lobbying_filings_raw: 2ba7f870-a924-48cd-a45e-e069823a4e82
This data as json
| filing_uuid | filing_type | registrant_id | registrant_name | client_id | client_name | filing_year | filing_period | received_date | amount_reported | is_amendment | is_no_activity | is_termination | raw_json | registrant_state | registrant_country | registrant_house_id | client_state | client_ppb_state | client_country | client_ppb_country | client_general_description | client_government_entity | affiliated_org_count | client_entity_id | client_government_unit_id | client_match_method | client_match_confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2ba7f870-a924-48cd-a45e-e069823a4e82 | Q4 | 400531588 | COMMUNITY BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS | 192301 | COMMUNITY BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS | 2015 | fourth_quarter | 2016-01-18T12:59:15.390000-05:00 | 50000.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | {"url": "https://lda.senate.gov/api/v1/filings/2ba7f870-a924-48cd-a45e-e069823a4e82/", "filing_uuid": "2ba7f870-a924-48cd-a45e-e069823a4e82", "filing_type": "Q4", "filing_type_display": "4th Quarter - Report", "filing_year": 2015, "filing_period": "fourth_quarter", "filing_period_display": "4th Quarter (Oct 1 - Dec 31)", "filing_document_url": "https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/2ba7f870-a924-48cd-a45e-e069823a4e82/print/", "filing_document_content_type": "text/html", "income": null, "expenses": "50000.00", "expenses_method": "a", "expenses_method_display": "Method A - Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only", "posted_by_name": "David G. Schroeder", "dt_posted": "2016-01-18T12:59:15.390000-05:00", "termination_date": null, "registrant_country": "United States of America", "registrant_ppb_country": null, "registrant_address_1": "901 Community Drive", "registrant_address_2": null, "registrant_different_address": false, "registrant_city": "Springfield", "registrant_state": "IL", "registrant_zip": "62703", "registrant": {"id": 400531588, "url": "https://lda.senate.gov/api/v1/registrants/400531588/", "house_registrant_id": null, "name": "COMMUNITY BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS", "description": "Trade association representing Illinois' community banks and thrifts", "address_1": "901 Community Drive", "address_2": null, "address_3": null, "address_4": null, "city": "Springfield", "state": "IL", "state_display": "Illinois", "zip": "62703", "country": "US", "country_display": "United States of America", "ppb_country": "US", "ppb_country_display": "United States of America", "contact_name": "DAVID G. SCHROEDER", "contact_telephone": "+1 847-909-8341", "dt_updated": "2026-01-26T14:16:25.159939-05:00"}, "client": {"id": 192301, "url": "https://lda.senate.gov/api/v1/clients/192301/", "client_id": 12, "name": "COMMUNITY BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS", "general_description": null, "client_government_entity": false, "client_self_select": true, "state": "IL", "state_display": "Illinois", "country": "US", "country_display": "United States of America", "ppb_state": "IL", "ppb_state_display": "Illinois", "ppb_country": "US", "ppb_country_display": "United States of America", "effective_date": "2010-01-01"}, "lobbying_activities": [{"general_issue_code": "BAN", "general_issue_code_display": "Banking", "description": "Community Bankers Association of Illinois (CBAI) 2015 Federal Policy Priorities (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nToo-to-Fail -\nReform the financial system. The severity of a future financial crisis. The perception and reality of too-big-to-fail. Taxpayer bailouts of mega banks and financial firms. \n\nMega bank size, complexity and interconnectedness, and candidacy for future bailouts. The number of community banks falling by more than half (currently 6,200 institutions) and now represent less than one-fifth of banking professions assets. \n\nCauses of the mortgage meltdown and financial crisis. Protection of the nation and the banking profession from a repeat of massive financial destruction. Taxpayer-funded bailouts of too-big-to-fail banks and financial firms and their numerous violations of the law, often criminal violations. \n\nEffective management, supervision, discipline, or resolution of too-big-to-fail banks and financial firms. Mega bank multi-trillion dollars financial assistance versus community banks assistance and more than 500 failed community banks. Downsizing too-big-to-fail banks and financial firms.\n\nThe fundamental American constitutional right of equal justice under the law applicability when it comes to the mega banks. The U.S. two-tiered system of justice - too-big-to-fail banks and financial firms and everyone else. The Department of Justice (DOJ) - laggard in prosecuting crimes stemming from the financial crisis.\n\nBanking regulators and the DOJ aggressively pursuing actions against community banks, their directors, and officers with board resolutions, MOUs, C&Ds, consent orders, monetary penalties, barring individuals from banking, criminal prosecution, and other actions. No mandatory Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) capital enforcement orders against any bank larger than $30 billion in assets, yet 1,400 PCAs against community banks. Evidence of a clear double standard.\n\nOpponents of downsizing the mega banks (include their paid association cheerleaders) consistently blocking meaningful reforms and obfuscating the issue of too-big-to-fail for the benefit of large members and the detriment of everyone else.\n\nToo-big-to-fail banks, directors, officers, or employees being - too-big-to-manage, too-big-to-regulate, too-big-to-fail, too-big-to-prosecute, too-big-to-jail, too-big-to-change, and clearly too-big-to-behave --- downsize. \n\nTiered Regulation and Supervision for Community Banks - \nThe Independent Community Bankers of Americas Plan for Prosperity-\n\nOutsized risks taken by Wall Street mega banks during the financial crisis. The different/modest risks posed by community banks. Regulations not reflecting those differences. Regulatory burden on community banks by a one-size-fits-all approach. Disproportionate burden of banking laws and regulations on community banks. Credit unions, Farm Credit System lenders and other non-bank financial service providers not subject to the same laws and regulations as community banks. Unlevel playing field and a significant competitive disadvantage for community banks.\n\nIndependent Community Bankers of Americas (ICBA) Plan for Prosperity - a regulatory platform - community banks able to thrive and contribute to local economies. \n\nExcessive, redundant and costly regulations. Regulatory accountability. Community banks dedicating resources to promoting economic growth. Steady increase in regulations over many decades. Regulatory threats to community banks and their communities.\n \nThe Plan for Prosperity regarding:\nBasel III original intent.\nadditional capital for small holding companies - modernize the Federal Reserves Policy Statement.\nSecurities and Exchange Commission rules.\nreforming mortgage lending.\naccountability in bank exams by providing an appeals process.\nbank oversight and examinations - targeting risks.\nannual requirement for redundant privacy notices.\nconsumer regulation - inclusive and accountable CFPB governance.\narbitrary disparate impact fair lending causes of action.\nviability of mutual banks with new charter options.\ncost-benefit analysis to justify new rules.\nred tape in small business lending - burdensome data collection.\ncommunity bank mortgage servicing.\nTreasury Assistant Secretary for Community Banks.\nsubchapter S constraints.\nfive-year loss carryback - support for lending during economic downturns.\nrisk targeting in the Volcker Rule. \n\nTiered regulatory system based on size and risk profile - banking law, rule, and regulation clearly distinguishing and appropriately regulating community banks. \n\nCredit Union Taxation and Expansion of Powers -\nCredit unions now indistinguishable from community banks, grown to control a significant share of the banking services market. Original business model now outdated. Credit unions strayed from founding purpose of serving individuals of modest means and with a common bond. Same financial services as community banks. Federal tax-exempt status, in exchange for serving their original mission is no longer justified. Credit unions paying their fair share of income taxes.\n\nCredit unions adhering to a common bond or operating within a well-defined local community, neighborhood or rural district . \n\nCredit unions similarity to other types of mutually owned financial institutions - savings banks (SB) and savings and loans (S&L). The exemption for SBs and S&Ls repealed by Congress in 1951 - (reason) - active competition with taxable institutions [community banks]. \n\nThe Office of Management and Budget tax expenditure analysis - tax-exemption for credit unions result in loss of tax revenues of $9.46 billion over fiscal years 2014-2018.\n\nCredit union expansion of commercial lending powers - increasing the percentage of cap on member business lending (MBL). Loan growth at the expense of tax-paying community banks. Fundamental altering the exclusive member-focused character of credit unions - a condition for their original tax exemption. \n\nApplying Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requirements to credit unions - same asset size distinction as banks and thrifts. The same Call Report filing requirements for credit unions as those imposed on community banks.\n\nTax subsidy and level the playing field between credit unions and tax-paying community banks.\n\nFarm Credit System -\nExpansionist agenda of the Farm Credit System (FCS). FCS almost the equivalent of commercial banks yet retaining the benefits of Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) status. Tax advantages - unfair competitive advantage. Follow narrow historic mission - abolish or be subject to taxation and oversight and regulation. \n\nNarrow founding purpose of the System to serve bona fide farmers, ranchers, young-beginning farmers, small farmers, and their farmer-owned cooperatives. \n\nSupport and cooperation of Farm Credit Administration (FCA) - FCS straying beyond its original mission and scope and engaging in inappropriate and unprecedented lending activities. FCS significant systemic and taxpayer bail-out risks. \n\nThe FCS (only GSE) in active competition with community banks. Public sector (multi-billion dollar GSE) competition with the private sector (Main Street community banks).\n\nFunding and tax benefits impact on community banks. FCS not following its narrow historical mission. Follow narrow mission or abolish System. Abolished or taxation when exceeding a given asset threshold, lending to large borrowers, or engaging in non-farm lending activity. \n\nFCS requirement to engage in joint rulemaking with federal banking agencies, a member of a federal banking agency on its three person board, requirement to register a class of stock with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), full disclosure as required by the SEC Act, publication of instances of illegal lending and exemptions granted, and subject to regulatory safeguards, disclosures and controls equal to community banks and housing GSEs, including CFPB oversight. \n\nCongress convening joint committee hearings to investigate the operations, supervision, risks and financial soundness of the FCS, and impact on rural community banks. \n\nEnhanced Cyber, Data and Payment Card Security -\nEstablish a federal data security standard and notice requirement for all entities that store consumer data comparable to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) standards that apply to community banks. Shifting the liability for all costs associated with the data breach - including fraud losses and the cost of card reissuance - to the party that caused the breach. \n\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau Mortgage Lending and Housing Finance Reform -\nImprudent mortgage lending contribution to the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis. Community banks common sense relationship lending and not participating in abusive and predatory lending practices. Community banks thriving on the strength of their reputations and incentive to make fair and reasonable loans. No need for prescriptive regulations to compel community banks to do the right thing for their customers.\n\nCurb imprudent lending practices. Not impacting responsible community bank loan products designed to meet the diverse needs of their customers, including borrowers with special needs and circumstances, first-time homebuyers, borrowers in rural and underserved areas, and low-to-moderate income borrowers. Regulators recognition of the difference between the non-traditional lending practiced by community banks and predatory lending practiced by others.\n\nCommunity bank loans held in portfolio for the life of the loan, including balloon payment loans, in all geographic areas should receive automatic Qualified Mortgage (QM) status and an automatic exemption from escrow requirements for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans (HPMLs).\n\nSpecial accommodations for small creditors, flexibility in serving the needs of customers and communities, particularly in rural areas, and the definition of underserved areas to include economically challenged areas.\n\nReforms to the housing GSEs to include the existence of an impartial secondary market for residential mortgages, one that is financially strong and reliable, the need for some government tie to the secondary market to ensure the continued flow of credit and market liquidity during severe economic stress, no limit to full participation by community banks, and a return of private capital. \n\nAdditional reforms to include community banks access to sell loans through an independent entity; no appropriation of community bank customer data for the purpose of cross selling financial services; maintain the Federal Home Loan Banks as a community bank access point (but not the only access point) to the national secondary market; pricing of any governmental guaranty fair and equal to all participants regardless of volume of loans guaranteed; and no further consolidation of the housing finance system.\n\nStop aggressively compelling community banks to repurchase transferred real estate mortgages for technical violations of underwriting agreements that had no bearing on the quality of the loan at the time of underwriting.\n\nDisparate Impact Fair Lending Causes of Action -\nEnforcement actions by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) - disparate impact. Additional obligation on community banks to consider such factors as race or national origin in credit decisions, which is specifically precluded by law - untenable situation\n\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau Reform -\nCommunity banks regulatory relief to serve unique needs of their customers and not hinder new product development and innovation. Community bank flexibility to meet the unique needs of customers and community banks additional and unnecessary regulatory requirements to prevent their serving their communities. \n\nNo a one-size-fits-all approach to CFPB regulations. Community banks not enduring any additional consumer regulatory burden on top of the existing regulatory burden.\n\nSingle-Director governance of the CFPB versus a five-member commission. Prudential regulators participating with the CFPB in the rule-writing process. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) power to veto CFPB rules.\n\nBroad definition of firms that grant credit being subject to the CFPB rules, and their robust supervision and examinations. Focus of any enhanced regulation of financial products on unregulated shadow financial companies. CFPBs efforts to use its authority to address non-banks, such as Wal-Mart, serving as channels for financial products. CFPB holding mega banks and financial firms up to the existing standards for compliance with consumer laws, rules and regulations as required by community banks. \n\nRevised definitions in the Ability-to-Repay Qualified Mortgage rules of small creditor and rural areas, and expansion of the definition of underserved areas to include economically challenged areas.\n\nDe Novo Community Bank Formation -\nNeed for newly chartered (de novo) community banks. FDIC inhibiting de novo community bank formation. FDICs current position and a one-size-fits-all supervisory policy for de novos. \n\nFederal Home Loan Bank System -\nThe Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs) partnership with community banks - short-term liquidity, long-term funding and other financial products and providing lendable funds for the local communities. Maintaining the regional structure, special functions and purposes of the FHLBs. The FHLB Systems health, stability and reliability for its members. \n\nFHFAs proposed (2014) revisions to FHLB membership eligibility requirements - impact on the FHLB System and its members including, but not limited to, regulatory burden, member balance sheet management, stability of the System, and continued reliability as a funding partner, future value of FHLB membership and the implications for membership decisions; and impact on housing and community development throughout the System. The proposed rule is also contrary to the will of Congress. \n\nFHLB System reliance as the sole aggregator or securitizer of residential mortgages for community banks, and the FHFAs imposition of an ongoing housing mission asset test on community financial institutions. \n\n\nExcessive Intervention in Monetary Policy -\nThe sustained record-low zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) - disproportionate impact on community banks, senior citizens and discourages savings. Record-low interest rates for five years+ does not constitute temporary intervention but long-term and harmful manipulation. The limits to what Fed monetary policy can accomplish, especially given major offsetting negative effects.\n\n\nLegislation -\n\nH.R. 1309 - Systemic Risk Designation Act of 2105 (Amends Dodd-Frank Act and Consumer Protection Act regarding the designation of financial institutions as systemically important (SIFIs)) (all sections) (House)\n\nH.R. 1523 - Community Bank Access to Capital Act of 2015 (enhance community bank and thrift access to capital) (all sections) (House)\n\nH.R. 2205 and S. 961 - Data Security Act of 2015 (data breach and security, notifications, safeguards, GLBA compliance procedures) (all sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nH.R. 1233 and S. 812 - CLEAR Relief Act of 2015 (tiered regulatory reform and relief for community banks) (All sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nH.R. 3048 - Community Financial Institution Exemption Act (greater CFPB accountability in rulemaking to community financial institutions under $10 billion in assets) (all sections) (House)\n\nH.R. 1314 - Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (two year budget) (Title II - Agriculture, Section 201 - $3 billion crop insurance reduction) (House and Senate)\n\nH.R. 22 - DRIVE Act - highway and transportation funding (Amendment #86 Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act, The Small Bank Exam Cycle Reform Act, The Holding Company Registration Threshold Equalization Act, and Amendment #34 Federal Reserve Bank stock dividend spending offset) (House) (House and Senate Conference Committee)\n\nS. 1484 - Financial Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015 (bank regulatory relief) (Title I - all sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nH.R. 1188 -The Credit Union Business Job Creation Act (expand credit union member business lending cap) (All sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\n\nComment Letters - \n\nComment Letter - House, OMB, OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve System, Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities (Call Report regulatory reform, Call Report regulatory burden and credit unions, Agency advocacy for community banks) (FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041)\n\nComment Letter - House, Senate, OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve System (Combined impact of various regulations on community banks)\n\nComment Letter - Federal Reserve System, FDIC, OCC (Regulator advocacy for community banks with National Credit Union Administration and Farm Credit Administration)\n\nComment Letter - Federal Reserve System, FDIC, OCC (Remarks of Russell G. Golden, Chairman, Financial Accounting Standards Board regarding cause of the financial crisis and FASBs proposed Current Expected Credit Loss model (CECL)).\n\n\nAction Alerts -\n\nH.R. 1314 - Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 - (two year budget) (Title II - Agriculture, Section 201 - $3 billion crop insurance reduction) (House)\n\n\nMiscellaneous -\n\nRegarding - Economic Growth and Recovery Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA decennial regulatory review process) - specifically Prompt Corrective Action, Community Reinvestment Act, presentation of proposed rules, de novo bank formation, Call Reports, Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement (as contained in CBAI Comment Letters - Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001 and Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001, Docket No. OP-1491) (House)\n\nRegarding - Senate Banking Committee hearing to consider Federal Reserve Board nominations (Senate)\n\nRegarding - Member Letter - reduction in Federal Reserve Bank stock dividend rate (House, FDIC, OCC)\n\nRegarding - reduction in Federal Reserve Bank stock dividend rate (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nRegarding - Member Letter - Call Report regulatory relief (House)\n\nRegarding - Comments provided to banking regulators at the Chicago Federal Reserve Banks Economic Growth and Recovery Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA decennial regulatory review process) outreach meeting - combined impact of regulations to address the same regulatory issues, and de novo bank formation\n\nRegarding - financial innovation (House)\n\nRegarding - Testimony before House Agricultural Committee hearing on the Farm Credit System (House)", "foreign_entity_issues": "", "lobbyists": [{"lobbyist": {"id": 52194, "prefix": "mr", "prefix_display": "MR.", "first_name": "DAVID", "nickname": null, "middle_name": "GLENN", "last_name": "SCHROEDER", "suffix": null, "suffix_display": null}, "covered_position": null, "new": false}], "government_entities": [{"id": 54, "name": "Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)"}, {"id": 62, "name": "Federal Reserve System"}, {"id": 2, "name": "HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES"}, {"id": 18, "name": "Office of Management & Budget (OMB)"}, {"id": 183, "name": "Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)"}, {"id": 1, "name": "SENATE"}]}, {"general_issue_code": "CSP", "general_issue_code_display": "Consumer Issues/Safety/Products", "description": "Community Bankers Association of Illinois (CBAI) 2015 Federal Policy Priorities (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nTiered Regulation and Supervision for Community Banks - \nThe Independent Community Bankers of Americas Plan for Prosperity-\n\nOutsized risks taken by Wall Street mega banks during the financial crisis. The different/modest risks posed by community banks. Regulations not reflecting those differences. Regulatory burden on community banks by a one-size-fits-all approach. Disproportionate burden of banking laws and regulations on community banks. Credit unions, Farm Credit System lenders and other non-bank financial service providers not subject to the same laws and regulations as community banks. Unlevel playing field and a significant competitive disadvantage for community banks.\n\nIndependent Community Bankers of Americas (ICBA) Plan for Prosperity - a regulatory platform - community banks able to thrive and contribute to local economies. \n\nExcessive, redundant and costly regulations. Regulatory accountability. Community banks dedicating resources to promoting economic growth. Steady increase in regulations over many decades. Regulatory threats to community banks and their communities.\n \nThe Plan for Prosperity regarding:\nBasel III original intent.\nadditional capital for small holding companies - modernize the Federal Reserves Policy Statement.\nSecurities and Exchange Commission rules.\nreforming mortgage lending.\naccountability in bank exams by providing an appeals process.\nbank oversight and examinations - targeting risks.\nannual requirement for redundant privacy notices.\nconsumer regulation - inclusive and accountable CFPB governance.\narbitrary disparate impact fair lending causes of action.\nviability of mutual banks with new charter options.\ncost-benefit analysis to justify new rules.\nred tape in small business lending - burdensome data collection.\ncommunity bank mortgage servicing.\nTreasury Assistant Secretary for Community Banks.\nsubchapter S constraints.\nfive-year loss carryback - support for lending during economic downturns.\nrisk targeting in the Volcker Rule. \n\nTiered regulatory system based on size and risk profile - banking law, rule, and regulation clearly distinguishing and appropriately regulating community banks.\n\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau Mortgage Lending and Housing Finance Reform -\nImprudent mortgage lending contribution to the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis. Community banks common sense relationship lending and not participate in abusive and predatory lending practices. Community banks thriving on the strength of their reputations and incentive to make fair and reasonable loans. No need for prescriptive regulations to compel community banks to do the right thing for their customers.\n\nCurb imprudent lending practices. Not impacting responsible community bank loan products designed to meet the diverse needs of their customers, including borrowers with special needs and circumstances, first-time homebuyers, borrowers in rural and underserved areas, and low-to-moderate income borrowers. Regulators recognition of the difference between the non-traditional lending practiced by community banks and predatory lending practiced by others.\n\nCommunity bank loans held in portfolio for the life of the loan, including balloon payment loans, in all geographic areas should receive automatic Qualified Mortgage (QM) status and an automatic exemption from escrow requirements for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans (HPMLs).\n\nSpecial accommodations for small creditors, flexibility in serving the needs of customers and communities, particularly in rural areas, and the definition of underserved areas to include economically challenged areas.\n\nReforms to the housing GSEs to include the existence of an impartial secondary market for residential mortgages, one that is financially strong and reliable, the need for some government tie to the secondary market to ensure the continued flow of credit and market liquidity during severe economic stress, no limit to full participation by community banks, and a return of private capital. \n\nAdditional reforms to include community banks access to sell loans through an independent entity; no appropriation of community bank customer data for the purpose of cross selling financial services; maintain the Federal Home Loan Banks as a community bank access point (but not the only access point) to the national secondary market; pricing of any governmental guaranty fair and equal to all participants regardless of volume of loans guaranteed; and no further consolidation of the housing finance system.\n\nStop aggressively compelling community banks to repurchase transferred real estate mortgages for technical violations of underwriting agreements that had no bearing on the quality of the loan at the time of underwriting.\n\nDisparate Impact Fair Lending Causes of Action -\nEnforcement actions by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) - disparate impact. Additional obligation on community banks to consider such factors as race or national origin in credit decisions, which is specifically precluded by law - untenable situation.\n\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau Reform -\nCommunity banks regulatory relief to serve unique needs of their customers and not hinder new product development and innovation. Community bank flexibility to meet the unique needs of customers and community banks additional and unnecessary regulatory requirements to prevent their serving their communities. \n\nNo a one-size-fits-all approach to CFPB regulations. Community banks not enduring any additional consumer regulatory burden on top of the existing regulatory burden.\n\nSingle-Director governance of the CFPB versus a five-member commission. Prudential regulators participating with the CFPB in the rule-writing process. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) power to veto CFPB rules.\n\nBroad definition of firms that grant credit being subject to the CFPB rules, and their robust supervision and examinations. Focus of any enhanced regulation of financial products on unregulated shadow financial companies. CFPBs efforts to use its authority to address non-banks, such as Wal-Mart, serving as channels for financial products. CFPB holding mega banks and financial firms up to the existing standards for compliance with consumer laws, rules and regulations as required by community banks. \n\nFederal Home Loan Bank System -\nThe Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs) partnership with community banks - short-term liquidity, long-term funding and other financial products and providing lendable funds for the local communities. Maintaining the regional structure, special functions and purposes of the FHLBs. The FHLB Systems health, stability and reliability for its members. \n\nFHFAs proposed (2014) revisions to FHLB membership eligibility requirements - impact on the FHLB System and its members including, but not limited to, regulatory burden, member balance sheet management, stability of the System, and continued reliability as a funding partner, future value of FHLB membership and the implications for membership decisions; and impact on housing and community development throughout the System. The proposed rule is also contrary to the will of Congress. \n\nFHLB System reliance as the sole aggregator or securitizer of residential mortgages for community banks, and the FHFAs imposition of an ongoing housing mission asset test on community financial institutions. \n\nExcessive Intervention in Monetary Policy -\nThe sustained record-low zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) - disproportionate impact on community banks, senior citizens and discourages savings. Record-low interest rates for five years+ does not constitute temporary intervention but long-term and harmful manipulation. The limits to what Fed monetary policy can accomplish, especially given major offsetting negative effects.\n\n\nLegislation -\n\nS. 1484 - Financial Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015 (bank regulatory relief) (Title I - all sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nH.R. 1233 and S. 812 - CLEAR Relief Act of 2015 (tiered regulatory reform and relief for community banks) (All sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nH.R. 2205 and S. 961 - Data Security Act of 2015 (data breach and security, notifications, safeguards, GLBA compliance procedures) (All sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\nH.R. 3048 - Community Financial Institution Exemption Act (greater CFPB accountability in rulemaking to community financial institutions under $10 billion in assets) (all sections) (House)\n\nH.R. 22 - DRIVE Act - highway and transportation funding (Amendment #86 Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act, The Small Bank Exam Cycle Reform Act, The Holding Company Registration Threshold Equalization Act, and Amendment #34 Federal Reserve Bank stock dividend spending offset) (House) (House and Senate Conference Committee)\n\nMiscellaneous -\n\nRegarding Economic Growth and Recovery Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA decennial regulatory review process) - specifically Prompt Corrective Action, Community Reinvestment Act, presentation of proposed rules, de novo bank formation, Call Reports, Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement (as contained in CBAI Comment Letters - Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001 and Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001, Docket No. OP-1491) (House)", "foreign_entity_issues": "", "lobbyists": [{"lobbyist": {"id": 52194, "prefix": "mr", "prefix_display": "MR.", "first_name": "DAVID", "nickname": null, "middle_name": "GLENN", "last_name": "SCHROEDER", "suffix": null, "suffix_display": null}, "covered_position": null, "new": false}], "government_entities": [{"id": 54, "name": "Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)"}, {"id": 62, "name": "Federal Reserve System"}, {"id": 2, "name": "HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES"}, {"id": 18, "name": "Office of Management & Budget (OMB)"}, {"id": 183, "name": "Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)"}, {"id": 1, "name": "SENATE"}]}, {"general_issue_code": "FIN", "general_issue_code_display": "Financial Institutions/Investments/Securities", "description": "Community Bankers Association of Illinois (CBAI) 2015 Federal Policy Priorities (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nToo-to-Fail -\nReform the financial system. The severity of a future financial crisis. The perception and reality of too-big-to-fail. Taxpayer bailouts of mega banks and financial firms. \n\nMega bank size, complexity and interconnectedness, and candidacy for future bailouts. The number of community banks falling by more than half (currently 6,200 institutions) and now represent less than one-fifth of banking professions assets. \n\nCauses of the mortgage meltdown and financial crisis. Protection of the nation and the banking profession from a repeat of massive financial destruction. Taxpayer-funded bailouts of too-big-to-fail banks and financial firms and their numerous violations of the law, often criminal violations. \n\nEffective management, supervision, discipline, or resolution of too-big-to-fail banks and financial firms. Mega bank multi-trillion dollars financial assistance versus community banks assistance and more than 500 failed community banks. Downsizing too-big-to-fail banks and financial firms.\n\nThe fundamental American constitutional right of equal justice under the law applicability when it comes to the mega banks. The U.S. two-tiered system of justice - too-big-to-fail banks and financial firms and everyone else. The Department of Justice (DOJ) - laggard in prosecuting crimes stemming from the financial crisis.\n\nBanking regulators and the DOJ aggressively pursuing actions against community banks, their directors, and officers with board resolutions, MOUs, C&Ds, consent orders, monetary penalties, barring individuals from banking, criminal prosecution, and other actions. No mandatory Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) capital enforcement orders against any bank larger than $30 billion in assets, yet 1,400 PCAs against community banks. Evidence of a clear double standard.\n\nOpponents of downsizing the mega banks (include their paid association cheerleaders) consistently blocking meaningful reforms and obfuscating the issue of too-big-to-fail for the benefit of large members and the detriment of everyone else.\n\nToo-big-to-fail banks, directors, officers, or employees being - too-big-to-manage, too-big-to-regulate, too-big-to-fail, too-big-to-prosecute, too-big-to-jail, too-big-to-change, and clearly too-big-to-behave --- downsize. \n\nTiered Regulation and Supervision for Community Banks - \nThe Independent Community Bankers of Americas Plan for Prosperity-\n\nOutsized risks taken by Wall Street mega banks during the financial crisis. The different/modest risks posed by community banks. Regulations not reflecting those differences. Regulatory burden on community banks by a one-size-fits-all approach. Disproportionate burden of banking laws and regulations on community banks. Credit unions, Farm Credit System lenders and other non-bank financial service providers not subject to the same laws and regulations as community banks. Unlevel playing field and a significant competitive disadvantage for community banks.\n\nIndependent Community Bankers of Americas (ICBA) Plan for Prosperity - a regulatory platform - community banks able to thrive and contribute to local economies. \n\nExcessive, redundant and costly regulations. Regulatory accountability. Community banks dedicating resources to promoting economic growth. Steady increase in regulations over many decades. Regulatory threats to community banks and their communities.\n \nThe Plan for Prosperity regarding:\nBasel III original intent.\nadditional capital for small holding companies - modernize the Federal Reserves Policy Statement.\nSecurities and Exchange Commission rules.\nreforming mortgage lending.\naccountability in bank exams by providing an appeals process.\nbank oversight and examinations - targeting risks.\nannual requirement for redundant privacy notices.\nconsumer regulation - inclusive and accountable CFPB governance.\narbitrary disparate impact fair lending causes of action.\nviability of mutual banks with new charter options.\ncost-benefit analysis to justify new rules.\nred tape in small business lending - burdensome data collection.\ncommunity bank mortgage servicing.\nTreasury Assistant Secretary for Community Banks.\nsubchapter S constraints.\nfive-year loss carryback - support for lending during economic downturns.\nrisk targeting in the Volcker Rule. \n\nTiered regulatory system based on size and risk profile - banking law, rule, and regulation clearly distinguishing and appropriately regulating community banks. \n\nCredit Union Taxation and Expansion of Powers -\nCredit unions now indistinguishable from community banks, grown to control a significant share of the banking services market. Original business model now outdated. Credit unions strayed from founding purpose of serving individuals of modest means and with a common bond. Same financial services as community banks. Federal tax-exempt status, in exchange for serving their original mission is no longer justified. Credit unions paying their fair share of income taxes.\n\nCredit unions adhering to a common bond or operating within a well-defined local community, neighborhood or rural district . \n\nCredit unions similarity to other types of mutually owned financial institutions - savings banks (SB) and savings and loans (S&L). The exemption for SBs and S&Ls repealed by Congress in 1951 - (reason) - active competition with taxable institutions [community banks]. \n\nThe Office of Management and Budget tax expenditure analysis - tax-exemption for credit unions result in loss of tax revenues of $9.46 billion over fiscal years 2014-2018.\n\nCredit union expansion of commercial lending powers - increasing the percentage of cap on member business lending (MBL). Loan growth at the expense of tax-paying community banks. Fundamental altering the exclusive member-focused character of credit unions - a condition for their original tax exemption. \n\nApplying Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requirements to credit unions - same asset size distinction as banks and thrifts. The same Call Report filing requirements for credit unions as those imposed on community banks.\n\nTax subsidy and level the playing field between credit unions and tax-paying community banks.\n\nFarm Credit System -\nExpansionist agenda of the Farm Credit System (FCS). FCS almost the equivalent of commercial banks yet retaining the benefits of Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) status. Tax advantages - unfair competitive advantage. Follow narrow historic mission - abolish or be subject to taxation and oversight and regulation. \n\nNarrow founding purpose of the System to serve bona fide farmers, ranchers, young-beginning farmers, small farmers, and their farmer-owned cooperatives. \n\nSupport and cooperation of Farm Credit Administration (FCA) - FCS straying beyond its original mission and scope and engaging in inappropriate and unprecedented lending activities. FCS significant systemic and taxpayer bail-out risks. \n\nThe FCS (only GSE) in active competition with community banks. Public sector (multi-billion dollar GSE) competition with the private sector (Main Street community banks).\n\nFunding and tax benefits impact on community banks. FCS not following its narrow historical mission. Follow narrow mission or abolish System. Abolished or taxation when exceeding a given asset threshold, lending to large borrowers, or engaging in non-farm lending activity. \n\nFCS requirement to engage in joint rulemaking with federal banking agencies, a member of a federal banking agency on its three person board, requirement to register a class of stock with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), full disclosure as required by the SEC Act, publication of instances of illegal lending and exemptions granted, and subject to regulatory safeguards, disclosures and controls equal to community banks and housing GSEs, including CFPB oversight. \n\nCongress convening joint committee hearings to investigate the operations, supervision, risks and financial soundness of the FCS, and impact on rural community banks. \n\nEnhanced Cyber, Data and Payment Card Security -\nEstablish a federal data security standard and notice requirement for all entities that store consumer data comparable to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) standards that apply to community banks. Shifting the liability for all costs associated with the data breach - including fraud losses and the cost of card reissuance - to the party that caused the breach. \n\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau Mortgage Lending and Housing Finance Reform -\nImprudent mortgage lending contribution to the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis. Community banks common sense relationship lending and not participating in abusive and predatory lending practices. Community banks thriving on the strength of their reputations and incentive to make fair and reasonable loans. No need for prescriptive regulations to compel community banks to do the right thing for their customers.\n\nCurb imprudent lending practices. Not impacting responsible community bank loan products designed to meet the diverse needs of their customers, including borrowers with special needs and circumstances, first-time homebuyers, borrowers in rural and underserved areas, and low-to-moderate income borrowers. Regulators recognition of the difference between the non-traditional lending practiced by community banks and predatory lending practiced by others.\n\nCommunity bank loans held in portfolio for the life of the loan, including balloon payment loans, in all geographic areas should receive automatic Qualified Mortgage (QM) status and an automatic exemption from escrow requirements for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans (HPMLs).\n\nSpecial accommodations for small creditors, flexibility in serving the needs of customers and communities, particularly in rural areas, and the definition of underserved areas to include economically challenged areas.\n\nReforms to the housing GSEs to include the existence of an impartial secondary market for residential mortgages, one that is financially strong and reliable, the need for some government tie to the secondary market to ensure the continued flow of credit and market liquidity during severe economic stress, no limit to full participation by community banks, and a return of private capital. \n\nAdditional reforms to include community banks access to sell loans through an independent entity; no appropriation of community bank customer data for the purpose of cross selling financial services; maintain the Federal Home Loan Banks as a community bank access point (but not the only access point) to the national secondary market; pricing of any governmental guaranty fair and equal to all participants regardless of volume of loans guaranteed; and no further consolidation of the housing finance system.\n\nStop aggressively compelling community banks to repurchase transferred real estate mortgages for technical violations of underwriting agreements that had no bearing on the quality of the loan at the time of underwriting.\n\nDisparate Impact Fair Lending Causes of Action -\nEnforcement actions by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) - disparate impact. Additional obligation on community banks to consider such factors as race or national origin in credit decisions, which is specifically precluded by law - untenable situation\n\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau Reform -\nCommunity banks regulatory relief to serve unique needs of their customers and not hinder new product development and innovation. Community bank flexibility to meet the unique needs of customers and community banks additional and unnecessary regulatory requirements to prevent their serving their communities. \n\nNo a one-size-fits-all approach to CFPB regulations. Community banks not enduring any additional consumer regulatory burden on top of the existing regulatory burden.\n\nSingle-Director governance of the CFPB versus a five-member commission. Prudential regulators participating with the CFPB in the rule-writing process. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) power to veto CFPB rules.\n\nBroad definition of firms that grant credit being subject to the CFPB rules, and their robust supervision and examinations. Focus of any enhanced regulation of financial products on unregulated shadow financial companies. CFPBs efforts to use its authority to address non-banks, such as Wal-Mart, serving as channels for financial products. CFPB holding mega banks and financial firms up to the existing standards for compliance with consumer laws, rules and regulations as required by community banks. \n\nRevised definitions in the Ability-to-Repay Qualified Mortgage rules of small creditor and rural areas, and expansion of the definition of underserved areas to include economically challenged areas.\n\nDe Novo Community Bank Formation -\nNeed for newly chartered (de novo) community banks. FDIC inhibiting de novo community bank formation. FDICs current position and a one-size-fits-all supervisory policy for de novos. \n\nFederal Home Loan Bank System -\nThe Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs) partnership with community banks - short-term liquidity, long-term funding and other financial products and providing lendable funds for the local communities. Maintaining the regional structure, special functions and purposes of the FHLBs. The FHLB Systems health, stability and reliability for its members. \n\nFHFAs proposed (2014) revisions to FHLB membership eligibility requirements - impact on the FHLB System and its members including, but not limited to, regulatory burden, member balance sheet management, stability of the System, and continued reliability as a funding partner, future value of FHLB membership and the implications for membership decisions; and impact on housing and community development throughout the System. The proposed rule is also contrary to the will of Congress. \n\nFHLB System reliance as the sole aggregator or securitizer of residential mortgages for community banks, and the FHFAs imposition of an ongoing housing mission asset test on community financial institutions. \n\n\nExcessive Intervention in Monetary Policy -\nThe sustained record-low zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) - disproportionate impact on community banks, senior citizens and discourages savings. Record-low interest rates for five years+ does not constitute temporary intervention but long-term and harmful manipulation. The limits to what Fed monetary policy can accomplish, especially given major offsetting negative effects.\n\n\nLegislation -\n\nH.R. 1309 - Systemic Risk Designation Act of 2105 (Amends Dodd-Frank Act and Consumer Protection Act regarding the designation of financial institutions as systemically important (SIFIs)) (all sections) (House)\n\nH.R. 1523 - Community Bank Access to Capital Act of 2015 (enhance community bank and thrift access to capital) (all sections) (House)\n\nH.R. 2205 and S. 961 - Data Security Act of 2015 (data breach and security, notifications, safeguards, GLBA compliance procedures) (all sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nH.R. 1233 and S. 812 - CLEAR Relief Act of 2015 (tiered regulatory reform and relief for community banks) (All sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nH.R. 3048 - Community Financial Institution Exemption Act (greater CFPB accountability in rulemaking to community financial institutions under $10 billion in assets) (all sections) (House)\n\nH.R. 1314 - Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (two year budget) (Title II - Agriculture, Section 201 - $3 billion crop insurance reduction) (House and Senate)\n\nH.R. 22 - DRIVE Act - highway and transportation funding (Amendment #86 Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act, The Small Bank Exam Cycle Reform Act, The Holding Company Registration Threshold Equalization Act, and Amendment #34 Federal Reserve Bank stock dividend spending offset) (House) (House and Senate Conference Committee)\n\nS. 1484 - Financial Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015 (bank regulatory relief) (Title I - all sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nH.R. 1188 -The Credit Union Business Job Creation Act (expand credit union member business lending cap) (All sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\n\nComment Letters - \n\nComment Letter - House, OMB, OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve System, Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities (Call Report regulatory reform, Call Report regulatory burden and credit unions, Agency advocacy for community banks) (FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041)\n\nComment Letter - House, Senate, OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve System (Combined impact of various regulations on community banks)\n\nComment Letter - Federal Reserve System, FDIC, OCC (Regulator advocacy for community banks with National Credit Union Administration and Farm Credit Administration)\n\nComment Letter - Federal Reserve System, FDIC, OCC (Remarks of Russell G. Golden, Chairman, Financial Accounting Standards Board regarding cause of the financial crisis and FASBs proposed Current Expected Credit Loss model (CECL)).\n\n\nAction Alerts -\n\nH.R. 1314 - Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 - (two year budget) (Title II - Agriculture, Section 201 - $3 billion crop insurance reduction) (House)\n\n\nMiscellaneous -\n\nRegarding - Economic Growth and Recovery Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA decennial regulatory review process) - specifically Prompt Corrective Action, Community Reinvestment Act, presentation of proposed rules, de novo bank formation, Call Reports, Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement (as contained in CBAI Comment Letters - Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001 and Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001, Docket No. OP-1491) (House)\n\nRegarding - Senate Banking Committee hearing to consider Federal Reserve Board nominations (Senate)\n\nRegarding - Member Letter - reduction in Federal Reserve Bank stock dividend rate (House, FDIC, OCC)\n\nRegarding - reduction in Federal Reserve Bank stock dividend rate (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nRegarding - Member Letter - Call Report regulatory relief (House)\n\nRegarding - Comments provided to banking regulators at the Chicago Federal Reserve Banks Economic Growth and Recovery Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA decennial regulatory review process) outreach meeting - combined impact of regulations to address the same regulatory issues, and de novo bank formation\n\nRegarding - financial innovation (House)\n\nRegarding - Testimony before House Agricultural Committee hearing on the Farm Credit System (House)", "foreign_entity_issues": "", "lobbyists": [{"lobbyist": {"id": 52194, "prefix": "mr", "prefix_display": "MR.", "first_name": "DAVID", "nickname": null, "middle_name": "GLENN", "last_name": "SCHROEDER", "suffix": null, "suffix_display": null}, "covered_position": null, "new": false}], "government_entities": [{"id": 54, "name": "Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)"}, {"id": 62, "name": "Federal Reserve System"}, {"id": 2, "name": "HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES"}, {"id": 18, "name": "Office of Management & Budget (OMB)"}, {"id": 183, "name": "Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)"}, {"id": 1, "name": "SENATE"}]}, {"general_issue_code": "TAX", "general_issue_code_display": "Taxation/Internal Revenue Code", "description": "Community Bankers Association of Illinois (CBAI) 2015 Federal Policy Priorities (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nCredit Union Taxation and Expansion of Powers -\nCredit unions now indistinguishable from community banks, grown to control a significant share of the banking services market. Original business model now outdated. Credit unions strayed from founding purpose of serving individuals of modest means and with a common bond. Same financial services as community banks. Federal tax-exempt status, in exchange for serving their original mission is no longer justified. Credit unions paying their fair share of income taxes.\n\nCredit unions adhering to a common bond or operating within a well-defined local community, neighborhood or rural district. \n\nCredit unions similarity to other types of mutually owned financial institutions - savings banks (SB) and savings and loans (S&L). The exemption for SBs and S&Ls repealed by Congress in 1951 - (reason) - active competition with taxable institutions [community banks]. \n\nThe Office of Management and Budget tax expenditure analysis - tax-exemption for credit unions result in loss of tax revenues of $9.46 billion over fiscal years 2014-2018.\n\nCredit union expansion of commercial lending powers - increasing the percentage of assets cap on member business lending (MBL). Loan growth at the expense of tax-paying community banks. Fundamental altering the exclusive member-focused character of credit unions - a condition for their original tax exemption. \n\nApplying Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requirements to credit unions - same asset size distinction as banks and thrifts. The same Call Report filing requirements for credit unions as those imposed on community banks.\n\nTax subsidy and level the playing field between credit unions and tax-paying community banks.\n\nFarm Credit System -\nExpansionist agenda of the Farm Credit System (FCS). FCS almost the equivalent of commercial banks yet retaining the benefits of Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) status. Tax advantages - unfair competitive advantage. Follow narrow historic mission - abolish or be subject to taxation and oversight and regulation. \n\nNarrow founding purpose of the System to serve bona fide farmers, ranchers, young-beginning farmers, small farmers, and their farmer-owned cooperatives. \n\nSupport and cooperation of Farm Credit Administration (FCA) - FCS straying beyond its original mission and scope and engaging in inappropriate and unprecedented lending activities. FCS significant systemic and taxpayer bail-out risks. \n\nThe FCS (only GSE) in active competition with community banks. Public sector (multi-billion dollar GSE) competition with the private sector (Main Street community banks).\n\nFunding and tax benefits impact on community banks. FCS not following its narrow historical mission. Follow narrow mission or abolish System. Abolished or taxation when exceeding a given asset threshold, lending to large borrowers, or engaging in non-farm lending activity. \n\nFCS requirement to engage in joint rulemaking with federal banking agencies, a member of a federal banking agency on its three person board, requirement to register a class of stock with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), full disclosure as required by the SEC Act, publication of instances of illegal lending and exemptions granted, and subject to regulatory safeguards, disclosures and controls equal to community banks and housing GSEs, including CFPB oversight. \n\nCongress convening joint committee hearings to investigate the operations, supervision, risks and financial soundness of the FCS, and impact on rural community banks. \n\nTiered Regulation and Supervision for Community Banks - \nThe Independent Community Bankers of Americas Plan for Prosperity-\n\nOutsized risks taken by Wall Street mega banks during the financial crisis. The different/modest risks posed by community banks. Regulations not reflecting those differences. Regulatory burden on community banks by a one-size-fits-all approach. Disproportionate burden of banking laws and regulations on community banks. Credit unions, Farm Credit System lenders and other non-bank financial service providers not subject to the same laws and regulations as community banks. Unlevel playing field and a significant competitive disadvantage for community banks.\n\nIndependent Community Bankers of Americas (ICBA) Plan for Prosperity - a regulatory platform - community banks able to thrive and contribute to local economies. \n\nExcessive, redundant and costly regulations. Regulatory accountability. Community banks dedicating resources to promoting economic growth. Steady increase in regulations over many decades. Regulatory threats to community banks and their communities.\n \nThe Plan for Prosperity regarding:\nBasel III original intent.\nadditional capital for small holding companies - modernize the Federal Reserves Policy Statement.\nSecurities and Exchange Commission rules.\nreforming mortgage lending.\naccountability in bank exams by providing an appeals process.\nbank oversight and examinations - targeting risks.\nannual requirement for redundant privacy notices.\nconsumer regulation - inclusive and accountable CFPB governance.\narbitrary disparate impact fair lending causes of action.\nviability of mutual banks with new charter options.\ncost-benefit analysis to justify new rules.\nred tape in small business lending - burdensome data collection.\ncommunity bank mortgage servicing.\nTreasury Assistant Secretary for Community Banks.\nsubchapter S constraints.\nfive-year loss carryback - support for lending during economic downturns.\nrisk targeting in the Volcker Rule. \n\nTiered regulatory system based on size and risk profile - banking law, rule, and regulation clearly distinguishing and appropriately regulating community banks. \n\nLegislation -\n\nS. 1484 - Financial Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015 (bank regulatory relief) (Title I - all sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nH.R. 1233 and S. 812 - CLEAR Relief Act of 2015 (tiered regulatory reform and relief for community banks) (All sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nH.R. 1188 -The Credit Union Business Job Creation Act (expand credit union member business lending cap) (All sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nComment Letters -\n\nComment Letter - House, OMB, OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve System, Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities (Call Report regulatory reform, Call Report regulatory burden and credit unions, Agency advocacy for community banks) (FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041)\n\nComment Letter - Federal Reserve System, FDIC, OCC (Regulator advocacy for community banks with National Credit Union Administration and Farm Credit Administration)", "foreign_entity_issues": "", "lobbyists": [{"lobbyist": {"id": 52194, "prefix": "mr", "prefix_display": "MR.", "first_name": "DAVID", "nickname": null, "middle_name": "GLENN", "last_name": "SCHROEDER", "suffix": null, "suffix_display": null}, "covered_position": null, "new": false}], "government_entities": [{"id": 54, "name": "Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)"}, {"id": 62, "name": "Federal Reserve System"}, {"id": 2, "name": "HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES"}, {"id": 18, "name": "Office of Management & Budget (OMB)"}, {"id": 183, "name": "Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)"}, {"id": 1, "name": "SENATE"}]}, {"general_issue_code": "AGR", "general_issue_code_display": "Agriculture", "description": "Community Bankers Association of Illinois (CBAI) 2015 Federal Policy Priorities (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nFarm Credit System -\nExpansionist agenda of the Farm Credit System (FCS). FCS almost the equivalent of commercial banks yet retaining the benefits of Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) status. Tax advantages - unfair competitive advantage. Follow narrow historic mission - abolish or be subject to taxation and oversight and regulation. \n\nNarrow founding purpose of the System to serve bona fide farmers, ranchers, young-beginning farmers, small farmers, and their farmer-owned cooperatives. \n\nSupport and cooperation of Farm Credit Administration (FCA) - FCS straying beyond its original mission and scope and engaging in inappropriate and unprecedented lending activities. FCS significant systemic and taxpayer bail-out risks. \n\nThe FCS (only GSE) in active competition with community banks. Public sector (multi-billion dollar GSE) competition with the private sector (Main Street community banks).\n\nFunding and tax benefits impact on community banks. FCS not following its narrow historical mission. Follow narrow mission or abolish System. Abolished or taxation when exceeding a given asset threshold, lending to large borrowers, or engaging in non-farm lending activity. \n\nFCS requirement to engage in joint rulemaking with federal banking agencies, a member of a federal banking agency on its three person board, requirement to register a class of stock with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), full disclosure as required by the SEC Act, publication of instances of illegal lending and exemptions granted, and subject to regulatory safeguards, disclosures and controls equal to community banks and housing GSEs, including CFPB oversight. \n\nCongress convening joint committee hearings to investigate the operations, supervision, risks and financial soundness of the FCS, and impact on rural community banks.\n\nLegislation -\n\nH.R. 1314 - Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (two year budget) (Title II - Agriculture, Section 201- $3 billion crop insurance reduction) (House and Senate)\n\nS. 1484 - Financial Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015 (bank regulatory relief) (Title I - all sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nComment Letters -\n\nComment Letter - Federal Reserve System, FDIC, OCC (Regulator advocacy for community banks with National Credit Union Administration and Farm Credit Administration)\n\nAction Alerts -\n\nH.R. 1314 - Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (two year budget) (Title II - Agriculture, Section 201- $3 billion crop insurance reduction) (House)\n\nMiscellaneous -\n\nRegarding - Testimony before House Agricultural Committee hearing on the Farm Credit System (House)", "foreign_entity_issues": "", "lobbyists": [{"lobbyist": {"id": 52194, "prefix": "mr", "prefix_display": "MR.", "first_name": "DAVID", "nickname": null, "middle_name": "GLENN", "last_name": "SCHROEDER", "suffix": null, "suffix_display": null}, "covered_position": null, "new": false}], "government_entities": [{"id": 54, "name": "Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)"}, {"id": 62, "name": "Federal Reserve System"}, {"id": 2, "name": "HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES"}, {"id": 18, "name": "Office of Management & Budget (OMB)"}, {"id": 183, "name": "Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)"}, {"id": 1, "name": "SENATE"}]}, {"general_issue_code": "SMB", "general_issue_code_display": "Small Business", "description": "Community Bankers Association of Illinois (CBAI) 2015 Federal Policy Priorities (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nTiered Regulation and Supervision for Community Banks - \nThe Independent Community Bankers of Americas Plan for Prosperity-\n\nOutsized risks taken by Wall Street mega banks during the financial crisis. The different/modest risks posed by community banks. Regulations not reflecting those differences. Regulatory burden on community banks by a one-size-fits-all approach. Disproportionate burden of banking laws and regulations on community banks. Credit unions, Farm Credit System lenders and other non-bank financial service providers not subject to the same laws and regulations as community banks. Unlevel playing field and a significant competitive disadvantage for community banks.\n\nIndependent Community Bankers of Americas (ICBA) Plan for Prosperity - a regulatory platform - community banks able to thrive and contribute to local economies. \n\nExcessive, redundant and costly regulations. Regulatory accountability. Community banks dedicating resources to promoting economic growth. Steady increase in regulations over many decades. Regulatory threats to community banks and their communities.\n \nThe Plan for Prosperity regarding:\nBasel III original intent.\nadditional capital for small holding companies - modernize the Federal Reserves Policy Statement.\nSecurities and Exchange Commission rules.\nreforming mortgage lending.\naccountability in bank exams by providing an appeals process.\nbank oversight and examinations - targeting risks.\nannual requirement for redundant privacy notices.\nconsumer regulation - inclusive and accountable CFPB governance.\narbitrary disparate impact fair lending causes of action.\nviability of mutual banks with new charter options.\ncost-benefit analysis to justify new rules.\nred tape in small business lending - burdensome data collection.\ncommunity bank mortgage servicing.\nTreasury Assistant Secretary for Community Banks.\nsubchapter S constraints.\nfive-year loss carryback - support for lending during economic downturns.\nrisk targeting in the Volcker Rule. \n\nTiered regulatory system based on size and risk profile - banking law, rule, and regulation clearly distinguishing and appropriately regulating community banks.\n\nLegislation -\n\nS. 1484 - Financial Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015 (bank regulatory relief) (Title I - all sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nH.R. 1233 and S. 812 - CLEAR Relief Act of 2015 (tiered regulatory reform and relief for community banks) (All sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nH.R. 2205 and S. 961 - Data Security Act of 2015 (data breach and security, notifications, safeguards, GLBA compliance procedures) (All sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)\n\nH.R. 1188 -The Credit Union Business Job Creation Act (expand credit union member business lending cap) (All sections) (House and Senate, FDIC, OCC)", "foreign_entity_issues": "", "lobbyists": [{"lobbyist": {"id": 52194, "prefix": "mr", "prefix_display": "MR.", "first_name": "DAVID", "nickname": null, "middle_name": "GLENN", "last_name": "SCHROEDER", "suffix": null, "suffix_display": null}, "covered_position": null, "new": false}], "government_entities": [{"id": 54, "name": "Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)"}, {"id": 62, "name": "Federal Reserve System"}, {"id": 2, "name": "HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES"}, {"id": 18, "name": "Office of Management & Budget (OMB)"}, {"id": 183, "name": "Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)"}, {"id": 1, "name": "SENATE"}]}], "conviction_disclosures": [], "foreign_entities": [], "affiliated_organizations": []} | IL | US | IL | IL | US | US | 0 | 0 | 610434 | normalized_name_state | 0.9 |