UPDATE 1-US Senate GOP leader says 'no' to bank reform bill

Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:41am EDT

* GOP Sen McConnell says Democratic bill "must not pass"

* Democratic Sen Durbin sees "fight" ahead over issue (Adds McConnell, Durbin comments, background)

WASHINGTON, April 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate's Republican leader on Tuesday spoke strongly against a Democratic financial regulation reform bill that will soon be introduced in the full Senate for formal debate and a vote.

"We must not pass the financial reform bill that's about to hit the floor. The fact is, this bill wouldn't solve the problems that led to the financial crisis. It would make them worse," said Senator Mitch McConnell in floor remarks.

"The American people have been telling us for nearly two years that any solution must do one thing -- it must put an end to taxpayer funded bailouts for Wall Street banks.

"This bill not only allows for taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street banks; it institutionalizes them," he said.

The Senate is inching toward a final vote, possibly coming this month or next, on a sweeping bill that would impose tighter rules on banks and capital markets in response to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

"It's going to be a fight," said Senator Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the chamber, in floor remarks.

Durbin said the financial firms working to oppose reforms are the same ones that piled up excessive risks and leverage in their "excitement and greed" during the real estate bubble that broke in 2007-2008, precipitating the crisis.

The Senate bill would establish a new financial consumer watchdog to protect Americans from abusive mortgages, deceptive credit cards and other financial products.

"The banks are howling over this notion that we would have an agency that actually looks out for consumers," Durbin said. (Reporting by Kevin Drawbaugh; editing by Patrick Graham)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
Nortman wrote:
There’s some pieces missing from this, you’ve got one side mentioning the bailouts as their pt of contention, then Durbin says that it’s the financial institutions not wanting a regulatory agency looking out for consumers. I do believe the already passed Consumer protection act already will do that. These people need to lay out their points in details not talking points.

Apr 13, 2010 10:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
dunwawry wrote:
While the Consumer Protection Act passed last year imposed some regulations on financial agencies, none address the type of practices that led to the need for the bailouts.

I hope that our legislators can put their partisanship allegiances aside, get the big money lobbies out of the picture, and do what is best for the public. I also share the fantasy that our lawmakers and the media will stop spreading misinformation. No, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Pence, and Fox News, the reform does not allow for endless and permanent bailouts of big banks, and at the taxpayers’ expense. It does however provide for the orderly dismantling of failing large banks, per plans submitted earlier by said bank, and paid for out of monies set aside for that express purpose, obtained from fees (or taxes, if you prefer) collected from banks.

Additional measures should reduce the likelihood of future failures. Anybody with a basic understanding of economics would agree that doing nothing in 2008 would have resulted in an economic catastrophe of proportions not seen since the Great Depression. Even Mr. O’Connell and Mr. recognized that the bailouts were a necessary evil, as they were among the large majority that voted for them. Since we are unable to guarantee we won’t be faced with this same scenario again, we should at least have some strategy in place to deal with it.

Apr 14, 2010 10:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.