By Brady Dennis and Jia Lynn Yang Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 30, 2010; 7:08 PM

• Reference: Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (111 HR 4173)

The House on Wednesday easily approved far-reaching new financial regulations, but Senate leaders postponed a similar vote on the bill, preventing the landmark legislation from reaching President Obama’s desk until at least mid-July.

House members voted 237-192 just before 7 p.m. to approve the sweeping 2,300-page bill, which among other things would create an independent consumer bureau within the Federal Reserve to protect borrowers from lending abuses, establish oversight of the vast derivatives market and enable the government to wind down large, failing firms.

Republicans continued to insist that the new rules would perpetuates the potential for federal bailouts and hinder access to credit.

“The bad and the ugly far outweigh” the good elements of the bill, said Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala). “In total, this bill is a massive intrusion of the federal government into the lives of every American.”

The relatively smooth vote in the House stood in contrast to the last-minute wrangling that continues to cause anxiety among Senate Democrats trying to secure final passage of the bill in that chamber.

The legislation hit an unexpected speedbump Tuesday when a handful of centrist Republicans, whose votes Democrats need to overcome procedural roadblocks, balked at a $19 billion bank fee added late in negotiations to offset the cost of the bill. Sen. Scott Brown (D-Mass.), one of four Republicans who voted for the Senate’s earlier version of the overhaul last month, withdrew his support because of the provision.

Democratic leaders reopened the House-Senate conference process for two hours late Tuesday to propose another way to make the bill budget neutral. Lawmakers originally wanted to impose a fee on banks with more than $50 billion in assets and hedge funds with more than $10 billion in assets.

Instead, lawmakers will offset costs by ending the Troubled Assets Relief Program early and shifting money from that program to the financial regulatory bill. The conference also approved a measure raising premiums paid by banks to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

The changes seemed to satisfy at least one Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, who said Wednesday she was inclined to support the final bill. Democrats are also counting on support from GOP senators Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Charles Grassley (Iowa), both of whom previously backed the legislation. They also are hoping to win the support of Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who previously opposed the bill but could support a motion allowing a final vote to go forward.

Brown, who won other concessions in the legislation and whose persistent wavering angered Democratic leaders, remained the wild card Wednesday, saying he hadn’t decided whether to support the final bill.

“I appreciate the conference committee revisiting the Wall Street reform bill and removing the $19 billion bank tax,” he said in a statement. “Over the July recess, I will continue to review this important bill. I remain committed to putting in place safeguards to prevent another financial meltdown, ensure that consumers are protected, and that this bill is paid for without new taxes.”

The uncertainty over key Republican votes, coupled with the death this week of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), prompted Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to delay the Senate vote until after the July 4 recess. “It was a confluence of events,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. He said Reid likely will push for a final vote the week of July 12.

Senate banking committee chairman Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) pleaded with colleagues Wednesday to allow a final vote on the bill, saying the mostly civil and open debate over new financial rules shouldn’t conclude with the partisan rancor that marked the struggle over healthcare.

“When someone tells me there’s one provision or two provisions they don’t like, and as a result of that they’re going to vote against everything — that I don’t understand, quite frankly,” Dodd said on the Senate floor. “I don’t know what else I could have done to make this more inclusive … to respond to the concerns my colleagues have raised … There ought to be some value to the process we’ve gone through.”