House, Senate seal deal on FinReg - biggest rewrite of Wall Street rules since Great Depression

[jefferson_dem]

House, Senate seal deal on financial reform
Bill represents biggest rewrite of Wall Street rules since Great Depression



WASHINGTON - House and Senate negotiators have completed a sweeping overhaul of banking regulations and aim to send it to President Barack Obama by July 4.

Lawmakers finished assembling the bill early Friday out of versions passed earlier by the House and Senate. The bill represents the most ambitious rewrite of Wall Street rules since the Great Depression.

The legislation, a priority of the president, sets up a warning system for financial risks and creates a consumer financial protection bureau to police lending. It forces large failing firms to liquidate and sets new rules for financial instruments that have been largely unregulated.

It would assess a fee on large banks and hedge funds to pay for the $19 billion costs of the bill.

The House and Senate are expected to vote on the final bill next week.

The White House also wanted the agreement in place in time for Obama's meeting with leaders from the Group of 20 nations this weekend in Toronto. The G-20 is working on regulatory regimes and the administration hoped the president could attend with a template in hand

As they worked toward the home stretch early Friday, negotiators softened a Wall Street restriction that would force large bank holding companies to spin off their lucrative derivatives business.

<SNIP>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37908345/ns/business-us_business/?ocid=twitter

[doc03]

1. Won't the Republicons just say no on this too? n/t

[drm604]

2. If I'm understanding the article correctly, it's already gotten past that part.

It's ready to go to Obama for his signature.

If I'm mistaken, correct me, but I think that's where it is.

[unblock]

3. no, both the house and senate still need to vote on the final bill

whenever the house and senate pass similar but slightly different bills, and a committee with members from both chambers gets together and irons out the differences, creating a third version of the bill.

both chambers then have to pass the third version as if it were a brand new bill. in practice, though, this is usually a formality as the coalitions are set and if the conference committee knows what it's doing, there were no changes to break the winning coalitions.

one notable exception was the health care bill, where they decided not to create a third version and stick with the senate version, thereby avoiding a revote in the senate, and then pass the "fixes" as a separate measure.

[drm604]

4. The article gives the impression that they've reached a deal which is acceptable to both parties.

Whether that's true or not remains to be seen.

[unblock]

6. deal, yes; vote, no.

in general, the deal may be acceptable to just enough to lead to passage.

but a bill rarely emerges from conference committee and then fails to win final passage.

[Inuca]

7. I don't know about a deal

the vote of of conference was strictly along party lines. Hopefully the Rs that votes yes earlier (Maine + Brown?) will continue to do so.

[karynnj]

5. Nope it needs a final vote in both Houses

The bill that passes each House has to be exactly the same. At this point as they did the conference, they have monitored that they still had key votes.

[vaberella]

8. I hope so. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

9. "Yes we are!" nt

[RBInMaine]

10. Go ahead RePUKES! Say "NO" and make my day! We'll fucking CRUSH you in November.

[amborin]

11. the "reform" bill leavest the big risks intact....the banksters are relieved

[paulk]

13. yup

"negotiators softened a Wall Street restriction that would force large bank holding companies to spin off their lucrative derivatives business."



it's just another dog and pony show

[AlinPA]

12. Filibuster by the rpigs?