejr July 1, 2010 12:07 PM EDT
Where were you when the very incompetent and dihonest republican party drove the economy into the ditch. republicans are totally irresponsible and dishonest, catering to the top 15% wealthist Americans, supported by goobers who are so stupid they vote against their own best interests because they are told to by people like Hannity, Limbaugh and Palin.

Every time republican economic policies have been implemented they have caused a recession.
by pleazzer July 1, 2010 5:24 PM EDT
I liked Bill Clinton too. But the truth is this got the biggest boost from his term.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/ns/msnbc_tv-the_dylan_ratigan_show#33909299
by stn_sage July 1, 2010 10:43 AM EDT
The day Congress 'reels in' Wall Street under it's control,
is the day the typical citizen becomes physically immortal!
Reply to this comment
by taxedmore July 1, 2010 10:14 AM EDT
A few well placed excecutions would have done a better and cheaper job of getting Wall Street's and the bankers attention.
Reply to this comment
by stn_sage July 1, 2010 10:45 AM EDT
Your suggestion would end most corruption and it makes a lot of sense,
hence, it will never be done!
by TigBong July 1, 2010 9:39 AM EDT
LOL, rest assured lawmakers were bought off to include loopholes big enough to fly a 747 though!

Lou
www.anon-surfing.at.tc
Reply to this comment
by JustYourAverageReader July 1, 2010 8:00 AM EDT
IMHO...

I have mixed feelings about this type of regulation.
1. It does ultimately mean a greater tax-burden to pay for:
1.1 Refinements of this legislation.
1.2 Implementation.
1.3 Enforcement.
1.4 Challenges to enforcement and subsequent lawsuits to stall and forestall.

2. I think it means the W.S companies will ultimately pass on their costs for being regulated on to us. I think many of us know that these firms will still adapt an find more "creative" ways to take more of our money.

3. Between 1 and 2 above - we will all end up with a higher cost of living.

4. It does further put a tightening chokehold on the meaning of democracy and free enterprise.

5. Therefore I wonder why we should have to pay for bigger government and have the government take care of us and "protect" us in this respect?

Could the fix to this issue be simpler since most of the burden of the mortgage industry collapse rests with many of the home-buyers who were simply not qualified in that they spent beyond their means? Could it be that many ran up credit cards and could not pay? So it seems we the individual must take certain responsibility in this. Let us remember that our president prior to his election and at his inauguration said that it takes each individual American to get this country back on track. I do not think many Americans understood that message. Many still whine and complain and wish for handouts - when handouts are not needed.

1. Do not buy what you cannot afford.
2. If you do run up a credit card ? please do pay it off.
3. Shop for best values/lowest rates in credit cards.
4. Shop for lowest mortgage rates.
Just those actions alone will put sufficient pressure on the banks, etc to be competitive. If that is insufficient, the power of the web and word-of-mouth will send the right message.

I believe in taking care of me and not having the growing government take on that responsibility. However, I will not decline Social Security when I semi-retire at age 70.

Of course all of this is easy to say even as jobs get more scarce. Put pressure on our government to quit exporting jobs and bring jobs back to our country. The pres did promise that he would hold companies accountable for exporting jobs. He has not done that yet. Regardless of your political affiliation - let us all bond together and help our sister and brother Americans by applying extreme pressure to get jobs back. Whining and complaining are insufficient.
Reply to this comment
by genxandy July 1, 2010 9:01 AM EDT
You know why jobs are going overseas to countries like China and India? It's NOT because of our government, but because of us! Simply put, Americans want more in terms of pay than the less fortunate in those countries. They will work for a few dollars a day whereas no person here would. And since Anerican companies want a higher profit margin, it just makes sense that they send it there to be made for cheaper.
by askagain July 1, 2010 12:46 AM EDT
How much is this going to cost us?
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10000 July 1, 2010 4:56 AM EDT
Wall Street doesn't want to pay for its regulation at all. But it is clear it has imposed on the country an entirely unfair burden for the sake of its continued profits.

It's a classic case of insider privilege, aka "Lemon Capitalism". In plain terms, lemon capitalism is public welfare for industry-- taxpayer bailouts in failure, but massive private profits in success.

So, imposing regulation on Wall Street is only the beginning of wisdom. Banks thrived under regulation like Glass-Steagall, kept in place from 1936 until 1999-- and repealed by the 1998-99 GOP charge for bank DEregulation.

But regulation remains so important a factor in proper banking, even the chief of a major Wall Street firm all but begged for regulation in his congressional testimony.

Regulation protects us from demonstrated Wall Street greed, and is simple self-defense, Wall Street should pay for its own regulation.
by spaceatoms July 1, 2010 12:45 AM EDT
Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia has the correct mindset on the issue. Capitalism can't be driven like a horse, it has to run free, hence a free democracy, but with the continuation of globalization and consumption theories over the Constitution rights, another excuse is on the burner. Now, if Wall Street is going even exist, it needs some rules. Then why haven't the past administrations all the way back to the 1700's implemented one, and so why now, its obvious what is going on!
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10000 July 1, 2010 6:44 AM EDT
TELLING HORSES FROM PIGS

spaceatoms said, "Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia has the correct mindset on the issue. Capitalism can't be driven like a horse, it has to run free..."
---

Eric Cantor is a GOP bozo who cannot tell a horse from a pig, but it is more than evident Wall Street bankers are squealing USDA prime-grade pigs.

And despite Cantor's mythology about what he calls the "free market", the market is not free. Nor is the market a divine machine, or a magic black box with an invisible hand.

Instead, capitalism is a system so flawed, even Greenspan and Deutsche Bank's Joseph Ackerman said capitalism cannot regulate itself.

Greenspan, of course, had been a fervent proponent of GOP DEregulation under Rubin and Bush, so his comment is doubly damning for so-called "free market" mavens.

Wall Street is the model example for this century that GOP DEregulation is not only a monstrous and costly failure, but a fraudulent scheme to let corporate America thrive at taxpayer expense.

And it has. "Welfare for industry" is abundant insider privilege and tax breaks for corporate America, while ordinary taxpayers get little help shouldering their own burdens.

The "free market" is, in fact, welfare capitalism for which corporations have vigorously lobbied for decades.
See all 35 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook