[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1343-S1348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




ECONOMIC GROWTH, REGULATORY RELIEF, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT--MOTION 
                               TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2155, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 287, S. 2155, a bill to 
     promote economic growth, provide tailored regulatory relief, 
     and enhance consumer protections, and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11 a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The majority leader is recognized.


                       Retirement of Thad Cochran

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate learned that its 
quiet persuader will be leaving us after a long and distinguished 
career. Senator Thad Cochran's retirement will mark the end of a tenure 
defined by steady, honorable leadership.
  Since the day he arrived in this Chamber, Thad's focus has been 
squarely on serving the people of Mississippi with integrity. For 
nearly four decades, he has done exactly that, and he has earned the 
admiration and gratitude of countless friends and colleagues along the 
way.
  Those of us here today are proud to have had the privilege of working 
with Senator Cochran. His expertise as chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee will be sorely missed. So too will be the collegiality, 
warmth, and grace that is so characteristic of the senior Senator from 
Mississippi.
  But the Senate's loss is Thad's family's gain. As we say our 
farewells over the next few weeks, I know all of our colleagues will 
join me in wishing him every happiness in his next chapter.
  Mr. President, on another matter, the Senate will vote today to begin 
consideration of S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and 
Consumer Protection Act.
  This bill recognizes a simple truth: Small community banks and Main 
Street credit unions are not the same as the multitrillion-dollar banks 
on Wall Street. It is a simple enough observation, I might add, but, at 
present, our laws fail to account for it.
  Since Washington imposed the Dodd-Frank financial regulations back in 
2010, small-scale lenders have been subjected to a litany of new 
regulatory, compliance, and examiner demands that were designed with 
the country's largest banks in mind. Dodd-Frank's enormous regulatory 
burden has been inefficient and unhelpful for financial institutions of 
all sizes, but it has hit Main Street lenders especially hard.
  Many small banks have had to hire additional staff and expend 
additional resources solely to deal with the staggering compliance 
burden. According to a survey conducted last year, community bank 
compliance costs have risen to an average of 24 percent of net income. 
Let me say that again. Community bank compliance costs have

[[Page S1344]]

risen to an average of 24 percent of net income.
  This regulatory burden crowds out the capital that is available to 
American families and small businesses, especially in rural 
communities. According to researchers at the Harvard Kennedy School, 
community banks provide over 50 percent of all small business loans and 
nearly 80 percent of agricultural loans. In Kentucky, for example, 
there are more than 100 community banks and more than 20 credit unions. 
Many of them are the only financial institutions that are present in 
rural and underserved communities.
  But while Dodd-Frank supposedly took aim at too big to fail, in the 
first 4 years after it passed, the share of U.S. deposits in small 
banks shrunk by nearly a quarter. Deposits in small banks shrunk by a 
quarter in the first 4 years of Dodd-Frank. That means less access to 
capital for young couples who are looking to purchase their first home, 
less credit for aspiring small business owners who need help in turning 
dreams into reality, and fewer options for farmers and ranchers who are 
hoping to expand.
  The bill before us this week will continue to unwind the damage 
caused by an administration and Democrat-run Congress that kept its 
foot firmly on the brake of the American economy. This is a modest but 
critical bill. By streamlining regulations, it will bring relief to the 
small financial institutions that have been hurt by Dodd-Frank's one-
size-fits-all approach.
  In a certain respect, this bill is a perfect complement to tax 
reform--further expanding opportunities for American families, 
communities, and small businesses. It is the product of years of work 
and a robust committee process. It is also a truly bipartisan bill, 
cosponsored by an equal number of Republicans and Democrats or 
Independents. Senators had and still have a wide diversity of views on 
Dodd-Frank, but there is a widening agreement that we should not 
continue allowing this unintended consequence to wreak havoc on 
community banks and small credit unions. I hope that soon we can turn 
that consensus into law.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. President, on one final matter, every day we hear more ways that 
tax reform is immediately helping American workers, job creators, and 
middle-class families across our country, but this generational reform 
was not designed to be a flash in the pan. We are already seeing ways 
it will continue to benefit hard-working Americans even decades down 
the road.
  Along with bonuses and wage increases, many of the 400-plus companies 
that have announced enhanced employee benefits are also significantly 
expanding their contributions to workers' retirement savings accounts.
  In recent years, tight budgets have forced too many families to forgo 
investing for the future in order to cover today's expenses. Recent 
estimates suggest that two-thirds of Americans do not contribute to a 
401(k). A lack of retirement savings can seem like an abstract concept 
for young workers, but for some senior citizens, it becomes a harsh 
reality. While the poverty rate for Americans under 65 has decreased 
since 2015, it has increased among those 65 and older.
  Tax reform is already helping remedy a part of the problem. Many 
companies and small businesses alike have announced plans to reinvest 
tax reform savings in their employees' retirement accounts. Cigna is 
adding $30 million to its employee 401(k) program. Aflac is doubling 
its 401(k) match for its 10,000 employees. In Kentucky, workers will 
benefit from increased or accelerated retirement contributions by major 
employers such as UPS, Brown-Forman, Anthem, and FedEx.
  As employers of all sizes continue following suit, more American 
families will have more flexibility as they plan for the future. At the 
same time, of course, lower tax rates are increasing take-home pay, 
making it a little easier to cover today's expenses. More money in 
workers' pockets for today and more money in their retirement plans for 
tomorrow--all thanks to tax reform.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, ever since President Trump signed the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act on December 22, we have seen how one law can 
literally transform the economic landscape across the country. The New 
York Times has reported that there is a wave of optimism surging among 
job creators.
  Let me just footnote that the New York Times was certainly a skeptic 
as to what the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would be, but they 
now report that a wave of optimism is surging among job creators.
  Since January 2017, 2.3 million jobs have been added in the United 
States, and unemployment is at a 17-year low. U.S. weekly jobless 
claims are at their lowest since 1969. Many people who thought that 
stagnant growth and flat wages were the new normal have been 
surprised--and maybe a better word is ``gratified''--to see what the 
impact of this policy has been on their take-home pay, on their 
confidence in their future, and on investments and new jobs. It is 
pretty exciting. In 2017, average unemployment rates decreased in 32 
States according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  Mr. President, 186,000 manufacturing jobs have been added over the 
last 12 months. I know the President and all of us are concerned about 
manufacturing moving offshore because the cost of doing business in 
some places around the world is much lower than it is in the United 
States, but we should all be excited about the fact that 186,000 
manufacturing jobs have been added in the last 12 months.
  As I mentioned, consumer confidence is now at its highest level since 
November 2000, and real disposable incomes have seen their biggest gain 
since April 2015.
  According to a National Federation of Independent Business survey, 
more small businesses than ever now believe it is a good time to 
expand. This is a very important part of the equation, and I will say 
more about small businesses in just a moment.
  In Texas, where I am from, a survey of Houston businesses found that 
2 out of 3 companies there will increase hiring and wages, while nearly 
9 out of 10 said they expected to see an increase in their revenue. The 
head economist of the bank that conducted the survey didn't waste any 
words, saying that ``something real is happening in the economy.'' I 
agree. The positive gains from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are real and 
undeniable.
  Recently, my office heard from one of my constituents by the name of 
Judy Patton. Judy lives in Cleburne, TX, which is roughly an hour from 
Dallas, down U.S. Highway 67. Judy owns a plumbing company called P&P. 
She said that her plumbing company will be giving both raises and 
bonuses to all of its employees this year because of the Tax Cuts and 
Jobs Act, and she just wanted to let us know that she appreciates what 
we are doing.
  Well, all of us who have the honor of representing constituents here 
in the Senate hear from our constituents from time to time, and they 
don't always give us an ``attaboy'' or words of encouragement. 
Frequently they say ``Can't you all do better'' or ``You have done 
this, and I don't like that much.'' So it is nice to hear from people 
like Judy the encouragement that she has given us for the Tax Cuts and 
Jobs Act. I can say, for my part, to Judy that we are thrilled you 
decided to pay the savings forward to other folks in the Cleburne area. 
Plumbers are a good example of the untold stories on tax reform.
  Here in Washington, we are not always conscious of the ripple 
effect--the way in which the changes we have enacted affect small 
businesses and individual lives. Judy reminds us of the positive 
impacts that are felt all over. It is not just the big players, the 
Fortune 500 companies with thousands of employees and operations around 
the world; it is small businesses like P&P in Cleburne, too, that are 
busy helping out those small communities and making lives better. Those 
examples are just as important as those in the Fortune 500.

[[Page S1345]]

  



                             Fix NICS Bill

  Mr. President, another issue I will continue to be focused on 
concerns a bill that I cosponsored with the junior Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, called Fix NICS. The President, when we were 
over at the White House last week, said: Well, maybe you need a better 
name for the bill. I had to explain that NICS was the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System and that we believed it was broken and 
needed to be fixed; hence the name ``Fix NICS.'' But I take the 
President's point--maybe we ought to do a better job branding what it 
is we are selling here, and what we are selling is something vitally 
important that will save lives.
  The Fix NICS bill will fix holes in the background check system that 
is utilized when firearms are purchased by individuals in the United 
States. As we know, when you go buy a gun at a gun store, there is a 
background check that has to be conducted. That is current law. When 
federally licensed firearm dealers like McBride's Guns, Inc., in 
Austin, TX, that I patronize--when you go in to buy a new shotgun to go 
bird hunting or something like that, they will run a background check. 
Of course they ask you to answer the questions, but the problem we 
discovered in Sutherland Springs is that not everybody is performing 
their responsibility and uploading the information that would show that 
people who are purchasing guns are lying on their background check and 
are legally disqualified from purchasing those firearms.
  For many, the aftereffects of the shooting last month at Stoneman 
Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, still resonate--I know that is 
true for all of us--and the pain and frustration aren't going away. I 
always worry, though, after one of these events occurs, that given the 
relentless carpet-bombing of news and other information that we all 
sustain here in Washington, in the Nation's Capital, it is too easy to 
begin to lose sight of our objective to make things different and to 
improve outcomes when it comes to terrible events like this. Sometimes 
we get distracted and we move on to other topics, but we can't allow 
ourselves to do that. We have heard from Stoneman Douglas students 
themselves who are angry and deserve to be so.
  Last week, the junior Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio, and I met with 
Andrew Pollack, the father of a victim who lost her life at Stoneman 
Douglas. Mr. Pollack's daughter isn't coming back, sadly, but the least 
we can do is to prevent others like her from losing their lives in 
similar incidents in the future.
  I wanted to tell Andrew that steps have already been taken, and I 
wanted to say: This will not happen again. Your daughter and other 
future victims have pushed us, finally, to change.
  But I couldn't do that, not with a straight face, and I still can't. 
Here we are almost a week after the meeting and we have taken zero 
steps forward, even though the Fix NICS bill is now cosponsored by 50 
Senators on a bipartisan basis. The majority leader, a Republican, and 
the minority leader, a Democrat, are cosponsors of the bill. Senator 
Murphy from Connecticut and Senator Cornyn from Texas--we are the 
principal cosponsors of the bill. We agree about very little in other 
areas of public policy, but we agree in this case that this is simply 
too important of an issue and that we really need to demonstrate our 
competence and to try to regain the public's confidence in our ability 
to actually function in a way that will save lives in the future.
  Well, unfortunately, much like the DACA debate, people want to make 
this bill a Christmas tree, trying to decorate it with other 
legislative ornaments that look nice to their political base but stand 
no chance of passing this body or the House. I think we have to call 
that what it is--political posturing. It is not about getting a result. 
It is not about passing a bill that will actually improve the 
background check system to prevent people like the shooter at 
Sutherland Springs, for example, from actually purchasing a firearm by 
lying on the background check.
  Thankfully, Andrew Pollack sees all this with clear eyes. He has said 
to me and Senator Rubio that we need to focus on what is achievable. 
He, himself, is focused on school safety, and I certainly support that.
  I know my colleague Senator Hatch has introduced a bill that is 
bipartisan and widely supported by all sides, which I support.
  Another reform that is achievable today, if we were allowed to vote 
on it, is Fix NICS--to fix our broken background check system. We 
should start with what is achievable and what will actually save lives, 
and that describes the Fix NICS bill. It will help prevent dangerous 
individuals with criminal convictions and history of mental illness 
from buying firearms. This bill could easily pass the Senate. It has 
already passed the House. The President would sign it, as he told me 
when he called me last Thursday night. He said he supports the Fix NICS 
bill. There are other things he would like to do. There are other 
suggestions people have made, but we need to do what is achievable, and 
we need to do that as soon as we possibly can.
  Several publications have endorsed the Fix NICS bill, saying it is a 
commonsense proposal that is a ``test of [Democrats'] sincerity.'' Do 
our colleagues really want to work together to prevent further 
shootings at churches and schools? Voting on this bill would be one way 
to do it.
  The New York Times calls Fix NICS a ``rare piece of gun legislation 
that has no meaningful opposition and that has bipartisan support.'' 
That is one of the most maddening things about working here in 
Washington, DC--when there are bills that have no meaningful opposition 
and have bipartisan support and they still don't go anywhere.
  The Dallas Morning News said the bill ``keeps deadly weapons away 
from people already prohibited from owning them.'' The San Antonio 
Express News calls Fix NICS a ``relatively easy place to start.'' That 
would be wonderful if it were true in the Senate. The Express News 
calls the bill ``narrow'' and ``necessary.''
  I am not suggesting it is a panacea, but why don't we want to take 
the first step in the direction of passing legislation, which 
essentially enforces existing law and one that will save lives?
  If the shooter at Sutherland Springs had run into the FBI background 
check system in the Air Force, in that case, and they uploaded his 
felony conviction as well as his conviction for domestic violence, 
where he fractured the skull of his infant stepson--if they had 
uploaded that information into the background check system, he would 
not have been able to legally purchase a firearm, but he did purchase 
those firearms, and he used them to walk around a little Baptist Church 
in Sutherland Springs one Sunday morning when people were worshiping 
inside. He didn't go inside at first. He shot through the wall. It 
wasn't a stone building. It wasn't a brick building. It was made out of 
wood. It was a simple little Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs. 
People were gathered to worship, and 26 of them were gunned down. He 
walked into the church, after he shot dozens of rounds through the 
building, and he went inside and shot them and killed them--26 people. 
There were 20 more wounded. Fortunately, they did not die from their 
wounds.
  I believe, with all my heart, that those 26 people would be alive 
today if we made sure our broken background check system worked by 
enforcing current law and passing a bill like Fix NICS. I believe that 
would have saved their lives, and it would have stopped the change that 
the 20 who were wounded are now going to experience as a result of 
their life-altering injuries.
  I told myself, at that time, I am not going to come back to that 
small community and look those families in the face unless I have done 
everything humanly possible to change the outcome in the future. How 
can any of us, in good conscience, look our constituents in the face, 
those who lose their loved ones to incidents like this--how can we look 
them in the face, in good conscience, and say we have done our duty, 
when we failed to act where we could on an achievable bill, with no 
opposition and broad bipartisan support?
  The Waco Tribune says: ``Second Amendment advocates who regularly 
stress the need to enforce existing gun laws rather than forging new 
laws should welcome'' the bill. This bill is supported by the whole 
political spectrum when it comes to guns and the Second Amendment, from 
the NRA to people who say, well, they really have

[[Page S1346]]

reservations about law-abiding citizens owning guns even for their own 
defense or for recreation or hunting purposes. The whole political 
spectrum agrees this is a commonsense, achievable bill, and so do 49 
colleagues in the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats.
  I have said it before, but I am here to say it again: Let's pass Fix 
NICS now. Andrew Pollack and the rest of the Nation are waiting for a 
sign that we are serious about preventing wanton acts of violence that 
should not and cannot continue.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                          Republican Tax Bill

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, when the Republican majority forced 
through a $1.5 trillion tax cut to big corporations and the richest 
Americans, a big question was, What will those companies do with the 
money? Roughly, $1 trillion of that $1.5 trillion was aimed at the 
biggest corporations.
  Republicans promised that corporations would reinvest the savings 
from the tax bill, stimulating jobs and economic growth. We Democrats 
warned that corporations would do what is best for themselves, not 
necessarily what is best for workers or the economy. There is often a 
dichotomy, as we have learned over the years.
  It has been only a few months since the Republican tax cut was signed 
into law, and while a few corporations here and there announced annual 
bonuses with a whole lot of hoopla from the President and the 
Republicans, we don't hear a peep now that they have been announcing an 
avalanche of corporate stock buybacks--an absolute bonanza for 
corporate leaders and for wealthy shareholders. Over $200 billion in 
corporate buybacks have been announced since January, putting 
corporations on pace to spend over $1 trillion this year buying back 
their own stock.
  This morning, the oil and gas giant Chevron announced it expects to 
restart its share repurchasing program since halting it in 2015. Why? 
Because they just reaped $2 billion in savings from the Republican tax 
bill. Chevron told the Houston Chronicle last week it is planning no 
major changes or benefits given to its workers. Let me repeat that. 
Chevron is planning no major benefits to its workers but huge stock 
buybacks. Is that what America wants? No, but that is what is 
happening, as we predicted, with this tax bill.
  The Chevron example is not alone, unfortunately, my fellow Americans. 
An analysis by Just Capital found that 6 percent of the savings 
companies received from the tax bill are going to employees, while 58 
percent are going to shareholders in the form of dividends, share 
buybacks, and retained earnings. The problem is, buybacks don't really 
help workers or average Americans. They don't really grow the economy. 
In fact, the money corporations spend on buybacks crowds out investment 
in the things that do help workers and help our economy--research, 
development, new equipment, new hires, better pay for employees. But 
those benefits are in the long term. The corporate CEOs, the boards, 
the leaders of the corporations--the big ones--get an immediate benefit 
when they buy back stock. The stock goes up, the shareholders are 
happy, but workers and America get no benefit.

  What buybacks accomplish is the funneling of even more money to 
corporate executives and wealthy shareholders. Buybacks don't help the 
American workers. They don't grow the economy. By taking stock off the 
market, corporations inflate the value of their stockholdings.
  Who holds all this stock? Not average Americans. The richest 10 
percent of America owns 80 percent of the stock. That is including 
pension funds and everything else. When corporations goose their stock, 
those benefits go to a tiny piece of the pie--the upper crust.
  (Mr. CRAPO assumed the Chair.)
  This is the legacy of the tax bill: further benefits to the wealthy, 
incentives to raise corporate pay and stocks, and no real help--minimal 
real help for workers. Just as Democrats predicted, the Republican bill 
has unleashed a tsunami of corporate backslapping, while working 
Americans get left behind.


                             Net Neutrality

  Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, yesterday 
Washington became the first State to institute its own net neutrality 
requirements after the Republican-led FCC voted to repeal net 
neutrality in December, helping the big ISPs and hurting the average 
consumer. That is typical of what the Senate on the Republican side and 
what our President have been doing. Over half of the States have 
similar legislation pending in their legislatures. The States are 
rightly concerned about what the end of net neutrality may mean for 
their residents.
  When the Republican-led FCC repealed net neutrality, they handed the 
large internet service providers--your cable company--all the cards. 
They said: Do what you will with the internet. ISPs could charge 
consumers more for faster service or start segmenting the internet into 
packages, forcing consumers to purchase faster times for their favorite 
websites. Big companies could pay to get faster internet service, while 
startups, small businesses, and average Americans are left in the slow 
lane. High-demand websites that offer streaming television, sports, and 
movies could be slower if you don't pay up. Public schools that don't 
pay for premium service could be put at a significant disadvantage. In 
rural America, where there is less competition, ISPs will wield even 
greater power to raise the price on consumers without fear of losing 
business.
  An internet without net neutrality is a tale of two internets where 
the best internet goes to the highest bidder, those with the money, and 
everyone else loses.
  Democrats want to keep the internet free and open, like our highways, 
accessible and affordable to all Americans regardless of your ability 
to pay, where you live, or the size of your business, no slow lanes, no 
paying for internet packages, like cable, no one set of rules for big 
corporations and another for everyone else. Every American should be 
able to affordably and easily access the internet. That is what 
Democrats believe.
  I am glad Washington State has already taken action to reinstitute 
net neutrality, but we need to do it across the country. Democrats have 
put together a CRA that would undo the FCC's decision and put net 
neutrality back on the books. As you know, Mr. President, we will be 
able to bring that to the floor. Every Democrat has signed on, but only 
one Republican has--Susan Collins. I say to the other 50 Republicans 
who are in this Chamber: Whose side are you on? Whose side are you on--
the big cable providers or the average consumer who depends on the 
internet? This vote will determine that.
  I urge all Americans--particularly our younger people--to contact 
their Senators and demand that they sign up to save the internet.
  One final point. President Trump campaigned as a populist, but what 
he and our Republican colleagues have been doing over and over again--
whether it is what they tried to do on healthcare, whether it is the 
tax bill, net neutrality, or anything else--they want to help the 
wealthiest and the most powerful. They are the ones who backed them and 
funded their campaigns. That is wrong. That is not what America wants.
  The only good news I can see out of this is that Americans are 
realizing this. Over 70 percent of people believe that Donald Trump 
favors the wealthy over the middle class, despite how he campaigns and 
despite his occasional rhetoric and tweets. They are realizing that the 
Republican Party seems to favor them. It is just that the Democrats, 
whether we had the Presidency or the majority in the House or the 
Senate, were able to block these things until now. Now the wealthy and 
powerful are getting far too much, and I believe my Republican 
colleagues will reap the whirlwind.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 2155, the 
Economic

[[Page S1347]]

Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, and to urge my 
colleagues to support its passage.
  In just a few minutes, we will have the first vote to vote on cloture 
to bring this bill to the floor, cloture on the motion to proceed--a 
very critical vote. Again, I encourage all of my colleagues to support 
bringing this bill forward to the floor for a full debate and vote.
  First, let me thank each of the cosponsors of this bill, including 
the many members of the Banking Committee, for their interest and 
involvement in the many discussions, hearings, personal negotiations, 
and conversations we have had to get to this point. Originally 
introduced by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats, this package of 
commonsense reforms now has 26 Senate cosponsors, including 16 members 
of the Banking Committee.
  Community banks and credit unions across the country have long 
struggled to keep up with ever-increasing regulatory compliance and 
examiner demands coming out of Washington. In local economies, this 
places a strain on small businesses looking to open or to grow.
  In fact, when the Dodd-Frank legislation was initially proposed and 
we were debating it on the floor of this Senate, I held a news 
conference in Idaho, on Main Street in one of our cities. I said that 
this bill was not targeted at Wall Street, as it was being marketed; 
instead, it was being targeted at Main Street--our small financial 
institutions and communities. That has turned out to be exactly the 
case. Since the passage of Dodd-Frank, our big banks have profited 
wonderfully, but our small banks, our small financial institutions--
credit unions and community banks--have suffered terribly.
  S. 2155 is aimed at right-sizing the regulation for financial 
institutions, primarily community banks and credit unions, which makes 
it easier for consumers to get mortgages or obtain credit. It also 
increases important consumer protections for veterans, senior citizens, 
victims of fraud, and those who fall on tough financial times.
  Congress has held numerous hearings in prior years exploring many of 
these issues, and the product before us today is the result of a years-
long process and careful vetting.
  This bill has received widespread support from commentators, 
regulators, businesses, and institutions representing millions of hard-
working Americans and consumers, including over 10,000 community 
bankers, more than 100 million credit union consumer members, and 
thousands of small business owners and entrepreneurs, among others.
  The reforms in this bipartisan bill help tailor the current 
regulatory landscape, while ensuring safety and soundness and relieving 
the burden on American businesses that are unfairly being treated like 
the largest companies in our economy.
  The passage of this legislation holds real promise for local 
economies across America, and I encourage all of my colleagues to 
support its passage.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would like to have been here today to 
offer strong bipartisan support for a bill that would help with rules 
and regulations for the smallest banks and credit unions in the 
country. There is a real effort on the part of a lot of us to come to 
an agreement particularly aimed at those banks, the community banks and 
the regional banks. I have three. Senator Portman's and my State is the 
only State in the country that has three regional banks, the banks that 
have $50 billion, $100 billion, $150 billion--Huntington, KeyCorp, and 
Fifth Third.
  Unfortunately, this bill started off that way, but it has become 
something else, and the something else is that this bill seems to me 
and many others to be more concerned with the largest banks and Wall 
Street than it does with community banks.
  There are lots of things that can come out of this bill. The bill 
gives regulators way too much flexibility--regulators such as Mulvaney, 
Otting, Quarles, and others. It vests more power in FSOC--something 
that the Republicans didn't want to do until they got regulators like 
Mnuchin, Mulvaney, and people like that who are much more likely to 
side with Wall Street. The White House is increasingly looking like a 
retreat for Wall Street executives, and these are the people who are 
going to be doing the regulation of this bill.
  Republicans and Democrats alike who believe in the need for 
regulation are concerned about this bill or are opposed to this bill, 
people like Dan Tarullo, who used to be a member of the Board of 
Governors at the Federal Reserve in charge of regulation; Paul Volcker, 
a Federal Reserve Chair who was selected by a Republican and a 
Democratic President; Sarah Bloom Raskin; Gary Gensler; Tom Hoenig, a 
Republican; Sheila Bair, President Bush's nominee at the FDIC; Phil 
Angelides, who did a good analysis of what actually happened 10 years 
ago when Wall Street almost collapsed our economy.
  This body seems to have experienced sort of a collective amnesia. 
Take a look at what happened to the economy 10 years ago, and today we 
are giving relief to many of the largest banks in this country, relief 
that these things on the stress test--a weaker stress test, a less 
regular stress test, will mean many of the larger banks simply will not 
be under the intense examination that we have done in the past. What 
does that mean? What that means is those banks are more likely to 
jeopardize the safety and soundness of the banking system. Again, we 
know what happened 10 years ago when we had to bail them out.
  There is a Washington Post article that came out today. The headline 
is ``Senate banking bill likely to boost chances of bank bailouts, CBO 
says.'' The CBO says that the Senate banking bill is likely to boost 
chances of bank bailouts. Why would we do that when banks are doing 
very well? Banks of all sizes are very profitable these days. We just 
did a tax bill that gives the largest banks--the financial services 
industry overall but especially the Wall Street banks--huge tax breaks. 
So we are going to pass a bill that the Congressional Budget Office--a 
neutral scorer here, the referee--the Congressional Budget Office says 
that this will cost taxpayers $671 million, and it will increase the 
chances of a bailout. Why would we pass a bill to give the banks breaks 
and then give them $671 million of taxpayer dollars? I just don't 
understand why we as a Senate would want to do such a thing.
  Nobody in Ohio, except for some bank executives, are clamoring for 
this bill. Nobody is saying: Oh, we have to deregulate the banks. We 
have to help the biggest banks. We have to help these banks that drove 
us into the ditch 10 years ago. It simply doesn't make sense.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on the motion to proceed.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy).
  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 287, S. 2155, a bill to promote 
     economic growth, provide tailored regulatory relief, and 
     enhance consumer protections, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Ben Sasse, John Cornyn, Pat Roberts, 
           Jerry Moran, John Kennedy, David Perdue, Tim Scott, 
           Thom Tillis, Dean Heller, Mike Crapo, James E. Risch, 
           Roger F. Wicker, James M. Inhofe, Tom Cotton, Richard 
           Burr, Lindsey Graham.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 2155, a bill to promote economic growth, 
provide tailored regulatory relief, and enhance consumer protections, 
and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

[[Page S1348]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 67, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 48 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--32

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 67, the nays are 
32.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________