Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Weird homes

Home is where the heart is, no matter what unusual form that home may take.  Slideshow 

Photo

The drone wars

The frontlines of America's covert drone program.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

Congress funding fight may delay Wall Street reforms

The Wall Street sign is seen outside the New York Stock Exchange, March 26, 2009. REUTERS/Chip East

The Wall Street sign is seen outside the New York Stock Exchange, March 26, 2009.

Credit: Reuters/Chip East

WASHINGTON | Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:12am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration may have to wait several months to begin enforcing parts of the landmark Dodd-Frank financial reform law because Congress has delayed funds necessary for its implementation.

Requested budget increases for financial regulators were not included in a stopgap spending bill to fund government operations through early December that passed Congress on Wednesday, which could complicate efforts to put the sweeping law in place. The delay could stretch into 2011.

Congress passed the temporary spending bill because it has not completed work on any of the 12 regular bills that fund government operations for the fiscal year that begins October 1.

The squeeze would be particularly tight for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission, the two agencies which will begin oversight of the $615 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.

The CFTC had been expecting a 50 to 70 percent boost to its $169 million budget to hire more than 200 new staff and upgrade its outdated technology to take on its new mandate. A funding shortage would also hurt its ability to audit traders and travel for enforcement cases.

"It is simply pathetic how Congress passes all these prescriptive rules and regulations, and then fails to adequately fund the agency on a continuing basis," said former CFTC enforcement chief Greg Mocek, now a partner at McDermott Will & Emery in Washington.

The SEC was also expecting an increase of 18 percent. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has said the agency needs to hire 800 new employees over time in order to enforce the new law. In testimony obtained by Reuters, she said: "We will need additional resources, and in particular, additional staff."

REPUBLICANS OPPOSED

The Senate passed the temporary spending bill 69-30 on Wednesday evening, and the House of Representatives approved it several hours later by a vote of 228 to 194. President Barack Obama is expected to quickly sign it into law.

Because Congress rarely finishes its spending bills on time, federal agencies routinely must wait weeks or months for money to launch new programs that have already been approved.

Congress plans to take up the funding bills when it returns after the November 2 elections, but lawmakers could opt for further delay if they do not pass all 12 bills before the temporary funding measure expires on December 3.

Republicans, who overwhelmingly opposed the Dodd-Frank law, are poised for significant gains in the elections and could win control of both chambers of Congress.

That could further complicate the funding fight, as they promise sharp spending cuts and could try to block the requested funding increase to slow the law's implementation.

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who heads the subcommittee that sets funding levels for financial regulators, said they should be able to staff up over the next several months even without an increase in their budgets.

"I don't think they are falling behind in terms of hiring people to meet these new responsibilities," Durbin said.

The top Republicans on the banking committees in both the House and the Senate have said they would try to repeal parts of the financial reform law if they won control of Congress.

Republican Senator Richard Shelby, who would chair the Senate Banking Committee, declined to say whether he would oppose an increase in SEC funds to carry out the law.

"We need to see what their plans might be," he told Reuters.

The law aims to prevent a recurrence of the 2007-2009 financial crisis by curbing risky trading by banks and creating a new government watchdog to protect consumers.

The funding fight would not affect several other agencies that will implement the law as they are not dependent on Congress for funding.

The Federal Reserve pays for its operations primarily through investments and fees, while the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency are funded by assessments. The Office of Thrift Supervision, which would be dissolved under Dodd-Frank, also would not be impacted by the funding delay.

(Additional reporting by David Clarke, Christopher Doering, Joanne Allen and Rachelle Younglai; Editing by Paul Simao)

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 (6)
breezinthru wrote:
The original Frank-Dodd bill included a bank tax that would have covered the cost of financial reforms: 19 Billion dollars over ten years.

The banks protested at having to pay for correcting the problem they and their lobbyists created and the Republicans refused to come up with the few votes necessary to pass the bill until the bank tax was removed.

That means we, as taxpayers, were screwed by the banks systematically dismantling banking regulations, were screwed again when we had to bail out the Wall Street and all absorb the other costs of widespread economic failure.

Now WE have to pay to undo the harm the banks have done!

Would you like a little sugar with your tea?

Sep 29, 2010 9:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Trooth wrote:
@breezinthru
The bank tax would have hit all banks, AIG was not a bank. Lehman brothers is an investment firm. There are hundreds and thousands of banks that were responsible that would have gotten punished by the anti-bank sentiment that had absolutely nothing to do with the economic mess.

The Congress has a Democrat majority and has had one for 4 years. They got healthcare through which the Republicans was dead set against. Blaming the Republicans for everything isn’t accurate and it is getting pretty old. This happened on Frank-Dodd’s watch, they are more to blame for the failed policies than anyone else in Congress.

Sep 29, 2010 10:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
breezinthru wrote:
Agreed. I’m quite happy to blame Frank and Dodd. They helped dismantle the regulations in the first place. I’m not buying Dodd’s 11th hour efforts to make himself over as a champion of the American citizens.

Nonetheless, it was the Republicans who demanded that the bank tax be dropped.

The tax could have been tailored to be primarily borne by investment banks. It would do no good to hit AIG, since the taxpayers are heavily invested in AIG (whether we like it or not), we would in effect end up bearing AIG’s cost anyway.

I still think that the taxpayers have been beaten up badly enough by Wall Street over the past couple years and we should not be expected to pay for re-regulating Wall Street.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if Wall Street simply apologized for the problems their excesses caused while insisting upon carrying the cost of re-regulation?

I see the situation in the same light as BP and the oil spill. The people who caused the problem should bear the cost of correcting the problem.

Sep 29, 2010 10:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.