Congress finalized sweeping financial overhaul legislation on Thursday, handing President Obama a major legislative victory heading into the midterm elections.
Obama intends to sign the legislation next week, while Republicans promised to work for its repeal if they retake Congress.
The Senate voted 60-39 in support of the 2,315-page bill after
ending debate earlier in the day. The House already passed the measure,
which will become law nearly two years after the worst financial crisis
since the Great Depression.
Democrats hailed the effort as a crackdown on the worst excesses of
Wall Street, which forced Congress late in 2008 to pass a $700 billion
taxpayer-funded bailout. The crisis helped push the economy into a deep
recession that claimed millions of U.S. jobs and led to double-digit
House and Senate Republicans criticized the legislation as a government overreach.
“I think it ought to be repealed,” House Minority Leader John BoehnerJohn Boehner6 reasons 'TrumpCare' flatlined Paul Ryan sells out conservatives with healthcare surrender Matt Schlapp: 5 lessons Trump, Ryan must learn from healthcare debate MORE (R-Ohio) said.
Republican Sens. Richard Shelby (Ala.), John ThuneJohn ThuneSenators move to bolster cyber resources for small businesses Optimism rising for infrastructure deal McConnell: ObamaCare 'status quo' will stay in place moving forward MORE (S.D.) and George
LeMieux (Fla.) quickly echoed BoehnerJohn Boehner6 reasons 'TrumpCare' flatlined Paul Ryan sells out conservatives with healthcare surrender Matt Schlapp: 5 lessons Trump, Ryan must learn from healthcare debate MORE’s sentiments. “If you vote
against it, you know it should be repealed,” Shelby said.
The final vote came on a day when the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) announced a $550 million settlement with Goldman
Sachs, the country’s most storied bank, stemming from fraud
allegations. The charges were related to investments tied to the
housing market that touched off the crisis. Goldman acknowledged
The legislation passed the Senate with the support of only three
Republicans: Sens. Susan CollinsSusan CollinsOvernight Healthcare: Ryan says key ObamaCare payments will continue during House lawsuit Pence breaks tie, allowing Senate to revoke Obama order on abortion provider funding Pence casts tiebreaking Senate procedural vote on funding for abortion providers MORE (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and
Scott Brown (Mass.). Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.) was the lone Democrat
opposed to the measure, which he said was not tough enough on the
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) shepherded
the measure, dubbed the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act,” through Congress during the last year.
The bill sets up a new consumer protection regulator to oversee
products such as home loans and credit cards; boosts regulation of the
$600 trillion derivatives market; creates a new council of regulators
to assess risks across the financial system; and sets up a new system
for failing financial firms.
After more than a year of lobbying, here is how some of the biggest interest groups made out:
Consumer advocates: Advocacy groups including the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and Consumer Federation of America won big with the creation of a new consumer protection agency. They pushed back against financial industry lobbyists who called on lawmakers to shelve the bureau during months of stalled private talks in the Senate. There were repeated efforts to limit the power and scope of the consumer protection office, but the new bureau largely resembles its original vision.
Auto dealers: The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) waged a massive grassroots and lobbying campaign to win an exemption from the new consumer protection regulator. They faced frequent public criticism from the White House, Defense Department and consumer advocates, but overcame the opposition at nearly every stage of the debate. Auto dealers argued they had nothing to do with the financial crisis. A wide range of Democrats and Republicans listened and agreed.
Big-box retailers and small merchants: Merchant and retailer groups seized on the regulatory debate to push a long-sought provision clamping down on the “interchange fees” they pay to banks and credit unions that issue debit and credit cards. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) backed the provision in the Senate that instructs the Federal Reserve to require “reasonable and proportional” fees on debit cards. The specifics are left up to new federal rules, but the merchant and retailer groups overcame opposition from bank and credit union lobbyists.
Community banks: Thousands of small banks lobbied hard for relief from the consumer protection office and for preserving regulation by the Federal Reserve. The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) was a vocal lobbying force throughout the debate. Small banks didn’t win all of their battles, however. They argue they will still be hurt by the “interchange fee” regulations, even though the bill aims to exempt banks with $10 billion or less in assets.
Credit unions: Credit union groups fought and won many
similar battles as small banks. The National Association of Federal
Credit Unions (NAFCU) and Credit Union National Association (CUNA)
activated massive grassroots efforts to limit the impact on credit
unions of many of the bill’s provisions. Still, they lost in their
battle against the “interchange fee” measure.
Big banks: Big banks were in the crosshairs ever since the financial crisis erupted and Congress was forced to pass the $700 billion bailout. The measure will lead to higher capital standards, new restrictions on a derivatives market dominated by big banks and new regulations of home loans and credit cards.
But lawmakers stopped short at numerous points of even more far-reaching provisions. A measure to draw a fixed cap on the size of banks failed in the Senate. Calls to reinstate the 1933 Glass-Steagall wall between investment and commercial banking never made much headway. A controversial provision to require banks to spin off their derivatives trading was scaled back late in the negotiations to require a push-out of only the riskiest derivatives. The “Volcker rule” provision to limit proprietary trading and sponsorship of hedge funds and private equity shops was also somewhat limited. There was a small allowance for banks to invest capital in hedge funds and private equity shops.
Goldman Sachs: Goldman received the brunt of the public outrage and criticism in 2010 after the SEC alleged the firm fraudulently misled investors about products tied to the sub-prime housing market. The allegations pushed Democratic senators, notably Carl LevinCarl LevinSenate about to enter 'nuclear option' death spiral Devin Nunes has jeopardized the oversight role of Congress Ted Cruz wants to destroy the Senate as we know it MORE (Mich.) and Jeff MerkleyJeff MerkleyDem senator: Credibility of House Russia probe ‘in shreds’ The Hill’s Whip List: 2 Dems for, 34 against Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Dem senator accuses Trump of 'dangerous tilt towards authoritarianism' MORE (Ore.), to push for stronger restrictions on big banks. The firm was constantly criticized in headlines. The settlement announced on Thursday requires the firm to pay $250 million to harmed investors and $300 million to the Treasury Department. The firm acknowledged that it made mistakes. Still, there are some provisions in the financial bill that would allow Goldman to convert away from being a bank holding company and thereby possibly face less onerous regulations.
Derivatives clearinghouses and exchanges: In the effort to bring transparency to the multitrillion-dollar derivatives market, lawmakers included requirements to shift many trades in the complicated products to third-party middlemen. Those provisions will likely be a boon to exchanges, clearinghouses and swap execution facilities, the complicated plumbing of the financial world.