{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["http://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-vitter-urge-congressional-leaders-to-remove-provision-in-spending-bill-that-would-allow-for-future-bailouts", "Brown, Vitter Urge Congressional Leaders to Remove Provision in Spending Bill That Would Allow for Future Bailouts", "2014-12-11", "2014", "2014-12", "Democrat", "House", "OH", "Sherrod Brown", "B000944", "www.brown.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Thursday, December 11, 2014\n            \n\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\tWASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013 Today, U.S. Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and David Vitter (R-LA) sent a letter to leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging the removal of a provision in the year-end spending bill that would repeal a law prohibiting future bailouts.\u00a0 On Wednesday, Brown released the following statement in reaction to the provisions inclusion in the package:\r\n\u201cThis giveaway to Wall Street would open the door to future bailouts funded by American taxpayers,\u201d Brown said. \u201cIt\u2019s been just six years since risky financial practices put our economy on the brink of collapse and cost millions of Americans lost jobs, homes, and retirement savings. This provision, originally written by lobbyists, has no place in a must-pass spending bill.\u201d\r\nFollowing the financial crisis, Congress passed a provision in the Wall Street Reform Act that would end government insurance of risky Wall Street derivatives trading. Section 716 \u2013 entitled \u201cProhibition Against Federal Government Bailouts of Swaps Entities,\u201d and also known as the Lincoln Amendment or the \u201cswaps push-out\u201d provision \u2013 prohibits Federal assistance to entities that engage in certain swaps and security-based swaps activities.\u00a0 While this provision was scheduled to take effect on July 16, 2013, it has still not been implemented.\r\nThe year-end spending bill would repeal Section 716.\r\nBrown and Vitter\u2019s\u00a0letter to House and Senate leadership\u00a0is as follows.\r\nDecember 11, 2014\r\nDear Speaker Boehner, House Minority Leader Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Senate Minority Leader McConnell:\r\nWe are writing you about the broad bipartisan support for removing section 630 from H.R. 83.\u00a0 This provision would repeal section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection (Dodd-Frank) Act.\u00a0 We urge you to remove this provision from the year-end spending bill.\r\nSection 716, also known as the Lincoln Amendment or the \u201cswaps push-out\u201d provision, prohibits Federal assistance to entities that engage in certain derivatives dealing and speculation.\u00a0 The problem of \u201ctoo big to fail\u201d is clearly far from over.\u00a0 Removing any taxpayer subsidy for risky derivative trades that are unnecessary for normal banking purposes is an important step.\r\nThe catastrophic events of the financial crisis demonstrated the risks posed by trading certain types of risky derivatives, and we are concerned that these activities continue to present a threat to financial stability.\u00a0 Forceful implementation of section 716 is an important first step in ensuring that derivatives activities are conducted outside of the public safety net, where they can be properly supported by private capital instead of a taxpayer-provided backstop.\r\nYesterday, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Vice Chairman Thomas Hoeing pointed out that, \u201cin 2008 we learned the economic consequences of conducting derivatives trading in taxpayer-insured banks. Section 716 of Dodd-Frank is an important step in pushing the trading activity out to where it should be conducted: in the open market, outside of taxpayer-backed commercial banks.\u201d\r\nFormer FDIC Chair Sheila Bair has also said that \u201cthis activity should be done outside of insured banks and only in non-FDIC insured affiliates. It should not be funded with FDIC insured deposits.\u201d\r\nWe agree with them.\r\nIf Wall Street banks want to gamble, Congress should force them to pay for their losses, and not put the taxpayers on the hook for another bailout. Congress should not gamble on a possible government shutdown by attempting to tuck this controversial provision into a spending bill without having been considered by the committees of jurisdiction, where it can be subjected to a transparent and vigorous debate.\r\nThank you for considering our views on this important matter.\r\n###\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tPress Contact\n\t\t\t\t\tContact: Meghan Dubyak/Ben Famous\r\n(202) 224-3978", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["http://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-vitter-urge-congressional-leaders-to-remove-provision-in-spending-bill-that-would-allow-for-future-bailouts"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.4632819220423698, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}