Elizabeth Warren Strikes Back Against New GOP Efforts to Weaken Dodd-Frank

The senator, joined by Obama allies and architects of the financial regulations, are slamming the House’s proposed budget.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) listens to testimony from witnesses during a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on 'Mitigating Systemic Risk Through Wall Street Reforms,' on Capitol Hill, July 11, 2013 in Washington, D.C.
Eric Garcia
Add to Briefcase
Eric Garcia
March 18, 2015, 8:07 a.m.

The White House, former Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials, and Sen. Eliza­beth War­ren are cri­ti­ciz­ing at­tempts to weak­en the Dodd-Frank fin­an­cial-re­form law in House Re­pub­lic­ans’ pro­posed budget, set­ting the stage for a policy fight that’s only just be­gin­ning.

The budget, re­leased on Tues­day, would put the Con­sumer Fin­an­cial Pro­tec­tion Bur­eau un­der con­gres­sion­al ap­pro­pri­ation, which crit­ics say could res­ult in few­er funds for the bur­eau, since Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress would con­trol how much money it re­ceives.

War­ren, a Demo­crat from Mas­sachu­setts who served as an as­sist­ant in set­ting up the Con­sumer Fin­an­cial Pro­tec­tion Bur­eau be­fore she ran for Sen­ate, said the House GOP budget could com­prom­ise the agency’s in­de­pend­ence.

“The con­sumer agency has put in place strong rules to pro­tect con­sumers from tricks and traps in fin­an­cial products,” War­ren said in a state­ment to Na­tion­al Journ­al Tues­day night. “The big banks don’t like that—and that’s the num­ber one reas­on the CFPB should re­main free of polit­ic­al in­flu­ence.”

The White House joined War­ren in its cri­ti­cism, say­ing that put­ting the bur­eau un­der the ap­pro­pri­ation of Con­gress would lim­it the agency. The ad­min­is­tra­tion also cri­ti­cized the Re­pub­lic­ans budget pro­pos­al’s “cre­at­ive-ac­count­ing sav­ings” that shift fund­ing for the agency to ap­pro­pri­ations.

“In ad­di­tion, it risks re­turn­ing us to the days of ‘too big to fail,’ pro­tect­ing Wall Street firms from im­port­ant reg­u­lat­ory safe­guards and put­ting or­din­ary cit­izens and the eco­nomy at risk,” the White House said in a fact sheet Tues­day even­ing.

War­ren and the White House’s united front against the Re­pub­lic­an pro­pos­al once again shows the com­plex re­la­tion­ship the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has with the sen­at­or, a pro­gress­ive fa­vor­ite. Obama and War­ren are at odds about parts of the pro­posed Trans-Pa­cific Part­ner­ship, but both were sup­port­ive of fin­an­cial re­form on Wall Street.

The House budget also would scrap what’s known as the Or­derly Li­quid­a­tion Au­thor­ity, a pro­vi­sion that gives the Fed­er­al De­pos­it In­sur­ance Cor­por­a­tion, the in­de­pend­ent agency cre­ated dur­ing the Great De­pres­sion meant to main­tain sta­bil­ity of the U.S. fin­an­cial sys­tem, the power to as­sume op­er­a­tion­al and fin­an­cial con­trol of a troubled fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tion con­sidered sys­tem­ic­ally im­port­ant. In that role, it has the re­spons­ib­il­ity to merge, sell, and man­age the in­sti­tu­tion’s as­sets, as well provide money ne­ces­sary to bring an or­derly end to the troubled in­sti­tu­tion.

Re­pub­lic­ans say cut­ting this pro­vi­sion pre­vents tax­pay­ers from be­ing on the hook for bail­outs of fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions be­hav­ing badly. But the White House struck back on Tues­day, say­ing, while Re­pub­lic­ans claim the budget does not rely on gim­micks or “cre­at­ive-ac­count­ing tricks,” the sav­ings made by get­ting rid of the pro­vi­sion would be both.

“[The Or­derly Li­quid­a­tion Au­thor­ity] was en­acted to en­sure tax­pay­er funds are nev­er again used to bail out ‘too big to fail’ fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions,” the White House fact sheet said.

Mi­chael Barr, a law pro­fess­or at the Uni­versity of Michigan who served as the Treas­ury De­part­ment’s as­sist­ant sec­ret­ary for fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions, said re­mov­ing the Or­derly Li­quid­a­tion Au­thor­ity would re­in­force the concept of too-big-to-fail fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions.

“One of the key fea­tures is giv­ing the gov­ern­ment the abil­ity to wind down a firm like Leh­man Broth­ers if it gets in trouble,” he said, re­fer­ring to one of the in­sti­tu­tions whose col­lapse was part of the 2008 fin­an­cial crisis.

Re­pub­lic­ans have pre­vi­ously used spend­ing bills and oth­er must-sign le­gis­la­tion to weak­en parts of Dodd-Frank, know­ing it would be dif­fi­cult for Demo­crats to vote against them. But in this case, the White House and pro­gress­ive Demo­crats like War­ren are draw­ing lines in the sand, vow­ing to stop ma­jor parts of Dodd-Frank from be­ing weakened or re­pealed.

What We're Following See More »
APPEALS COURT RULED TRUMP EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY
Supreme Court Takes Up Trump Travel Ban
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Supreme Court announced "that it would consider a challenge to President Trump’s latest effort to limit travel from countries said to pose a threat to the nation’s security." The case concerns Trump's most recent attempt to make good on a campaign promise "tainted by religious animus" and only questionably justified by national security concerns. The decision to take the case, called Trump v. Hawaii, comes almost exactly a year after Trump issued the first travel ban. The ban under consideration affects Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea.

Source:
FACES STIFF OPPOSITION FROM BOTH PARTIES
Trump Proposes 95 Percent Cut To Office of Drug Control Budget
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

Trump wants to move the two grants, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas grant and the Drug Free Communities Act, to the Justice and Health and Human Services departments, respectively. This would result in a $300 million plus reduction in funding, about 95 percent of the cost of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "'I’m baffled at the idea of cutting the office or reducing it significantly and taking away its programs in the middle of an epidemic,'" said Regina LaBelle, who served as ONDCP chief of staff during the Obama administration. This is the second time the Trump Administration has proposed gutting the agency.

Source:
HOPES A DEAL CAN GET DONE
Schumer Meeting with Trump for Last-Ditch Meeting
10 hours ago
THE LATEST
BLURRY LINE BETWEEN BUSINESS/PRESIDENCY
New CREW Report Identifies 500 Conflicts of Interest in Trump’s First Year
11 hours ago
THE DETAILS

A new report assembled by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has identified more than 500 potential conflicts of interest in President Trump's first year. First, the report notes, Trump spent 122 days at his properties during his first year. He has been accompanied by 70 federal officials and 30 members of Congress. "Second, far from this signaled access to power being an empty promise, those who patronize President Trump’s businesses have, in fact, gained access to the president and his inner circle." Lastly, about 40 special interest groups and 11 foreign governments have held events at Trump properties.

Source:
BY SCALISE
House Told to “Stay Flexible”
12 hours ago
THE DETAILS
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login