Senator Shelby just announced that Republicans will let Financial Reform come to the floor for debate.
I Think Ezra Klein was on to something about holding all night sessions through the weekend:
"If the Democrats are serious about forcing the Republicans to really filibuster the bill, this is the right week for it: The Kentucky Derby starts Friday, and Kentucky's senior senator, Mitch McConnell, would surely prefer to attend. Given that his members are already talking about breaking ranks, McConnell may find himself eager to get this kabuki dance over with a little bit early."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/...
POLITICO Breaking News:
-----------------------------------------------------
Bipartisan negotiations on a Wall Street reform bill have broken down, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) announced Wednesday. But a Shelby press release hints that Republicans could decide to allow debate on the bill to go forward anyway, despite blocking it three times. Shelby says he now defers to GOP senators’ “individual judgments” as to whether to allow debate to proceed.
Translation: Several Republicans were about to change their votes so here's a try at giving obstructionist Republicans a way to save face...
Perhaps it was also the threat from Harry Reid of keeping them there all night that changed their minds. Why would Republicans want to give up the comfort of their warm beds in "C Street House" just to filibuster a bill that they know will pass anyway?
From AP:
WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans are prepared to end their stalling tactics on new banking regulations and will attempt to change the bill on the Senate floor, Republican officials said.
Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking committee, said he has assurances that Democrats will adjust his banking regulation bill to address concerns that it perpetuates bailouts.
The concession sets the stage for Republicans to withdraw objections that have stalled the bill in the Senate.
MSNBC:
Republicans have dropped complaints that Senate Democrats' financial overhaul bill would perpetuate bailouts, and are shifting their criticism to a consumer protection provision that they say goes too far.
The change came after Shelby said he and the committee's chairman, Sen. Christopher Dodd, had agreed to tighten language in the bill giving regulatory agencies some flexibility to assist banks.
"The first thing we had to ensure with this bill is that it didn't leave taxpayers on the hook for any more Wall Street bailouts," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday. "I raised the alarm on that issue, and the two parties have been looking into it."
But McConnell and other Republican critics are now focusing their objections on Dodd's proposal to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve. The agency would have power to police transactions between institutions that provide financial services and their customers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
Now why would Ben Nelson of Nebraska who has voted against debate and for filibuster and who has expressed his objection to the bill in general, even be allowed to have a vote on this reform and regulation bill... since he owns millions of dollars worth of Berkshire Hathaway? Isn't there a direct conflict of interest?
Nelson has been critical of a provision in the legislation that places restrictions on derivatives, the exotic securities blamed for helping precipitate the financial crisis in 2008. The Democratic bill would require participants in derivatives contracts, even existing ones, to post collateral to back up the bets.
Among those who would have to put up more money would be firms such as Berkshire Hathaway, the Nebraska company led by billionaire Warren Buffett. Nelson said he objected to the bill because it would impose retroactive conditions on existing contracts.
Doesn't look like the Democrats have given up anything...according to TPM:
"We have been unable, however, to make any meaningful progress on other important components of the legislation. It is now my belief that further negotiations will not produce additional results," Shelby wrote.
Shelby said he had gotten assurances from Dodd that "he will address a number of concerns" about ending taxpayer-funded bailouts. Those assurances, however, aren't enough for Shelby to support bringing the bill to the floor.
Sen. Chris Dodd released a statement after the Republicans announced they're willing to move forward:
"For the last year and a half, I have worked with Senator Shelby as I crafted the bill to reform Wall Street. They have been productive talks, but I cannot agree to his desire to weaken consumer protections given the enormous abuses we have seen."
"Our nation has been through so much. We've seen 8.5 million jobs lost, double digit unemployment, 7 million homes lost to foreclosure, and trillions of dollars of wealth lost."
"Reforming Wall Street and protecting our nation from another economic crisis is one of the most serious issues this Senate has faced in my 30 years serving in this body."
"It is time for this debate to begin. And it must be a serious, vigorous debate. It is time for the Senate to operate as the Senate should. Members must be allowed to offer amendments. We must allow many voices to be heard as we work to create a sound foundation for our nation's future economic strength."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/...