Brown, Penalty Bill for Floating Bank CEO Scott

Brown Penalty Bill for Floating Bank CEO Scott scaled | ltc-a

THE The Senate Banking Committee plans to mark the package – with another bill led by Scott and Brown which would target opioid trafficking, Wednesday before Congress leaves for its July 4th recess.

A big question is to what extent the bill will attract support from Warren and other lawmakers who have worked with her to create a previous proposal this would recover compensation from the executives of the failed banks. Warren had garnered the support of nearly half of the banking committee, including leading Republicans, and said Wednesday that his plan « represents Congress’s toughest proposal to ensure that bankrupt executives who blow up their banks don’t se go away with huge bonuses. »

The piece of the Brown-Scott compromise that would recover the banker’s compensation is narrower in scope than Warren’s proposal.

« I’m just really concerned about this being watered down, » Sen. said. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Warren’s top Republican co-sponsor, said Thursday before Brown and Scott announced their plan. « If they don’t score him, maybe I should just go out on the track and try to pass him. »

The tensions underscore the thorny political challenge Brown faces as he tries to hammer out a compromise that can become law. He calls for balancing the appetites of lawmakers to challenge the banking sector, a powerful lobbying force. It also comes at a sensitive time for Brown and Scott, with Brown facing a tough re-election campaign in his increasingly conservative home state of Ohio and Scott in the midst of a bid for the GOP presidential nomination.

The proposal that Brown and Scott released — and which they will now have to sell to their members — would address concerns that the government isn’t doing enough to deter and hold accountable bank executives who take excessive risks and expose US taxpayers to potential bailouts. banking.

The failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in March led the US government to back all of their deposits, most of which exceeded federal support from deposit insurance. The near collapse of another bank, First Republic, triggered a $30 billion infusion from major US lenders before JPMorgan Chase bailed it out in a takeover.

The Brown and Scott compromise seeks to address concerns raised by the recent string of bank failures by empowering regulators to recover top executives’ bonuses and profits from stock sales, among other forms of compensation. It also includes a so-called good governance provision that would allow bank boards to similarly recover money. It would increase fines and ban executives from returning to the industry.

Like Warren’s recovery bill, Brown and Scott’s would exclude banks with less than $10 billion in assets, sparing « community » creditors. But while Warren’s bill dates back three years, Brown and Scott’s repossession proposal dates back only two years. Warren’s bill would include a wider range of compensation, including salaries. And the Brown-Scott bill would target a narrower set of banking leadership roles, limiting its scope to executives or those who perform similar functions. Warren’s bill would also cover all directors and controlling shareholders.

In another important distinction, Brown and Scott’s bill is lax, meaning it would further allow regulators to recover executive compensation, rather than require it as Warren would.

« We have worked to find a common-sense solution to addressing executive liability that is tailored to protect the American taxpayer and limit government overreach, » Scott said in a statement.

The bank failures in March triggered a flurry of legislation by lawmakers to address the crisis. But Warren’s recovery proposal had recently appeared to be one of the more viable options. He introduced an initial version with Hawley, and then worked with Sen. JD Vance — Brown’s Republican counterpart in Ohio — to rally bipartisan support on the Banking Committee, of which Vance sits.

But Brown chose to go his own way in talks with Scott as he pieced together a larger legislative package. Brown said in an interview Wednesday, “Warren’s account is limited; there are many more—and we take nothing.”

The comments prompted a response from Warren Wednesday.

“Our legislation represents the toughest proposal in Congress to ensure that failed executives who blow up their banks don’t walk away with huge bonuses, which is why it enjoys widespread bipartisan support from both Democrats and Republicans. ‘ he said in a statement. « Any legislation responding to the recent crisis must build on that consensus and actually deter future wrongdoing by big bank executives by hitting them where it hurts: their wallets. »

Vance said in an interview Thursday that he, Warren, and the rest of their bill’s supporters « have done a lot of the groundwork in terms of solving problems and engaging a bipartisan committee. »

« So I don’t know why we shouldn’t just use our account, » he said.

It’s unclear how other Democrats on the committee will respond to the compromise.

Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, a co-sponsor of the Warren bill, said he should have made sure the Brown-Scott bill « contained the gist » of Warren’s before signing on. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, another Warren co-sponsor, said, « I’ll be happy with anything that goes into the markup. »

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a co-sponsor of Warren’s, said in an interview. « Sounds like a basic principle. »