ADVERTISEMENT

During the first presidential debate, Romney said some portions of the law made "all the sense in the world," but also said it was rife with unintended consequences. Romney has said in the past he would repeal the law as president and replace it with sensible regulation, but he has yet to offer specifics in terms of his vision for financial regulation.

In his exchange with the president, Romney heaped criticism on two provisions of the sweeping law: one that requires mortgage lenders to deal in "qualified mortgages" that could reasonably be expected to be repaid and another that would give regulators the power to identify which financial firms pose a threat to the financial system.

The rules for what exactly constitutes a qualified mortgage are still being written by regulators, and Romney suggested that that lack of clarity was keeping banks from lending and holding back the housing market.

"It's been two years! We don't know what a qualified mortgage is yet, so banks are reluctant to give loans," he said.

But Frank pointed out that the rules for qualified mortgages are not retroactive, so they should not be holding back lending currently.

"There is no basis for the assertion that the future promulgation of a test that has no retroactivity is in any way retarding current lending," he said.

Instead, Frank said regulators are currently undergoing the "very open process" of seeking public comments and weighing how best to implement the provision. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), another Dodd-Frank creation, has been charged with finalizing the rules, and the provision is set to take effect on Jan. 21.

On the second point, Romney argued that having regulators identify which firms are vital to the financial system effectively codifies "too big to fail," and guarantees those companies would be bailed out in the future.

"This is the biggest kiss given to New York banks I've ever seen," he said. "I wouldn't designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check."

Frank said Romney has it "completely wrong."

Under Dodd-Frank, the government is prohibited from handing out unfettered bailouts like those that occurred during the last financial crisis. Instead, the law creates what is known as "orderly liquidation authority," which gives regulators the tools to step in and wind down a large, significant financial firm if it were facing collapse. Frank contended that the healthcare law may not have had death panels, but Dodd-Frank did — for financial companies.

"If the Secretary of the Treasury were to advance aid to such an institution and allow it to stay in business, he or she would be violating federal law," he said.

Any funds that the government would have to use to facilitate the winding down of a failing institution would eventually be recouped via fees assessed to the rest of the financial industry, as laid out in the law.

He also pointed out that if a financial institution is deemed to be "systemically significant," Dodd-Frank requires it to face a number of heightened regulations to ensure it stays afloat, rebutting Romney's claim that big banks are enjoying a "big kiss" thanks to the law.

"Every regulator we have asked reports that no institution about which such discretion exists has sought to be included, and in fact, most of the institutions in this category have lobbied hard not to be covered," he said. "They understand, as Mitt Romney does not, that these are restrictions on them and not benefits."

The Romney campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.