2015: Schweikert Voted Against Amending Dodd-Frank's Date On Which Consolidated Assets Are Determined For Certain Purposes As Part Of A Five Year Transportation Reauthorization. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against amending Dodd-Frank's date when consolidate asserts are determined for certain purposes as part of a five year transportation reauthorization. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation "amend[ed] the 2010 Dodd-Frank law to adjust the date on which consolidated assets are determined for purposes of exempting certain instruments of smaller financial institutions from capital deductions. Specifically, it permits bank holding companies to continue counting hybrid capital instruments issued before May 19, 2010, as Tier 1 capital so long as the company held less than $15 billion in assets as of either Dec. 31, 2009, or March 31, 2010. In their statement of managers, conferees say the provision would provide regulatory relief for certain smaller bank holding companies." The underlying legislation would have "reauthorize[d] federal-aid highway and transit programs for five years, through fiscal 2020, at increased levels." The vote was on the conference report. The House approved the legislation by a vote of 359 to 65. The Senate later passed the legislation and the president later signed the legislation. [House Vote 673, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 22]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Disapprove The Cardin-Lugar Rule, Which Required That Oil, Gas And Mineral Extraction Public Companies Publish Payments To Foreign Countries Where They Operate. In February 2017, Schweikert voted for disapproving the Cardin-Lugar Rule via the Congressional Review Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This resolution disapproves the rule issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on July 27, 2016, known as the Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers Rule, that requires resource extraction issuers to provide detailed, public reporting of all payments to governments that equal or exceed $100,000 per project annually." The vote was on the legislation. The House agreed to the legislation by a vote of 235 to 187. The Senate then passed the resolution, which the president later signed the into law. [House Vote 72, 2/1/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/17; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 41]
The SEC Created A Rule In June 2016 That Required "Foreign And Domestic Companies Listed On U.S. Stock Exchanges And Involved In Oil, Gas And Mineral Resource Extraction Must Publish The Project-Level Payments They Make To Foreign Countries In Which They Operate." According to a press release from Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), "The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled Monday that all foreign and domestic companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges and involved in oil, gas and mineral resource extraction must publish the project-level payments they make to foreign countries in which they operate. The rule implements Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a provision authored by U.S. Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) in 2010. America led the international community in promoting transparency in the extractive industry by adopting Cardin-Lugar six years ago, but delays by the SEC and a spurious court challenge by the oil and gas industry have allowed other countries to surpass the United States." [Sen. Cardin Press Release, 6/27/16]
Purpose Of The Rule Was In Part To Fight Global Corruption. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (PL 111-203) directs the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to develop rules that require companies that extract oil, natural gas or other minerals and that are registered in the United States to disclose certain payments to foreign governments or to the U.S. federal government. The provision in the law was meant 'to support global efforts to improve the transparency of payments made in the extractive industries in order to combat global corruption and promote accountability.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/17]
Republican Rule Opponents Argue, In Part, That The Rule May Put Resource Extraction Issuers (REIs) At Risk By Forcing Disclosure Of Information That The Host Nation Prohibits. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the resolution, primarily Republicans, argue that the rule puts REIs at risk because it may require them to disclose information that the host nation of their project prohibits from disclosure or is commercially sensitive. They argue that oil and natural gas companies in the U.S. are already leading the push for transparency in payments to foreign governments and do not require an inflexible rule to force them to do so. They also point to the extractive industries transparency initiative, a voluntary international transparency program, as a better, more realistic alternative to the rule." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/17]
Rule Was In Part Designed To Combat Bribery. According to The Atlantic, "The final bill included a measure, co-sponsored by Senators Ben Cardin and Richard Lugar, requiring that all oil, gas, and mineral companies on the U.S. stock exchange disclose any payments they make to foreign governments for licenses or permits for development. It aimed to curb bribery and give poor countries rich in resources a chance to hold their governments and resource-extraction companies accountable. After years of delay, on June 27, 2016, the Securities Exchange Commission published a final version of the rule that enforces Cardin-Lugar. It was set to go into effect in 2018." [The Atlantic, 2/1/17]
The Hill: Senate Votes To Repeal Transparency Rule For Oil Companies. According to The Hill, "Senate votes to repeal transparency rule for oil companies. The Senate voted strictly along party lines Friday morning to repeal a regulation requiring disclosures for the payments that energy companies make to foreign governments. The measure passed 52-47 in a pre-dawn vote. The Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) foreign payments rule was mandated by a key provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill and was meant to reduce corruption in resource-rich countries by detailing the royalties and other payments that oil, natural gas, coal and mineral companies make to governments." [The Hill, 2/3/17]
NOTE TO RESEARCHER. Find companies that would have been subject to this rule that the target is a) invested in b) has received campaign donations from. [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/17]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Block An SEC Rule On Conflict Minerals, Which Requires Companies To Disclose In Good Faith The Minerals Their Use Of Conflict Minerals, Which Are Certain Minerals From Countries Long Set In Civil Wars. In July 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] funds from being used to enforce a Securities and Exchange Commission rule pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act relating to 'conflict minerals.'" The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 Financial Services appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 236 to 188. The underlying bill was later passed by the House, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 384, 7/7/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/7/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1253; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
Conflict Minerals Are Certain Minerals Extracted From The Congo And Certain Surrounding Countries That Have Long Been In Civil War; The Minerals are Often Used In Certain Devices Or Manufacturing Techniques, Such As Being Part Of The iPhone. According to the New York Times, "The Tulane study is just one example of a growing business opportunity for consultants, auditors, lawyers and software firms looking to cash in on a complex provision in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law that requires companies to disclose their use of conflict minerals 'necessary to the functionality or production' of products they make or contract out for manufacturing. Conflict minerals are tantalum, tungsten, tin or gold mined from ore, and extracted in Congo or nine surrounding countries, including Angola, Rwanda and Sudan. Minerals from the countries, long mired in civil war, violence, acts of rape and the use of child soldiers, appear in a variety of products. Tantalum, for example, allows Apple's iPhone to maintain an electrical charge. Tungsten permits the filaments in General Electric light bulbs to get hot enough to emit a bright light without melting, and tin gives Party City's My Little Pony balloons a special sheen. And gold, of course, is a staple of fine jewelry." [New York Times, 9/7/16]
Rule Requires Companies To Conduct, In Good Faith, A "Reasonable Country Of Origin Inquiry" For Certain Minerals, But The Terms Are Described As Subjective While Punishable By Civil Penalties. According to the New York Times, "The rule requires companies to conduct a 'reasonable country of origin inquiry' in 'good faith' to ferret out conflict minerals in a company's final products. But the rule doesn't define those subjective terms, leaving room for interpretation. At the end of May, companies filed their annual disclosures for the second consecutive year. The rule calls for civil penalties against any company knowingly making a false or misleading statement. PricewaterhouseCoopers noted that 'outside of the legal implications of not complying, issuers may also face pressure from human rights activists, nongovernmental organizations, consumer or other market forces to prove they are conflict-free.'" [New York Times, 9/7/16]
The Goal Of The Rule Is To In Part To Defund Militias Responsible For Significant Violence. According to the New York Times, "The 356-page disclosure rule is tied to State Department efforts to stamp out militias that are financed by minerals; such militias helped lead to 5.4 million deaths from 1998 to 2006 in Congo alone." [New York Times, 9/7/16]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Exempt Certain Entities From Certain Provisions Of The Dodd-Frank Act. In September 2014, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would exempt certain end users of derivatives from margin calls and allow certain banks that own collateralized loan obligations to retain those investments. It also would exempt certain entities from Securities and Exchange Commission registration requirements." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 320 to 102. [House Vote 501, 9/16/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/16/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5405]
2018: Schweikert Voted To Raise The Threshold Set By Dodd-Frank Where A Bank Is Deemed Large Enough That If It Failed, It Would Cause Significant Economic Harm. In May 2018, Schweikert voted for a bill that increased the asset threshold for financial institutions to $250 billion for when they were subject to more stringent financial regulations. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would apply the more stringent bank regulation provisions of the 2010 financial overhaul to banks with $250 billion in assets, instead of those with at least $50 billion in assets. It would also allow banks with less than $10 billion in assets to trade with depositors' money. The bill would lift the threshold for disclosure requirements to $10 million for employee-owned securities and would allow venture capital funds to have up to 250 investors and be exempt from certain registering requirements. It would provide consumers with the right to request a 'security freeze' on their credit reports, which would prohibit a consumer reporting agency from releasing information from the consumer's credit report without express authorization. It would define a 'qualified mortgage' as any residential mortgage loan held by a bank, removing the requirement that for a 'qualified mortgage,' a bank must determine that a mortgage recipient has the ability to repay." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 258 to 159. The bill was later signed into law by the president. [House Vote 216, 5/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/18; Congressional Actions, S. 2155]
The Legislation Divided Democrats. According to the AP, "The Republican-led legislation, pushed by Wall Street banks as well as regional banks and smaller institutions, garnered some votes from House Democrats. Similarly, the bill splintered Democrats into two camps when the Senate voted 67-31 to approve it in March." [Associated Press via the PBS, 5/22/18]
The Bill Was Ostensibly Aimed At Helping Small Banks. According to the AP, "The legislation is aimed at especially helping small and medium-sized banks, including community banks and credit unions. But critics argue that the likelihood of future taxpayer bailouts will be greater once it becomes law. They point to increases in banks' lending and profits since Dodd-Frank's enactment in 2010 as debunking the assertion that excessive regulation of the banking industry is stifling growth." [Associated Press via the PBS, 5/22/18]
Legislation Increased The Threshold For Increased Regulation Five Times Higher Than Dodd-Frank Created; Banks That Would No Longer Be Subject Included BB&T Corp., SunTrust Banks, Fifth Third Bancorp and American Express. According to the AP, "The bill makes a fivefold increase, to $250 billion, in the level of assets at which banks are deemed to pose a potential threat if they fail. The change would ease regulations and oversight on more than two dozen financial institutions, including BB&T Corp., SunTrust Banks, Fifth Third Bancorp and American Express." [Associated Press via the PBS, 5/22/18]
Bank's Net Income Increased 27.5 Percent Since 2017. According to the AP, "U.S. banks' net income climbed to $56 billion in the January-March quarter, a 27.5 percent increase from a year earlier, as profits were revved up by the corporate tax cuts enacted late last year, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. reported Tuesday." [Associated Press via the PBS, 5/22/18]
Bill Also Exempted Certain Banks And Credit Unions From Being Forced To Report Certain Mortgage Loan Data. According to the AP, "The legislation also exempts certain banks and credit unions from requirements to report some mortgage loan data. The exempted data includes the age of a loan applicant, credit score, total loan costs and interest rate. Critics say that would make it easier for banks to discriminate against minorities seeking home mortgages and go undetected." [Associated Press via the PBS, 5/22/18]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Significantly Reformed Dodd-Frank. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Would Have Repealed Significant Portions Of Dodd-Frank. In June 2017, Schweikert voted for the Financial Choice Act. According to NPR, "House Republicans voted Thursday to deliver on their promise to repeal Dodd-Frank --- the massive set of Wall Street regulations President Barack Obama signed into law after the 2008 financial crisis. In a near party-line vote, the House approved a bill, dubbed the Financial Choice Act, which scales back or eliminates many of the post-crisis banking rules." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 233 to 186. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 299, 6/8/17; NPR, 6/8/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 10]
Dodd-Frank Was Enacted As A Result Of The Great Recession; Legislation Would Reduce Scrutiny For Big Banks. According to the Washington Post, "The Republican-led House on Thursday voted to free Wall Street from many of the constraints put in place after the 2008 financial crisis, the opening salvo in what is likely to be a protracted battle over deregulation of the powerful banking industry. Big banks, from Goldman Sachs to Bank of America, would face less scrutiny, and other large financial institutions, such as insurance giant MetLife, could escape tougher rules allaltogether [sic] under the legislation approved largely along party lines." [Washington Post, 6/9/17]
Legislation Exempted Banks From A Large Number Of Financial Regulations If The Bank Increased Its Capital, But Some Big Banks, Such As JP Morgan Are Not Expected To Do. According to the Washington Post, "The newly approved legislation would attempt to ease the burden on the country's nearly 6,000 banks by offering them a choice: If they want to avoid many of the regulatory barriers imposed during the Obama administration, they would have to significantly increase their emergency financial surpluses. That way, if they run into financial trouble, the banks would be more likely to survive without taxpayers' help, supporters of the bill say. [...] For many of the country's largest banks, building the bigger financial cushion called for under the bill would be expensive. JPMorgan Chase would need to set aside an additional $107 billion to take advantage of that option, according to research by Nomura, a global investment bank. Goldman Sachs and Bank of America would need to set aside an additional $45 billion and $82 billion, respectively." [Washington Post, 6/9/17]
Capital Requirement Would Be A Ten Percent Capital Ratio. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill includes numerous provisions intended to reduce the regulation of banks and financial service companies, and it establishes a new regulatory regime under which banks that maintain at least 10% capital ratio as a financial buffer would no longer be subject to numerous regulatory requirements." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/7/17]
Legislation Significantly Reduced The Authority Of The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. According to Vox, "The Choice Act would also gut the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). As Mike Konczal wrote for Vox, the CFPB has won millions from big corporations by suing those who use 'deceptive practices' for their customers." [Vox, 6/8/17]
Legislation Allowed The President To Fire The Head Of The CFPB And The FHFA For Any Reason. According to CNN, "Hensarling's bill would give the president the power to fire the heads of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a consumer watchdog agency created under Dodd-Frank, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at any time for any -- or no -- reason." [CNN, 6/8/17]
Legislation Removed The CFPB's Ability To Monitor Financial Firms Closely For Consumer Protections And From Writing Payday and Car-Title Loan Rules. According to the Los Angeles Times, "The Financial Choice Act would strip the agency of its ability to closely monitor financial firms for compliance with consumer protection laws and specifically prohibits the bureau from writing any regulations on payday and car-title loans." [Los Angeles Times, 6/8/17]
Legislation Renamed The CFPB To The Consumer Law Enforcement Agency And Subjected The Agency To The Congressional Appropriations Process. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure significantly modifies the structure and authority of the CFPB, converting it into an executive agency funded by annual appropriations, rather than an independent agency funded directly from the Fed, and it makes the agency's director subject to removal by the president 'at will' (rather than for cause, as under current law). [...] The CFPB would be renamed as the Consumer Law Enforcement Agency (CLEA)." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/7/17]
CFPB Fined Wells Fargo $100 Million In 2016 For Deceptive Practices; Legislation Would No Longer Allow The CFPB To Do So In The Future. According to the Washington Post, "Hensarling's bill would strip the agency of some of its most important powers. It would no longer be able to write major rules regulating consumer financial companies, such as debt collectors, without getting approval from Congress. The agency would lose some of its independence because its director would serve at the pleasure of the president. And it would also no longer be able to levy hefty fines against financial institutions for 'unfair' or 'deceptive' practices. The CFPB used those powers to fine Wells Fargo $100 million last year for opening up to 2 million accounts customers did not ask for or know about." [Washington Post, 6/9/17]
Legislation Repealed The Fiduciary Rule. According to the Los Angeles Times, "The bill also would repeal a new Labor Department regulation, largely still pending, that requires investment brokers who handle retirement funds to put their clients' interests ahead of their own compensation, company profits or other factors." [Los Angeles Times, 6/8/17]
The Volker Rule, Which The Legislation Repealed, Prevented Banks That Have Federally Insured Depositors From Using Their Own Money For Proprietary Trading And Thus Prevent Banks From Repeating Some Of The Mistakes That Lead To The Great Recession. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure repeals the Volcker rule included in Dodd-Frank, which prohibits banks that hold the funds of federally-insured depositors from using their own funds for proprietary trading to increase their own profits, or from maintaining certain relationships with 'risky' hedge funds and private equity funds. The goal of the Volcker Rule is to prevent banks from making the types of speculative investments that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. Critics, however, say the rule does not actually address any of the problems that led to the financial crisis and that it is unwieldy and essentially unworkable, while supporters of the rule say it is needed to prevent banks from gambling with the taxpayer-backed funds of depositors." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/7/17]
Legislation Repealed A Rule Requiring Credit Rating Groups Confirm That Their Procedures Are Valid. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It also repeals a requirement that national credit rating agencies attest to internal controls over the processes used for determining credit ratings." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/7/17]
Legislation Repealed A Rule Requiring Companies Release A Comparison Between Its CEO And Its Average Employee. According to the Washington Post, "The bill would also eliminate rules meant to rein in Wall Street pay and force companies to release how much chief executives earn compared with their average employees, a potentially embarrassing disclosure." [Washington Post, 6/9/17]
Legislation Repealed The "Orderly Liquidation Process" For Firms, Instead Requiring Them To Go Bankrupt. According to the Washington Post, "Under the legislation, failing financial firms would be forced to go through the bankruptcy process rather than the 'orderly liquidation process' run by regulators under Dodd-Frank." [Washington Post, 6/9/17]
Orderly Liquidation Was Designed To Prevent A Firms Collapse From Spreading. According to Vox, "Hensarling isn't just making this stuff up: His bill would get rid of what's called the Orderly Liquidation Authority, a key part of Dodd-Frank that controls what happens when financial firms that could sink the whole economy go belly-up. Under OLA, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation can step in during a panic to immediately take control of the bank. So if JPMorgan is on the verge of going bankrupt, the federal government can declare an emergency and essentially take control of it overnight, to make sure its collapse doesn't spread throughout the financial sector. Having a bank go through OLA --- which has never happened, since we haven't had a real bank panic since Dodd-Frank was passed --- also ensures that the emergency funding doesn't come from taxpayers, since the law requires other financial firms with a stake in the failing bank to pay back the costs. OLA also allows the government to immediately fire all of the bank's managers and forces its employees to pay back bonuses." [Vox, 6/8/17]
Legislation Removed The FSOC's Ability To Label Non-Banks Systemically Important, Which Subjected Those Firms To Stricter Regulation. According to the Washington Post, "The legislation would also strip power from the Financial Stability Oversight Council, an interagency group now led by Mnuchin, to label financial firms that are not banks, such as MetLife, 'too big to fail' and subject them to tougher regulatory oversight." [Washington Post, 6/9/17]
Legislation Required The Federal Reserve Create A Mathematical Formula To Dictate Policy. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill requires the FOMC to develop a mathematical rule --- the Directive Policy Rule (DPR) --- to direct its decision making on monetary policy to achieve its dual mandate. The DPR must provide a strategy to achieve specified goals, identifying which interest rate is targeted and describing the strategy for systematic adjustment of the target through response to changes in inflation, estimates of GDP, estimates of the monetary aggregate and any other variable that the FOMC determines to be relevant. The DPR must state whether variables used are historical, current or a forecast and must include the method of calculating the variable. It must include a mathematical function and a formula that predicts a range of future values for the targeted interest rate based on changes to inflation, GDP, the monetary aggregate and the other relevant variables, and describe how bank reserves will be adjusted to achieve the target interest rate. It must also include a calculation that describes with mathematical precision the expected annual inflation rate over a five-year period." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/7/17]
Legislation Reduced The Number Of "Stress Tests" On Large Banks. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill directs the Fed to reduce the frequency of 'stress tests' it conducts on banks with assets of $50 billion or more to determine whether the banks have sufficient capital to continue operations in times of economic and financial stress --- providing that such tests be conducted every two years rather than annually." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/7/17]
The Financial Services Roundtable Supported The Legislation. According to the Washington Post, "The Financial Services Roundtable, an industry lobbying group, cheered the bill's passage, saying it would 'modernize the financial regulatory system to advance the goal of boosting the economy without sacrificing important consumer and taxpayer protections.'" [Washington Post, 6/9/17]
Bank Profits Hit A Record Level In 2016 And Are Up Since Dodd-Frank Was Enacted. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Democrats said that bank profits are up and lending has increased since Dodd-Frank was enacted. Bank profits hit a record $171 billion in 2016, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. And in the first quarter of this year, profits were up 13% from a year earlier, the FDIC said." [Los Angeles Times, 6/8/17]
Vox: "[The Financial Choice Act] Goes Further Than [Repeal], Rolling Back Oversight In A Way That Could Dramatically Exacerbate The Likelihood Of Another Financial Crisis, According To Experts In Financial Regulation." According to Vox, "Spearheaded by House Finance Chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the Choice Act begins by throwing out much of the banking oversight passed under President Barack Obama's administration, mostly through the Dodd-Frank Act signed in 2010. But it goes further than that, rolling back oversight in a way that could dramatically exacerbate the likelihood of another financial crisis, according to experts in financial regulation. 'It's a little hard to get your mind around everything this bill does, because there's almost no area of financial regulation it doesn't touch,' says Marcus Stanley, policy director for Americans for Financial Reform. 'There's a bunch of very radical stuff in this bill, and it goes way beyond repealing Dodd-Frank.'" [Vox, 6/8/17]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Recommends Repealing Portions Of Dodd-Frank. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against the FY 2016 budget resolution which recommended repealing portions of Dodd-Frank. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution called for "rolling back provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (PL 111-203) that, it says, could allow for 'bailouts' of large, systemically significant financial institutions. It also urges Congress to repeal the mechanism under which the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve's direct funding mechanism, saying that those Federal Reserve funds should be used for deficit reduction." The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Recommends Repealing Portions Of Dodd-Frank. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which recommended repealing portions of Dodd-Frank. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution called for "rolling back provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (PL 111-203) that, it says, could allow for 'bailouts' of large, systemically significant financial institutions. It also urges Congress to repeal the mechanism under which the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve's direct funding mechanism, saying that those Federal Reserve funds should be used for deficit reduction." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Recommends Repealing Portions Of Dodd-Frank. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which recommended repealing portions of Dodd-Frank. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution called for "rolling back provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (PL 111-203) that, it says, could allow for 'bailouts' of large, systemically significant financial institutions. It also urges Congress to repeal the mechanism under which the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve's direct funding mechanism, saying that those Federal Reserve funds should be used for deficit reduction." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House rejected the amendment 105 to 319. The House later adopted a substitute amendment identical to this except for a change in defense spending and then later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 140, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 85; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Repeal Portions Of Dodd-Frank As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for repealing portions of Dodd-Frank. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The CFPB [...] should be eliminated. [...] Dodd-Frank financial reform law provided the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) the authority to access taxpayer dollars to bail out the creditors of large, 'systemically significant' financial institutions. The federal government---read taxpayers---should not be the emergency piggy bank for hazardous decision-making by banks and corporations. This budget proposal would save $37.7 billion over ten years, according to CBO." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2014: Schweikert Voted For Repealing The Part Of Dodd-Frank That Required Private Equity Fund Advisors To Register With The Securities And Exchange Commission. In September 2014, Schweikert voted for repealing a portion of Dodd-Frank that requires certain private equity fund advisors from registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). According to House Financial Services Committee, "The bill corrects an overreach of the Dodd-Frank Act that diverts job-creating capital from small- and medium-sized businesses to unnecessary regulatory compliance costs. The bill exempts advisers to private equity funds from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration so long as the funds under management have not borrowed and do not have outstanding principal amount in excess of twice their funded capital commitments." This provision was part of a larger bill called the Jobs for America Act. The bill passed the House by a vote of 253-163. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 513, 9/18/14; House Financial Services Committee, 9/19/14; GOP.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4]
SEC Registration Exemption Applies To Advisors To Funds That Are Not Leveraged And Do Not Have "Outstanding A Principal Amount In Excess Of Twice Their Funded Capital Commitments." According to the House Financial Services Committee, "Provides an exemption from SEC registration for advisers to private equity funds that are not leveraged and that do not have outstanding a principal amount in excess of twice their funded capital commitments [and] [m]aintains the SEC's authority under the Dodd-Frank Act to require all private fund advisers to keep records and make them available to the appropriate regulators." [House Financial Services Committee, 9/19/14]
Registration Requirement Was Added Via Dodd-Frank; Prior To Dodd-Frank, Advisors To Private Equity Funds Who Had Fewer Than 15 Clients Were Exempt From Registration, Most Managers Were Thus Exempt. According to the Association for Corporate Growth, "As most private equity fund managers know, prior to enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, the Advisers Act had a registration exemption for advisers to private funds who had fewer than 15 clients, counting each fund as a separate client. Most managers qualified for this private adviser exemption and were therefore able to avoid registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Title VI of the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the private adviser exception from the Advisers Act, thereby requiring all advisers to private funds with more than $150 million in assets under management within the United States to register." [Association for Corporate Growth, Accessed 9/16/15]
Dodd-Frank Contained An Exemption For Venture Capital Firms. According to the Association for Corporate Growth, "the Dodd-Frank Act contained an exemption for advisers to venture capital funds -- despite the fact that venture capital and private equity funds are structured almost identically." [Association for Corporate Growth, Accessed 9/16/15]
Statement Of Administrative Policy: "The Administration Is Committed To Building A Safer, More Stable Financial System. H.R. 1105 Represents A Step Backwards From The Progress Made To Date." Senior Advisors Would Recommend Veto Of Stand Alone Bill. According to a Statement of Administrative Policy made in response to H.R. 1105, the language's standalone bill, "The Administration is committed to building a safer, more stable financial system. H.R. 1105 represents a step backwards from the progress made to date, given that private equity fund advisers have been filing reports with the SEC for over a year. The bill's passage would deny investors access to important information intended to increase transparency and accountability and to minimize conflicts of interest. Moreover, H.R. 1105 would exempt private equity funds from the disclosure requirements that the Congress laid out in Wall Street Reform to allow regulators to assess potential systemic risks. [...] If the President were presented with H.R. 1105, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." [Statement of Administrative Policy, 12/3/13]
Statement Of Administrative Policy: Language "Private Equity Funds Are Already Subject To Less Stringent Reporting Requirements Compared To Other Types Of Private Funds." According to a Statement of Administrative Policy made in response to H.R. 1105, the language's standalone bill, "Private equity funds are already subject to less stringent reporting requirements compared to other types of private funds and to an annual, rather than quarterly, filing requirement. In addition, private fund advisers with under $150 million in assets under management are exempted from registration and subject only to recordkeeping and reporting requirements." [Statement of Administrative Policy, 12/3/13]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Repeal A Key Part Of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act That Gave The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation The Power To Take Over And Shut Down A Failing Financial Firm, As Part Of Rep. Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal. In April 2014, Schweikert voted for repealing the expanded resolution authority that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act gave to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Hill, "The proposal from the House Budget Committee chairman would repeal a top provision of the law. Proponents say the tool, which gives the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation the power to step in and wind down a failing financial firm, bars future bailouts." The House adopted the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 205, but the Senate did not. [House Vote 177, 4/10/14; The Hill, 4/1/14; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
Ryan Plan Asserted That Expanded FDIC Authority "Sustains" And "Paves The Way" For Future Taxpayer Bailouts Of Large Firms, Instead Of Holding Their Shareholders, Managers And Creditors Responsible. According to the House Budget Committee Fiscal Year 2015 "Path to Prosperity," "Although the proponents of Dodd-Frank went to great lengths to denounce bailouts, this law only sustains them. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation now has the authority to access taxpayer dollars in order to bail out the creditors of large, ''systemically significant'' financial institutions. This resolution calls for ending this regime, now enshrined into law, which paves the way for future bailouts. House Republicans put forth an enhanced bankruptcy alternative that------instead of rewarding corporate failure with taxpayer dollars------would place the responsibility for large, failing firms in the hands of the shareholders who own them, the managers who run them, and the creditors who finance them." [House Budget Committee, 4/1/14]
Former FDIC Chairwoman Shelia Blair: Dodd-Frank Prohibited Taxpayer Bailouts Of Banks. In an interview with the Washington Post, former FDIC Chairwoman Shelia Blair said, "We worked hard to make sure taxpayer bailouts are completely prohibited. I think the language is very tight on that. One of the things that frustrates me with critics of Title II is that they perpetuate the myth of Too Big To Fail by insisting that the government is still going to do bailouts, notwithstanding clear language in Dodd-Frank to the contrary. And that just continues the moral hazard by reinforcing market perceptions that the big institutions won't be allowed to fail." [Washington Post, 5/18/13]
Under The Congressional Budget Office's Rules, Repealing The Expanded FDIC Authority Saves $22 Billion. According to The Hill, "Republicans have frequently targeted the FDIC's new wind-down authority, and instead prefer a new bankruptcy regime to deal with the potential collapse of large banks. But GOP lawmakers also have frequently tried to repeal that provision because it is attractive from a budget perspective. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that repealing the provision would save $22 billion, but that analysis is limited by the 10-year budget window adhered to by the fiscal scorekeeper." [The Hill, 4/1/14]
Law Required That, After The Expanded Authority Is Used, Any Costs To Taxpayers Would Be Repaid By The Financial Industry As A Whole, But This Repayment Is Not Reflected In CBO's 10-Year Cost Estimate. According to The Hill, "At first, the FDIC could access taxpayer funds to help guide banks to an orderly exit, but the law states that those funds would eventually be recouped by fees assessed to the financial industry. But since those funds would return over a longer period of time, they are not captured in the CBO's analysis, leading Democrats to blast Republicans as playing budgetary games to come up with phantom savings." [The Hill, 4/1/14]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Repealing Portions Of The Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform Act As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Schweikert voted for repealing portions of the Dodd-Frank regulations for financial institutions, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the House Budget Committee, "This budget would end the bailout regime enshrined into law by the Dodd-Frank Act. The federal government must ensure financial markets are fair and transparent. And it must hold accountable those who violate the rules. But federal bureaucrats should not micromanage the system or protect Wall Street bankers from the risks they are taking." The resolution passed the House by a vote of 221 to 207, but died in the Senate. [House Vote 88, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/12/13; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Repeal Dodd-Frank Wall Street Regulation. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support revisiting the Dodd-Frank regulations for financial institutions, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, "End Too Big To Fail: [...] Instead of rewarding corporate failure with taxpayer dollars, this budget calls for an alternative to the FDIC's too big to fail bailout authority by supporting a policy that places responsibility of large, failing firms in the hands of shareholders who own them, the managers who run them, and the creditors who finance them." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2018: Schweikert Voted To Reduce To Every Two Years -- Down From Every Year -- For How Often The Fed Conducts "Dodd-Frank" Stress Tests. In April 2018, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "reduce[d] from twice a year to once a year the requirement that the Federal Reserve conduct Dodd-Frank stress tests of financial institutions, and it reduces from three to two the sets of stress conditions under which banks must be evaluated by removing the requirement that entities be evaluated under the adverse conditions scenario. It also prohibit[ed] the Federal Reserve, when carrying out the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) test, from objecting to a company's capital plan on the basis of qualitative deficiencies in that company's capital planning process. (CCAR is comprised of a qualitative assessment of a bank's capital planning processes and a quantitative assessment of the bank's ability to maintain sufficient capital to continue operations under stress.)" The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 245 to 174. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 137, 4/11/18; Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4296]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Loosening Dodd-Frank Act's Restrictions On Federally Insured Financial Companies Participating Directly In Swap Trading, As Part Of Legislation Providing FY 2015 Funding For The Federal Government. In December 2014, Schweikert voted against legislation that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] $1.013 trillion in discretionary appropriations in fiscal 2015 for federal departments and agencies covered by the 12 unfinished fiscal 2015 spending bills." The legislation included provisions that "amend[] the Dodd-Frank Act (PL 111-203) to modify the so-called 'Swap Pushout Rule' by expanding the permissible types of swap activities that can be conducted directly by insured financial institutions without losing their access to federal assistance, and it allow[ed] uninsured U.S. branches of foreign banks also to engage in those swap activities as long as they are covered by a 'prudential' regulator in their home nation. Permissible swaps activities [...] include[d] equity swaps, commodity and agriculture swaps, and energy swaps. Those swap activities that must be pushed to affiliates [will] mostly be swaps based on asset-backed securities that are unregulated or not of a credit quality established by regulation." The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion 219 to 206. The Senate agreed to by a vote of 56 to 40. Afterwards, the amended legislation was sent to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 563, 12/11/14; Congressional Quarterly, 12/10/14; Public Law 113-235, 12/16/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 83]
Dodd-Frank's "Swaps Push Out Rule" Blocked Those Firms Covered By Federal Deposit Insurance Or Eligible For Support From The Federal Reserve From Trading Risky Derivatives Such As Credit Default Swaps. According to The New York Times, "The 'push out' provision reversed a piece of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law that prohibited banks from trading some of their most exotic financial instruments in units covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. The idea was to make sure trades in derivatives, credit-default swaps and other instruments that helped spur the financial crisis of 2008 would not be insured by taxpayers if they went bad." [New York Times, 12/15/14]
Hurley: Five Big Banks Handle 95 Percent Of Swaps Activity. According to an American Banker column by Boston University Center for Finance, Law and Policy Director Cornelius Hurley, "The swaps push-out provision of Dodd-Frank would have required the five big banks that account for 95% of swaps activity to move a portion of that business out of their taxpayer-supported banks and lodge it in their nonbank, uninsured affiliates." [Hurley column, American Banker, 12/18/14]
Hurley: Push Out Rule Would Have Made Those Big Banks' Swap Trading Less Profitable Because Government "Safety Net" Provided A "Subsidy" To Them By Reducing Their Swaps Trading Costs. According to an American Banker column by Boston University Center for Finance, Law and Policy Director Cornelius Hurley, "It is widely understood that removing the safety net of Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. coverage would have increased the cost of this activity and reduced its profitability for the five banks. The big banks claimed that without FDIC insurance, they would be forced to pass the increased cost on to innocent end users like farmers, airlines and oil distributors. The implication of this risible threat was that the big banks were in the habit of sharing the entire financial benefit they received from this free insurance with their customers. Even the most casual observer of our financial system can smell a subsidy as pungent as this." [Hurley column, American Banker, 12/18/14]
Seeking Repeal Of "Push Out" Rule, Big Banks Argued Provision Would Simply Move Risk Around Inside A Large Financial Holding Company, While Also Limiting Federal Oversight Of That Risk. According to The New York Times, "The nation's biggest banks have been trying to reverse the provision ever since [it was passed]. A stand-alone bill to repeal the measure was drafted nearly word for word by Citigroup. It passed the House in 2013 by a comfortable 292-122 margin, with 70 Democrats in support. The banking lobby argues that the provision actually raises financial risk by pushing derivative trading outside the purview of federal regulators. But because such trades would still be made by the same big bank holding companies, big losses would still drain the same capital the banks are required to have to protect federally insured accounts." [New York Times, 12/15/14]
Democratic Supporters Said They Got Increases In Commodity Futures Trading Commission And The Securities And Exchange Commission Enforcement Funding In Exchange For Backing Swap Rules Changes. According to The Washington Post, "Democrats agreed to make some of the biggest changes yet to the 2010 financial regulatory reforms. In a deal sought by Republicans, the bill would reverse Dodd-Frank requirements that banks 'push out' some of derivatives trading into separate entities not backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations. Ever since being enacted, banks have been pushing to reverse the change. Now, the rules would go back to the way they used to be. But in exchange, Democrats say they secured more money for the enforcement budgets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission." [Washington Post, 12/9/14]
The Bill Increased Funding For The CFTC By $35 Million, Or 16 Percent, Over FY 2014 Levels. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure appropriates $250 million for the CFTC --- $35 million (16%) more than the FY 2014 level but $30 million (11%) less than the request. Within the total provided, $50 million is for the purchase of information technology and $3 million for the Inspector General." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/10/14]
The Bill Increased Funding For The SEC By $150 Million, Or 11 Percent, Over FY 2014 Levels. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure provides $1.5 billion for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), $150 million (11%) more than the FY 2014 level but $200 million (12%) less than the request. The SEC's entire appropriation would be offset by fees collected by the agency. The measure rescinds $25 million from the SEC Reserve Fund, which was established under the Dodd-Frank Act." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/10/14]
2017: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Would Have Repealed Significant Portions Of Dodd-Frank, Including The Ability Of The Financial Stability Oversight Council To Declare Non-Banks As Systemically Important. In June 2017, Schweikert voted for the Financial Choice Act. According to NPR, "House Republicans voted Thursday to deliver on their promise to repeal Dodd-Frank --- the massive set of Wall Street regulations President Barack Obama signed into law after the 2008 financial crisis. In a near party-line vote, the House approved a bill, dubbed the Financial Choice Act, which scales back or eliminates many of the post-crisis banking rules." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 233 to 186. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 299, 6/8/17; NPR, 6/8/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 10]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Prevent Funding To Designate Any Non-Bank A Systemically Important Financial Institution. In July 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the use of funds to designate any non-bank financial company as 'too big to fail' or as a 'systemically important financial institution' or to make a determination that material financial distress at a non-bank financial company could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 financial services appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 239 to 182. The House later passed the underlying bill, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 381, 7/7/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/7/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1248; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
Dodd-Frank Created A Label For Non-Bank Actors Which "Could Pose A Threat To The Financial Stability Of The United States"; Firms Given That Label Are Subject To Additional Federal Reserve Oversight. According to the Wall Street Journal, "What is a SIFI? The acronym stands for systemically important financial institution. The label comes from the 2010 Dodd- Frank law, which gave the Financial Stability Oversight Council of top regulators the authority to apply the label to financial firms that 'could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States' if they failed or engaged in risky activities. Any firm designated a SIFI is subject to stricter oversight from the Federal Reserve, including taking stress tests, writing bankruptcy plans known as living wills, and meeting stricter capital requirements." [Wall Street Journal, 3/30/16]
Dodd-Frank Created This Process In Part Because AIG, A Non-Bank Actor, Was A Major Cause Of The Great Recession Due Its Derivatives Exposure. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The ultimate goal of Dodd Frank is to avoid taxpayer bailouts like the ones that occurred in 2008. One particularly large bailout rescued American International Group Inc., which nearly brought down the financial system because of its large derivatives exposures. AIG didn't have a single federal regulator watching over all its operations. So Congress, in an effort to prevent that from ever happening again, created a process for regulators to identify big, complex, potentially risky firms that aren't already tightly regulated and bring them under the federal government's scrutiny." [Wall Street Journal, 3/30/16]